Posted on 12/25/2004 10:37:36 AM PST by SheLion
Define "herion." You've used that word in every post about illicit drugs. I want to know what you think "herion" is. Tell me how to pronounce it.
I have never known anyone addicted to "herion" by the way.
Quiting cigarettes was the hardest of all.
125 posted on 12/26/2004 7:32:43 PM PST by Jorge
Herion? I don't believe you. Not just because you can't spell, but because no HEROIN addict I have ever known was concerned about cigarette smoking, whether or not they did. Not one was thinking about quitting smoking, not one was thinking about taking up smoking. Cigarette smoking was never even on their radar.
You used that misspelling over several posts. For several reasons that I won't go into--but I know whereof I speak--I think you're upping the ante on a bad bet that you can win the anti-smoking argument by claiming you're a multiple drug abuser who thinks cigarettes are the worst of all.
JUDITH ANN, I KNEW THIS GUY WAS ON SOMETHING! Either that, or his brain is so fried that he is talking like a retarded idiot.
Thank you SO much for doing the research on this wasted piece of chit. I just KNEW he was/is on something. What a bunch of crap. And he has the audacity to come down on smokers. Well, let's consider the source!
Smoking doesn't affect all of the people the same way. Your system may be better able to handle the toxic load than other peoples. But statistics are clear. On average smokers have greater health problems and die earlier than do non-smokers. That doesn't mean every smoker will develop health problems, anymore than it means every non-smoker will be healthy.
Die EARLIER? Then why is Medicaid offering a smoking cessation course? That IS what this thread is about, or didn't you read it?
Smoking STILL beats being a crack-head any day!
"It is very possible that stoping smoking may lead to a better quality of life that may translate into fewer drugs, operations, and healthcare visits, that more than offset the longer life."
Also it's not always just about the money. Sometimes it's about doing the right thing.
Social engineering using taxpayer dollars is doing the right thing?
Sounds like Hillary-care to me.
What if it doesn't make any difference at all, except to make the social engineer "feel" better?
Get out of the social engineering business, get out of our lives, and get off the back of business. Or else admit what you are.
What if it does make a difference? What if it reduces Medicare costs, even though the patient lives longer?
They just can't if they WANT to.
Nope, can't happen. Never has and never will.
I was just dreaming when I quit, after 15 years of smoking for 18 years, while being married to a smoker at the time that I quit.
It never bothered me to be around a smoker even when quiting.
I have chosen to smoke again in the last couple of years "by choice".
Must be that nasty addiction that drove me to it..../sarcasm
So, you're in favor of MANDATING--forcing by law--the payment of Medicare (taxpayer dollars) services to MAKE people quite smoking, because it MAY or MAY NOT make some kind of difference in what YOU perceive to be their quality of life?
Neither the article nor I said anything about "making" anyone stop smoking, the article said they were just offering voluntary services.
Is that why y'all are upset about this? It's not just that this program might cost medicare more than it saves, but that you see it as the first step to discriminating against smokers?
I carefully re-read the article. I did not see any use of the word "voluntary" nor any discussion of what would happen to Medicare benefits if the smoker decided not to "take advantage" of the counseling services. In addition, I see no nicotine delivery substitutes being paid for, except MAYBE, if a doctor "prescribes" a non-prescription item, not sure at all.
"Counselling" for cigarette "addiction" is offensive. Hugely offensive. Calling smokers "addicts" is hugely offensive. Implying that the habit of smoking needs psychological and/or medical treatment is hugely offensive.
Until legitimate tobacco research (like the UCLA study of ETS) gets the publicity it deserves IN THE UNITED STATES, then I'll continue to regard all anti-smoking advocates (which means, they advocate what you shouldn't do for your own good) as politicized lifestyle management experts using tax dollars to enforce prejudice, rape business, and fund greedy lawyers.
Well if they aren't "addicts" in need of counseling, then nobody will take advantage of the services, and it won't cost Medicare anything.
EVEN the cigarette manufacturers ADMIT that smoking can cause lung cancer, emphysema and other diseases.
There are different types of lung cancer (small cell versus large cell, I think). One type is strongly correlated with smoking, the other not.
Nothing (except life) has a 100% correlation with death. However, certain types of behavior are more risky statistically speaking. However, statistics are meaningful at the group level, not at the individual level.
I am anti-smoking, but not anti-smokers. It is possible to be both. But in the end, I don't think govt should be doing this.
Because lung cancer doesn't tend to show up on xrays until the end stages. There are other diagnostic tests I would suggest you look into that would ensure that you make an informed decision.
A colleague of mine was just diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. She's a smoker, but has the small cell cancer (which is the one I think hits everyone, not just smokers). After talking with another friend who took care of her father when he just died from lung cancer (the one that smokers tend to get), I hope that people will investigate their own situations more carefully.
Nor did I, and based on past experience with the oh-so-caring types who benefit monetarily or emotionally from the Warp 10 Smug Factor, I'm guessing that smokers will be required to "volunteer" reduction of "benefits" for not acquiescing to being herded.
This is the inevitable result of socialized medicine.
174 posted on 12/27/2004 2:56:23 PM PST by DannyTN
Right, until benefits are tied to "counselling" for the "addicts." Assure me that won't happen.
Visitors, smokers, doctors and nurses all used to be able to smoke in the hospital. Probably I'm the only one who remembers that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.