[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Just because someone pays more, it does not necessarily mean that they are not engaging in cost shifting. If I, as a non-smoker have to bear ANY of the cost of treating a smoker, that is immoral.

[Gabz]

I believe that anyone having to bear ANY cost for treating ANYONE else is immoral...........it's got nothing to do with smokers or non-smokers.

I happen to be one of those lucky folks that has never had to worry about a weight problem................yet I am forced to subsidize the health costs of those who can't control themselves when it comes to how much they eat. Of course there is no outrage about that.....no the outrage is against me because I happen to be a smoker.

I absolutely love double standards.

[CSM]

"Just because someone pays more, it does not necessarily mean that they are not engaging in cost shifting. If I, as a non-smoker have to bear ANY of the cost of treating a smoker, that is immoral."

This is the point, the cost shift is from smokers to non smokers. The lawsuits leading to the MSA were on the basis of the fictitous costs born on society by smoking. However, what are the states doing with the money? They are spending it in the general budgets. My state attempted to put on the last ballot that the MSA money must be spent in the health care industry, my Governor answered with a letter to all HS parents that this proposal would eliminate the pell grant scholarships.

In other words, the smokers are having a heavier burden of government costs placed on them at a much faster rate than the non smokers. If you can't see the facts now, wait until they start taxing foods that are deemed bad by the government and Stanton Glantz!