birdog1960

so then what purpose do you ascribe to 3rd's most recent post citing a black man's response to questioning of bundy's statement?

my sentiments exactly towards your characterization. the purpose of the post was to illustrate your hypocrisy. it did.

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read the bundy thread. if after reading it, you do not label some of the posters there insane as well, then your label will be "not worthy of consideration" read the bundy thread. where was your outrage over the posts "needlessly" making race an issue there?

what is the argument against taxation of cigarettes based on? individual rights, correct? if not, then provide an alternative basis. you can't reasonably argue for individual rights while defending a pro slavery (can we at least agree bundy's statement was this?) statement.

it's an observation. argue your reasoning as to why you believe it's incorrect.

yes, any reasonable person would find it ridiculous on it's face. some posting here did not and bunday did actually say it. unfortunately, he is someone.

it's not sweeping, it's directed at those that defended bundy in the thread. it's well documented on this very site.

nothing needs to be subtly changesd cuz that's about as subtle as a brick. it's overtly racist referring to an entire race as "they" as if everyone black is identical and all are lazy and unprincipled. but again, that's not the point here. the point is that you and the gang of merry men (who btw apparently feel entitled to rule the board - ie the gatorman thread) defend a statement like this while being appalled at taxation for public health reasons. it's ostensibly about freedom and liberty to you folks and not having others decide what's best for you. that holds as long as you're talking about yourself or someone that looks like you. it seems to stop when others are the object.

"i'm wondering whether they were better off being slaves...". what part of that don't you understand? this has been argued to death in it's own thread here. and about half of the posters felt that his statement was overtly racist and condescending (now who knows what's best for someone else). the usual suspects here defended him. i brought up a similar point which went uncontested. i look forward to you actually engaging in argument rather than your preferred tactic of insulting anyone that disagrees with you.

i haven't seen a meaningful rebuttal. still waiting.

he stated that blacks would be better off enslaved than on govt assistance. you can argue semantics but it's indefensible to be apologists for this statement while simultaneously decrying cigarette taxation on the basis of freedom. i'm not surprised you don't see the irony.

bundy

ironic considering many of the cons here defended a man that called for the reinstitution of slavery, yet are outraged at taxing cigarettes. it seems moral outrage is extremely selective and illogical in your little knitting circle. and once again ya'll either miss or ignore the real point here. life expectancy numbers in america could improve significantly with small public health/policy changes. it is therefore reasonable to compare the numbers in the US to those in other countries. the only US exceptionalism to blame is the almost unique stance of not having the will to disincentivize self destructive behavior to the extent many other countries do.

um, yes. and taxing smoking is a stellar example of a successful disincentive. it's an example of undoubtedly knowing better. it's the example i chose to use. you chose to disagree with the entire concept. that's about it, non?

i was talking about smoking. it's an example of what you're hell bent on disparaging. dumbass.

yup. we know, without a shadow of a doubt that in terms of health and medical costs, not smoking is better than smoking. the true costs to society aren't nearly covered by the current taxes on cigarettes.

it's public policy at least in part based on public health concerns. it's known that every $1 of tax results in 5-10% decline in sales. more in younger smokers. it illustrates the point that behavior can be modified on an entire population with only minor changes to the system. and it refutes your point that only individuals can change. populations can be influenced to change to healthier habits.

but you said nothing will change, unless individuals change. you made that statement in reference to the alleged inability of health care systems to change behavior. are you now conceding that's incorrect?

strawmen fly across pages wildly here.

and health care providers and systems can help change individual and population behaviors as can other factors such as financial disincentives or incentives for lifestyle change or laws regulating behavior.. cigarette sales have decreased considerably in recent years, that didn't happen by accident.

see a doctor. even if there were, you'd need to find out the severity, diagnosis and possible treatment.

who said "prevent"? health care providers can influence such changes and often do. here's an example: i frequently quote a recently published canadian study on smoking to patients that smoke. in simplest terms, it showed an average of 10 years of life lost from lifetime smoking. most of that can be regained if quitting occurs before age 40. there are still significant gains for quitting later. it's been a successful motivational tool in many cases already with definite results.

not at all. it's one of a number of measures from which a correlation on heathcare quality by country can be made. some would also argue that lifestyle issues are also in the realm of healthcare. drinking, smoking and even seatbelt use generally are. another example: in some countries, high risk pregnancies (because of lifestyle) are successfully followed with home visits by a nurse to minimize risk. i can already hear you yelling nanny state.

while that is likely true, i believe the larger impact would be in access to treatment of these and other treatable illnesses. it does no good to be prescibed a cocktail of pills to treat diabetes and minimize it's consequences if the patient has no way of obtaining them. this is often the case. cue "doc" to cite the oregon medicaid study that lasted a few months.

it doesn't presuppose any such thing. it's implicit that healthcare is a significant contributor to that outcome.