I addressed this issue. The premiums are higher for smokers. Significantly higher, and if they are dishonest they lose coverage. I didn't say "just paying taxes". Take a hooked on phonics class.
AND who pays the premiums of public servants? And the higher premiums of said civil servant smokers? Magic gnomes?
If you truly feel this way, the consumption tax support you espouse wouldn't be so evidently the opposit of this statement.
Wrong. You have no gaurantee to "reasonable prices" on bad habits. You want to smoke - fine - pay for it.
When they came for the Jews, I didn't fight, when they came for me there was no one left to fight.
Surely you're not equating the Holocaust with a sales tax on cigarettes, right?
Your judgemental attitude is why I personally draw a MAJOR distinction between being a christian and being a church goer. Human beings are not in a position to judge other human beings with the eyes of God. Many forget that and think themselves spiritually "superior" to the rest of us.
I'm not judging you, merely pointing out that the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit - God - hurting the Temnple of God is a sin - a spade's a spade - God judges, not me. I'm just pointing out His word. It's not my fault the body if the Temple of the Holy Ghost. If this "gores your ox" you can take it up with the "Big Guy". I am "spiritually superior" to NO MAN. In fact, if I am least in Everlasting, it would not surprise me.
posted on 03/08/2004 7:46:55 AM PST
("A Republic, madam, if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin, 1787)
"AND who pays the premiums of public servants? And the higher premiums of said civil servant smokers? Magic gnomes?"
Your lack of knowledge regarding compensation packages is showing. The smoker pays the higher premium. Every compensation package offers a minnimum level of coverage that is paid by the employer, any cost above that will result in less pay. By your same logic, we should ensure that they not hire people with wives or children. The cost born by the government for these higher premiums is funded by tax payers. Tax payers shouldn't be forced to bear the cost of these choices.
"Wrong. You have no gaurantee to "reasonable prices" on bad habits. You want to smoke - fine - pay for it."
Now do you advocate price dictation by the government? I do have a right to "reasonable prices" for any product that is privately manufactured and privately sold to consumers. The consumer decides what is "reasonable". Where in the constitution do we not limit the govnernment? Where do we give them the authority to "control" the prices of products they deem to be "not good behaviour"?
"Surely you're not equating the Holocaust with a sales tax on cigarettes, right?"
You are either very simple minded or you are purposefully ignoring the oft quoted writing. I excerpted it. If you need the full text I will search for it and provide it. It is often used when discussing the, "it doesn't affect me so why should I care?" crowd of which you are a member.
posted on 03/08/2004 9:33:44 AM PST
(Looking for a stay at home mom for my future offspring!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson