Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 115212	2011-01-07 08:22:00	Fantastic news	somebody (208)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1168036	2011-01-09 08:02:00	I think we must remember the cost of trying to keep it off the streets, I doubt it would cost more to nurse the addicts. The fact is, the ban school will win as there is a tendency for these people to keep their heads up their ar#ses	Cicero (40)
1168037	2011-01-09 08:06:00	I'm going to quit the smokes. Costs too much these days.	QW. (15883)
1168038	2011-01-09 08:57:00	They pay their way and subside health care for non-smokers by hundreds of millions of dollars, why is it anyone elses business? Where did you get that quaint idea Metla? Taxation income from tobacco products is not dedicated to the public healthcare system at all, though I think it's a great idea and I'm glad you thought of it. And why is it anybody else's business? Wait until you have a non-smoking family member with a congenital heart disorder (or some other debilitating but non-fatal disorder) who stays on the bottom of the surgical waiting list because the hospitals are already crowded with smokers' diseases taking priority. I bet you'd change your tune in a heartbeat. Statistically, smoking, obesity and alcohol abuse use up a huge part of the health budget. Don't just shoot from the lip, go research the figures and see how much better the public health system might run and the beneficial impact on all our taxes if self-inflicted diseases and injuries had to "go private" instead of us silly twerps who don't smoke or abuse aclohol, look after our diet and get regular exercise. Billy	Billy T (70)
1168039	2011-01-09 18:38:00	Where did you get that quaint idea Metla? Taxation income from tobacco products is not dedicated to the public healthcare system at all, though I think it's a great idea and I'm glad you thought of it. And why is it anybody else's business? Wait until you have a non-smoking family member with a congenital heart disorder (or some other debilitating but non-fatal disorder) who stays on the bottom of the surgical waiting list because the hospitals are already crowded with smokers' diseases taking priority. I bet you'd change your tune in a heartbeat. Statistically, smoking, obesity and alcohol abuse use up a huge part of the health budget. Don't just shoot from the lip, go research the figures and see how much better the public health system might run and the beneficial impact on all our taxes if self-inflicted diseases and injuries had to "go private" instead of us silly twerps who don't smoke or abuse aclohol, look after our diet and get regular exercise. Billy The figures were tabled in parliament, in direct response to a question on the cost of smoking related illness and the amount of tax collected on cigarette sales on an annual basis. Take your own advice. And I'll take your bet, I don't flip flop on my stance depending on emotion. To live is to die.	Metla (12)
1168040	2011-01-09 20:08:00	To live is to die. They won't like that fact, our resident do gooders.	Cicero (40)
1168041	2011-01-09 20:55:00	Interesting article from the Daily Telegraph on the rate at which smoking is dying out: www.telegraph.co.uk Why is it that the experts believe smoking will die out by 2030 in Australia where 17% of the population smokes, while in New Zealand, where 18% of the population smokes, this disgusting, anti-social unhealthy addiction will persist till 2058. It is not very complimentary to the intelligence of New Zealanders, but then the last thing smokers show is intelligence. Smoking is a no - brainer, its addictive, expensive and damaging not only to the addicts health but to those in close contact with the residue of his/her addiction.	KenESmith (6287)
1168042	2011-01-10 01:25:00	The figures were tabled in parliament, in direct response to a question on the cost of smoking related illness and the amount of tax collected on cigarette sales on an annual basis. Before posting in this thread, I found and read the latest 2010 documentation available, a 231 page PDF you will find HERE (www.parliament.nz .pdf) and saw no reference to direct application of tobacco revenues to the Public Health system Quote: Overall tobacco smoking costs the smoker and the Government more than it benefits them. It costs the average smoker $42 per week for cigarettes, or $336 per eight weeks. This compares to $3 for eight weeks’ supply of NRT for a smoker attempting to quit. For the Government, the approximately $1.3 billion ($1.1 billion in excise, $200 million in GST) in annual tax collected from tobacco, is outweighed by the direct health care costs estimated at $1.9 billion. The overall costs to the Government increase further when intangible or indirect costs are added. Please note that intangible or indirect costs were NOT included. I read that as a minimum $600 million shortfall, and still no reference there to direct application of tobacco tax revenues to the Public Health System either. Out of interest I also did some (quick) searches using a variety of optional search terms but they too were unsuccessful. So, if you don't mind, I'll stand by my researched position unless or until you can show me better information. It is not simply a matter of the tobacco tax take VS the cost of treating smoking related illnesses. It is my understanding that tobacco revenues are not dedicated to the public health system. However, even if they were, if you read the report, you will see that the long terms cost of smoking across all areas and situations upon which it impacts, Kiwi Joe (or Joan) Non-Smoker is on a hiding to nowhere. Smokers use up a disproportionate proportion ot the resources of our Public Health System, and it is not just money, they take up beds and medical resources for their self-inflicted ailments that other citizens may desperately need. Some shoot, some lip............ Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
1168043	2011-01-10 02:03:00	Before posting in this thread, I found and read the latest 2010 documentation available, a 231 page PDF you will find HERE (www.parliament.nz .pdf) and saw no reference to direct application of tobacco revenues to the Public Health system Some shoot, some lip............ Cheers Billy 8-{) A 231 page PDF? LMFAO. Thats cool, and I'm happy for you, Last time this discussion came up I posted my reference, So I'm happy with that.:thumbs:	Metla (12)
1168044	2011-01-10 02:30:00	The fact remains that tax money from fags is more than the cost of health care for smokers. To talk of beds etc-is included in health cost.! Like Met says, it is out there, just a case of finding it each time it is disputed.	Cicero (40)
1168045	2011-01-10 02:43:00	That's interesting - the way I read Billy's post was the the money collected did NOT exceed the cost of smokers to the health system. My School C maths must be a bit rusty... And as Billy points out, just because they collect $XX does not mean that all that money is poured back into the health system. Much like the consolidated fund for petrol is a slush fund for paying for all sorts of things other than motoring-related issues. The "beds taken by smokers" is a direct cost and IS relevant - because our public hospitals generally do not allow bed sharing (and in most cases, that would be a "Thank god for that!"). If a bed is taken by a smoker, for a smoking-related illness, it can't concurrently be used for the treatment of another beaten child, or motor accident victim...	johcar (6283)
1 2 3 4 5 6