Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 63382	2005-11-07 16:25:00	Thank you Auckland Hospital	Eric Richards (6226)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
402547	2005-11-08 20:57:00	Complaints about no smoking outside a hospital Eric, what a loser. Sorry Veale, you are far too late, like, I mean, personal insults just don't cut it anymore. Hysteria has given way to reason. Attacking non-smokers is so yesterday. :D Cheers Billy 8-{) ;)	Billy T (70)
402548	2005-11-08 22:07:00	I fully agree with Eric, Billy and some of the other posters in this thread. Smoking is a disgusting habit. I have no problem with people killing themselves by smoking but they need to realise that others who want to live don't actually like second hand smoke. IMO people who smoke (and people who have used other drugs etc) should be put at the bottom of any hospital waiting list if there is any link what-so-ever with the problem they have and smoking.	maccrazy (6741)
402549	2005-11-08 22:23:00	I fully agree with Eric, Billy and some of the other posters in this thread. Smoking is a disgusting habit. I have no problem with people killing themselves by smoking but they need to realise that others who want to live don't actually like second hand smoke. IMO people who smoke (and people who have used other drugs etc) should be put at the bottom of any hospital waiting list if there is any link what-so-ever with the problem they have and smoking. You may be a wowser, but you are entitled to your opinion. But why just smokers. It may be a disgusting habit, but to me it is more acceptable than a drunk walking down the street. So why not ban alchahol too. And I still think the worst thing of the lot is the stink from cars and trucks. I smoke because I enjoy it. If you don't like it keep away from smokers. I have some rights too. Or are you the only one who has rights?	JJJJJ (528)
402550	2005-11-08 23:20:00	It is a far greater disgrace that a disproportionate amount of the national health dollar is spent trying to keep alive people whose sole object in life appears to be to either drink, smoke or eat themselves to death. Sometimes all three. [/i] In fact there is a HUGE amount of tax on cigarettes. I think the smokers have paid plenty for their care.	pctek (84)
402551	2005-11-08 23:27:00	Never mind self-inflicted - get a programming bug in a hospital to kill you: www.wired.com	pctek (84)
402552	2005-11-08 23:58:00	In fact there is a HUGE amount of tax on cigarettes. I think the smokers have paid plenty for their care. In ~'97 study by Brian Easton the estimated annual cost (from memory) of tobacco use to NZ was about $22 Billion. The tax take was less that $1 Billion. If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, the ongoing cost would not decrease significantly for up to a generation but the tax take would disappear immediately. If the ~ '97 study was accurate, then we are all heavily subsidising smoking costs either directly or indirectly? I would not expect the situation to be much different as regards alcohol. The answer would be to eliminate free healthcare and lower the general tax. If you choose a lifestyle that requires high medical costs, be it overeating, smoking, drinking etc then you pay for the resulting care - or you die. Quite simple really.	godfather (25)
402553	2005-11-09 00:09:00	To take the tax argument to it's logical conclusion, superannuanitants and beneficiaries would only get a pension/benefit which equalled their earlier tax payments. Once that is used up, you are on your own. That doesn't happen in a social democracy. What we need are great big excise taxes on insoluble fats, fast cars, tobacco, and alcohol. That'll teach 'em. :thumbs:	Winston001 (3612)
402554	2005-11-09 00:26:00	That doesn't happen in a social democracy. What we need are great big excise taxes on insoluble fats, fast cars, tobacco, and alcohol. That'll teach 'em. :thumbs: Don't forget the tax on fast women as well.....	godfather (25)
402555	2005-11-09 03:23:00	In ~'97 study by Brian Easton the estimated annual cost (from memory) of tobacco use to NZ was about $22 Billion . The tax take was less that $1 Billion . If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, the ongoing cost would not decrease significantly for up to a generation but the tax take would disappear immediately . If the ~ '97 study was accurate, then we are all heavily subsidising smoking costs either directly or indirectly? Rubbish . There is no accurate way of assessing whether these costs are directly attributed to smoking . There are so many variables to factor into this that you cannot possibly come to these conclusions without a whole lot of assumptions/guesses/estimates . Banding around figures such as this certainly does help grow resentment towards the smokers who are pilfering all our much needed health resources however, and justifies the need to increase tax rates on the product in question . Cheers Veale	Veale (536)
402556	2005-11-09 03:44:00	www.eastonbh.ac.nz Even if he overestimated by a factor of 10, then that still means smoking health costs are twice the tax revenue. Not being an economist I wouldn't be so bold as to call Eastons' analysis as "rubbish". Perhaps you can provide documentary evidence rebutting his work?	Terry Porritt (14)
1 2 3 4 5