Remember when Big Tobacco said Smoking wasn't Dangerous?

[DuoSoft]

Do you? They had lawyers, doctors, specialists, you name it telling the Congress and the American people that "smoking" was not all that dangerous or addictive. How did they get all these people to preach the partyline? Answer: Money. Denarrow. Dollars.

Have you considered that the same thing is going on with healthcare? Lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. are telling us how it's such a bad idea to have a public program or policy with the tax-payer negotiating for themselves. Imagine that. Who is paying these same lawyers, doctors, politicians, and whomever to participate in this nonsense? I'm guessing.... Insurance companies.

I want to know how in the world people are convinced that "insurance" companies don't make descisions and don't tell doctors what they can treat and what they can't treat. I would like to phathom how in the world so many people believe if "government" played the same role as the "for-profit insurance" company, (you know, making the descisions and telling you what's covered etc.) that you are worse off?

Help us out here..... The CEO of some for-profit insurance company in a suit with a pink tie and a Bentley is making decisions for doctors. Are you for that?

[Gopher P]

smoking is NOT dangerous, the whole campaign against the companies stem from democrats with an obsession to destroy any kind of successful business. they did it to microsoft, banks, and insurance companies. now they set their eyes on the medical systims and still want to hurt tobacco companies even more. dont buy into propaganda sold from liberal snake oil salesman

[DuoSoft]

smoking is NOT dangerous, the whole campaign against the companies stem from democrats with an obsession to destroy any kind of successful business. they did it to microsoft, banks, and insurance companies. now they set their eyes on the medical systims and still want to hurt tobacco companies even more. dont buy into propaganda sold from liberal snake oil salesman

Smoking is not dangerous?? Really?

What about the whistle-blower who exposed the real agenda of Big Tobacco?

[Gopher P]

millions of people smoke with out getting cancer or lung problems, likewise millions of people get cancer and lung problems without ever smoking.

its a fraud from liberals who want to control business

[johnrocks]

Oldest man in the world attributes his long life to whiskey,cigarettes and wild women, he's 113 years old.

[7426k]

smoking is NOT dangerous,

Wow!

[7426k]

Oldest man in the world attributes his long life to whiskey,cigarettes and wild women, he's 113 years old.

2 outta 3 ain't bad.:))

[johnrocks]

2 outta 3 ain't bad.:))

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cigarettes-whisky-and-wild-wild-women-1710744.html :)) He done good Kevin,let him have his stokies:))

[DuoSoft]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cigarettes-whisky-and-wild-wild-women-1710744.html :)) He done good Kevin,let him have his stokies:))

What a funny article! I love it.

[PredFan]

I want to know how in the world people are convinced that "insurance" companies don't make descisions and don't tell doctors what they can treat and what they can't treat. I would like to phathom how in the world so many people believe if "government" played the same role as the "for-profit insurance" company, (you know, making the descisions and telling you what's covered etc.) that you are worse off?



I know that insurance companies have no say in a patient's treatment because I'm a healthcare professional who works in a 100 bed intensive care unit. In 25 years I've never ever seen an insurance agent in this hospital who wasn't a patient. You whole premise is based on this falsehood, therefor it's wrong.

[/thread]

[mamapajamas]

I want to know how in the world people are convinced that "insurance" companies don't make descisions and don't tell doctors what they can treat and what they can't treat. I would like to phathom how in the world so many people believe if "government" played the same role as the "for-profit insurance" company, (you know, making the descisions and telling you what's covered etc.) that you are worse off?

Help us out here..... The CEO of some for-profit insurance company in a suit with a pink tie and a Bentley is making decisions for doctors. Are you for that?

Sorry... the ONLY way I'll accept government-controlled access to health care would be if... and ONLY if... every member of Congress who votes for it applies it to themselves first and foremost. That means that they GIVE UP their medical perks for being in Congress. Only those who vote "No" get to keep their medical perks.

And I'd like to add to that group the entire staff of the president who actually signs such a law. The president himself would be a national security issue, and therefore exempt on that and ONLY that basis. His staff would NOT be exempt.

[who]

I know that insurance companies have no say in a patient's treatment because I'm a healthcare professional who works in a 100 bed intensive care unit. In 25 years I've never ever seen an insurance agent in this hospital who wasn't a patient. You whole premise is based on this falsehood, therefor it's wrong.

[/thread]
Wow.

You think insurance company has to visit the hospital, to have a say in his/her treatment?

You are really serious when you say insurance companies have no say? Really?

Amazing.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

My dad smoked for a number of years way back when he was in the army. Then, in the '70's, they told him his lung tissue was slowly scarring (although no one can prove the two things were related). All I know is that watching him slowly suffocate, over the last 7-8 years of his life, was horrible. Something screwed with his lungs. Maybe it wasn't the smoking. Not sure I'd bet on it though.

[Death Star]

My dad smoked for a number of years way back when he was in the army. Then, in the '70's, they told him his lung tissue was slowly scarring (although no one can prove the two things were related). All I know is that watching him slowly suffocate, over the last 7-8 years of his life, was horrible. Something screwed with his lungs. Maybe it wasn't the smoking. Not sure I'd bet on it though.

Was he in Vietnam?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Was he in Vietnam?

No. He was stateside his entire tour.

[Death Star]

No. He was stateside his entire tour.

Hmmmm...


I'm gonna start smoking e-cigs once they get here. The stupid things have been on backorder for a couple weeks now. :(

[PredFan]

Wow.

You think insurance company has to visit the hospital, to have a say in his/her treatment?

You are really serious when you say insurance companies have no say? Really?

Amazing.

I know for a FACT that they do not. I have worked in this hospital with patients and alongside doctors every working day of those years. Insurance and the patients ability to pay are NEVER a consideration. Ever. It's completely ignorant of the truth to say otherwise.

[PredFan]

I hate to come down on the side of any liberals here but it cannot be denied that smoking damages the lungs. It does. It may not always cause cancer, but it always damages the lungs. I'm no fan of socialism, I want less government intervention, but facts are facts.

OTOH, if people choose to do that to themselves, I believe they should be free to do so.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Hmmmm...


I'm gonna start smoking e-cigs once they get here. The stupid things have been on backorder for a couple weeks now. :(

One of these days I'm going to show people pictures of him when he was healthy (~ 220 lbs.) and then at the end (~ 100 lbs). He's been gone for 10 years and I still can't bring myself to use his pictures to scare people into protecting their lungs. Heck, he was only in his mid 60's when he died. He missed my daughter being born.

[7426k]

I know for a FACT that they do not. I have worked in this hospital with patients and alongside doctors every working day of those years. Insurance and the patients ability to pay are NEVER a consideration. Ever. It's completely ignorant of the truth to say otherwise.

your seriously claiming that insurance companies never refuse to cover testing or procedures?

Seriously?

[who]

I know for a FACT that they do not. I have worked in this hospital with patients and alongside doctors every working day of those years. Insurance and the patients ability to pay are NEVER a consideration. Ever. It's completely ignorant of the truth to say otherwise.
42,000+ hits for HMO horror stories.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=hmo+horror+stories&aq=0&oq=hmo+horror+s&aqi=g1&fp=leBsIIJAIN0

That's a start. Have fun.

[ddye]

smoking is NOT dangerous, the whole campaign against the companies stem from democrats with an obsession to destroy any kind of successful business. they did it to microsoft, banks, and insurance companies. now they set their eyes on the medical systims and still want to hurt tobacco companies even more. dont buy into propaganda sold from liberal snake oil salesman
You have simply got to be joking. I am being charitable with that supposition.

Doug

[margaretms]

smoking is NOT dangerous, the whole campaign against the companies stem from democrats with an obsession to destroy any kind of successful business.

This is one of the greatest sentences I have ever read on hannity.com.

[who]

your seriously claiming that insurance companies never refuse to cover testing or procedures?

Seriously?
Seems he is.

I'm not surprised though.


Poster accuracy rating runs about 10%, from my readings.

[who]

This is one of the greatest sentences I have ever read on hannity.com.
lol.

It's a keeper.

[SonsofLiberty]

Do you? They had lawyers, doctors, specialists, you name it telling the Congress and the American people that "smoking" was not all that dangerous or addictive. How did they get all these people to preach the partyline? Answer: Money. Denarrow. Dollars.

Have you considered that the same thing is going on with healthcare? Lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. are telling us how it's such a bad idea to have a public program or policy with the tax-payer negotiating for themselves. Imagine that. Who is paying these same lawyers, doctors, politicians, and whomever to participate in this nonsense? I'm guessing.... Insurance companies.

I want to know how in the world people are convinced that "insurance" companies don't make descisions and don't tell doctors what they can treat and what they can't treat. I would like to phathom how in the world so many people believe if "government" played the same role as the "for-profit insurance" company, (you know, making the descisions and telling you what's covered etc.) that you are worse off?

Help us out here..... The CEO of some for-profit insurance company in a suit with a pink tie and a Bentley is making decisions for doctors. Are you for that?

Yep. And history has shown us that governments are always benevolent and that politicians never crave for power. Oh ...almost forgot....and SS and Medicare have consistently come under budget.

[ddye]

I know for a FACT that they do not. I have worked in this hospital with patients and alongside doctors every working day of those years. Insurance and the patients ability to pay are NEVER a consideration. Ever. It's completely ignorant of the truth to say otherwise.
Whether that's true or not, it's not the crux of the problem. People just don't get it when they complain that UHC will be a giveaway to illegals and poor people. Those people get free care RIGHT NOW. It's working people who often cannot afford insurance, and have their lives ruined if they get sick.

Many industries simply do not pay enough for their workers to afford insurance. Sure, you can say, "Get a better job", but someone will STILL have to fill that job.

Also, the fact that if you're from a poor family and develop an illness as a child, you are screwed for life under the current system.

And the projected numbers for the future are scary.

Doug

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

This is one of the greatest sentences I have ever read on hannity.com.

Yeah, obviously lung cancer doesn't exist.

[Gopher P]

lung cancer exists i never said it didnt. i said some people with cancer never smoked and some people who smoke never get cancer. that is an undeniable fact. liberals being against smoking and tobacco companies is like someone being against water purifiying companies by saying "people who drink water get cancer". the argument just doesnt make sense and most scientists disagree with it..i've seen plenty of scientists smoking so what does that tell you??

fact is that if its cool or successful liberals want to kick it to the curb and implement more BIG government action to put a stop to it. its that kind of anti american ideology which imo should make the government once it becomes republican again in 2010 and the white house becomes republican in 2012 to FORCE liberals into stop doing this kind of big government stuff. even if it means republicans adding into the constitution to put a stop to liberal big government control, i truly think it must be done. liberal lies against tobacco have gone on long enough. im tired of watching "tRutH" ads on my tv to

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

lung cancer exists i never said it didnt. i said some people with cancer never smoked and some people who smoke never get cancer. that is an undeniable fact. liberals being against smoking and tobacco companies is like someone being against water purifiying companies by saying "people who drink water get cancer". the argument just doesnt make sense and most scientists disagree with it..i've seen plenty of scientists smoking so what does that tell you??

so is your argument that smokers get lung cancer at the same rate as non-smokers?

[Vaard]

lung cancer exists i never said it didnt. i said some people with cancer never smoked and some people who smoke never get cancer. that is an undeniable fact. liberals being against smoking and tobacco companies is like someone being against water purifiying companies by saying "people who drink water get cancer". the argument just doesnt make sense and most scientists disagree with it..i've seen plenty of scientists smoking so what does that tell you??

some people who drink dont get liver disease, some people who get liver disease never drink......


therefore, drinking does not cause liver disease........

[who]

lung cancer exists i never said it didnt. i said some people with cancer never smoked and some people who smoke never get cancer. that is an undeniable fact. liberals being against smoking and tobacco companies is like someone being against water purifiying companies by saying "people who drink water get cancer". the argument just doesnt make sense and most scientists disagree with it..i've seen plenty of scientists smoking so what does that tell you??


I think you're going to be one of my favorite posters here.

[JQR]

lung cancer exists i never said it didnt. i said some people with cancer never smoked and some people who smoke never get cancer. that is an undeniable fact. liberals being against smoking and tobacco companies is like someone being against water purifiying companies by saying "people who drink water get cancer". the argument just doesnt make sense and most scientists disagree with it..i've seen plenty of scientists smoking so what does that tell you??

Of course there are people who smoke their entire lives and never get cancer and there are some that never smoke and get lung cancer.
However, smoking most certainly increases your chances of getting cancer as well as a number of other illnesses.
To argue that just because there are people who smoke and never got cancer, no one is going to get cancer from smoking is absurd.
The science is clear and it is a well proven fact that smoking greatly increase the chances of getting cancer.

[Stantz]

smoking is NOT dangerous, the whole campaign against the companies stem from democrats with an obsession to destroy any kind of successful business. they did it to microsoft, banks, and insurance companies. now they set their eyes on the medical systims and still want to hurt tobacco companies even more. dont buy into propaganda sold from liberal snake oil salesman

yay kids, smoking isn't dangerous, and it's fun too !! YAY !!!

[Slowburn]

I don't care what cigarette companies have supposedly advertised by claiming their products were safe, on TV or Radio or billboards, almost no one began smoking because of those ads. Anyone who started smoking overwhelmingly did so because purely peer pressure around them or out of boredom. I grew up in late 50's and 60's and even then I knew cigarettes could cause severe health problems and even cancer then, and I was less than 10 years old. The Surgeon General required them even then to have warning labels. It is the same reason why people start abusing alcohol, using drugs, or a myriad of other dangerous habits they begin, peer pressure, a feeling of invincibility, or just don't care about the consequences of their abuse. No rational adult or young teen is that dumb to have taken up smoking because the tobacco companies lied to them.

[7426k]

yay kids, smoking isn't dangerous, and it's fun too !! YAY !!!

I just picked me up a carton of Reds. Who knew?

[SonsofLiberty]

I just picked me up a carton of Reds. Who knew?

"reds" ??? How fitting ;)

[JQR]

I don't care what cigarette companies have supposedly advertised by claiming their products were safe, on TV or Radio or billboards, almost no one began smoking because of those ads. Anyone who started smoking overwhelmingly did so because purely peer pressure around them or out of boredom. I grew up in late 50's and 60's and even then I knew cigarettes could cause severe health problems and even cancer then, and I was less than 10 years old. The Surgeon General required them even then to have warning labels. It is the same reason why people start abusing alcohol, using drugs, or a myriad of other dangerous habits they begin, peer pressure, a feeling of invincibility, or just don't care about the consequences of their abuse. No rational adult or young teen is that dumb to have taken up smoking because the tobacco companies lied to them.

Then why did the tobacco companies spend so much time and effort on the lie if it didn't increase their sales?
They must have believed it would or else they wouldn't have done it.

[7426k]

"reds" ??? How fitting ;)

Smoke A Commie For Mommy!

Eh...better Reds than dead?

[margaretms]

I just picked me up a carton of Reds. Who knew?

Avoid the Reds; instead, choose physician-endorsed Camels. They are good for your "T-Zone."

http://stash.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/camels-232x300.jpg

[Slowburn]

sThen why did the tobacco companies spend so much time and effort on the lie if it didn't increase their sales?
They must have believed it would or else they wouldn't have done it.

To sell to morons trying to get them switch brands from Kent to Marlboro? To get more market share to idiots who did not care about the health risks anyway. No company can going to get you to decide to take up a well known and obviously dangerous activity that any rational person knows. Hell, we know idiots take up shooting heroin or sniffing cocaine knowing full well that they probably had friends around them die already or watched TV on a news program or documentary showing that those drugs may kill them or destroy their lives. It still didn't stop them and went on to die themselves from their abuse.

[AZslim]

smoking is NOT dangerous, the whole campaign against the companies stem from democrats with an obsession to destroy any kind of successful business. they did it to microsoft, banks, and insurance companies. now they set their eyes on the medical systims and still want to hurt tobacco companies even more. dont buy into propaganda sold from liberal snake oil salesman

I love this forum!

[Cav Scout]

Do you? They had lawyers, doctors, specialists, you name it telling the Congress and the American people that "smoking" was not all that dangerous or addictive. How did they get all these people to preach the partyline? Answer: Money. Denarrow. Dollars.

Have you considered that the same thing is going on with healthcare? Lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. are telling us how it's such a bad idea to have a public program or policy with the tax-payer negotiating for themselves. Imagine that. Who is paying these same lawyers, doctors, politicians, and whomever to participate in this nonsense? I'm guessing.... Insurance companies.

I want to know how in the world people are convinced that "insurance" companies don't make descisions and don't tell doctors what they can treat and what they can't treat. I would like to phathom how in the world so many people believe if "government" played the same role as the "for-profit insurance" company, (you know, making the descisions and telling you what's covered etc.) that you are worse off?

Help us out here..... The CEO of some for-profit insurance company in a suit with a pink tie and a Bentley is making decisions for doctors. Are you for that?

This post goes into the category of how blind to your own stupidity are you. This is why. I read a book when I was teenager that was written by a somewhat 'infamous' doctor that was known more for his gun handling then his medical practice. Funny it was written in 1896 and his closing line was, "Oh and do not take up that suicidal habit of smoking, it will kill you.", now if they knew it then in the late 1800's there is not one single bit of blame to be laid on the feet of the 'big tobacco' companies. People need to be responsible for their own stupid acts. I could care less if PM laced cigarettes with cyanide, if you are so stupid to know that you can not contract all types of medical issues from the cigarette then you deserve what you get. And I smoke.

[PredFan]

your seriously claiming that insurance companies never refuse to cover testing or procedures?

Seriously?

That was NOT the statement I was responding to. The poster claimed that insurance companies determined what treatments patients received. That is patently false.

[PredFan]

Seems he is.

I'm not surprised though.


Poster accuracy rating runs about 10%, from my readings.

At least you are consistant in not having a clue what you are talking about.

[JQR]

s

To sell to morons trying to get them switch brands from Kent to Marlboro? To get more market share to idiots who did not care about the health risks anyway. No company can going to get you to decide to take up a well known and obviously dangerous activity that any rational person knows. Hell, we know idiots take up shooting heroin or sniffing cocaine knowing full well that they probably had friends around them die already or watched TV on a news program or documentary showing that those drugs may kill them or destroy their lives. It still didn't stop them and went on to die themselves from their abuse.

Who says people are always rational?
However, I do believe the tobacco companies did things like that because people were starting to wonder if smoking is bad for you and they wanted to reassure them, keep them from trying to quit.

And I do think educating people on the dangers of tobacco most definitely has had an impact because smoking rates have declined from the 1950's because people nowadays have a better understanding of the risks than people did back then.
Why else would smoking rates decline if it wasn't education?
And the tobacco companies knew at the time what they were saying was lies, they knew it was not healthy and did everything they could to hide this fact.
At the very least they are guilty of false advertising for making claims they knew were false.

[PredFan]

Whether that's true or not, it's not the crux of the problem. People just don't get it when they complain that UHC will be a giveaway to illegals and poor people. Those people get free care RIGHT NOW.

True Doug, I don't argue that at all.

It's working people who often cannot afford insurance, and have their lives ruined if they get sick.

Their lives are not ruined by the healthcare system. That is a myth. Their lives are ruined because the bills don't stop when they cannot earn the living they are trained to and their families cannot work full time at meaningful jobs because they need to help care for the disabled. Obamacare will not change that.

Many industries simply do not pay enough for their workers to afford insurance. Sure, you can say, "Get a better job", but someone will STILL have to fill that job.

There is affordable healthcare out there. You may have to give up some luxuries to get it though.

Also, the fact that if you're from a poor family and develop an illness as a child, you are screwed for life under the current system.

Not true.

[7426k]

That was NOT the statement I was responding to. The poster claimed that insurance companies determined what treatments patients received. That is patently false.

Insurance companies don't decide what treatments, for instance, cancer patients receive?

really?

[mwevans1234]

smoking is NOT dangerous, the whole campaign against the companies stem from democrats with an obsession to destroy any kind of successful business. they did it to microsoft, banks, and insurance companies. now they set their eyes on the medical systims and still want to hurt tobacco companies even more. dont buy into propaganda sold from liberal snake oil salesman

I love it when people live down to stereotypes.

[Vaard]

Insurance companies don't decide what treatments, for instance, cancer patients receive?

really?

he was saying that insurance companies to make decisions on what treatements patients receive......

he did not say that insurance companies to make decisions on what treatements patients receive......


jeez.. learn to read......

[Vaard]

this is why when my children had sore throats, i just handed them a kool cigarette and a pack of matches......

[WildGoose]

Do you? They had lawyers, doctors, specialists, you name it telling the Congress and the American people that "smoking" was not all that dangerous or addictive. How did they get all these people to preach the partyline? Answer: Money. Denarrow. Dollars.

Have you considered that the same thing is going on with healthcare? Lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. are telling us how it's such a bad idea to have a public program or policy with the tax-payer negotiating for themselves. Imagine that. Who is paying these same lawyers, doctors, politicians, and whomever to participate in this nonsense? I'm guessing.... Insurance companies.

I want to know how in the world people are convinced that "insurance" companies don't make descisions and don't tell doctors what they can treat and what they can't treat. I would like to phathom how in the world so many people believe if "government" played the same role as the "for-profit insurance" company, (you know, making the descisions and telling you what's covered etc.) that you are worse off?

Help us out here..... The CEO of some for-profit insurance company in a suit with a pink tie and a Bentley is making decisions for doctors. Are you for that?

First of all, your premise, like so many other liberal premises, is flawed.

Smoking is not dangerous. If you put it in context with other human activities, it's not particularly lethal. It's not healthy, but then again lots of things aren't healthy. Driving cars are unhealthy. Flying in airplanes isn't healthy. Having sex can be unhealthy. But people don't normally die from these things the instant they do them. I think the tobacco companies did shoot themselves in the foot when they said that it wasn't unhealthy (way back in the 50s), but can you blame them for doing so? Who wants to say their product is unhealthy?

By your logic (and many in government), the automobile as we know it today would never be invented let alone built if lawyers and politicians had their way. In order for it to work, it has to have a chemical put into it that's caustic to human health if swallowed or if in contact with skin for long periods of time, and is explosively flammable. They can move at speeds of 60 mph or more, and you'd have them on highways where they are mere inches from one another going down the road.

Now, let's go to insurance companies. Understand this, poindexter. Insurance companies are not the villains here. If you understood what they do, you'd understand they are a modern wonder. They assess risk and insure that risk. That's what they do.

It's true that, on occassion, they may turn down a client for coverage for certain procedures. If you do some digging, you'll find that the vast majority of those cases are usually frauds; people go in for something so minor they could pay out of pocket or treat it themselves. And those that are serious often do get covered, just not immediately because of the nature of the policy itself that doesn't cover such things as elective procedures (sex change, for instance) or catastrophic care.

The insurance companies do not tell doctors what they can or can't do. HMOs did, but not insurance companies. They tell the client what they will and will not cover.

If the government takes over this role, it'll get far worse.

Because government creates no wealth of its own, and gets its money from taxpayers, it won't have an incentive to monitor for things such as fraud or pure elective procedures. That will cause the government to ration the care they cover because prices will skyrocket because providers can get away with it. The government will attempt to pay most of what they can in order to say that they're on top of it in order to buy votes. Meanwhile, bureaucrats are running out of money to cover the patients under their auspices. So they ration it, and make patients wait in lines for days, weeks, months and years for the money to appear.

You don't think that'll happen in America? Think again, bub. It's already happened with Medicare.

Nothings perfect in this world, but the system we have does work. Just because some people don't have coverage or fall through the cracks for whatever reason is no reason to scrap it and force people to pay for other people's care.

And that's the operative word: Force. Why can't you people understand this? Why is it that I must be fiscally responsible for other people's care?

[Slowburn]

Who says people are always rational?
However, I do believe the tobacco companies did things like that because people were starting to wonder if smoking is bad for you and they wanted to reassure them, keep them from trying to quit.

And I do think educating people on the dangers of tobacco most definitely has had an impact because smoking rates have declined from the 1950's because people nowadays have a better understanding of the risks than people did back then.
Why else would smoking rates decline if it wasn't education?
And the tobacco companies knew at the time what they were saying was lies, they knew it was not healthy and did everything they could to hide this fact.
At the very least they are guilty of false advertising for making claims they knew were false.

Again, it is irrelevant that everything the tobacco companies said was a complete lie, those people only "believed" them because they needed to rationalize and suspend their own beliefs. They kept smoking because it was "cool" and all of their friends were doing it. Education did not turn around the rates, a smoker has now become a pariah and social outcast which means peer pressure in reverse has now become the reason they have had to quit to gain acceptance. Health reasons are a very insignificant reason for their quitting and society passing laws preventing them smoking in bars, restaraunts, beaches, their own cars, and even in their own homes in some jursidictions.

False claims is not a justification for the draconian laws we have passed against smoking.

I also find it ironic that anti-smoking zealots are usually the same type that wants to legalize marijuana that probably contains hundreds of other cancer causing chemicals and worse than cigarettes if it became as widespread in use as cigarettes.

[JQR]

First of all, your premise, like so many other liberal premises, is flawed.

Smoking is not dangerous. If you put it in context with other human activities, it's not particularly lethal. It's not healthy, but then again lots of things aren't healthy. Driving cars are unhealthy. Flying in airplanes isn't healthy. Having sex can be unhealthy. But people don't normally die from these things the instant they do them. I think the tobacco companies did shoot themselves in the foot when they said that it wasn't unhealthy (way back in the 50s), but can you blame them for doing so? Who wants to say their product is unhealthy?

Smoking is most certainly dangerous, far more dangerous than riding in a car. (Unless of course the car is going at 110 MPH)
Normal driving isn't going to reduce your life expectancy by 10 years like smoking will.
Your argument is just silly. What you are saying just because everything has some risk to it, risk is unavoidable and should be disregarded.
What you need to realize that some risks are small and some risks are large. Getting a drivers license, small risk.
Developing a smoking habit, big risk.
And I find it puzzling that you think it is acceptable and excuse companies for companies to blatantly lying about the safety of their products.
You: "I don't blame them for lying, heck they are selling poison after all."

Response: "Oh poison, in that case it is OK then, we will forgive them for lying to us. It's poison after all. Why wouldn't they lie"

[JQR]

Again, it is irrelevant that everything the tobacco companies said was a complete lie, those people only "believed" them because they needed to rationalize and suspend their own beliefs. They kept smoking because it was "cool" and all of their friends were doing it. Education did not turn around the rates, a smoker has now become a pariah and social outcast which means peer pressure in reverse has now become the reason they have had to quit to gain acceptance. Health reasons are a very insignificant reason for their quitting and society passing laws preventing them smoking in bars, restaraunts, beaches, their own cars, and even in their own homes in some jursidictions.

False claims is not a justification for the draconian laws we have passed against smoking.

I also find it ironic that anti-smoking zealots are usually the same type that wants to legalize marijuana that probably contains hundreds of other cancer causing chemicals and worse than cigarettes if it became as widespread in use as cigarettes.

I do agree to a point that peer pressure has contributed to smoking rates declining. However, the influence of education cannot be discounted. The affects of smoking are much more understood now than then.
Heck during World War II the army gave out cigarettes as a part of a soldiers rations.
Plus, one of the reasons it has become so socially unacceptable now is that people know that it is unhealthy.

Non-smokers are no longer willing to tolerate second hand smoke.

I, by the way am against legalizing marijuana too.

[PredFan]

Insurance companies don't decide what treatments, for instance, cancer patients receive?

really?

No.

[JQR]

No.

In some instances they do, sometimes hospitals themselves own the insurance company.
Here in Pennsylvania I can think of several like UPMC, Geisinger, and another one of the Pittsburgh hospitals does as well, its either Western Penn or Allegheny General I can't remember.

[Cav Scout]

Smoking is most certainly dangerous, far more dangerous than riding in a car. (Unless of course the car is going at 110 MPH)
Normal driving isn't going to reduce your life expectancy by 10 years like smoking will.
Your argument is just silly. What you are saying just because everything has some risk to it, risk is unavoidable and should be disregarded.
What you need to realize that some risks are small and some risks are large. Getting a drivers license, small risk.
Developing a smoking habit, big risk.
And I find it puzzling that you think it is acceptable and excuse companies for companies to blatantly lying about the safety of their products.
You: "I don't blame them for lying, heck they are selling poison after all."

Response: "Oh poison, in that case it is OK then, we will forgive them for lying to us. It's poison after all. Why wouldn't they lie"

Balderdash.

[Rurudyne]

Do you? They had lawyers, doctors, specialists, you name it telling the Congress and the American people that "smoking" was not all that dangerous or addictive. How did they get all these people to preach the partyline? Answer: Money. Denarrow. Dollars.

Have you considered that the same thing is going on with healthcare? Lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. are telling us how it's such a bad idea to have a public program or policy with the tax-payer negotiating for themselves. Imagine that. Who is paying these same lawyers, doctors, politicians, and whomever to participate in this nonsense? I'm guessing.... Insurance companies.

I want to know how in the world people are convinced that "insurance" companies don't make descisions and don't tell doctors what they can treat and what they can't treat. I would like to phathom how in the world so many people believe if "government" played the same role as the "for-profit insurance" company, (you know, making the descisions and telling you what's covered etc.) that you are worse off?

Help us out here..... The CEO of some for-profit insurance company in a suit with a pink tie and a Bentley is making decisions for doctors. Are you for that?
I have less problem with this than in any way opening the public purse yet again to any bunch of politicians.

Especially for what would be yet another illegal and unconstitutional federal program.

[PredFan]

In some instances they do, sometimes hospitals themselves own the insurance company.
Here in Pennsylvania I can think of several like UPMC, Geisinger, and another one of the Pittsburgh hospitals does as well, its either Western Penn or Allegheny General I can't remember.

Well, I only have your word on that. I find it very very hard to believe knowing what I do about the way healthcare is applied. Knowing doctors too. I can't possibly imagine it. It would bring healthcare to a standstill.

[Stantz]

Avoid the Reds; instead, choose physician-endorsed Camels. They are good for your "T-Zone."

http://stash.norml.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/camels-232x300.jpg

wow that ad is amazing !!

[7426k]

No.

Wow!

http://cbs5.com/investigates/CyberKnife.blue.shield.2.716740.html

...An entire team of doctors at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center decided that the CyberKnife offered the only treatment that could save Vinci's life.

"Without it," said UCSF radiation oncologist Kim Huang, "it's impossible to have a cure in her case."

But then Kinder and Vinci got letters from their health insurance company—Blue Shield—denying payment for the procedure.

"I was shocked when I was denied," Kinder said, wiping away tears. "I was shocked."

"It was devastating," Vinci said. "Because here you are in treatment and they're saying no."

Why the rejection? Because Blue Shield said the CyberKnife is an "experimental and investigational" treatment—a term sometimes used by health insurance companies to claim that there isn't enough evidence that a treatment works.

Dr. Huang disagrees.

"There is medical evidence supporting the way we're using it—CyberKnife—to treat tumors in the body," Dr. Huang said.

In fact, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the CyberKnife for brain surgery; then in 2001 for treatment of tumors "anywhere in the body." Medicare, another federal agency, pays for all CyberKnife treatments in California. And there are more than 80 CyberKnife centers around the country....

[birddog1]

lung cancer exists i never said it didnt. i said some people with cancer never smoked and some people who smoke never get cancer. that is an undeniable fact. liberals being against smoking and tobacco companies is like someone being against water purifiying companies by saying "people who drink water get cancer". the argument just doesnt make sense and most scientists disagree with it..i've seen plenty of scientists smoking so what does that tell you??

fact is that if its cool or successful liberals want to kick it to the curb and implement more BIG government action to put a stop to it. its that kind of anti american ideology which imo should make the government once it becomes republican again in 2010 and the white house becomes republican in 2012 to FORCE liberals into stop doing this kind of big government stuff. even if it means republicans adding into the constitution to put a stop to liberal big government control, i truly think it must be done. liberal lies against tobacco have gone on long enough. im tired of watching "tRutH" ads on my tv to

Some skydivers die if their parachutes don't open and some live through it, statistically though it is a bad idea to jump out of a plane without a parachute. It is also statistically a bad idea to smoke.

I have had several family members that smoke and while they did live to average ages or above their quality of life was sure reduced by their smoking habit.

By the way tobacco farming bought my first car and provided a source of income for me in my younger years yet I still see that smoking it or pretty much any other substance is bad for a person's health in the long run.

[killSocialism]

BIG INSURANCE = BAD

BIG GOVERNMENT = GOOD

sorry lib idiots, I trust private business a lot more than I trust bureacrats......

[7426k]

BIG INSURANCE = BAD

BIG GOVERNMENT = GOOD

sorry lib idiots, I trust private business a lot more than I trust bureacrats......

"lib idiots" tu funneh.

So, do you trust insurance bureaucrats?

[johnrocks]

You can have control without either big insurance companies or govt., why don't we give that a try since consumer health plans have gone down in cost where PPO,HMO and govt. has gone up?

[Roberts_the_man]

Insurance companies don't decide what treatments, for instance, cancer patients receive?

really?

Really the doctors do.

Free market competition gives the choice to purchase additional coverage or shop around for other insurance companies.... Single payer won't.

Insurance companies will sometimes try to reduce the cost of treatments by having their
claims department talk to your doctor and determine whether certain treatments
are necessary, etc. , but they don't decide what gets treated or not.

If an insurance company gets too obstinate about withholding payment for certain treatments patients can apeal to government agencies or arbirtration to get the claims department's contrary coverage decision overturned....

Donations jars do show up in stores for those that aren't covered or can't get coverage
...

Worst case scenario there's always a medical bankruptsy for a patient when there isn't coverage...

Who do you appeal to when the government holds all the cards and they say no way ?


Where do you go to to get a FEDERAL government bureaucrat's decision overturned?

You really want less choice?

Really?

[Roberts_the_man]

"lib idiots" tu funneh.

So, do you trust insurance bureaucrats?

Insurance companies bureaucrats answer to state insurance regulators and eventually on up the feeding chain ... to the courts.

The Federal government can legislate itself out of liability for a lawsuit.

An insurance company can't.

Yup the trust factor is weighted much more towards the insurance company bureaucrat as they are just average citizen bureaucrat in comparison.

[Roberts_the_man]

Wow!

http://cbs5.com/investigates/CyberKnife.blue.shield.2.716740.html

...An entire team of doctors at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center decided that the CyberKnife offered the only treatment that could save Vinci's life.

"Without it," said UCSF radiation oncologist Kim Huang, "it's impossible to have a cure in her case."

But then Kinder and Vinci got letters from their health insurance company—Blue Shield—denying payment for the procedure.

"I was shocked when I was denied," Kinder said, wiping away tears. "I was shocked."

"It was devastating," Vinci said. "Because here you are in treatment and they're saying no."

Why the rejection? Because Blue Shield said the CyberKnife is an "experimental and investigational" treatment—a term sometimes used by health insurance companies to claim that there isn't enough evidence that a treatment works.

Dr. Huang disagrees.

"There is medical evidence supporting the way we're using it—CyberKnife—to treat tumors in the body," Dr. Huang said.

In fact, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the CyberKnife for brain surgery; then in 2001 for treatment of tumors "anywhere in the body." Medicare, another federal agency, pays for all CyberKnife treatments in California. And there are more than 80 CyberKnife centers around the country....

I used to sell health insurance...

Blue Shield is notorious for denying claims for experimental stuff however they'll come around in time to cover cyberknife as they always do with other procedures.

Experimental procedures? It's part of the disclosures in their sales material....

More expensive carriers aren't as arbitrary about coverage for them.

There's always arbitration or a medical BC if the treattment will save a life...

My wife and I were underemployed and uninsured for a short while and negotiated with the hospital to get them to waive the fees.

This most likely won't be an option under single payer when dealing with a government bureaucrat.

[respek22]

Wow!

http://cbs5.com/investigates/CyberKnife.blue.shield.2.716740.html

...An entire team of doctors at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center decided that the CyberKnife offered the only treatment that could save Vinci's life.

"Without it," said UCSF radiation oncologist Kim Huang, "it's impossible to have a cure in her case."

But then Kinder and Vinci got letters from their health insurance company—Blue Shield—denying payment for the procedure.

"I was shocked when I was denied," Kinder said, wiping away tears. "I was shocked."

"It was devastating," Vinci said. "Because here you are in treatment and they're saying no."

Why the rejection? Because Blue Shield said the CyberKnife is an "experimental and investigational" treatment—a term sometimes used by health insurance companies to claim that there isn't enough evidence that a treatment works.

Dr. Huang disagrees.

"There is medical evidence supporting the way we're using it—CyberKnife—to treat tumors in the body," Dr. Huang said.

In fact, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the CyberKnife for brain surgery; then in 2001 for treatment of tumors "anywhere in the body." Medicare, another federal agency, pays for all CyberKnife treatments in California. And there are more than 80 CyberKnife centers around the country....

This is heartwrenching. How the **** does a civilized society allow this **** to happen?

[DuoSoft]

I know for a FACT that they do not. I have worked in this hospital with patients and alongside doctors every working day of those years. Insurance and the patients ability to pay are NEVER a consideration. Ever. It's completely ignorant of the truth to say otherwise.

I know for a FACT that they do. I've been through the hassle... personally.

[XTankLt]

Smoke A Commie For Mommy!

Eh...better Reds than dead?

Ask the ChiComs, they are # 1 in smoking. :lol:

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_China_India_Are_Worlds_Heaviest_Smokers_35739 .html

[JQR]

Well, I only have your word on that. I find it very very hard to believe knowing what I do about the way healthcare is applied. Knowing doctors too. I can't possibly imagine it. It would bring healthcare to a standstill.

If you need proof, look at these pages:
http://www.geisinger.org/
On the scroll down menu on the right, there is a heading "health plan" which is Geisinger's health insurance plan.

Here is another:
http://www.upmc.com/Pages/Home.aspx
UMPC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center)
Here is the page for their health insurance plan.
http://www.upmchealthplan.com/

PMC Health Plan is owned by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), one of the nation's top-ranked health systems. As part of an integrated health care delivery system, UPMC Health Plan partners with UPMC and community network providers to improve clinical outcomes as well as the health of the greater community.

[Clintville]

smoking is NOT dangerous
Dude, you're dumb.

[cmit]

Do you? They had lawyers, doctors, specialists, you name it telling the Congress and the American people that "smoking" was not all that dangerous or addictive. How did they get all these people to preach the partyline? Answer: Money. Denarrow. Dollars.

Have you considered that the same thing is going on with healthcare? Lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. are telling us how it's such a bad idea to have a public program or policy with the tax-payer negotiating for themselves. Imagine that. Who is paying these same lawyers, doctors, politicians, and whomever to participate in this nonsense? I'm guessing.... Insurance companies.

I want to know how in the world people are convinced that "insurance" companies don't make descisions and don't tell doctors what they can treat and what they can't treat. I would like to phathom how in the world so many people believe if "government" played the same role as the "for-profit insurance" company, (you know, making the descisions and telling you what's covered etc.) that you are worse off?

Help us out here..... The CEO of some for-profit insurance company in a suit with a pink tie and a Bentley is making decisions for doctors. Are you for that?

Oh get with it, smoking is not dangerous, CO2 does not cause global warming and Iraq still has WMD.

[Rurudyne]

Ask the ChiComs, they are # 1 in smoking. :lol:

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_China_India_Are_Worlds_Heaviest_Smokers_35739 .html
Yeah ... it isn't ALL smoke from their pollution-controls-lite-to-free coal.

[Snagglepuss]

Hint to the resident libs....an insurance plan denying a claim is not synonymous with dictating a patients treatment. It is quite possible to get a treatment w/o the insurance company paying for it. I know, because I've done it. I had to take out a loan to pay for the treatment, but I still got the treatment.