Be serious. THe idiotic policy implication does not follow at all. Smoking
decreases the quality and length of life for the smoker and others. The
point of the argument is to refute the claim that there should be a charge
against tobacco companies and users because smokers cost the medical system
more. In Canada this specious and incorrect claim is perhaps more effective
since we have a universal medicare system. The argument is a critique of an
argument for taxing smokers or
filing suits against tobacco companies, not an argument in favor of smoking.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 6:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4646] Re: Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction
commentary
. The huge suits for health care are
> in
> > my opinion a total farce.
>
> > . . . Researchers paid by tobacco companies claim that total costs for
> smokers are
> > actually less-since they die early. Of course no leftist believes this
> > because they accept the ad hominem argument that if it is research paid
> for
> > tobacco companies it is not sound. The same type of ad hominem is
> ubiquitous
>
> There is research here to the same effect that is not
> supported by the tobacco companies. The idea is pretty
> simple -- if you die earlier from tobacco you forego the
> extraordinary medical expenditures that are routine for
> the very old in the last two years of life. The real issue
> is not the budget calculation, but the idiotic policy implication
> -- that smoking is some kind of public service because it kills
> off people at an earlier age. That is completely separate
> from the simpler matter of reduced health care spending
> that results from people dying at a younger age. In general
> things that help people live longer are preferred to those
> that don't. Most people, at any rate.
>
> mbs
>
