News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by throw554 on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @12:44PM (#20930173)
People who smoke cigarettes and otherwise have an unhealthy lifestyle overburden the health system and take away government spending that can be spent elsewhere. Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer?
Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by kaibee on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @12:49PM (#20930235)
> People who smoke cigarettes and otherwise have an unhealthy lifestyle overburden the health system and take away government spending that can be spent elsewhere. Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer?

Do you have a source? I know it sounds intuitively correct, but I remember reading the opposite. Basically it goes like this: end of life/senior care is a very large percentage of medical spending. Unhealthy people don't live as long and die faster once their health deteriorates. So they actually cost less to the healthcare system than healthy people.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5316444/

Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by collyw on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @12:52PM (#20930272)
Smokers pay a fair bit in tax as well.
Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by atlasunshrugged on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @01:34PM (#20930836)
Depends on what jurisdiction you're talking about and what you consider a fair bit. Many countries aren't in compliance with the FCTC rules on 70% specific tax for tobacco
Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by atlasunshrugged on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @01:33PM (#20930826)
I don't have a good source for you on the counterargument you posited but I've been researching tobacco taxation for the last 3 months and I can tell you almost all literature I've read that's referenced that says that the burden of disease from smoking is more expensive.
Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by mpfundstein on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @12:47PM (#20930222)
Anecdotal counter evidence: All of my grand parents and their siblings smoked and drank alcohol and not one of them died of young age or a smoking releated disease.

But I get your point. I pay a heavy tax on cigs though. I just hope the government puts that into a fund for cigarette relate health care issues instead of financing some wars in the middle east. Ah no, they don’t. They just exploit the addiction.

Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by blang on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @01:01PM (#20930417)
I believe a bulk of that tax on the federal level goes to funding health insurance for children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_...

State level taxes of course depend on the state.

Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by mieseratte on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @12:49PM (#20930234)
> Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer?

Why should I pay taxes for schools and roads and services I don't use?

Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by jimhefferon on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @01:14PM (#20930580)
We all pay taxes for schools so there will be engineers to build the airplanes, cars, dishwashers, etc., that we do use. Likewise, we pay for roads so that trucks carrying our dinners can get to the store.
Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by mieseratte on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @02:35PM (#20931622)
Guess I should've added a </rhetorical>
Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by jimhefferon on Wednesday September 11, 2019 @10:07AM (#20940351)
I have heard statement very close to that made by people who were entirely serious. Glad to hear you were not.
Re:Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavor... by wolco on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @12:57PM (#20930339)
Because you would need to change the rate for those who don't exercise, drive or ride in cars, drink coffee, play impact sports, eat junk food, have unprotected sex, is in the army, plays video games,, lives on the coast, works in a mine, etc