- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well let's just tell the world when and were we are bombing or invading a place.
What you say and What you DO are two different subjects.
Why should you have money taken away for something legal and that half the nation does? and at the time this does not affect your career. So why be penalized by any means is my point.
Do you know what the current taxes on cigarettes are? Federal taxes now are $1.01 per pack. Several states have over $2 a pack sin tax. And counties often have their own taxes. In many places, smokes now cost over $10 a pack.
And it's not half the nation. Adult smokers are roughly 40 million. No way 110 million kids are smoking.
State Tax Rates on Cigarettes
And I've long advocated that those who smoke should pay more in insurance premiums. And they do. Even Airlines are charging for smoking insurance. Several nations already do this on a large scale. America hasn't quite got to the point, but life insurance does cost more if you're a smoker.
If you are a Smoker expect to pay higher Life Insurance Premiums - EQUOTE
Northwest Airlines To Charge Smokers More For Insurance, Fat People Next On List : Diggers Realm
The US government is often going to have to pay for veteran healthcare. Thus is a concern. I suppose there should be an option to forgo VA treatment to eliminate the percent deducted.
You make bad health choices, why should everyone else pay for your screw up? That's why you should be penalized.
I take it you really don't think personal responsibility is important? You are proudly displaying that attitude. If someone makes bad choices, they shouldn't have to face the consequences.
There's a better solution. If you choose to use tobacco products during your service, a certain amount of your pay is deducted and placed into an account to pay for future health care costs related to your use of a known carcinogen. If you kick the can during your service, that amount is then added to any amount given to your beneficiaries.
Soldiers should not have tobacco restricted, but they should not expect us to pay extra for their associated health costs from a preventable cause. Thus, we leave the choice up to them with an added future cost to themselves.
Did you even read what I wrote?
The government isn't telling you what you can or cannot do. It is informing you that you are free to do so but you must also accept the obligations of your choice. Furthermore, when you join the military, the government is essentially your owner. They tell you where to go, what to eat, what to do, when to sleep, you name it. You act like soldiers have lots of free will. They don't. Complain that the government will set aside from money to pay for your healthcare from your choice as socialism is nuts when that government indirectly tells you what you will do in your job and how you will do it.
The notion that people won't join the military because it will cost them some pay for smoking is nuts.
Do you know what the current taxes on cigarettes are? Federal taxes now are $1.01 per pack. Several states have over $2 a pack sin tax. And counties often have their own taxes. In many places, smokes now cost over $10 a pack.
Not when you are doing a service to your country NO.
Why should you tell someone who is helping you out what not to do in their personal time?? Way should someone that is risking their lives be told they can not smoke outside the base over have a designated area. This is only a way to control people.
If you choose to use chewing gum, a certain amount of your pay is deducted and played into an account to pay for future health care costs related to your use of a known carcinogen.
:roll:
Once soldiers are out of basic training they have as much free will as anyone else except for when it comes time for work to be done, or deployments.
So those in the military who smoke are already paying towards any future healthcare costs. You only need to ringfence the costs so they don't get mis-appropriated into some other budget.
An easy way to make your plan work is to get the military smokers to sign up and have the smoking taxes they pay now ringfenced rather than have some whole new extra tax or worse still start having some form of surveillance to secretly find out who smokes and who doesn't.
Not that I like your idea, the military already make huge sacrifices for the nation - it's the nation's duty of care to make sure that appropriate healthcare is available in turn during and after service.
They can say whatever they want? By the way, you just said what I said. Good job on failure to read and understand the written word.
Just to play devil's advocate here (I don't really have an opinion on tobacco in the military), but I would think that use of tobacco would make people less able to handle the physical strains of their job.
So thus personal responsibility doesn't count for much in your opinion eh?
There's a better solution. If you choose to use tobacco products during your service, a certain amount of your pay is deducted and placed into an account to pay for future health care costs related to your use of a known carcinogen. If you kick the can during your service, that amount is then added to any amount given to your beneficiaries.
Soldiers should not have tobacco restricted, but they should not expect us to pay extra for their associated health costs from a preventable cause. Thus, we leave the choice up to them with an added future cost to themselves.
We should ban guns in the military, someone could get hurt. :mrgreen:I find it funny no, rather pathetic how OC wants to dictate to those who served in combat, something he himself is unwilling to ever do, as to what they can and can not do with thier bodies, with a legal product.
I also find it pathetic how he cackles on about personal responsibility, but when I read my contract in regards to my VA care due to being in the 1st gulf war, no where in said contract was there a stipulation regarding the use of tobbacco... So his entire argument is a nonsensical cry fest disguised as an attack on the troops.. (pm me for more details on this).... Living up to the contract is "personal responsibility".....
I just have to chuckle when non serving people think they have a right to dictate to those who served in combat..... :roll:
I find it funny no, rather pathetic how OC wants to dictate to those who served in combat, something he himself is unwilling to ever do, as to what they can and can not do with thier bodies, with a legal product.
I also find it pathetic how he cackles on about personal responsibility, but when I read my contract in regards to my VA care due to being in the 1st gulf war, no where in said contract was there a stipulation regarding the use of tobbacco... So his entire argument is a nonsensical cry fest disguised as an attack on the troops.. (pm me for more details on this).... Living up to the contract is "personal responsibility".....
I just have to chuckle when non serving people think they have a right to dictate to those who served in combat..... :roll:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a veteran's disability or death shall not be considered to have resulted from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service for purposes of this title on the basis that it resulted from injury or disease attributable to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during the veteran's service.
38 USC 1103 - US Code - Title 38: Veterans' Benefits - 38 USC 1103 - Sec. 1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products - vLex
Such a plan is simply not feasible. For instance, how do you quantify the damage of cigarettes monetarily? How would the smoking habits of military members be effectively monitored? It just doesn't seem realistic.
I find it funny no, rather pathetic how OC wants to dictate to those who served in combat, something he himself is unwilling to ever do, as to what they can and can not do with thier bodies, with a legal product.
I also find it pathetic how he cackles on about personal responsibility, but when I read my contract in regards to my VA care due to being in the 1st gulf war, no where in said contract was there a stipulation regarding the use of tobbacco.
So his entire argument is a nonsensical cry fest disguised as an attack on the troops.. (pm me for more details on this).... Living up to the contract is "personal responsibility"
I just have to chuckle when non serving people think they have a right to dictate to those who served in combat..... :roll:
Only because I have to pay for it. I noticed you did not want to talk about my other examples which are principally no different even though you would be angry if you had to pay for them. Typical. Either you are being dishonest (which is historically accurate) or you can't read, also historically accurate.
So what if you have to pay for it? They are fighting and dying to protect you and the rest of the country. I'd say that earns them quite a bit.
Read up on ALL the benefits they get while in service and once they get out of service. Paying for their bad habits SHOULD not be one of them. And as I pointed out, VA no longer pays compensation benefits for smoking-related illnesses, which is the right thing.
Really? I think getting shot at is far more unhealthy than smoking....
Alchohol kills nearly as much, perhas we should ban troops from drinking as well...
Saturated fats? No SIR, if you have a big mac NO COVERAGE FOR YOU!
I find it perplexing in an era were we are trying to nationalize healthcare, and even give it to the illegal alien hordes, we would want to take it away from combat and retired vets......
I find the stance hypocritical and rather pathetic.
The majority of people who serve have not been shot at. Let's get that straight. VA MUST cut corners so that other veterans can get the compensation they need.
Right now, VA does not pay compensation to a veteran who has become disabled due to his/her own willful misconduct. I'm sure you wouldn't want to think that Joe Shmo can drink to his heart's content, get into a car, paralyze himself from drunk driving, and then receive more $2700/month tax free as a result. The same argument can be made for someone who smokes. You know smoking causes cancer of all sorts and you CHOOSE to smoke. Sorry, you shouldn't be compensated for your own willful misconduct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?