# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  DEATH PANEL: Let fat smokers die

## green73

> NEW YORK (AP) -- Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?
> 
> Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.
> 
> But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates.


cont
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-26-10-03-12

----------


## Danan

So they are saying that somkers shouldn't be covered by public healthcare? So they obviously don't have to pay for it either. If that is indeed their plan, I guess everybody will start smoking to get out of Obamacare and pay for their own health care.

----------


## tod evans

At least let "fat smokers" have access to inexpensive pain pills...

----------


## torchbearer

that is a huge part of the democrat demographic.

----------


## acptulsa

> So they are saying that somkers shouldn't be covered by public healthcare? So they obviously don't have to pay for it either.


Don't be ridiculous.  Of course they have to pay.  Don't you realize that death and taxes are the only certainties in life?

So, would it be taxation without representation?  Damned straight.

But the unrest taxation without representation causes would only be one positive aspect of this.  The other would be the way people wake up when they discover fat smokers are outliving them, because tobacco may be bad but Big Pharma is worse.

----------


## sailingaway

actually, the one study on obesity showed that over a lifetime they cost less because the last two years of life tend to drain about 50% of the health spending, or something like that.  The obese simply die when these systems start to break down, each according to their genetics and circumstances, and miss those last two expensive years.

the EU did this study to justify rationing over there.  I  laughed that the results turned out the opposite of what they wanted.  But there is NO other study over lifetime finding the opposite.

Regardless, we knew this was coming.  The left pretended we were being scare mongers.  The media are liars.  Every time something like this happens, the cracks in the facade get bigger imho.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

----------


## torchbearer

> Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.
> 
> Take your pick, smokers.


that is a consquence of government subsidized insurance.
you want a king, get ready to have no rights.

----------


## acptulsa

> Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.
> 
> Take your pick, smokers.


But the question is, should fat smokers pay for everyone else's idiocy even as they're being excluded?  Because if they're to be exempted from health care taxes, along with the coverage, then smoking is about to gain in popularity.

----------


## oyarde

> Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.
> 
> Take your pick, smokers.


How about the govt.'s give up the 60 % of a cost of a pack of cigarettes they collect in taxes ???

----------


## Danan

> Don't be ridiculous.  Of course they have to pay.  Don't you realize that death and taxes are the only certainties in life?


Yeah I know. But I find it kind of ironic how some interest groups look at behaviour that may increase costs for "society" but only because policies they advocate force people into a terrible public healthcare system. And it's especially ironic since those smokers would probably love the opportunity to get out of that system, in which case their habit wouldn't cause any damage on the rest at all, while they would still profit. But those facts don't change the worldview of the left at all. It's really amazing...

Their argument is basically, "Your behaviour is bad for society since it's very costly to keep you alive, so we will punish you by not treating you. However, we still need your money to keep the system running, so you are not allowed to leave it and take care of yourself!" How that doesn't cause cognitive dissonance is beyond me.

----------


## pcosmar

> Take your pick, smokers.


How about the Government just $#@! off.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> How about the Government just $#@! off.


That is what I prefer.

----------


## oyarde

> Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.
> 
> Take your pick, smokers.


I will glaldy opt out of any govt programs, or paying for them as well .....

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

I have known so many people that have smoked that have died a good 10 years prematurely. It is said and also makes our healthcare costs worse as well.

----------


## acptulsa

> How about the govt.'s give up the 60 % of a cost of a pack of cigarettes they collect in taxes ???


Nah.  But something tells me you live as close to a reservation as I do.

The really sad part is there are non-smokers who think that just because they don't smoke, the government can't do some similar squeeze action on them.  And all the while, Mayor Bloomburg is trying to arrest people for possession of Big Gulps.

----------


## pcosmar

> I have known so many people that have smoked that have died a good 10 years prematurely.


How do you know? What makes you think it was premature?

My little brother died at 10 years old,, Heart attack. 
Does that mean if he had smoked he would have never been born?

I have been smoking since I was 12,, and have already outlived my Father and Grandfather.

I doubt I will die from cigarettes.

----------


## ZENemy

True story, when I used to smoke cigarettes I had a 350 pound lady that was drinking a bucket of milkshake tell me that smoking is bad for my health.

----------


## Danan

> I have known so many people that have smoked that have died a good 10 years prematurely. It is said and also makes our healthcare costs worse as well.


As sailingaway mentioned, fat smokers cost the system less than healthy thin non-smokers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0

----------


## torchbearer

> True story, when I used to smoke cigarettes I had a 350 pound lady that was drinking a bucket of milkshake told me that smoking is bad for my health.


what was your response at the time?

----------


## dillo

Why the $#@! would anyone stop smoking?  We already eat GMO's, drink flouridated water out of decomposing plastic bottles, ingest processed foods with HFCS that is govt subsidized.  Smoking is just the easiest scapegoat of all time.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> How do you know? What makes you think it was premature?
> 
> My little brother died at 10 years old,, Heart attack. 
> Does that mean if he had smoked he would have never been born?
> 
> I have been smoking since I was 12,, and have already outlived my Father and Grandfather.
> 
> I doubt I will die from cigarettes.


Because their heart and lungs were screwed up and they died younger than expected.

Cigarettes don't kill you, they just make you die sooner. There are exceptions. But unhealthy habits are never a benefit.

----------


## oyarde

> what was your response at the time?


I would have asked for a little of that milkshake to go with my bourbon and cigarette....

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> As sailingaway mentioned, fat smokers cost the system less than healthy thin non-smokers.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0


Well, on the other hand they die sooner so I can see why that would be the case. You don't have to take care of them as long.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Smokers will die. Obese people will die. Skinny people will die. Non-smokers will die. Vegetarians will die.

No matter how much money the nanny-staters spend, everyone will die. Denial and wailing will not prevent that. It's amazing how much time, money and effort our society will spend in a futile cause.

Have a nice day!

----------


## pcosmar

> Smokers will die. Obese people will die. Skinny people will die. Non-smokers will die. Vegetarians will die.
> 
> No matter how much money the nanny-staters spend, everyone will die. Denial and wailing will not prevent that. It's amazing how much time, money and effort our society will spend in a futile cause.
> 
> Have a nice day!

----------


## mad cow

> Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.
> 
> Take your pick, smokers.


I'm a smoker.I choose keep smoking and stop paying for the government's idiocy.

I agree with you,I have no place in Obamacare.
So where do I sign to get out of both being in it and paying for it.

----------


## pcosmar

*Old Smokers.*
http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamil...her/oldest.htm



> Mme Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world's oldest human whose birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ," 10/18/95].





> The Scottish Daily Record (12/15/97) reported on Ivy Leighton, 100, who smoked 20 cigarettes a day for 84 years, but cut down somewhat after her 100th birthday. April claimed smoking was the key to her long life.





> The world's oldest man is (unless he has died since the last report I have, which is l997) Christian Mortensen, ll4 in l997,who has been a cigar smoker for most of his life--and still smokes them. [San Francisco Chronicle, "114 and Still Smoking," Peter Fimrite, 8/5/97, p.A13].

----------


## thoughtomator

The most costly demographics in health care are politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats.

----------


## acptulsa

> The most costly demographics in health care are politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats.


You missed 'underwriters'.  Of course, the underwriters' lobbyists have now completely bought the politicians, or we wouldn't have new laws demanding we buy the underwriters' products.  So I guess it has all become the same.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Toothpaste is neither a taste or a hobby.  It is something that works better for some people than for others.  And specific brands work better for some people than for others.  Same for anti-perspirant.  And twins wind up using the same brands and varieties.  Because what works for this genetic package works for that nearly identical genetic package.
> 
> That was the point.  Now do you follow?


I'm not so sure it isn't a taste.  I don't trust most commercial toothpastes.  Only organic will do.  Perspirant?  Could be a taste.  Or... it could just be a coincidence.  I don't see why we have to jump to conclusions here.  




> So, you deny you were saying bring on the Obamacare and deny its benefits to those who don't jump through hoops you approve of?  That's really not what you were saying?  Because you sure made it sound like that's what you were saying.


I never said bring on the Obamacare.  Show me where I ever indicated that I liked Obamacare.  The only thing I've ever said about Obamacare is that I don't think we should spend too much time talking about who gets what.  I also said that being fat and smoking are not good habits.  Those are basically the only two things I've ever claimed in this thread.  




> Confuscus say, if 98% of your readers suffer reading comprehension deficiencies, maybe you aren't making yourself clear.


I keep asking people to tell me where I'm saying these things they claim I'm saying and they never tell me.  I guess the world will never know if it's me or if it's them.  




> You don't believe that an aging body needs more roughage, or more beta carotene, than a young body?  You don't believe that a growing kid can use sugar to grow _up,_ while a middle aged person can only use sugar to grow _out_?  You don't think a man might have good reasons for prefering a steak while there might be good reasons why a woman prefers a salad?  You don't think bodybuilders should eat more protein?


I just told you that I already know people have different needs based on their situations.  You're talking about the amount, not the actual substance.  We all need the same things, just in different amounts depending on our situation.  That doesn't mean we're as different as you claim because your body would probably react the same way if you were in the situation of the young growing boy or the old man or the pregnant woman.  Men and women are different, of course, but that's just a given.  We already know the basic differences between men and women, but within those groups our bodies need the same things.  For some reason, this point seems to have gone completely over your head.




> We all need the same things?  Arguably.  But do we need the same proportions?  Or even similar proportions?  Who's spewing hyperbole now?


What difference does it make?  Everyone is in different situations, but you don't know that your body wouldn't react the same as someone in that situation if you were also in their situation.  The fact that our proportions change based on our situation doesn't change our basic genetic make-up.  I'm not spewing hyperbole.  I'm just telling you what I think.  Where's the hyperbole?  




> And some people are born gloomy enough that they can stick to the perfect regimin of diet and exercise and never be as happy go lucky and carefree as someone else who poisons themselves every single day.  There are people who never feel the 'warm glow of satisfaction', no matter how good a job they do.  They aren't wired for it.  It isn't there for them.  Diet doesn't make it suddenly work.  Exercise doesn't make it suddenly work.  Getting in the habit of expecting it when they finish a project doesn't make it suddenly work.  So, if it isn't genetics, what the hell is it?


You claim that, but that doesn't make it true.  I don't believe people are just wired to be gloomy.  They can change that.  I'm living proof of it.  I overcame depression and anxiety.  Diet is a very big part, but an even bigger part is your mental cycle and how you cognitively deal with stress.  Exercise certainly helps.  There are several factors that go into a person's mental and emotional fortitude, and exercise and diet are a big part of that.  Don't just dismiss them out of hand.  




> Every 2009 Mazda 6 has the same oxygen sensor.  Humans are not built on an assembly line.  And the thing people around here find distressing and frustrating most of all is the presumption that everyone _is_ built to the same design on the same assembly line, and every part of the nation (whether a city with ten thousand or more to the square mile or farm country with less than a hundred to the square mile) is the same, and one size fits all laws therefore are not tyrannical to anyone involved.  This isn't hyperbole.  This is painting over reality with the simple brush.  I don't care for it, myself.  It's tempting when I'm trying to understand the world's complexities, but I'd rather understand than make the facts suit the theory and thereby create myself a nice, simple fairy tale with no big words in it instead.  And by ignoring our differences and the role genetics plays in it to the degree you are doing is not paying homage to reality.


I know not everyone's the same.  We have choices to make.  We think differently.  We have different values.  Our bodies are different to some extent because of what we inherit and the environment we grow up in.  But there HAS to be some sort of common denominator or else life just wouldn't be practical.  The processes that go on in our bodies that we can't consciously control all have to happen or we'll die.  We need the same nutrients and our bodies have the same functions.  Some function better than others, but our bodies all have a heart that pumps blood and a lymbic system that removes waste from our cells, and a brain that stores memories.  What we do with our brains is very different indeed, but the brain functions basically the same way for everyone.  If someone is built too different from the rest of us, they will die because the environment we've created simply isn't suitable for them.  We all have a limited range of variability which is why African Americans have darker skin, etc.  We all have a built-in range of genetic variability but we can't stray too far from the basic template or else the world simply wouldn't be a hospitable place for us.  I'm sorry if you don't like the idea of assembly lines.  I'm not suggesting we were all built on an assembly line.  I simply think that, just like every other living creature on earth, we have to keep it within acceptable boundaries.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I am not getting distracted by the idea that we are entitled to government care at all.I hate government care.I think that the government has no business in the care-giving department whatsoever.I think that the government giving anybody a foot massage is evil.I also think that the government taking money from me at gunpoint for a foot massage that I neither wanted or needed and then saying that i'm not eligible for that foot massage that I neither wanted or needed because I don't meet their standards for that foot massage I never asked for but they took the money from me at gunpoint anyway for that foot massage is even MORE EVIL.


I don't think one is more evil than the other.  They're both equally evil.  They took my damn money, that's all I care about.  Not giving me a foot massage that I don't want is trivial bull$#@! that we have to hear other people talk about because they've gotten used to the idea that it's okay for the government to steal our money.

----------


## mad cow

> I don't think one is more evil than the other.  They're both equally evil.  They took my damn money, that's all I care about.  Not giving me a foot massage that I don't want is trivial bull$#@! that we have to hear other people talk about because they've gotten used to the idea that it's okay for the government to steal our money.


If I was told at gunpoint by Burger King that I had to buy a Whopper Combo once a week,I would consider that evil.

If I was told by Burger King at gunpoint that I had to pay for a Whopper Combo once a week,but I was not eligible to eat it,I would consider that *MORE EVIL*.

----------


## oyarde

Great, now I want a burger.... to go with my beer , cigarette and Absorbine Jr.

----------


## Origanalist

> Great, now I want a burger.... to go with my beer , cigarette and Absorbine Jr.


Don't get that $#@! on your cigarette, just sayin......

----------


## oyarde

When I was about 19 , where I went to work ea day , on the back of the fire door that was pretty much permanently open , someone had spray painted " joke 'em if  they can't take a $#@! ". That really made little sense to me, but this thread reminded me of it .

----------


## oyarde

> Don't get that $#@! on your cigarette, just sayin......


I am always very careful , I no longer like menthol.

----------


## phill4paul

> I am always very careful , I no longer like menthol.


  Menthol got me over childhood asthma. Kools. Lol. Can't stand them now.

----------


## oyarde

> Menthol got me over childhood asthma. Kools. Lol. Can't stand them now.


I smoked them when I was a youngster,filtered Kools, non filtered Kools, my best buddy then ( he was in town weekend before last , got to see him then ),he smoked non filterd menthol.He would always laugh when we were somewhere, someone would ask for one , he would offer , they would just pass.

----------


## oyarde

I plan on quitting this year. Cigarettes, and supporting govt.

----------


## oyarde

Seems fair , we both give up our addictions ,only mine never involved stealing....Adios dickfucks

----------


## MelissaWV

Genetic factors stop being overwhelming in adults, but no definitive age at which genes are not important and can be bypassed by eating the right things is given.

----------


## Confederate

How about this: if people actually had to pay for their healthcare they probably wouldn't smoke or be obese. (or not as much)

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

i think we should let smokers die. they smoke because they want to and they will have to face the consequences for the severe health affects associated with long term smoking. and they burden society with their illness that they brought onto themselves. most people that smoke long term will develop lung or oral cancer, emphysema and other disorders and diseases. the health care they will receive (especially with government health) will put a strain on everyone else. i know a lot of older people, whom that smoke 15+ years, and they usually die from cancer or complications from emphysema/pneumonia. its a shame, but those people chose that type of lifestyle and chose what they wanted to put into their bodies. 

it is the same with drugs (in a liberty society)... if people want to take drugs, then they are responsible for their actions and their health. dont expect government or the friendly insurance people to come help.

----------


## Confederate

> most people that smoke long term will develop lung or oral cancer, emphysema and other disorders and diseases.


Not true. Less than 10% of smokers develop lung cancer and rates for other cancers and illnesses are lower.

----------


## MelissaWV

> i think we should let smokers die. they smoke because they want to and they will have to face the consequences for the severe health affects associated with long term smoking. and they *burden society with their illness* that they brought onto themselves. most people that smoke long term will develop lung or oral cancer, emphysema and other disorders and diseases. the health care they will receive (especially with government health) will put a strain on everyone else. i know a lot of older people, whom that smoke 15+ years, and they usually die from cancer or complications from emphysema/pneumonia. its a shame, but those people chose that type of lifestyle and chose what they wanted to put into their bodies. 
> 
> it is the same with drugs (in a liberty society)... if people want to take drugs, then they are responsible for their actions and their health. dont expect government or the friendly insurance people to come help.


They don't burden society if there is not society-funded healthcare.  They enter into contracts with insurance companies, pay high premiums, and receive benefits per the contract.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If I was told at gunpoint by Burger King that I had to buy a Whopper Combo once a week,I would consider that evil.
> 
> If I was told by Burger King at gunpoint that I had to pay for a Whopper Combo once a week,but I was not eligible to eat it,I would consider that *MORE EVIL*.


I wouldn't.  And I certainly wouldn't go to Burger King to demand a burger.  I would go to Burger King to demand my money back.  That's what I think some people are doing.  They're so busy saying that everyone who pays should get a burger instead of simply saying enough is enough, I don't care about the burger I want my damn money back.  If the government listened to you and made the distribution of burgers more fair, would that make you happy?  It shouldn't.  That's why we shouldn't strive to make sure people get their burger.  It's just reinforcing the system.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How about this: if people actually had to pay for their healthcare they probably wouldn't smoke or be obese. (or not as much)


Exactly.  Don't smoke just to spite the system.  Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not true. Less than 10% of smokers develop lung cancer and rates for other cancers and illnesses are lower.


Doesn't mean they're healthy by any stretch of the imagination.  Just because their symptoms aren't specific enough for a doctor to put a name on it, doesn't mean nothing's wrong.

----------


## Tpoints

> Not true. Less than 10% of smokers develop lung cancer and rates for other cancers and illnesses are lower.


what is their lifespan, and what is the percentage of non-smokers who develop lung cancer?

----------


## Confederate

> Doesn't mean they're healthy by any stretch of the imagination.  Just because their symptoms aren't specific enough for a doctor to put a name on it, doesn't mean nothing's wrong.


I agree. Smoking is beyond a doubt harmful to one's health. I was just correcting the posters who said most smokers get lung cancer.

----------


## Tpoints

> I agree. Smoking is beyond a doubt harmful to one's health. I was just correcting the posters who said most smokers get lung cancer.


how is that? if 90% don't get lung cancer?

----------


## DamianTV

Dont worry, car pollution, plastic pollution, pill pollution, food pollution, and pretty much every other form of pollution doesnt cause lung cancer, only tobacco.  We should be working towards legalizing Agent Orange while waiting for them to make tobacco illegal and create the biggest black market in history.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> how is that? if 90% don't get lung cancer?


I just explained that.  Refer to the post that Confederate was responding to.

----------


## acptulsa

> They don't burden society if there is not society-funded healthcare.  They enter into contracts with insurance companies, pay high premiums, and receive benefits per the contract.


Thank you for beating me to that.  Why is it the people who cry most about 'burdens on society' are the people working the hardest to turn this bad habit or that risky behavior into burdens on society?  People have so much trouble understanding why we object to crap like this.  It has to be the propaganda; there's no other explanation.  Yes, government screws things up, and there's a _lot_ to be said for getting and/or keeping it out.  And, yes, 'Your habit makes you a burden on society' is something used on people only when government overreaches--and sometimes they start in on people before they even succeed in overreaching.  Which means people are labeled 'burdens on society' before they become 'burdens on society.'

----------


## oyarde

Society has been a burden on me .I have not been a burden on society.

----------


## phill4paul

> Society has been a burden on me .I have not been a burden on society.


  In fact quite the opposite. Let me be the first to thank you for funding SCHIPS the program to insure children whose parents income is 300% above federal poverty levels.

----------


## Tpoints

> *They don't burden society if there is not society-funded healthcare.*  They enter into contracts with insurance companies, pay high premiums, and receive benefits per the contract.


not having society funded healthcare IS "letting smokers pay for themselves, and if they can't, let them die". Whether you like to phrase it that way or not. So either there is a ration and death panel, or there is blanket, indiscriminate socialism. You can't criticize rationing unless you are anti-rationing.

----------


## Tpoints

> In fact quite the opposite. Let me be the first to thank you for funding SCHIPS the program to insure children whose parents income is 300% above federal poverty levels.


so much for the liberal agenda trying to depopulate the world and encourage abortions.

----------


## Origanalist

> not having society funded healthcare IS "letting smokers pay for themselves, and if they can't, let them die". Whether you like to phrase it that way or not. So either there is a ration and death panel, or there is blanket, indiscriminate socialism. You can't criticize rationing unless you are anti-rationing.


I'm anti- (government enforced, run) collective health industry.

----------


## oyarde

I am Anti FedCoats running anything outside of Article One Section Eight.They are not only thieves , but unlike an ordinary , good thief, do not spend the money wisely.

----------


## Tpoints

> I'm anti- (government enforced, run) collective health industry.


so you don't mind rationing and dying as long as it's not the government doing it?

----------


## oyarde

Rationing and dying , I have done that before. I can live with it, if it is NOT because of Govt stealing......

----------


## Tpoints

> Rationing and dying , I have done that before. I can live with it, if it is NOT because of Govt stealing......


noted and quoted, thanks. Rationing and dying are OK as long as it's not the government doing it.

----------


## DamianTV

This thread isnt dead like all fat smokers yet?

----------


## oyarde

> noted and quoted, thanks. Rationing and dying are OK as long as it's not the government doing it.


Yeah, pretty much , I reckon, since , that was when I was a Govt employee.....

----------


## oyarde

> noted and quoted, thanks. Rationing and dying are OK as long as it's not the government doing it.


No , your quote, of me, needs to include, Govt stealing, I volunteered for the rest , I do not complain about it , and have corrected my ways...

----------


## Tpoints

> Yeah, pretty much , I reckon, since , that was when I was a Govt employee.....


so it's not OK? I'm lost now.

----------


## oyarde

> This thread isnt dead like all fat smokers yet?


I drove through town today, here is my" non govt study". There are no Fat Smokers. There are Smokers .There are Fat people.There are skinny Communists, Libetarians,Marxists,Socialists,Mildly Retarded, Democrats, Independents and" Others " .

----------


## oyarde

> so it's not OK? I'm lost now.


I guess it is OK , if you volunteer for it ....

----------


## Original_Intent

Interesting that fat smokers are left to die because of their dangerous lifestyle choices, but hundreds of billions were spent to save those with AIDS, many of whom engaged in much riskier lifestyles than overeating and smoking...

----------


## tod evans

> Interesting that fat smokers are left to die because of their dangerous lifestyle choices, but hundreds of billions were spent to save those with AIDS, many of whom engaged in much riskier lifestyles than overeating and smoking...


Oh now.........Didn't you get the programming?

***** are protected now, smokers are the new ostracized..

----------


## Tpoints

> Interesting that fat smokers are left to die because of their dangerous lifestyle choices, but hundreds of billions were spent to save those with AIDS, many of whom engaged in much riskier lifestyles than overeating and smoking...


Sorry, i didnt know we found a cure for AIDS, or the rationers were going to pay for it. Until you know that, there is nothing interesting about it

----------


## tod evans

> SOrry, i didnt know we found a cure for AIDS, or the rationers were goong to pay for it. Until you know that, there is nothing interesting about it


Are you implying that there are "cures" for diseases supposedly related to smoking?

----------


## Tpoints

> Are you implying that there are "cures" for diseases supposedly related to smoking?


nope. I'm also not the one who claims they should be saved.

----------


## Origanalist

> Sorry, i didnt know we found a cure for AIDS, or the rationers were going to pay for it. Until you know that, there is nothing interesting about it


So sayeth Tpoints. So let it be writen, so let it be done.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> cont
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-26-10-03-12


How did the Native Americans set a broken bone?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> How did the Native Americans set a broken bone?


 Splint.

----------

