That is why in my original comment, I said they should allow SOME establishments (perhaps 10%) to allow smoking and have special licenses for them. I think your point about staff is very valid, but if it took a bit of time to switch over, most staff could find another job if they were worth their salt. Good bar tenders are hard to find. So those establishments would be left with people who make a choice to be there. Some smokers probably would like to work in their own subculture. I completely agree no one should subject anyone else to their smoke. I am the kind of person who speaks up, and not everyone appreciates it. Some smokers are in your face nasty. Some fool also wakes me up every single night by smoking under my window in the wee a.m. Even though I am on the 4th floor, it still wakes me up.
My scapegoating comment was anticipating the argument that smokers cost the tax payers money; therefore, they should have a few places set aside for them. EVERYONE does something to cost society money. I just don't want to be a hypocrite although my personal preference would be not to have to share the continent with smokers.
I think when they say that those cases are isolated they mean there are very few of them. If they were the norm at all I'm sure they'd be all over the
news.
Of course that's what they mean.
But "all over the news"? Perhaps you've heard the saying, "News is what powerful people want to suppress; everything else is advertising." The mainstream media are in the advertising business, not the news business. They're in the business of delivering audiences to advertisers, including the insurance, HMO and pharma industries, and conveying the messages those advertisers want those audiences to hear, both during and between the commercial breaks.
If by "the norm" you mean more claims being denied than paid, then, yes, that would have been harder for the mainstream media to ignore.
But when "the norm" means skimpy and shrinking coverage and ever-increasing premiums, deductibles and co-pays, plus an SOP of stiffing occasional claims for expensive lifesaving surgery for no good reason, then it's harder for the victims to make themselves heard, and it's easy to blow off the victims as "isolated." At least until someone like Michael Moore comes along.
Universal health care will just change where the money comes from to cover the overhead costs but won't change what the costs are.
Not so. The whole point is to redefine that word "overhead." The for-profit system makes it the corporations' fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders. Patients are considered overhead, and they get squeezed to maximize profits. HMOs put doctors on notice that the "customer" is the HMO, not the patient.
A truly humane system would regard shareholder profit -- not to mention multimillion-dollar CEO salaries and golden parachutes -- and advertising, PR and lobbying budgets -- as unconscionable overhead. It would reinstate the patient as "the customer" and would serve the patient a lot better. And many other countries' systems do just that.
Pani113 wrote, "I know alot of healthier than thou 'my body is a temple' types who get in their car and drive 20 miles over the speed limit every day."
There are laws against speeding, though. Someone who drives 5-10 miles over the speed limit usually gets away with it, but someone who routinely drives 20 miles over the speed limit is eventually going to get ticketed, pay a fine, and -- if caught several times -- lose their license to drive.
With regard to tobacco (as with speeding), part of the issue here is that someone who smokes in a bar isn't simply exposing him/herself to the smoke but also is exposing other customers and the bar's employees to that same danger. It's certainly fair to say that people have a right to decide which risks they choose for themselves, but they don't have the right to force those same risks on others. You might argue that other customers have the right to simply choose not to patronize establishments where smoking is tolerated, but the people who work in those establishments don't often have the freedom to just quit their job. We don't allow companies to expose their workers to cyanide fumes or asbestos as a condition of employment, so why should companies be allowed to expose their workers to carcinogens and other health hazards in the form of secondhand tobacco smoke?
On a personal note, I happen to know a jazz trombonist named Earl who is a highly respected artist in his field and has toured in Europe and other countries with the Charles Mingus Orchestra. He happens to be very sensitive to tobacco smoke, and although he has excellent lungs and breathing control (necessary to play his instrument), the cigarette smoke in some of those establishments makes it almost impossible for him to get through the night. He wears a portable humidifier around his neck to dampen down some of the smoke, and even so he coughs and has a hard time breathing after some of his gigs. As a touring musician, moroever, he has no way of saying, "I'll only play in those establishments that disallow smoking." No band would be able to employ him if he made that sort of demand. Is it really "fair" to suggest that he should have to choose between his career and his health?
While it may be tempting to whoop out a big I told you so to all of us who recognized he was the devil years ago, I doubt the public really gets it. They will just vote for another politician whose rhetoric may be a bit different or is packaged in a slightly different way. But I am willing to bet they are still the same old military-industrial puppet underneath when all is said and done. Was it Mark Twain or Oscar Wilde who said democracy is the only government that assures people get the kind of leaders they deserve?
I realize that sounds very cold hearted. But stigma and scapegoating are equally as cold hearted. I don't believe the tobacco companies should be allowed to HIDE the risks. But, after all the education campaigns, if people still choose to smoke, I say leave them alone as long as they do it in a way that doesn't harm the rest of us. We have become a nation of fingerpointers. But I know alot of healthier than thou "my body is a temple" types who get in their car and drive 20 miles over the speed limit every day. Or have unsafe sex. Or climb mountains on weekends. I am no fan of big tobacco, and am allergic to smoke. I have also gotten in a few tiffs because I am quite vocal about people blowing smoke in my face. But fair is fair. If we are going to scapegoat, we had better do it both fairly and with completely accurate social risk assessments.
That is why in my original comment, I said they should allow SOME establishments (perhaps 10%) to allow smoking and have special licenses for them. I think your point about staff is very valid, but if it took a bit of time to switch over, most staff could find another job if they were worth their salt. Good bar tenders are hard to find. So those establishments would be left with people who make a choice to be there. Some smokers probably would like to work in their own subculture. I completely agree no one should subject anyone else to their smoke. I am the kind of person who speaks up, and not everyone appreciates it. Some smokers are in your face nasty. Some fool also wakes me up every single night by smoking under my window in the wee a.m. Even though I am on the 4th floor, it still wakes me up.
My scapegoating comment was anticipating the argument that smokers cost the tax payers money; therefore, they should have a few places set aside for them. EVERYONE does something to cost society money. I just don't want to be a hypocrite although my personal preference would be not to have to share the continent with smokers.
Of course that's what they mean.
But "all over the news"? Perhaps you've heard the saying, "News is what powerful people want to suppress; everything else is advertising." The mainstream media are in the advertising business, not the news business. They're in the business of delivering audiences to advertisers, including the insurance, HMO and pharma industries, and conveying the messages those advertisers want those audiences to hear, both during and between the commercial breaks.
If by "the norm" you mean more claims being denied than paid, then, yes, that would have been harder for the mainstream media to ignore.
But when "the norm" means skimpy and shrinking coverage and ever-increasing premiums, deductibles and co-pays, plus an SOP of stiffing occasional claims for expensive lifesaving surgery for no good reason, then it's harder for the victims to make themselves heard, and it's easy to blow off the victims as "isolated." At least until someone like Michael Moore comes along.
Not so. The whole point is to redefine that word "overhead." The for-profit system makes it the corporations' fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders. Patients are considered overhead, and they get squeezed to maximize profits. HMOs put doctors on notice that the "customer" is the HMO, not the patient.
A truly humane system would regard shareholder profit -- not to mention multimillion-dollar CEO salaries and golden parachutes -- and advertising, PR and lobbying budgets -- as unconscionable overhead. It would reinstate the patient as "the customer" and would serve the patient a lot better. And many other countries' systems do just that.
Pani113 wrote, "I know alot of healthier than thou 'my body is a temple' types who get in their car and drive 20 miles over the speed limit every day."
There are laws against speeding, though. Someone who drives 5-10 miles over the speed limit usually gets away with it, but someone who routinely drives 20 miles over the speed limit is eventually going to get ticketed, pay a fine, and -- if caught several times -- lose their license to drive.
With regard to tobacco (as with speeding), part of the issue here is that someone who smokes in a bar isn't simply exposing him/herself to the smoke but also is exposing other customers and the bar's employees to that same danger. It's certainly fair to say that people have a right to decide which risks they choose for themselves, but they don't have the right to force those same risks on others. You might argue that other customers have the right to simply choose not to patronize establishments where smoking is tolerated, but the people who work in those establishments don't often have the freedom to just quit their job. We don't allow companies to expose their workers to cyanide fumes or asbestos as a condition of employment, so why should companies be allowed to expose their workers to carcinogens and other health hazards in the form of secondhand tobacco smoke?
On a personal note, I happen to know a jazz trombonist named Earl who is a highly respected artist in his field and has toured in Europe and other countries with the Charles Mingus Orchestra. He happens to be very sensitive to tobacco smoke, and although he has excellent lungs and breathing control (necessary to play his instrument), the cigarette smoke in some of those establishments makes it almost impossible for him to get through the night. He wears a portable humidifier around his neck to dampen down some of the smoke, and even so he coughs and has a hard time breathing after some of his gigs. As a touring musician, moroever, he has no way of saying, "I'll only play in those establishments that disallow smoking." No band would be able to employ him if he made that sort of demand. Is it really "fair" to suggest that he should have to choose between his career and his health?
While it may be tempting to whoop out a big I told you so to all of us who recognized he was the devil years ago, I doubt the public really gets it. They will just vote for another politician whose rhetoric may be a bit different or is packaged in a slightly different way. But I am willing to bet they are still the same old military-industrial puppet underneath when all is said and done. Was it Mark Twain or Oscar Wilde who said democracy is the only government that assures people get the kind of leaders they deserve?
I realize that sounds very cold hearted. But stigma and scapegoating are equally as cold hearted. I don't believe the tobacco companies should be allowed to HIDE the risks. But, after all the education campaigns, if people still choose to smoke, I say leave them alone as long as they do it in a way that doesn't harm the rest of us. We have become a nation of fingerpointers. But I know alot of healthier than thou "my body is a temple" types who get in their car and drive 20 miles over the speed limit every day. Or have unsafe sex. Or climb mountains on weekends. I am no fan of big tobacco, and am allergic to smoke. I have also gotten in a few tiffs because I am quite vocal about people blowing smoke in my face. But fair is fair. If we are going to scapegoat, we had better do it both fairly and with completely accurate social risk assessments.
Pages