I say no.

If you can't afford food/healthcare, you can't afford cigarettes either.....

I see around 40-50 Medicaid patients a day, of which no less than 20 smoke cigarettes. I'm not a fan of the government telling people what they can or can't do, but if your accepting government money because you can't afford your own lifestyle, then you need to be doing everything you can to take care of yourself.

Goodbye cigs, cable, alcohol, blackberry, etc.

Intriguing.....

How would you do it and verify that someone wasn't cheating?

Also, how would you get around the personal freedom issues that conservatives love to cite?
I see it opening a whole bunch of personal freedom issues.

I understand that spending money on non-essential and potentially dangerous unhealthy substances seems wrong. particularly when it is government money, but should we legislate something like this? I suppose that we should only be spending the money on essentials and not be squandering it all on tobacco and alcohol products.

"Also, how would you get around the personal freedom issues that conservatives love to cite? "

Pretty easily actually, you're taking my money and my personal freedom that goes with having that money. Redistribution reduced my personal freedom, so why can't I have a say in how the redistribution is applied?

That said, any type of checking system will probably be even more costly....to some extent the food stamp program has a check on uses but even it can be exploited.

goosebumps;407706 wrote:I say no.

If you can't afford food/healthcare, you can't afford cigarettes either.....

I see around 40-50 Medicaid patients a day, of which no less than 20 smoke cigarettes. I'm not a fan of the government telling people what they can or can't do, but if your accepting government money because you can't afford your own lifestyle, then you need to be doing everything you can to take care of yourself.

Goodbye cigs, cable, alcohol, blackberry, etc.

I say yes....but hookers should be disallowed.

that made me laugh footwedge lol


Wouldn't be that expensive to implement if done correctly. Make it illegal to be on medicaid and smoke and let health care professionals handle the reporting. Your doctor will know if you are smoking. Your pharmacist will know if you are smoking.

Set it up like this, send a letter to all medicaid/welfare recipients stating that if they wish to continue receiving benefits they must abstain from tobacco use. Give them every opportunity and aid in stopping. Medicaid already pays for virtually all stop smoking aids. Give them a deadline. Any patients who caught smoking after the deadline (probably a six month deadline) will be immediately removed from the program.

how do you catch them?

goosebumps;407787 wrote:that made me laugh footwedge lol


Wouldn't be that expensive to implement if done correctly. Make it illegal to be on medicaid and smoke and let health care professionals handle the reporting. Your doctor will know if you are smoking. Your pharmacist will know if you are smoking.

Set it up like this, send a letter to all medicaid/welfare recipients stating that if they wish to continue receiving benefits they must abstain from tobacco use. Give them every opportunity and aid in stopping. Medicaid already pays for virtually all stop smoking aids. Give them a deadline. Any patients who caught smoking after the deadline (probably a six month deadline) will be immediately removed from the program.

Ok, I can get behind that, if done correctly. I'd add that once they are removed from the program for violating the no smoking clause, they can get back on if they meet a certain criteria.
Again, good idea in theory, but implementing it in a bureaucracy as we all know could be trouble.

I see some trouble from the tobacco lobby though. I doubt they would give the ok for this.

Manhattan: I actually agree. That if you are in a government system, you do give up some of your rights as you are now under the government's money. If you don't like it, get off of it.

Why not Social Security and Medicare too?

Here's a whacky idea... How about the government stays out of my pocket and doesn't redistribute MY money?

Jason Bourne;407917 wrote:Here's a whacky idea... How about the government stays out of my pocket and doesn't redistribute MY money?

You know that sounds good but on its face this is just an overly broad statement that isn't helpful and doesn't foster much useful debate IMO....even the most laissez-faire libertarian or conservative would agree that in order to have a society we must pay a sufficient amount of taxes to support 3 things; 1. An Army, 2. Police, 3. A Court System....even in that world of extremely limited government without public roads, fire departments, public schools, universities, etc. your money is still redistributed in some way, shape or form...and unless you're an anarchist, you would agree that this kind of redistribution is justified. Maybe you disagree with medicaid and don't think disabled people should get healthcare on your dime...ok that's fine, but wouldn't we all be better off if we stayed away from such broad statements?

Maybe you should be honest with your own arguments, it doesn't matter to me who takes our trash to the recycling facility, we can pay the city for the service via taxes or pay a private contractor for the service via the checkbook - at any rate the service is provided.

I believe the topic at hand is about redistribution without service.

BoatShoes;407907 wrote:Why not Social Security and Medicare too?

Apples to oranges. The government MANDATED that I participate in Social Security and Medicare/ObamaKare and they confiscate a portion of my income each pay period to make sure I do participate. That money is MY money. If it's MY money then I have a right to piss it away if I wish.

Welfare/Medicaid/Food Stamps on the other hand are paid for via income and other taxes. Although that is also confiscated from me, I will never see any of it returned to me short of personal financial and/or physical catastrophe. It's MY money too but the benevolent government robbed me of it. As Manhattan Buckeye pointed out above, the government made me less financially free by confiscating MY labor and redistributing MY money to someone I don't even know.

The least that person should do in exchange for receiving my labor is abide by rules that require them to use my labor for life necessities....NOT tobacco or alcohol.

Why liberals attempt to twist this obvious reality by pointing out the alleged inconsistency between conservative demands to place these types of rules on government public assistance programs vs. the desire to get Big Government out of our lives and our wallets confuses the hell out of me.

Are ANY of the examples you mentioned sitting around being a leach?

Army - Let's go military - forfeiting 2, 3, or even more years of their lives to SERVE their country!?!?!?
Police - In harms way EVERY shift to protect the streets so it's safe for my kids to play in our yars?
Court System - (judges, clerks, etc) - Every great nation has always had hi regard for honor and justice. We are no different.
Roads - (More to the point, the people building and maintaining them) - ever lay a stretch of road? Not exactly a walk in the park. Nor is it sitting on the couch smokin cigs that you bought with my money.

I could go on and on but I won't. I have to earn money for people to buy smokes.

Manhattan Buckeye;407991 wrote:I believe the topic at hand is about redistribution without service.

I asked why not medicare and social security...how is that not redistribution without service? What service have old people from Arizona on a bus smoking Winston's on their way to the Hoover Dam that a quadriplegic in clyde, ohio who was injured by a drunk driver and likes to smoke marlboro's hasn't? Why should the old people on medicare (the socialized medicine that's causing our costs to skyrocket) be allowed to smoke and not the injured guy on socialized medicine? Seems to me they're both redistribution in exchange for no kind of service guy. Maybe I'm wrong?

As far as "welfare" goes...i've said on here before that I would support some kind of debit card that doesn't allow them to make certain "sinful" purchases like cigarettes.

Jason Bourne;408035 wrote:Are ANY of the examples you mentioned sitting around being a leach?

Army - Let's go military - forfeiting 2, 3, or even more years of their lives to SERVE their country!?!?!?
Police - In harms way EVERY shift to protect the streets so it's safe for my kids to play in our yars?
Court System - (judges, clerks, etc) - Every great nation has always had hi regard for honor and justice. We are no different.
Roads - (More to the point, the people building and maintaining them) - ever lay a stretch of road? Not exactly a walk in the park. Nor is it sitting on the couch smokin cigs that you bought with my money.

I could go on and on but I won't. I have to earn money for people to buy smokes.

well my original question applied to other programs that people generally support that redistribute money without exchange for service............I brought up those examples because your statement asking not to redistribute your money was overly broad.....perhaps a better one might be "don't tax me for purposes of redistribution unless I receive some tangible service in return" or something...it just seems helpful to be more precise and figure out where we all might have common ground methinks....but hey, maybe I'm an idiot.

believer;408006 wrote:Apples to oranges. The government MANDATED that I participate in Social Security and Medicare/ObamaKare and they confiscate a portion of my income each pay period to make sure I do participate. That money is MY money. If it's MY money then I have a right to piss it away if I wish.

Welfare/Medicaid/Food Stamps on the other hand are paid for via income and other taxes. Although that is also confiscated from me, I will never see any of it returned to me short of personal financial and/or physical catastrophe. It's MY money too but the benevolent government robbed me of it. As Manhattan Buckeye pointed out above, the government made me less financially free by confiscating MY labor and redistributing MY money to someone I don't even know.

The least that person should do in exchange for receiving my labor is abide by rules that require them to use my labor for life necessities....NOT tobacco or alcohol.

Why liberals attempt to twist this obvious reality by pointing out the alleged inconsistency between conservative demands to place these types of rules on government public assistance programs vs. the desire to get Big Government out of our lives and our wallets confuses the hell out of me.

Well, I think I pretty much agree with you....for starters, if you believe in republicanism and what Madison and Jefferson started; it doesn't seem right to use the "confiscate" but I digress on that point....

But at least you acknowledge the possibility of personal and financial catastrophe....and I've suggested before that even if you become financially bankrupt through no fault of your own; that maybe you ought to be restricted to the necessities with a debit card of some sort....And, maybe if that person gets on medicaid they should have to quit smoking or something....ok I suppose we can grant you that....

but two questions....

1. what about someone who like to smoke his whole life and drank jack daniels and was a hard worker his whole life but was say injured by a drunk driver and now has to go on medicaid...should he be allowed to smoke and drink?

2. Even if it's necessarily foreseeable that you'll get old and be on medicare (because the feds have unjustifiably enforced socialized healthcare on our seniors) which the feds make you pay for with a consumption tax and perhaps the odds that you'll be on the poor people's socialized medicine (medicaid) which you agreed the feds make you pay for with an imputable portion of your income tax....I still don't see why it's clear why you should be allowed to smoke on medicare and not on medicaid....The fact that you'll necessarily be on medicare by virtue of old age and you can't foresee if you'll be on medicaid...doesn't seem ultra-strong to me...What if the feds privatized medicare in some way and provided subsidies to old people to get private insurance?

BoatShoes;408052 wrote:As far as "welfare" goes...i've said on here before that I would support some kind of debit card that doesn't allow them to make certain "sinful" purchases like cigarettes.

More like STUPID purchases. You want to smoke? Fine. Just don't do it with my money...that's all I ask.

BoatShoes;408084 wrote:but two questions....

1. what about someone who like to smoke his whole life and drank jack daniels and was a hard worker his whole life but was say injured by a drunk driver and now has to go on medicaid...should he be allowed to smoke and drink?

On his own dime not mine.

BoatShoes;408084 wrote:2. Even if it's necessarily foreseeable that you'll get old and be on medicare (because the feds have unjustifiably enforced socialized healthcare on our seniors) which the feds make you pay for with a consumption tax and perhaps the odds that you'll be on the poor people's socialized medicine (medicaid) which you agreed the feds make you pay for with an imputable portion of your income tax....I still don't see why it's clear why you should be allowed to smoke on medicare and not on medicaid....The fact that you'll necessarily be on medicare by virtue of old age and you can't foresee if you'll be on medicaid...doesn't seem ultra-strong to me...What if the feds privatized medicare in some way and provided subsidies to old people to get private insurance?

Again, the Feds FORCED me to participate in Medicare. Whether I'm forced to do a government sponsored program or the Feds subsidize it through private insurance I'm still paying for it and I benefit directly from it. What I do with it is no one's business but my own.

If I use Medicaid (yes I also paid into it over the years), I'm technically still getting that aid (redistribution) from OTHER taxpayers.

Plus chances are the "poor people" who are on Medicaid paid little or no taxes prior to going on the "system." Generally those in the welfare system were born and raised in it and not likely to have contributed to the cause..just my humble opinion.

believer;408085 wrote:More like STUPID purchases. You want to smoke? Fine. Just don't do it with my money...that's all I ask.

What about an old person on medicare who receives more monetarily (adjusted for inflation) from medicare than she ever paid in....at that point, she's no longer using her money by definition, but somebody else's...should she be allowed to smoke cigs? Seems that she shouldn't be able to according to this quote wherein you don't think a person should be able to smoke if they're using someone else's money through some kind of social program.

believer;408098 wrote:On his own dime not mine.



Again, the Feds FORCED me to participate in Medicare. Whether I'm forced to do a government sponsored program or the Feds subsidize it through private insurance I'm still paying for it and I benefits directly from it. What I do with it is no one's business but my own.

If I use Medicaid (yes I also paid into it over the years), I'm technically still getting that aid (redistribution) from OTHER taxpayers.

The feds didn't force you to pay a premium for medicare...you knowingly worked in the United States after July 30, 1965 when Medicare was passed knowing your agents in Congress consented on your behalf for you to pay a medicare premium out of your income...you continued to work and take part in the U.S. economy and its social institutions and under the guise of the Constitution (albeit a corrupted version of it in many's eyes)....you could've moved to the Bahamas or something where there are no such taxes.

There is no King holding you down and stealing from you....maybe a misguided and tyrannical majority, but if it be so, John Locke says you have a right to revolution and the Founder's agreed...if it's not time to revolt and don't revolt, you consent to those taxes because that's how republicanism and representative democracy works.

Not saying you say this...but often I've seen conservatives suggest to the liberal types who want socialized healthcare for all to "move to canada"....perhaps those tree-huggin types might suggest in contrast "move to Haiti" or something.

A bit off topic with this one but - When is smoke in someone's lungs, healthy?

No, No No....I think you all are missing the point. The government should not be in the business of telling people what to do or how to live. There should be no strings attached to assistance lest some authority have the dubious distinction of deciding what is good for you or not. Sorry, even if your tax money is being 'taken' from you and redistributed to someone else, you don't have the right to judge what that person can spend it on. You are taxed by the state as a condition of living in and under the state. Your elected representatives decided how best to allocate tax dollars.

HitsRus;408140 wrote:No, No No....I think you all are missing the point. The government should not be in the business of telling people what to do or how to live. There should be no strings attached to assistance lest some authority have the dubious distinction of deciding what is good for you or not. Sorry, even if your tax money is being 'taken' from you and redistributed to someone else, you don't have the right to judge what that person can spend it on. You are taxed by the state as a condition of living in and under the state. Your elected representatives decided how best to allocate tax dollars.

I mean, can this totally be true? By definition it seems like we as a society have judged what they can spend their money on when we say it's illegal for people to purchase Heroin right? It doesn't seem like the same public who authorizes a tax and its subsequent spending can't also place limits and conditions on the spending. I mean, for instance, if someone receives a student loan check she agrees to not spend it on certain things. It seems like the People have some say in regards to how persons use money that they receive from The People.

"I mean, can this totally be true? "

No, I presume HitsRus' comments are TIC, there is a difference between the state deciding what is good for you, and the state providing funds for certain purposes. To the extent the state does the latter there are obvious restrictions, you can't use food stamps in some stores, public assisted housing is for that purpose (read, you can't sublet it out as one who owns a home could), in some jurisdictions 'welfare' payments are made via debit card which isn't usable in some stores (read, ABC stores in states where government controls liquor), etc.