Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeVega
No the government shouldn't ban them but if you've seen the movie Sicko you would know that in the UK the doctors make more money based on the health improvements of their patients . a doctor will make more if he helps you stop smoking.
and the doctors are paid very well not like you would be led to believe ..
|
If Michael Moore makes a movie about the evils of cigarettes that doesn't mean I will be convinced by watching it that it is the government's responsibility to ban them. Now that would be a great flick, right? You could follow around people whose loved ones are dying of emphysema and cancer. You could show some mind-blowing statistics. You could find someone that contracted lung cancer from second-hand smoke and follow them to their deathbed. You could interview executives at Altria and follow all the money they donate to campaigns. Now you and I know that 400,000 people per year die in the United States from cigarette related illnesses. 1 in every 5 deaths in the US is smoking related. Horribe, right? "Are we just gonna let these people kill themselves?" All these things are true. The statistics are obvious and I don't think there is anyone that would argue that banning cigarettes would save lives. Yet I don't want to ban them - and neither do you - despite the fact that the world would be better off without them. Why? Because there are other principles at work besides maximizing life expectancy and minimizing financial burden.
I don't care what doctors make in the US vs the UK vs the EU. I don't care about doctor's salaries one bit. I am in favor of smaller, less intrusive government.