[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jan 6 2010, 02:51 PM, said:

Leaving aside this major issue, the US individual responsibility approach is manifestly an economic disaster.

...


This is reflected in mortality rates as well as other metrics.



...the incredible growth rate in diseases that stem from obesity and lack of exercise.

Interesting post. But, one observation seems worthy to make. Taking these three parts of your post, I see a hidden assumption problem. The effectiveness/quality of a health care system does not have a direct correlation to mortality rates or to other statistical analyses of results.

If one system has a terrible health care system but very healthy people, wo eat well and exercise, it might well end up with a better mortality rate than a system with a tremendous health care plan but folks who smoke too much, eat terrible food and too much of the same, and don't exercise enough.

This seems obvious, but the quoted statistics, often offered by many people, seem to miss this point.

Americans smoke too much, eat ridiculous food and too much of it, and don't exercise enough. Duh!

[mikeh]

Ken: a proper health care system is not merely a system that reacts to health problems when they trigger actual illness or disability.

A proper health care system views health as a lifestyle issue as well as a treatment of acute/chronic illness or injury issue.

Thus, a proper healthcare system should include education as early in life as possible (preferably to parents before the children are born) about healthy lifestyles and so on.

I cannot readily quote or cite anything in support of this, but I have a vague recollection of reading, some time ago, of the results of a study that purported to examine the costs/benefits of such an approach, and it was overwhelmingly economically the better approach....now, studies of this nature are not exactly infallible, and maybe I remember it this way because it accords with my biases

So, while I appreciate your point, my response is that you are yourself the victim of a hidden assumption ...that 'health care' relates only to responses to the issues that traditionally call for medical reaction, as opposed to health care (which need not be 'medical') pro-action.

As an aside, partially related...I was listening to a NPR show, which discussed the extremely low rate of breastfeeding amongst african-american women. Breast-feeding has been conclusively shown (according to 'experts' quoted in the broadcast) to confer many benefits on children, compared to formula...and it is also FAR less expensive. Yet even mothers on welfare were very reluctant to breastfeed...and the problem cut across economic divides.

A comprehensive health care system would presumably involve substantial investment in education of women on this issue, and many others, probably needed in high school or earlier (as a male, I am singularly unqualified to say much on this, and I recognize that)...and since the outcome has a major impact on the long term physical and mental health of children, this is a health care issue but needs no hospitals or doctors or drugs.

[Winstonm]

Quote

To many citizens in other western democracies, health care...and the right to affordable treatment for ALL health issues...is a basic human right...it is something that we, collectively, owe to all members of society.

I think this is the critical aspect of Mike's post - it deals directly with the difference in the prevailing U.S. view versus the the view of the rest of the world - a U.S. view assisted heavily by the spook-and-scare-tactics squads who paint word-pictures of the evil ISMs behind any attept to change a profitable status quo.

If the propaganda push was for the right of everyone to join the U.S. Army and go fight the Huns there would be near unanimous approval of such basic right.

[mike777]

I would also add people have the right to an affordable shelter and food and education as basic human rights.

Hopefully not only the right but the center and left will accept these as universal basic rights.

[kenberg]

This country has trouble with subtlety and pragmatism. It seems to me that the number of people who really think everyone should be on their own for health care is quite small. If you phrase the question as asking whether children should be denied care when their parents can't afford it, I think the number is almost zero. But problems arise from the fact that we simply cannot afford to do everything for everyone. I have long ago accepted the fact that life is finite and that the end stages of life is often no walk in the park. Much of the cost of medical care comes up in this endgame. Yes I wish to have medical care as I reach the end of my life and yes I expect this will be costing more than what I have needed over my first seventy rather healthy years. But I would not expect my family to spend all their resources and go into heavy debt to keep me alive a while longer, and I can hardly expect the country to do so either.

What this means to me is that healthcare will always have some inequality in its delivery. If Warren Buffet spends, say, fifty million on his own health needs, that's his business. I wish him the best. I don't have fifty million, and I don't expect someone else to come up with it either.

The above example is extreme of course. But I think an attitude of yes we would like to help those in need and yeat we have to be able to afford it, and yes we expect those who are being helped to also take some responsibility for their own health would be an aprroach that would appeal to many people, not all of them raving lefties.


PS About statistics: I believe that Minnesota has a much lower cost per person for medical care than does the country as a whole. Healthy living? Prudent medical treatment? Maybe. But I grew up there and as I recall, when people got old, a lot of them moved to Florida. That will keep the costs down too, for Minnesota. The unexamined statistic is not worth reading--- Socrates.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jan 6 2010, 04:58 PM, said:

Ken: a proper health care system is not merely a system that reacts to health problems when they trigger actual illness or disability.

A proper health care system views health as a lifestyle issue as well as a treatment of acute/chronic illness or injury issue.

Thus, a proper healthcare system should include education as early in life as possible (preferably to parents before the children are born) about healthy lifestyles and so on.

I cannot readily quote or cite anything in support of this, but I have a vague recollection of reading, some time ago, of the results of a study that purported to examine the costs/benefits of such an approach, and it was overwhelmingly economically the better approach....now, studies of this nature are not exactly infallible, and maybe I remember it this way because it accords with my biases

So, while I appreciate your point, my response is that you are yourself the victim of a hidden assumption ...that 'health care' relates only to responses to the issues that traditionally call for medical reaction, as opposed to health care (which need not be 'medical') pro-action.

As an aside, partially related...I was listening to a NPR show, which discussed the extremely low rate of breastfeeding amongst african-american women. Breast-feeding has been conclusively shown (according to 'experts' quoted in the broadcast) to confer many benefits on children, compared to formula...and it is also FAR less expensive. Yet even mothers on welfare were very reluctant to breastfeed...and the problem cut across economic divides.

A comprehensive health care system would presumably involve substantial investment in education of women on this issue, and many others, probably needed in high school or earlier (as a male, I am singularly unqualified to say much on this, and I recognize that)...and since the outcome has a major impact on the long term physical and mental health of children, this is a health care issue but needs no hospitals or doctors or drugs.

Actually, I'm not really a victim of a hidden assumption, as you may think, for two completely different reasons.

First, you confirm that part of my thought that I stated, namely that comparison of statistics like mortality rates does little to assess whether the treatment side of the "health care system" is better or worse than another, as the "general well-being plan" of a health care plan -- good living -- has too much impact when the lifestyles are known to be radically different.

However, you also assume that a hidden assumption was hidden from me, when I actually quite consciously hid it from my post. The reality is that it seems critically important to the new plan to force lifestyle changes on Americans. I keep seeing more and more about food rules and the like, things that cause me more worry than anything. For, as a red-blooded American, although I don't own a gun, I am rather p'd off about the lifestyle patrols starting to gain momentum.

It frankly hacks me off (strangely fitting pun, I know) to have legislatures ban people like me from having a dsmned cigarette or cigar at a bar. Have the legislature start banning cigarettes altogether, for health reasons, and there will be a traffic jam in Washington of pickup trucks trying to find parking spots, which would be fabulous, if you ask me.

Shut down McDonald's, tax my Coca-Cola, and make me use frickin' margarine for my frickin' fricassee, and you are getting revolt.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Jan 7 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

PS About statistics: I believe that Minnesota has a much lower cost per person for medical care than does the country as a whole. Healthy living? Prudent medical treatment? Maybe. But I grew up there and as I recall, when people got old, a lot of them moved to Florida. That will keep the costs down too, for Minnesota. The unexamined statistic is not worth reading--- Socrates.

Premiums for Medicare are uniform across the US, but the spending for healthcare services received is not. And it is not just that the health of residents varies from state to state.

The amount that Medicare pays for services varies from hospital to hospital. For example, a hospital that pays higher salaries to its doctors, nurses, technicians, and so on, gets more money for providing identical services than does a hospital that pays lower salaries.

The CMS website has a lot of data on Medicare and Medicaid expenditures, although it is not kept quite current. The latest data on the Health Expenditures by state of residence chart is from 2004. You can see (page 10 of 19) that Medicare paid $8,462 per year for personal care for each of the Minnesotans who moved to Florida, but only $6,435 per year for the folks who stayed in Minnesota.

[mike777]

FWIW

Mayo Clinic in AZ stops accepting medicare patients.


http://visitbulgaria.info/12266-arizonas-m...dicare-patients


Also we are running out of doctors, 100,000 doctor shortage.

http://www.slate.com/id/2217146/


AGain I just wonder how the UK, Sweden, canada seem able to run a health care system just fine and we run short of doctors and worry about a lack of innovation here in the USA.

Do not these countries have terrible, terrible problems such as these in their systems?

[mikeh]

Quote

The reality is that it seems critically important to the new plan to force lifestyle changes on Americans.  I keep seeing more and more about food rules and the like, things that cause me more worry than anything.  For, as a red-blooded American, although I don't own a gun, I am rather p'd off about the lifestyle patrols starting to gain momentum. 

It frankly hacks me off (strangely fitting pun, I know) to have legislatures ban people like me from having a dsmned cigarette or cigar at a bar.  Have the legislature start banning cigarettes altogether, for health reasons, and there will be a traffic jam in Washington of pickup trucks trying to find parking spots, which would be fabulous, if you ask me. 

Shut down McDonald's, tax my Coca-Cola, and make me use frickin' margarine for my frickin' fricassee, and you are getting revolt.

There have been a number of studies (I can get you references if you doubt this) that show a significant correlation between lung cancer and second-hand smoke, especially for people who work in bars.

So you are hacked off that legislatures won't let you poison your fellow-citizens.

I take it that you therefore feel that sufferers from TB, coughing and hacking their viral load into your breathing space, are welcome in your home, office, or local bar?

No???? How odd....you want the government to stop those people from travelling on airlines, or hanging out at your bar, exposing you to potentially lethal substances, but don't, for a moment, allow the government to stop you from killing your waitress, slowly and painfully.

And chemical companies should be allowed to pollute the environment? Why not? What's the difference between you polluting your neighbour's air with carcinogenic tobacco smoke and Dow polluting half of New Jersey?

Do you disable the anti-pollution equipment on your car, as a protest? Or do you think that regulation of vehicle emissions is ok? If so, on what basis?

As for the new plan telling Americans what to do, I haven't read it in detail and I doubt that you have either. But what I have heard suggests that it really is tinkering. It may seem like a lot of changes to those on the inside, but it really doesn't change much, at all, in the short term and seems likely to really result in business largely as usual. As is often the case, in all democracies...I am not picking on the US....politicians are more concerned with politics (and the next election) than they are with doing the right thing....whatever the right thing may be.

But the biggest issue I have with your approach is that you seem to endorse or approve of propaganda by corporations who use advertising to tell (persuade) people what to do...even tho much of that advertising is, by any rational standard, immoral and misleading....aimed solely at generating profit with little or no regard for the welfare of the target audience.

Do we need cars with 500 hp?

Do we need drugs for restless leg syndrome? I mean, look up the meaning of 'syndrome', and you see that it isn't even a disease!

Do we need to sell anti-depressants to everyone who feels shy or embarrassed or sad?

Do we need to tout garbage food?

Do we really need cheez-whiz advertised as food?

Do we need to advertise soda pop, so that kids get hooked on sugary carbonated water, with artificial flavours?

All of this is stuffed down our throats, in some cases more than metaphorically, by billions of dollars spent on advertising.

Yet, have the government purport to provide education about basic health and lifestyle practices that would, if adopted, save countless billions, probably trillions, in healthcare costs and productivity, and the typical american rants about revolution. Canadians (including me, of course) are often weird and wacky....but I blame it on cross-border contamination

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jan 7 2010, 11:21 AM, said:

Quote

The reality is that it seems critically important to the new plan to force lifestyle changes on Americans.  I keep seeing more and more about food rules and the like, things that cause me more worry than anything.  For, as a red-blooded American, although I don't own a gun, I am rather p'd off about the lifestyle patrols starting to gain momentum. 

It frankly hacks me off (strangely fitting pun, I know) to have legislatures ban people like me from having a dsmned cigarette or cigar at a bar.  Have the legislature start banning cigarettes altogether, for health reasons, and there will be a traffic jam in Washington of pickup trucks trying to find parking spots, which would be fabulous, if you ask me. 

Shut down McDonald's, tax my Coca-Cola, and make me use frickin' margarine for my frickin' fricassee, and you are getting revolt.

There have been a number of studies (I can get you references if you doubt this) that show a significant correlation between lung cancer and second-hand smoke, especially for people who work in bars.

So you are hacked off that legislatures won't let you poison your fellow-citizens.

I take it that you therefore feel that sufferers from TB, coughing and hacking their viral load into your breathing space, are welcome in your home, office, or local bar?

No???? How odd....you want the government to stop those people from travelling on airlines, or hanging out at your bar, exposing you to potentially lethal substances, but don't, for a moment, allow the government to stop you from killing your waitress, slowly and painfully.

And chemical companies should be allowed to pollute the environment? Why not? What's the difference between you polluting your neighbour's air with carcinogenic tobacco smoke and Dow polluting half of New Jersey?

Do you disable the anti-pollution equipment on your car, as a protest? Or do you think that regulation of vehicle emissions is ok? If so, on what basis?

As for the new plan telling Americans what to do, I haven't read it in detail and I doubt that you have either. But what I have heard suggests that it really is tinkering. It may seem like a lot of changes to those on the inside, but it really doesn't change much, at all, in the short term and seems likely to really result in business largely as usual. As is often the case, in all democracies...I am not picking on the US....politicians are more concerned with politics (and the next election) than they are with doing the right thing....whatever the right thing may be.

But the biggest issue I have with your approach is that you seem to endorse or approve of propaganda by corporations who use advertising to tell (persuade) people what to do...even tho much of that advertising is, by any rational standard, immoral and misleading....aimed solely at generating profit with little or no regard for the welfare of the target audience.

Do we need cars with 500 hp?

Do we need drugs for restless leg syndrome? I mean, look up the meaning of 'syndrome', and you see that it isn't even a disease!

Do we need to sell anti-depressants to everyone who feels shy or embarrassed or sad?

Do we need to tout garbage food?

Do we really need cheez-whiz advertised as food?

Do we need to advertise soda pop, so that kids get hooked on sugary carbonated water, with artificial flavours?

All of this is stuffed down our throats, in some cases more than metaphorically, by billions of dollars spent on advertising.

Yet, have the government purport to provide education about basic health and lifestyle practices that would, if adopted, save countless billions, probably trillions, in healthcare costs and productivity, and the typical american rants about revolution. Canadians (including me, of course) are often weird and wacky....but I blame it on cross-border contamination

Here's my take.

First of all, the United States of America is a tobacco-loving country from inception. That started with the American Indians, as I recall things. I may be wrong, but I think we got that from the original "Big Tobacco," meaning the wildly propagandist American Indians.

Second, I'm not forcing anyone to go to a bar and get second-hand smoke. Rather, market forces made all bars smoking establishments. The fact that y'all couldn't get enough market force to have bars woithout smoke be popular used to mean that you had to choose between drinking at home or entering the smoke-filled bars. As it is now, smokers have to make the choice between smoking at home while they drink or going to your stupid bars without smoke, with fewer and fewer patrons, and then standing outside is anything. Y'all, then, are forcing me to do something, whereas I never forced you to do anything.

Third, my main point is that many of us down here don't give a crap about your health-conscious attitudes. We want our damned cigarettes and booze and burgers and wild wo(men) and big cars and loud music and cussing and pit bulls and shotguns and everything else. Who are you to tell us that living 5 years longer in a convent is better than five years less with all of our enjoyed vices? Is life measured in length of days? Not for me.

If we want to live this way, then we must live with the consequences, of course. That's why we like private health insurance. If I have to pay more because I am a smoker, then I pay more, just like I pay more for gas ($50 for the fill-up, plus $5 for the new pack of smokes, plus $2 for the biggie Coke, and maybe another buck or two for a slim jim and a doughnut). When you force me to join in your health care plan, you then force me to live differently. What that means is that I am no longer picking an insurance plan but rather voting on whether I get to smoke, drink, and be a good old-fashioned American asshole, like I want to be.

Sure, Big Tobacco (the new one) and TV advertising has an impact on me. When I pick up a cigarette and a pop and a burger, my first thought is that I'm going to get laid by some model with legs up to her neck. Subconsciously, sure. So? If I think that these actions make me cool, then I end up being cool, in my mind. Great for me! My life enjoyment went up.

But, realistically, you have to be kidding. This is sort of like saying that kids won't know about sex unless we talk to them about it. Everyone wants vice. People want to smoke because it is enjoyable. Do you think that the American Indians were enticed by corporations? Are coco leaves chewed because of the cartels? No. Humans ate everything at some point. Some humans died eating the wrong thing, and then everyone went "oops" and didn't so that again. Sometimes, eating something gave us a jolly, so we did that a lot. Now, corporations take advantage of our desire for that jolly and get us to do that a lot, because they make money when we do. So? We get the jollies. The cost is not a mystery to anyone. We know that.

Just don't force us to live your way. That really pisses us off.

[jdonn]

Ken a few comments.

Who cares what America was at inception? It was a Native American killing, slave owning country at inception too. I don't think that makes those behaviors ok.

Lets poll smokers around the country and ask them if their smoking habit has made their life enjoyment go up. I'm sure we will get some yes's but I bet we get a lot more no's.

You did force me to do something, anytime I went anywhere in public and someone smelled like smoke. Or any time I walked by a bar and breathed second hand smoke. Or did I have a choice to plan my route to not go near bars? That isn't easy in Las Vegas I'm afraid. Yes I know, I'm the one who chose to live here.

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.
Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.
New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.
(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')
It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

[PassedOut]

kenrexford, on Jan 7 2010, 11:57 AM, said:

People want to smoke because it is enjoyable.

Smoking (tobacco) is not enjoyable enough to be worth it, in my opinion, and we have all seen the films of wheezing addicts advising young people not to take it up.

That said, I do think it should be okay for tobacco smokers to enjoy themselves alone or in groups where other addicts congregate. But it isn't okay for tobacco addicts to poison those who do not wish it.

And we do need to find a better mechanism for passing on the health care costs of smoking and other sickly lifestyle choices to those who accept the risks, without burdening the more sensible citizens with the extra costs. Maybe taxing the products used by the slovenly enough to pay for the extra healthcare costs would be a practical approach, if those revenues were strictly used for Medicare, etc.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.
Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.
New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.
(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')
It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

You are missing a third option:

Hand out smoking licenses, meaning zoning.

Suppose, for instance, that a town has decided to have 20 liquor licenses given out to bars in a town. That means 20 bars, let's assume.

The town could also then have only 10 smoking licenses handed out, with bidding and market forces for the same.

The end result would be 10 smoking bars and 10 non-smoking bars.

This way, no one is "forced" to do or not do anything.

The problem, undoubtedly, is that the 10 non-smoking bars would be unpopular and would lose business. Even though the smoking license costs more, meaning that the profiut margin would be negatively affected, the smoking bars would win in the long run, I suspect. But, maybe not.

The point, however, is that this solution, which is the fair solution perhaps, is not interesting to the non-smoking crew, because that's not what they want. They don't want to be free from cigarette smoke. They want to force me to not smoke, or at least make it as difficult as possible without causing too much of a stink. (Again, a pun.)

When you start translating this into other endeavors, you end up with Prohibition (no alcohol) in bars/restaurants. Alcohol consumption at bars leads to DUI's and loud people. If I want a nice peaceful eveing listening to arock band at the local club, why should I have to put up with loud drunk people in the bar and DUI risks going home? They can drink at home, eh?

Same basic principle, but perhaps moreso. So, ar you willing to see the local band play while drinking cola in a quiet room? Or, do you want the people who want a peaceful music experience to stay home and let you party like a rock star, drunk and slurring your words with the cutie who thinks you are an idiot, at least for now? Please.

Next comes food. I want to be able to buy good, healthy food, like tofu, but the market forces mean that McDonald's is all that there is. But, if I force fast food to be tofu and greens, I get what I want. So does everyone else -- they get healthy food on the road or can eat burgers at home. If we don't intervene, then bad food is what the market wants, which deprives me of healthy options on the road. Totally unfair.

How about gentlemen's clubs? I think these make sense, but the women should simply take the stage and read good poetry. Edification of the masses. You can watch a porno at home. Let the single guy have a nice night on the town with a proper lady. Market forces bring out the nekkid women, and dumb ones at that. This deprives the single guy of any meaningful exchanges. Change the rules, and you end up with what the nice guys want -- dollars stuck in the poetry books -- but the nasty guys stay home and get what they want. Very fair.

How far down this totalitarian road are you willing to go? Only as far as stopping the public vices you don't like? Do you think they will stop when they get to your favorite?

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jan 7 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 7 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.
Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.
New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.
(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')
It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

You are missing a third option:

I didn't miss anything, I simply responded to the original comment you made which made no mention of a third option.

Obviously the comparison to alcohol prohibition is stupid, as no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in their homes.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 7 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 7 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.
Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.
New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.
(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')
It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

You are missing a third option:

I didn't miss anything, I simply responded to the original comment you made which made no mention of a third option.

Obviously the comparison to alcohol prohibition is stupid, as no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in their homes.

What?!?!?

The alcohol comparison was a ban on alcohol in bars, not in your home. And, guess what? They are doing that already.

Not only has alcohol been banned in "dry" counties (and seriously limited in "moist" counties) for years, but the "dry" idea is creeping up ever-so-slowly. In Ohio, for example, I think they have been trying to get alcohol either banned altogether or limited by hour (maybe not after such-and-such date) in strip clubs. May have even accomplished this. (Anyone want to admit to knowing?) Always a start, later more. Pick the easiest target first.

[jdonn]

I guess it's my fault, as I have told you in the past I can't be bothered to read your very long posts. The word 'prohibition' jumped out at me, but I guess you weren't referring to the specific alcohol prohibition made by constitutional amendment etc.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

You did force me to do something, anytime I went anywhere in public and someone smelled like smoke. Or any time I walked by a bar and breathed second hand smoke. Or did I have a choice to plan my route to not go near bars? That isn't easy in Las Vegas I'm afraid. Yes I know, I'm the one who chose to live here.

i think (part of) his point was that the bar or club owner made a decision on what to allow in his or her establishment, and if enough non-smokers (or non-anything else objectionable) had demanded so, the owner would have banned smoking with no gov't intervention... i view it the same as i do for doobie usage - a "sin" tax... conversely, smokers (focusing on just them) haven't done a lot to get this changed, which one imagines they could do if they felt that strongly about it... so my thinking is that smokers aren't *that* against these regs or they'd ban together and do something about it

having said that, i do agree that if a town handed out smoking and non-smoking licenses for bars, the non-smoking bars would probably be pissed in the long run

[Lobowolf]

I reject the analogy between second-hand smoke at a bar/restaurant and car emissions. While bars and restaurants are, in one sense, "public," they are in another sense fundamentally private and distinct (as an obvious for instance, there's no public easement property right to a restaurant the way there is to streets and sidewalks).

IMO, it should work like this: If I own a restaurant, it should be at my discretion whether to permit smoking. If you don't like secondhand smoke strongly enough, don't eat or work at my restaurant. If enough people stay away from restaurants that permit smoking, then non-smoking restaurants will open voluntarily to cater to all of the people who are clamoring for restaurants to be smoke free. Then we'll have restaurants for smokers and people who are willing to tolerate secondhand smoke, and restaurants for non-smokers and people who aren't. Mixed groups will have to make a choice.

As a non-smoker (and someone who doesn't particularly like secondhand smoke, and someone who used to work in the restaurant industry (bartender) at a place that permitting smoking), I'm not a fan of the current framework. I was/am perfectly capable of making the decision to not dine/work at places that allowed smoking. It's a little bizarre to push for a law to keep smoking out of my eating environment when I control my eating environment. Kind of like putting my own cookies up high where I can't reach them.

Yeah, it's a better working environment for the food servers; but they (I, at one time) chose their working environment. It didn't help them too much when numerous restaurants went out of business shortly after the CA ban, either.

On the other hand, I'm strongly in favor of bans in truly public places (parks, sidewalks, etc.)

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

Obviously the comparison to alcohol prohibition is stupid, as no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in their homes.

Or prescient. I strongly suspect that the suggestions aren't far off, particularly as health care costs become more and more public.

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, I understand you are against any regulation of workplace safety?