Improve your odds, exercise. Also, note that in the list of things that hurt your odds smoking comes lowest!

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Healthy_Lifestyle_Is_the...chers_Say_13897.html

It is too bad a study can't be done about the number of people who live longer because they never saw a doctor.

How many people died sooner because a doctor told them they were sick?

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 5 million Americans are aged 85 and older, a number that will quadruple by 2050."

If we assume each one of them collects social security to the tune of $10,000 a year, those old farts, which we're supposed to emulate, cost society $50 billion a year.

Added together, current and former smokers equal 100 million. They are said to cost society $150 billion a year in healthcare costs and lost productivity.

They're twenty times the size of the 85 and older crowd, but only three times the cost...I think we have found a new group to demoralize and denormalize.

That's only taking social security into account for the old ones. They also have things like medical and nursing home costs. They pay no Old Folk's Tax on every breath they take and they sure as hell can't be classified as productive.

It's time to make this world old-free and in doing so, put the pro-old living industry out to business. Their loss is our gain.

Hey...who you callin' 'Old Fart'
I'm going to be 86 in 2050 - if I make it that far...

Gilster, by 2050, 85 will be considered middle age. It's very likely you'll never be an old fart.

That's assuming old people haven't bankrupted social security and still get a check and there's dog food for them to buy. Productive workers should have first dibs on real food.

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
Gilster, by 2050, 85 will be considered middle age.

You're right, now 60 is the new 40 - heck, I must still be in my 20's then...sweet.

So no one will be classified as middle age - I guess we won't be able to retire on SS....

Sorry, I just made a stupid statement, of course I can't retire - it won't be allowed - must be productive or the Soylent Green plant for me...

Jeez! I feel like a kid now, I'm only 66.

quote:

Originally posted by dave clark:
Jeez! I feel like a kid now, I'm only 66.

I thought about you before using the old fart phrase.

quote:

Originally posted by gnatyo:
Improve your odds, exercise. Also, note that in the list of things that hurt your odds smoking comes lowest!

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Healthy_Lifestyle_Is_the...chers_Say_13897.html

I hate to be the one to do this, but I saw this story, in particular the following line:

"Sedentary lifestyle reduced the chances of living to age 90 by 44 percent, high blood pressure by 36 percent, obesity by 26 percent and smoking by 22 percent."

I then looked at other reports of the same story. It's amazing how such a simple writing error can create a completely different perception, but simply change the word "by" in the sentence above to "to".

The other news reports reported it this way. This particular news story, from eflux media, was what was attached to the headline on Google News, so it was the first one that I saw as well.

In short, it appears this story means to say that male smokers (already aged to 72) have the lowest chance of living to 90, at 22%. This is reflected in the other news reports. Admittedly, I haven't seen the study, so it's possible that EFlux media is the only story that actually got it right, but this doesn't seem likely to me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/12/nold112.xml

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Will-you-live-to-see.3766540.jp

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Health/2008/02/12/study_ho...live_to_age_90/5545/

That last story didn't quite phrase it right either. You'd think that being a news writer would require that people be able to clearly express such ideas.

Also, as mentioned in the posts above, the story fails to note that an increasingly aging population is putting a burden on our healthcare and economy that it is not able to stand.

Good catch, Winston. Thanks.

Yes Winston, good catch.

"More granny bashing."

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 5 million Americans are aged 85 and older, a number that will quadruple by 2050."

If we assume each one of them collects social security to the tune of $10,000 a year, those old farts, which we're supposed to emulate, cost society $50 billion a year.

That's only taking social security into account...

I just saw this article this morning:

"The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason...The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.

The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government. States chipped in $27 billion more in 2007, mostly for nursing homes.

All three major senior programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid experienced dramatically escalating costs...

Findings include:
•The cost of senior benefits is equal to $10,673 for every non-senior household.

•About 35% of the federal budget is spent on senior benefits, up from 32% in 2004.
Eugene Steuerle, a senior fellow at...notes that the full cost...goes beyond Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A complete estimate would include other programs for retirees...

Economist Dean Baker calls it "granny bashing"...The elderly paid a designated tax for Social Security and Medicare taxes during their decades of working to support these programs when they retired..."

link

Even though they're talking about all retirees, and I was only talking about 85+ years olds, using their number, my estimate for really old farts (not Dave Clark) would now be $136,445,000,000. 136 billion dollars, not 50 billion.

Now I'm not granny bashing, but any individual who strives to die at a ripe old age is more of a parasite than smokers are alleged to be.

There have been enough studies showing nonsmokers are the bigger burden on society, and anti-tobacco has not been very good to rebut this fact. Here's one, from an article by Pierre Lemieux:

"Defeated on their own grounds, anti-smoking activists changed their tactics. They started arguing, as MIT Professor Jeffrey Harris did in 1993, that '[T]his is not the kind of calculation that a civilized society engages in.' Observe the irony again: After attacking smokers as a financial burden to non-smokers, anti-smoking advocates now claim that it is immoral to consider the contrary empirical evidence."

We haven't even hit the baby-boomers yet.....
This is going to be a RIDE....

From TV and Radio Host Glenn Beck, "The March to Communism"

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/5924/?ck=1

The March to Communism
February 13, 2008 - 14:20 ET

Overview

We are on a collision course with socialism/communism here in the United States. With McCain being the GOP nominee, Clinton or Obama will be the favorite in the general election. It’s not just a fear slogan to say ‘democrats are communist’ – just take a look at their own words AND policies and decide for yourself.

$1.5 trillion

Number of dollars over the years, state and local governments have promised, but not paid for in retiree health care and other non-pension post-employment benefits.

Feds up to their ears

The federal government is in no position to bail out these states and local governments because their unfunded future liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as is widely reported is an estimated $50 TRILLION.

But even that isn’t the FULL story because that $50 TRILLION dollars only projects unfunded liabilities for the next 75 years—unless the government knows something we don’t—a lot of people are still going to be around after 75 years--if you project the unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the infinite horizon MEDICARE’S UNFUNDED liabilities shoot from $33.9 TRILLION to a present-value unfunded obligation of $74.3 TRILLION—and that’s just MEDICARE!

Democrats (and some R’s) Solution? Spend!

Spend more, lots more! Hillarycare Part II would cost and estimated $110 BILLION a year with Obama’s plan coming in at $60 BILLION annually.

2008 proposed federal budget allocations:

To get an idea just how much the 08 crop wants to spend, here’s what some existing programs already cost.

United States Secret Service 1.4 Billion

Customs and Border Protection 8.8 Billion

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 4.8 Billion

United States Coast Guard 7.3 Billion

The ENTIRE Department of Homeland Security proposed budget for 2008 comes in at $43 BILLION (less than either Hillary’s or Obama’s health care proposal).



Clinton’s other campaign promises:

$$

Spend $1 Billion For The Development Of Affordable Housing Through Housing Trust Funds. “In order to encourage the development of affordable housing, Sen. Clinton will establish a $1 billion fund to support state, county, and municipal housing trust funds

$

Sen. Clinton Has Introduced Legislation And Campaigned To Create A U.S. Public Service Academy, At A Cost Of Approximately $200 Million Annually; Multiplied By 4 Years = $800 Million.

$$$$

Sen. Clinton Has Proposed 401(k) For All Americans, Funded In Part By The Government At A Cost Of Up To $25 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $100 Billion

$$$

Sen. Clinton’s Baby Bond Proposal would give $5,000 to each of the 4 million babies born in the U.S. each year, totaling $20 billion per year, multiplied by 4 years = $80 billion.

$$$$

Clinton wants to create a $50 billion "strategic energy fund" to develop new sources of fuel and has proposed paying for it by eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies. Edwards has outlined a similar program and would eliminate the oil company subsidies as well as establish a cap-and-trade system requiring companies to pay for emitting pollution.

Obama’s other promises

?

Credit Card Consumers’ Bill of Rights—“stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices&hellip”

$

Credit Card 5 Star Rating System—similar to the Department of Homeland Security’s Color coded threat assessment rating system; Obama, if elected will implement a 5 star rating system for credit cards “which will assess the degree to which credit cards meet consumer-friendly standards&hellip” Senator Obama previously introduced such a bill and put the price tag at $10 MILLION annually

$$$

Foreclosure Prevention Fund. In over your head; bought a home too big for your budget? No problem—Senator Obama is proposing a fund to “assist individuals who purchased homes that are simply too expensive for their income levels&hellip”; estimated FIRST year cost? $10 BILLION.

$$$$

Proposal to create 5-E Youth Services Corps (the 5 “E”’s stand for energy, efficiency, environmental education, and employment) as well as a Green Job Corps to engage disconnected and disadvantaged youth in the all things Green.

$$

Supports requiring employers to give all employees 5 days of paid sick leave

$$$

Supports “encouraging the diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.” Can you say FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or perhaps public funding for Air America?

Totals

$286.999 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Obama’s proposals

$218 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Clinton’s proposals

$7 BILLION

Projected annual spending for McCain’s proposals

$54 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Huckabee’s proposals

$150 BILLION (in savings)

Projected savings after Ron Paul eliminates most of the Government.

What this spending does

1. Push us deeper and further into debt at a time when we absolutely can’t afford it;

2. Reflect a particular paternalistic approach to governing—a true NANY STATE

3. Each proposal increases the absolute RAW power of government

March into Socialism/Communism

Other socialist countries (even Russia in some ways) are decentralizing their form of national healthcare---Obama and Clinton seek to increase government’s role in our medical care and treatment decisions and options; worse yet they plan on burying us in debt in order to do it;

Socialist, communist and totalitarian regimes have always focused on harnessing the youth into national organizations. Within these organizations, ideological conformity can be imposed, future leaders can be groomed and political paybacks can be awarded to those who have donated generously in time or money to a particular candidate.

We had over 60 MILLION Americans volunteer their time last year—most likely without any government incentive for doing so. Do we really need the government sponsoring ideologically based charitable groups like Senator Clinton’s US Public Service Academy or Obama’s 5-E Youth Services Green Army?

Glenn sums it up this way:

‘If you go back and you read history from just before Wilson all the way through FDR, what they were trying to do with these Progressives, which Hillary Clinton claims she is, an early 20th century Progressive. Go back and read about these people. They are telling you who they are, and Americans just won't do the homework. They don't believe in local level. This is the opposite of what our founding fathers set up. These people, all believers in Marxism. They all believed that the Soviet Union would succeed and so what they did was they were looking for something to unite nationally and Mussolini -- you have to put this into perspective. Mussolini was not hated for much of his term. In fact, he was idealized by the left here in America. They thought fascism, before it became about extermination of entire people, they thought, this is a good thing; we could just get the Government to tell people what's good, what's right. That's why the Progressives in the early 20th century brought you prohibition! It wasn't good for you to drink. It wasn't good for society to have alcohol available. And if you didn't agree with them, you were either in on it with big alcohol or you were too stupid and you needed to be retrained. And so they were looking for things that would unite the country but not war and so FDR, one of the projects he started was the Conservation Corps to help the environment, to save our forests. Does any of this sound familiar? Does anybody think that maybe possibly that's the real story behind going green, the environmental movement that now cannot be dissevered from global warming? Starting projects, little armies of the youth! Put them into a mindset that is one with the government, one with the environment, one with the Earth.

Depressing Summary

We hope you think socialism/communism is neat---because we are going to be waist deep in it about 36 months from now!

quote:

Originally posted by WinstonSmith:
Depressing Summary

We hope you think socialism/communism is neat---because we are going to be waist deep in it about 36 months from now!

That could be good news. The faster and deeper we sink the easier and sooner people will notice.

And if they notice and don't care, well that's a different story.

I agree. On another note-gurantee no one will be allowed to smoke in Sweet Hillary's affordable housing.

You got that right.

At the rate we are going Affordable Housing will consist of a shelf to sleep on with a central kitchen and community bathing facilities 30 floors below.