Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (14394)	3/11/2010 4:26:00 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

How have we reduced smoking from (ballpark, don't have time to look it up) 50% to the low 20% range? How much of that reduction is directly and solely because of preventive medicine efforts. Increased taxes on cigarettes isn't medicine. Neither is restrictions on where smoking can occur. The initial and later Surgeon General's warnings might apply, but they (esp. the ongoing campaign, rather than simply establishing an announcing the harm in the first place) can hardly be credited with all of the change. After (to pick a fairly random date) 1985 how much of the reduction really had to do with preventative medicine? I don't think a lot of it did. If you do what ongoing preventative efforts where so decisively effective after that date, and how did they have this effect? But I'm not saying it had no effect. Since the effect is so hard to quantify I'll move on from that issue for now. How strong of connection do those efforts have to do with something like the house or senate health care bills? Probably just about zero.