A note to smokers.

[Kajsa]

If you have been inundated with e-mails
to protest Bush's veto of SCHIP and are against
the source of funding SCHIP, you may
want to reply to them.

This is my message to them.
----------------------------------------

Dear ___________.


We need universal health care for all in the US.

Why should one group alone fund SCHIP?
Isn't the funding contingent upon smokers
continuing to smoke, preferably heavy to
keep the coming coming in?

If this is a deterrent to smoking, and many smokers
quit, where would the money for SCHIP come from?

Shouldn't everyone be contributing to children's health care?

Sincerely,

Kajsa
---------------------------------------------------

Let them know where you stand.

[MrModerate]

1. Getting to universal health care is not going to be a battle . . .

or a campaign -- it's a war.

SCHIP is a skirmish and as such has both tactical and strategic shortcomings. Of course everyone should be taxed in a nonregressive manner to establish a national health system. But this new funding scheme for SCHIP is at least politically viable (if somewhat unfair) and constitutes a couple of steps forward.

Nicotine addicts (I'm a recovering one myself) also need health care, because their addiction is one of the most damaging to your health that you can have. And one of the most expensive to society as a whole.

Using human nature -- rising costs as an incentive to quit -- as one of your tools to combat addiction makes sense, even if it's imperfect in other ways.

[frazzled]

2. What I don't get is ...

As laws become more and more stringent about smoking, and as prices go up and up, fewer and fewer people will be smoking, thereby creating less and less of a tax base to fund the program through this means. I'm not advocating these laws (in fact, I am against them, for the most part), but they are where the country is moving.

If Democrats want to encourage fewer people to smoke, doesn't this seem somewhat contradictory? At some point, cigarette taxes will not be the answer. I'm not sure they should be the answer now.

Furthermore, the proposal to fund through a "sin" tax, besides being at odds with the current anti-smoking agenda and putting more strain on poorer Americans, has another problem. If we want to move toward a truly universal, single-payer (read: "government") healtlh system, we should be getting people used to the fact that EVERYONE needs to pay for it (and into it)--like Social Security and Medicare. I think that in proposing such a narrow-base tax, we move away from, not toward, that goal.

Just my opinion.

[Mythsaje]

8. That's how my wife sees it...

I think there's something fundamentally wrong with leaning on addiction to fund anything. It strikes me as exploitation.

[WillyT]

59. Best Post On This Subject EVER !!!

The purported success, is the diminishing factor, no???

And for liberals to pick on the addicted, is... pretty pathetic.

:shrug:

[Mythsaje]

72. It truly bothers me deeply.

Hell, I'd feel MUCH better if they'd just legalize cannabis and tax the crap out of it. Most pot smokers would have NO problem with that, since even then it would probably be cheaper than it is now. And even better, they'd be contributing to society just by smoking. Couldn't beat THAT with a stick.

:D

[reggie the dog]

73. one problem with that

big time cannabis smokers like me would grow our own either in our gardens or inside our homes. If it were legal I would grow 30 big plants in my yard and harvest 3 to 5 pounds. I would keep a pound or two and give the rest away to say 2 friends, so 3 of us would not buy anything anymore.

[Mythsaje]

75. They may call it a weed

but it takes time, patience, and skill to grow anything worthwhile. Most people wouldn't bother when they could just go out and buy a pack. You'll never go broke overestimating the inherent laziness of the American consumer. ;)

[reggie the dog]

80. true

but folks like me, who already have experience growing, will flood the market. Sure, if my buddies wanted to they would be able to buy indoor grown, potent weed in the store. But I would be growing lots outdoors, yes it would be less strong and possibly pollinated by other plants in the neighborhood, but who would argue with a pound and a half of great tasting, outdoor, organic, seeded pot FOR FREE? If it were legal my dream would be to eventually be able to grow 10 pounds a year and to split it between myself and my 4 close buddies. In Spain this is already happening (growing is no longer penalized) and folks grow and trade grass.

[RandomKoolzip]

90. So go into business then. Dealers should unionize.

[reggie the dog]

97. not yet

I do not sell a damn thing under the current laws. Once the laws change I will grow and give away. As it stands this year my crop died from drought while I was away on vacation.

[Maine-ah]

82. eh, just they'd just make it illegal to grow your own.

[reggie the dog]

83. doh!

That depends. In Alaska it is legal to grow your own according to state law. In the Netherlands you can buy in a store or grow 4 plants without punishment. In Spain you can grow all you want, give it away for free, have it, smoke it but cannot buy or sell it. Belgium lets you grow 1 mature female plant per adult.

You may be right for the American federal version of legalization though. In a just world it would be just as legal to grow your own cannabis, tobacco, apples and pears and to make your own beer, wine, and booze at your house.

[orleans]

93. i think jon stewart said the poor kids will have to start smoking to fund

their health care!

[Romulox]

20. No drug dealer wants their clientele to quit--they charge as much as they think the addict can pay

That's why "State as drug dealer" is such an offensive position.

[reggie the dog]

84. interesting

Interesting point. but what if the "state drug dealer" used the profits for the common good instead of the private dealers using it to enrich themselves?

[reggie the dog]

85. also

It is also important to note that the German govenrment has approved in one of their branches of legislature, a program whereby the governemnt will heroin and clean needles to people FREE OF COST and provide injecting rooms all paid for by the national health system that is funded, in part, by taxes on tobacco and alcohol. The pro cannabis lobby (cannabis is depenalized according to states in Germany. Some states let you have 15 grams with no penalty, others 30 grams or less is a ticket, and in others 5 grams or less gets you a fine) is asking that cannabis be legalized and taxed so that cannabis users can pay their part of the "sin tax".

[CreekDog]

24. Nope, nope, you raise the tax, fund the program

then if the smokers quit, if the program is popular it will be funded otherwise. In the meantime, if you've gotten a lot of smokers to quit, you've essentially paid for lots of people to stop smoking --a great idea.

[KharmaTrain]

45. More Black Marketing

Many smokers I know have been finding ways to get around taxes...buying cartons from internet sites abroad or buying them from "backroom" dealers...yep, just like drug dealers, but with cigarettes instead.

In a few years, smokers, by their own destructive habit, will pass from the scene and many of their children don't smoke...the tax base will all but vanish.

Ironically, someone pointed out to me that with less smokers, the costs of health care could go up as people live longer and will require more health services in their older age. My uncle developed lung cancer and was gone within 6 months...as opposed to his wife, who didn't smoke, and has suffered for a decade with a malady of illnesses. Who do you think cost the health system more?

The once that money dries up, which well do you go to? Which sin? A buddy of mine once suggested that health nuts should be the ones who pay since they will live longer and thus require more government services. Also that these people tend to injur themselves that also require additional health services. At the time I laughed, then, when my son broke his arm, I would sit in the orthopedist's office and saw a steady parade of walking wounded...his logic didn't seem to goofy afterall.

[Maine-ah]

3. re: taxing cigs

a former smoker here, and not because of taxes, but because I was pregnant.

When they raised the taxes in Maine to pay for the health care plan, it didn't work. Why? Well because smokers will find a way. Up here we bought roll your own supplies, way cheaper, and the state ended up being "short" on what they were expecting to rake in.

I'm all for SCHIP, I'm not sure on taxing only one group of people though to pay for it. Not just because they are predominately poor, but because smokers will find a way around it like we did up here.

[TahitiNut]

40. It's less about smoking than it is about a REGRESSIVE excise tax.

It's testimony to how ANTIPATHY and self-righteousness infects the minds and hearts of even those who assume they're humane because they call themselves progressive or liberal. An excise tax that's not DIRECTLY associated with the public costs incurred by consumption is regressive and an unfair burden to those least able to shoulder it. It can be argued that a gasoline excise tax is a reasonable way to subsidize highways and public transit. No such argument can now be validly made regarding a tobacco excise tax - already taxed far beyond the associated public costs and taxed in a manner that does not directly offset those costs.

I personally regard the stances taken on this issue at DU as betraying a degree of hypocrisy that's very disappointing. But there's apparently no limit to the degree to which people will strive to rationalize their self-righteous antipathy. I guess it's just not enough that smokers are more subject to horrible suffering and death. God forbid we have compassion when we can point the finger of blame.

:puke:

[Danieljay]

4. Attention Smokers:

Quit and our health care costs will drop saving billions more.


Not to mention it looks silly and makes you smell bad, pollutes the air around you making others sick, leads to heart disease, lung cancer, impotence, etc.

[Mojorabbit]

9. Obesity is the number one

cause for increased cost in health care. I don't support funding health care via a regressive tax. I agree with Mike Moore, we need to ask who we are as a country and decide if health care for all is what we want.
Other than that, it is a great campaign tool against the republicans.

[Danieljay]

22. I totally agree, AND we need to ask ourselves as a person what personal choices we can make

to keep ourselves healthier and require less dependence upon our health care system.

Most health care needs are a result of poor lifestyle choices: Sedentary lifestyle, smoking, over-eating, over-working, etc. We can all do better in that area perhaps leaving more resources for those who truly need it.. children, accidents, etc.

[Breeze54]

Agreed but legislating to try to change

what I can or can not do; that IS legal and the fact that the states collect taxes on it and even
supply it, is baloney! Tax everyone, not just one group! Last I checked, I was over 21 and tobacco
is not illegal.

[ShaneGR]

41. I think you fail to realize, quiting smoking is perhaps harder than most hardcore narcotics....

It's not as easy as, well, this is bad for my health I'm just gonna quit now. It's a serious addiction.

[JuniperLea]

48. The addiction list goes like this...

The hardest addictions to overcome are:

Sugar/carbs
Cigarettes
Heroin


I kid you not. I just got that from my doctor last week when he patted me on the back for being smoke-free for over a year. It took weeks of mental preparation, and weeks of wearing the patch... but I swear I wouldn't have been able to quit except that my boyfriend quit with me and we supported each other emotionally through the whole deal.

Saying mean things to a smoker WILL NOT MAKE THEM QUIT!!! Won't work for junkies either.

[reggie the dog]

76. sugar carbs

I AM HOOKED ON SUGAR no bs, and living in France with its great cakes has not helped. I do maitain a proper weight however, through working out. If you smoke, so be it, it is your choice. Working out will help compensate (not 100% mind you) but a smoker that works out will be in as good if not better shape than a non smoker who overeats and does not work out.

[JuniperLea]

95. But you get REAL food in France

They don't put a lot of crap into their food like we do. You get the real deal there, so even if you are eating what you think is very, very bad, it's still not as bad as eating it in the US.

I agree with the smoking deal. My doctor did a lung capacity test on me, thinking that after 35 years of smoking, he was going to teach me a real lesson here... nope. I have 95%, which is awesome for a healthy, never have smoked woman my age. So there, doc! heh.

[reggie the dog]

74. I agree

It should also be noted that most people have at least one vice, smoking, overeating, not working out etc. My doctor has told me that even though I smoke a joint or 2 a day my lungs are in great shape largely do to the 100 km of bike riding I do each week. We can compensate for our vices. If you overeat workout to compensate. If you smoke ride a bike or swim to compensate. If you work too much, well I cannot reproach you for paying your bills.....

[Kajsa]

12. Then where will SCHIP funding come from?

n/t

[Danieljay]

16. the billions of dollars that are saved by not treating smoking related illnesses

including breast cancer.

[Kajsa]

18. The funding is coming from a tax on tobacco.

I don't see anywhere where the savings in not treating smoking related
illness will be directed to help fund SCHIP.

If so, that wasn't mentioned at all.
If that was the plan, it would be mentioned.

No, it will be saved by the insurance companies and HMOs who
have no intention of turning over that savings.
How will they calculate it?

Again, why shouldn't everyone contribute to children's health care?

[Danieljay]

19. well, we can cross that bridge if a miracle should occur and people stop smoking..

and then then perhaps those of us who pay higher health costs as a result of someone elses smoking addiction will be more than happy to shell out a few more bucks for kids health insurance. We ALL contribute already to the cost health care because of lack of universal coverage as well as having to treat lifestyle induced illnesses from poor lifestyle choices (smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyles).

I'd much rather my tax dollars and high premiums subsidize child health insurance than pay higher rates as a result of someone else's lack of concern for personal health.

Let me guess, you are addicted to nicotine?

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Don't be so pragmatic...the OP has a "theoretical" dispute with you

:rofl:

[Kajsa]

50. The Energizer Bunny is back, again!

No 'A' bombs this time around, K?


:hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. I'll pretend I know what you're talking about and just smile

:-)

[Kajsa]

51. You won't be paying anything for SCHIP

unless you purchase tobacco.

Your tax dollars aren't involved at all.

But I do understand what you are saying.

And yes, I smoke.

[CreekDog]

25. Savings from smoke related illness will be less burden on Medicare

So don't go saying it will only benefit insurance companies. No, no.

[Breeze54]

34. Obesity Driving Rising U.S. Health Costs -- by 75% more than smoking, alcohol or the elderly!!

Obesity Driving Rising U.S. Health Costs

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071002/obesity-driving-rising-us-health-costs.htm

Americans outspend Europeans when it comes to chronic disease care, study finds
By Steven Reinberg
Posted 10/2/07

TUESDAY, Oct. 2 (HealthDay News) --

Obesity is a big factor driving soaring rates of chronic disease in the United States,
with many more Americans chronically ill than their European counterparts, a new study finds.

It's an expensive problem, too: According to researchers, chronic illnesses such as diabetes
and heart disease account for some $100 to $150 billion in health-care spending in the United
States each year.

"The United States spends twice as much as European countries on health care," noted lead
researcher Kenneth Thorpe, chairman of the department of health policy and management at
Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta. "Seventy-five percent of
what we spend in this country is associated with patients that have one or more chronic
conditions and

most of the growth is due to obesity."

[JuniperLea]

17. As a proud ex-smoker...

What you've just said here would only serve to piss me off and crave a cigarette. This sort of badgering is completely counter-productive. How would you like to be told you smell bad? Look silly? Make others sick? This causes great stress and nothing else. Stress kills too.

If I weren't over a year into my non-smoking life, I'd freaking go light the hell up right now. Seriously.

[Danieljay]

21. Wow, as long as you continue to blame others (external locus of control) for your cigarette cravings

you'll continue to want to light up. You have a lot more choices than lighting up. Run. Exercise. Make love. Reach for something else.

Now, people don't tell me I smell bad, look silly, or make others sick because I choose to be a non-smoker, and you, having made that choice too, are reaping the rewards of your choice with a longer, healthier, more productive life.

Congratulations for becoming a non-smoker.

[JuniperLea]

23. What you said is rude

And what you describe is a common issue with smokers and ex-smokers. You can't wish it away, nor can you will it away.

Telling someone they look silly or smell bad is rude.

[Danieljay]

27. You have every right to consider it rude. But let me tell you what I think is rude:

cigarette smokers smoking in cars with their children, cigarette smokers dumping cigarette butts our their car windows at intersections (the world is their ashtray), cigarette smokers smoking outside the doors of the building our medical clinic is in, cigarette smokers not giving a rats ass about who has to walk through the stench of their second-hand smoke, cigarette smokers who are more concerned about their right to smoke than my earthly right as a human being to breath clean fresh air, and the friend of mine who's cigarette smoking father died from smoking followed by his non-smoking mother of emphysema from her husbands habit.

Do I need to go on? If I look silly or smell bad, I would hope someone cared enough about me to say something to me. Its like telling your partner she/he needs a breath mint. Most smokers have so lost their sense of smell they haven't a clue how they affect the people around them. Call it rude, but its true. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

[coalition_unwilling]

36. The next time someone driving an SUV tells me that smoking

cigarettes is polluting their environment, I'll . . . (fill in the blanks yourself). The cant and hypocrisy of the anti-smoking crowd are un-frigging-believable sometimes.

How about raising the excise tax on SUVs to pay for SCHIP? That would be doing the planet a big favor.

[Danieljay]

49. I'm all for that too, so you can't call me a hypocrit. So, put a filter on the exit end of your

cigarette and your lips when you blow it out, and you might have an valid argument.

[JuniperLea]

42. Two wrongs never make a right...

And the rudeness of others doesn't give you the right to be rude back.

Doesn't hurt my feelings in the least. I'm less likely to take offense myself as I am to take offense on behalf of other people.

I call it rude because it is rude. I would much rather be an inconsiderate smoker than a rude non-smoker. You didn't say it in a kind, sensitive and caring way that a friend would. Not by a long shot. You were rude.

[reggie the dog]

78. how is it rude?

SMOKERS STINK I know because I smoke grass, it makes me stink. When I used to smoke tobacco it made me stink too. It is just true.

[JuniperLea]

96. Just because something is true, it's no reason to blurt it out

Rude doesn't mean something is untrue. Just because something is true, it's no reason to blurt it out. Have a little respect. And a little self-respect for that matter.


Rude:

2 : lacking refinement or delicacy: a : IGNORANT, UNLEARNED b : INELEGANT, UNCOUTH c : offensive in manner or action : DISCOURTEOUS d : UNCIVILIZED, SAVAGE e : COARSE, VULGAR

[reggie the dog]

77. I agree with you

my wife does not smoke tobacco or grass. I smoke grass. She tells me when I stink, she tells me she thinks I look stupid sucking on a bowl. She also says that if I want to smoke for my whole life I can but she asks me for 3 concessions.

1. Do not smoke before you drive with the kids in the car.
2. Do not smoke when you are home alone with the kids (if something happend I would have to drive, view rule one)
3. No smoking where she or the kids will be forced to breath in the smoke.

I do not think she is rude to tell me I stink and make up house rules. It is her right to clean air, my kids right to clean air which is the most important.

[JuniperLea]

98. That's your wife

Of course you should have an open dialog with your wife. That's not rude, that's family.


Blurting out crap like that to strangers is rude.

[BlackVelvet04]

44. Could you be any more of a

sanctimonious ass? Don't be lazy about it, apply yourself and see what great heights of assdom you can achieve.

[JuniperLea]

47. LOL! I'm expecting GREAT things from that one:) eom

[Warren DeMontague]

68. I've never been a smoker, and I agree it smells like a dog's ass. Lung cancer killed my dad.

(Marlboro unflitereds, because "real men" didn't smoke cigarettes with those pansy-ass filters. Sigh. Although, with the amount he smoked, a filter probably wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.)

But..... that said, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's preachy people lecturing others about how to live their lives. You think smokers don't know it's bad for them, by now? Come on.

What people do with their own bodies is their own god-damn business, as long as they're consenting adults. I don't want to breathe other people's smoke in enclosed, indoor, spaces (Thankfully, I live in California, so I don't have to) but I'm not going to tell people what they should do in the privacy of their own homes, their cars, when they're outside, etc.

[mdmc]

5. Us poor pot smokers would loved to be regulated, taxed

and to be able to contribute to the health and security of our nation and world.

[Kajsa]

11. I agree.

Here in CA, we passed a bill legalizing
marijuana for medicinal use.

Never mind that- the Feds are raiding/closing down
dispensaries every week.

So I guess the Repugs don't really support state's rights, do they?

;(

[shimmergal]

65. Yeah, I was about to suggest

we should legalize AND tax marijuana cigarettes too; a good way to get more money for S-CHIP.

And actually, there IS a choice, even for the addicted. Both nicotine and pot now have multiple options for consumption. If it's only the CIGARETTES that get taxed so heavily, one can shift to gum, or patches, or something else to get your hit.

[Wcross]

92. Why would I want to be taxed on a plant?

It can grow anywhere. Whats next, taxing me on the value of my tomato plants in my garden?

[Bennyboy]

6. I Roll my own now....

I have a machine and I can make a carton of filtereds in about 15 minutes. All natural, organic tobacco. About 8 bucks a carton.

As long as the tobbacco lobbies ande the insurance Lobbies have our representatives by the balls, this bill will never pass, no matter where the moeny comes from.

[me b zola]

10. I also switched from chemical to natural, pre-rolled to roll my own with filters

How was your transition off of the chemical-laden cigarettes? My first day was hard, so I decided to ween myself off over a period of about two days. I feel better and am sleeping much better since I have made the transition--not to mention the relief on the pocket-book. :)


You can roll 200 cigs in 15 minutes? Damn, I must be a slacker :rofl:

[Bennyboy]

15. I started smoking (again) about a year and a half ago....

And i strted with Americna Spirits. so no problem.

The machine I ahve is a hand crank type and I have a system so it goes pretty fast.

[CreekDog]

26. Wow, organic smoking

Too bad it's unhealthy too!

[A HERETIC I AM]

32. What tobacco brand?

Do you buy it at a Mall Tobacconist?

[Gregorian]

91. My two favorites when I rolled were Drum and Pearl shag.

I really really miss those days. My favorite time in life. Good tobacco. I haven't smoked for thirty years.

We used to put a piece of orange peel in the Pearl bag. I even had my own favorite papers. And super special way of rolling. I could make a cig almost identical to machine rolled. But tucked the end into itself to make a more rigid opening.

The good old days.

Now my lungs get totally beaten to death gasping for air on bike rides. In a good way. What a switch.

[wuushew]

7. I would like to point out that many excise taxes do not regularly adjust for inflation

Tobacco

The tax rate on cigarettes remained unchanged between 1951 and 1982. The rate was increased from 8 cents to 16 cents per pack as part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. The reason for that increase was stated in the explanation of that tax act.

Since the tax is imposed as a set amount, rather than as a percentage of sales price, the effective level of the tax had declined by more than 70% in constant dollars since it was last amended. Congress believed, therefore, that an adjustment to the tax was appropriate. Doubling the tax rate, as was done under the Act, does not increase the per-pack tax, in real terms, above the 1951 level. Also, Congress determined that the broad-based increase in revenue required by the fiscal outlook through 1985 mandated an increase in the cigarette excise taxes through fiscal year 1985. (See Endnote 8.)

Under provisions in the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 tobacco tax rates were increased because of large continuing federal budget deficits and the need for additional federal revenues. The new tax rates became effective in two stages. The first increase in rates was effective as of January 1, 1991, while the second increase occurred January 1, 1993. The total rate increase, to 24 cents per pack, equals a 50% increase in tax rates, with one-half the total increase effective in 1991 and one-half effective in 1993. It was estimated in the Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 1998 that collections of tobacco taxes would be approximately $5.7 billion in FY1997. (See Endnote 9.) As reported in the Budget, actual receipts for FY1996 were $5.795 billion. (See Endnote 10.) Like alcohol tax receipts, tobacco taxes currently are deposited into the General Fund of the United States Treasury and are not dedicated to any trust fund.




http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/transportation/trans-28.cfm#Alcohol


The dollar has lost over 42% of its value between 2007 and 1993.

http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

[Kajsa]

13. EDIT- " money coming from"

not "coming coming from"--

Argh! :banghead:

Sorry.

[Prophet 451]

14. I'll keep smoking

Admittedly, I'm a Brit and we already do this here but I'll keep smoking because I enjoy smoking. If the taxes goes to pay for people's healthcare, great.

[Breeze54]

28. Thanks Kajsa!! I'll be

sending that asap! I also disagree with the funding of this plan

but I agree we need health care for the kids.

Everyone should bear this burden!! Not just one group!!

I'm so sick of the Nanny legislation!! :grr:

Prohibition DID NOT WORK!!!!

[Kajsa]

52. Hey, Breeze54 !

Thanks!

Please edit the darn " coming coming"
to " money coming".

Argh! it was too early in the morning!
:banghead:

:pals: :hi:

[noamnety]

29. nonsmokers have been financing smokers' health care for years.

So this seems like an odd issue for smokers to be outraged about.

[Danieljay]

31. Amen!

[Breeze54]

37. This is about smokers funding EVERYONE's Health Care and that's BS!

The fatties cause more costs in health care than the smokers or drinkers!

[noamnety]

46. It's not EVERYONE's health care, but you knew that

The program specifically covers children at a particular income level. It would provide coverage for an additional 3 million children. There are roughly 45 million smokers in the US, I think.

If nonsmokers are expected to cover smokers' health care with our tax dollars, any smoker who didn't publicly object to that arrangement should probably own up to the fact that they don't mind one group financing another group's health care, so long it's not coming OUT of their pockets, but rather, it's going INTO their pockets.

"fatties" is an inappropriate way to refer to people. I'm not using slurs for smokers. You don't need to use slurs in your responses. Argue the points being made.

[Breeze54]

62. And you think it will stop there?

Once that train gets to rolling, it will never apply the brakes.

Yes, I stand corrected.

Smokers will be funding SCHIP, for children, for now if it passes... and it's BS!

Smokers, drinker's and the obese (That better?) should all bear the burden.

And those three cover, pretty much, everyone in the USA.

Better yet? Add a 5 cent tax on gasoline and let everyone pitch in!

[coalition_unwilling]

38. Non-SUV drivers have been inhaling the exhaust of SUV drivers

for years now. Excuse me if I find the self-righteous cant and hypocrisy of the anti-smoking crowd a bit much to take.

[johnaries]

58. NOT TRUE! Smokers pay higher insurance premiums.

Smokers pay higher taxes. I'm not defending smoking, I personally am trying to quit. AGAIN. Non-smokers just don't realize how addictive it is. And don't give me that "you knew better when you started", I started smoking when the same scientists who deny Global Warming were claiming that smoking wasn't bad for you.
I support the new taxes, even though that means I will have to personally pay more unless I am successful in quitting this time.
But don't make false statements.

[noamnety]

60. I haven't made any false statements.

I was talking in terms of "years."
You are talking about what's current, now, and only in your own set of circumstances.

When you started smoking, I'm guessing you didn't pay higher premiums. But people still got lung cancer, right?

Where I work, there is a set price the employer pays for health insurance, whether we smoke or not. There is no extra premium that employees pay for smoking. If health insurance rates go up, my employer has to cut costs, which is why this year I make a few thousand dollars less than last year, for doing the exact same job. they revised the pay policy so that things that used to count as an extra duty we no longer get paid for - specifically to cover the increase in health insurance rates. So even though I have insurance elsewhere through my partner, I am also paying for these people's health care.

Smokers who don't pay for health insurance - to include also those with no insurance, are not paying higher premiums. The rest of us pick up the added cost.

Now that's not something I complain about, but I don't like sacrificing a few thousand dollars this year to help finance some other people's insurance, only to have them turn around and act outraged because they are being told THEY need to help finance others' insurance.

You have the option to not pay the taxes by quitting, and yes it's a really hard thing to quit, and not everyone can. But for some of the working poor who are having pay cuts to pay for higher insurance rates (to help cover, among other people, smokers), their option is worse than quitting smoking. Their option is to do without food, or housing, or heat. Some of them don't even have insurance themselves, maybe they can't afford their portion of the payment, but they are still taking paycuts to finance other people's health care.

[johnaries]

63. When I started smoking, the vast majority of Americans smoked.

And if the insurance where you sork doesn't charge higher premiums for smokers, it must be the only on ein America. And smokers also pay a cigarette tax every time they buy a pack of cigarettes. So, no, it is not true that non-smokers are paying for smoker's health. Do not say they do. There are plenty of other good arguments for the tax without making new ones up.

[reggie the dog]

79. wow

Here in France smoking, drinking, hell even using illegal drugs does not drive up your health insurance costs.

[noamnety]

87. 33 pages of insurers that don't charge smokers extra

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/08rates/2008non_postal.pdf

This covers all federal employees, and it's one rate that the employee pays for any of those plans. It's not where I work, which also doesn't charge extra to smokers. But it's where I have my health insurance.

Next up - a report on the public cost of smoking. This is old, I have to go in to work soon and can't spend my morning googling, but since I was talking over the long haul anyway, it's still relevant.

"the cost of smoking-related Medicaid payments -- $12.9 billion that year."

That's just medicaid. It doesn't count people in the VA system, people with no insurance, people with insurance who didn't pay an extra fee, etc. "The total cost of caring for people with health problems caused by cigarette smoking -- counting all sources of medical payments -- is about $72.7 billion per year, according to health economists at the University of California."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html

[Mojorabbit]

64. You are seeing this

from a safe place with your insurance policy in your pocket. There are a lot of low income people who have no way of paying for the expensive pills or patches to help them beat their addiction and they are paying for this too out of their meager budget.

You are paying for cardiac and blood pressure problems for people who are overweight and complications of diabetics who can't stay on their diets to keep their sugars in line. You are paying for people with illnesses that have a genetic component as well as kids in risky school sports that get injured.

What do you suggest be done about them so you don't have to help society by forking out a few more bucks? Should all these people be fined too? Are you for financing antismoking clinics for these poor people who can't afford it? Then when the funds dry up the program will be cut back. We will be right back where we started. I like to think of us all being in this together as a society as opposed to just myself.

[noamnety]

86. I think we're in agreement

I said I don't complain about helping to finance other people's health care.

My post was explaining that I DO finance it, I feel it in my wallet - but I wasn't saying that I SHOULDN'T. I don't resent paying for it. I resent some smoker telling me I haven't paid for it, and pretending every smoker always has and does pay for all their own health care.

If the people I am helping to finance have a problem with one group financing another - but they only have that problem when they are the payers, and they never voiced a complaint when they were recipients, then they are hypocrites.

I'm in support of financing anti-smoking programs for people who can't afford it, yes.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. And thin people have been financing fat peoples' health for years.

And Volvo drivers have been financing motorcycle riders' health for years.
And teetotalers have been financing alcoholics' health for years.

The bottom line is, in a free society, everyone makes choices that someone else may not agree with at some point. Free individuals even make dumb choices, sometimes. If we decide (as I think we should) that health coverage should be one of those baseline social safety net issues that should be handled by a single payer pool and not left up to the insurance companies, we're going to have to decide if we, as a society, are going to play this never ending game of trying to decide whose unhealthy choices are permissible and whose "we" shouldn't have to pay for. Some might argue that people with promiscuous sex lives, particularly promiscuous gay people who are at risk for HIV, are incurring too many health costs that "we" have to finance. It's a slippery slope.

I'm not saying cigarettes aren't bad, or deadly. My dad died of lung cancer. Thank god I never picked it up as a real habit. And I think some realistic taxes on things like cigarettes, or alcohol (or pot, which could be legalized and taxed and would generate revenue far outstripping any societal costs it incurs IMHO) are legitimate. (Maybe trans fats or High Fructose Corn Syrup should be taxed, too.) Here in California cigarette taxes financed the First 5 Program for kids, and it's been a great success.

But lets be honest- the drive to fund SCHIP with cigarette taxes is a cop-out on the part of our Representatives. They're sticking it to the smokers because they don't want to play with the political kryptonite of "raising taxes".

If they were truly brave they'd argue, coherently, that a Single Payer Health Care system for EVERYONE, financed by income taxes, would be CHEAPER than the employer/insurance based system we have now.

[ProgressiveFool]

30. Tax churches instead /nt

[ThePowerofWill]

33. I can dig it.

The reason i quit smoking some years ago is because i felt i was being targeted for taxes. i got tired of being the patsy, so fuck'em they can get their cash elsewhere.

[Kajsa]

54. Welcome to DU, ThePowerofWill,

I hear what you're saying.

Congrats on kicking the ciggs.

:hi:

[Me.]

39. A Case Went Before The SC A While Back Regarding Writers

and had to do with the copying of books for classroom use. The argument was that as it was happening in schools (huge numbers across the country) and was for education purposes it should be allowed to continue. The counter argument was since when do we ask one sector of society (writers) to be the sole subsidizers for another area of society, to bear the loss of income from books being copied rather than sold. The ruling went in favor of the writers.

[Kajsa]

55. That is interesting.

I love to write and can understand the writers frustration.

But- textbooks need to be affordable!

Gawd- when I went back to college, some textbooks
were well over $100.00- for a medium sized book!

So I understand both sides.

[shimmergal]

66. You know, the problem is---

only a small percentage of the proceeds from the books goes to the writer.

Just as everywhere else in our society, the lion's share goes to the middlemen--media conglomerates (who have now taken over most publishing houses), distributors, sales staffs.

Textbooks are a special case. Because they have a captive audience, those who produce them are able to charge much more than they could otherwise. So their "writers" make more proportionately . But most of them aren't writers by profession (and the turgid prose shows it, too.) They're professors and other experts, so the royalties are just a nice side income for them.

[Kajsa]

89. That is a problem.

The writers should be getting a larger portion
of the proceeds.

[riverdeep]

43. Enhanced perspective.

I started a thread that expands on why smokers were ultimately targeted by dems here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1977432

[Kajsa]

57. Thanks, Riverdeep.

That is an interesting perspective.

I didn't know they were initially going after Medicare.

Thanks for the link.

[toddaa]

53. Finally, a smoking thread on DU

It'll help take our minds off all the Hillary threads.

[Kajsa]

56. LOL!

Glad to be of service.

:D :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Here's an idea: Tell 'em they should legalize pot, and use THOSE taxes too.

Shit, we could probably fund a SPHC system for the whole country, that way.

Of course, I don't smoke pot anymore, and I never seriously smoked cigarettes (thank God) so I suppose I'd still be getting a break. I agree that making smokers bear the brunt isn't entirely fair. It's pretty obviously a cop-out. What we really should do is have a Single Payer System paid for by income taxes, and by taking the Insurance Companies out of the equation we'd all end up SAVING money.

But we should still legalize, regulate and tax pot.

Of course, no one in charge ever listens to me. :shrug:

[Beerboy]

70. I'll try to smoke more for the children,

but it's almost a crime now in Minnesota.

[travelingtypist]

71. As a smoker, I have no problem at all with the proposed tax.

I just think they'd get more money if they taxed booze with equal
vim and vigor.

I think people who drink cause as much if not more cost and harm
to society as smokers, but the drinkers -- read Mike Malloy -- get
miffed when that is suggested to them.

He told me I was like Limbaugh tonight because I dared to question
his distinction without a difference on the "used as intended"
nonsense he is spewing to exempt his precious Jack Black from such
a tax.

Incredible.

[Beerboy]

81. Higher taxes on booze is definitely worth looking into,

drunks/drunk drivers cause a lot of harm in society.
But smokers' noxious fumes actually pollutes the air of normal taxpaying citizens; their poison is insidiously 2nd-hand invading the lungs of innocent children, while the drunk driver is only plowing into one car at a time, while lighting a cigarette no doubt.
Smokers and alcohol drinkers choose to cause a disproportionate harm to society, and they should be taxed way higher to pay for it.
As an aside, I both use tobacco and drink from time to time.

[Enthusiast]

88. How about Soft Drinks?

Why not tax soft drinks as they are as responsible for the epidemic of obesity as anything else.

[orleans]

94. Shouldn't everyone be contributing to children's health care?

very good point. answer: yes. everyone should contribute to children's health care. simple as that.