Okay, I'm opening this can of worms....

[Uben]

It's about healthcare and taxes. Now that there is a mandate in place for people to have health insurance, what is the basis for government entities to keep collecting taxes on cigarettes? They said the taxes were to offset the medical costs associated with smoking. Since people are now required to have health insurance, and they already charge people more for being smokers, how can the government justify the continuation of collecting the taxes on cigarettes? Taxpayers will no longer be paying for the smokers medical needs because they will have medical insurance themselves that will pay for it. So, it seems, that all those sharp increases in taxes on tobacco needs to be repealed. I hadn't thought of it, till now.
It would be like taxing fuel to fix the roads, and then they remove the roads! There's nothing to be fixed!


Any thoughts?

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. These taxes never went to hospitals anyway

Don't ever expect congruence between advertising and reality.

[Hannah Bell]

2. good point, but it doesn't matter, the taxes will continue. smokers =

acceptably scapegoated population.

[Deep13]

4. smokers = self-inflicted injuries. nt

[Hannah Bell]

15. how so?

[Deep13]

19. here...

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/resources_for_you/individuals/index.htm

[Hannah Bell]

47. how so in relation to sin taxation?

[Deep13]

52. First, I reject the suggestion they are "sin taxes."

We don't tax tobacco because of any religious injunction. We do it for two reasons. First, smokers cost the state more in the way of health care costs than nonsmokers do. Second, there are two things that cause large numbers of people to quite smoking: taxes and lack of places where one can smoke.

[Hannah Bell]

56. you didn't answer the question.

[Deep13]

63. Nope. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

64. smokers cost less to care for as they die early and often.

But I have no problem with taxing the heck out of tobacco. And booze. And big ass luxury cars. etc.

[Deep13]

68. I don't know about that.

Someone who drops dead in perfect health doesn't cost that much. Someone who spends years suffering from emphysema with drugs, tests, oxygen and surgery costs quite a bit.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. smokers in aggregate die early and often

think about it. You could also google it as this data has been discussed a lot. So a single data point "Someone who drops dead in perfect health doesn't cost that much" or "Someone who spends years suffering from emphysema" is not much of an argument, right?

The point is that a) people who die early don't use a lot of medicare/social security; b) non-smokers tend to live a lot longer (in aggregate) than smokers and consequently use a lot of medicare/social security, especially in the last few years of their lives.

[damntexdem]

28. And injuries inflicted on the rest of us via second hand smoke.

Not to mention via inconveniences foisted upon us in our efforts to avoid second-hand smoke.

[The Straight Story]

37. And people who live in cities with cars too, like bakersfield, nyc, etc and so on(nt)

[damntexdem]

26. Deservedly scapegoated.

And still a major hazard for the rest of us. Case in point: smoking is disallowed within 20 feet of my workplace door. However, many smokers ignore this. But even when smokers stay 20 feet away, this still requires me to pass through smoke when approaching the door -- I try to hold my breath when I pass these ubiquitous polluters. Of course, sometimes this doesn't work; and even when it does, it is a terrible burden to lay upon the rest of us in order for us to avoid breathing in the second-hand pollutants.

But the tobacco companies have not been scapegoated nearly enough. They should face draconian regulation and extremely-high taxation of both their products and their activities. And their policymakers should sometimes face criminal prosecution for the crimes they have perpetrated on the nation, and on smokers themselves.

[mitchum]

32. I am assuming that you BIKE to that workplace where the evil smokers make you run the gauntlet

am I correct?

[Toots]

67. I am assuming since there is a war going on someplace it is all right to kill people.

That appears to be your logic. Since some other source also pollutes it now becomes okay for you to do so as well. Well if that is good logic then I want to be able to piss in your public water supply and shit on all your food. Same Logic should apply there as well. If it is okay to pollute one of the life sources for humans then it should be okay to pollute them all. Food water and air are essentials. You don't mind polluting one of those but would raise holy hell if any of the others were to be polluted in such a manner.

[mitchum]

73. Exhaust and industrial byproducts contribute far more pollution than my vice...

oops...I mean...medical condition...since addiction is a medical condition.
And you seem just a wee bit defensive about that whole automobile exhaust thing. Relax man, I don't walk everywhere.
And if I am out walking, I promise I won't toss my glowing butt on your little strawman. Fire safety is important, ya know?

[Toots]

74. So is Respect which you show none of.

Why do you think you should be allowed to pollute my life source? Air is essential for life, as is food and water. I wonder if you would be so cavalier if someone put their glowing butt in your cheeseburger..Smoking in Public is NOT a RIGHT.. Get over yourself and try and think of others just a tiny bit..

[supernova]

3. If you're looking forward to cheaper cigs

then you're out of luck.

We will all be paying for each others' conditions. That's as it should be.

[tridim]

7. Those that want cheaper cigs have already moved to RYO.

Which is still dirt cheap if you know what to buy.

[Uben]

8. "We will all be paying for each others' conditions"

Agreed, but the majority of people do not pay the taxes on cigarettes. Where is their contribution? What are they being taxed on to supplement the monies to take care of other's conditions that smokers do not pay? There isn't any.

[Warpy]

9. In addition, smokers can cut costs by rolling their own.

They can even grow the stuff in the back yard.

It's legal.

[provis99]

27. no, it is illegal to grow your own tobacco.

you must have be a licensed tobacco farmer, from a designated area of the country. The tobacco companies had this written into federal law a long time ago. Something you want to tell us?;-)

[Warpy]

35. Well, crap

However, I can't see the DEA busting a tobacco patch in the back garden.

[ipaint]

5. People who favor regressive taxes don't particularly care

who they hurt to begin with. I'm sure new faux justifications are plentiful and will be trotted out upon request

edited for the record- lifetime non smoker

[damntexdem]

30. Regressive taxation on tobacco is progressive policy.

It helps those it hits, insofar as it causes them to reduce or quit smoking.

Of course, your post makes it clear that you are not open to hearing any contradictions of your nonsensical views, so I aim this at others who are open to argument.

[ipaint]

49. Regressive taxes are right wing policy. Always have been always will be.

Money rules and he who has money gets to keep their vices. Anyone low income addicted to nicotene well fuck you, you are poor so we will micro manage your addiction for you by punishing you economically and pat ourselves on the back for it too.
Latte liberals strike again with their right wing authoritarian bullshit.

[MajorChode]

71. You should have a cigarette and chill out

Every vote in congress to raise cig taxes in the last 15 years or so has been almost universally supported by Democrats and almost universally rejected by Republicans. So unless you think most congressional Democrats in the last 15 years or so are "right wing authoritarian" and most congressional Republicans are benevolent souls who only have your best interests in mind, your entire premise fails right out of the gate.

Cheers!

[ipaint]

51. Smoke-Filled Rooms

With Smoke-Filled Rooms,W. Kip Viscusi provides unexpected answers to these questions, drawing on an impressive range of data on several topics central to the smoking policy debate. Based on surveys of smokers in the United States and Spain, for instance, he demonstrates that smokers actually overestimate the dangers of smoking, indicating that they are well aware of the risks involved in their choice to smoke. And while smoking does increase medical costs to the states, Viscusi finds that these costs are more than financially balanced by the premature mortality of smokers, which reduces their demands on state pension and health programs, so that, on average, smoking either pays for itself or generates revenues for the states.

Viscusi's eye-opening assessment of the tobacco lawsuits also includes policy recommendations that could frame these debates in a more productive way, such as his suggestion that the FDA should develop a rating system for cigarettes and other tobacco products based on their relative safety, thus providing an incentive for tobacco manufacturers to compete among themselves to produce safer cigarettes. Viscusi's hard look at the facts of smoking and its costs runs against conventional thinking. But it is also necessary for an informed and realistic debate about the legal, financial, and social consequences of the tobacco lawsuits.

People making $50,000 or more pay .08 percent of their income in cigarette taxes, but people with incomes of less than $10,000 pay 1.62 percent twenty times as much. The maintenance crew at the Capitol will bear more of the "sin tax" levied on cigarettes than will members of Congress who voted to boost it.

Cigarettes are not a financial drain to the U.S. In fact, they are self-financing, as a consequence of smokers' premature mortality.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=3617995

[Warpy]

6. Smokers eat up more medical costs than they pay in

which is why cigarettes have been taxed to help defray the cost to the state when those insurance benefits run out and/or when the smoker becomes too ill to keep working.

In addition, they're used to fund antismoking campaigns and smoking cessation programs.

[Bonhomme Richard]

23. They also don't use up their Social Security or everyday old age ....

medical cost if you want to take the logic further. Maybe it's a wash.

[Warpy]

34. My mother sure did, she lived to 94

with severe COPD for the last 25 years of her life.

Smokers don't get lucky and die of lung cancer or fast heart attacks as often as you think. Most will end up like my poor mother, fighting for every breath they take for the last two decades of their lives.

That's what costs, folks.

[Uben]

40. That is incorrect....

...smokers, on average, die 10-15 yrs sooner than non-smokers, per my doctor. The life expectancy for an individual in the U.S. is 77.7 years. If they die 15 yrs earlier, they never reach Medicare age. If they die only ten years sooner, they might have time to get a year or so in before they perish.
Your mom was one of the lucky ones, if you wanna call it that. COPD for 25 years is certainly not something I consider lucky to have! But, I am glad you had her for that period of time. I lost my parents before they reached 65. Both were smokers.

[Warpy]

42. My family has no history of heart disease

which is why people live so long. However, smoking hastens the onset of genetically determined illnesses by about 20 years.

While overall life expectancy is shorter, it is no guarantee and most smokers, even those who die young, will eat up more in payouts than they paid in.

[Hannah Bell]

57. i suggest there's no basis for your "most" claim.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."

Viscusi worked as a litigation expert for the tobacco industry in lawsuits by states but said that his research, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals, has never been funded by industry.

Other researchers have reached similar conclusions.

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.

Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.

"We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else," said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. "But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash."

Such conclusions are controversial since they assign an economic benefit to premature death. U.S. government agencies shy away from the calculations.

The goal of the U.S. health care system is "prolonging disability-free life," states the 2004 Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking. "Thus any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions."

Dr. Terry Pechacek, the CDC associate director for science in the office on smoking and health, said that data seeking to quantify economic benefits of smoking couldn't capture all the benefits associated with longevity, like a grandparent's contribution to a family. Because of such uncertainties the CDC won't put a price tag on savings from smoking.

"The natural train of logic that follows from that is that then anybody that's admitted around age 65 or older that's showing any signs of sickness should be denied treatment," Pechacek said. "That's the cheapest thing to do."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FACT+CHECK%3a+Do+smokers+cost+society+money%3f-a01611838617

[Mosby]

36. true - so maybe people should be taxed

Based on BMI after all obese people eat up more revenue than they pay in right?

[Warpy]

41. No, but a junk food/HFCS tax has been proposed

Personally, I think taxing HFCS sounds like a pretty good idea, make it more expensive than the less harmful sucrose, maybe fewer people would become obese.

However, obesity generally isn't a moral failure. If it were, people who starve themselves down to an ideal weight would stay there. They don't. Even among people who have surgery, 90% regain the weight within 5 years. Something else is going on.

But I suppose you'd prefer to be smug.

[Mosby]

44. from what I have been reading about HFCS

IMO it should be banned.

I agree with you about obesity but it's probably not a lot different than smoking and heavy drinking - it's an addiction that needs to be dealt with, taxing the substance isn't a good solution IMO.

What bothers me about this thread is a lot of people don't seem to understand the concept of insurance - the idea is to spread around the risk to all of the insured. These days the ins industry wants to change that notion so they can charge individuals different amounts based on lifestyles and genetics and that is seriously fucked up.

[Warpy]

45. Again, obesity is not a moral issue.

If it were, the ascetics who starve themselves would keep it off, they've already demonstrated perfect Christofascist morality through self starvation.

However, you're correct about the nature of insurance.

Taxing unhealthy products is a good idea to defray their true costs. Denying benefits to people who use them is not.

Think of what a different country we'd have if fruits and vegetables were subsidized and meat, grain, and sugars were not.

[Hannah Bell]

58. i beg to differ. when it was poor people eating "healthy" grains & vegetables, & rich

people eating "unhealthy" fats & sweets, the poor still died younger.

it's not all about food.

all this "making the right choices" bullshit is 90% con job.

registered dietitian, MS, RD.

[Warpy]

59. Acutally, the poor lived mostly on grains

and cabbage and had little protein, at least in the Dark Ages.

Once they came here and had a more varied diet, the ones who survived the usual childhood diseases managed to live quite long lives if they weren't worked to death by the burgeoning capitalists.

That's the problem with looking at the overall lifespan in years gone by, before routine childhood vaccination became available. A high infancy and childhood death rate skewed the average far downward.

Diet had little to do with it. Lack of sanitation and access to vaccines had a hell of a lot more to do with it.

[Hannah Bell]

60. actually, i wasn't particularly talking about the dark ages, & actually, since there have been poor

in many times & places, there's no justification for your claim that the poor people of the past "ate mostly grains", or for your emphasis on cabbage.

the main generalization to be made is meat & sweets were typically at a premium until they became cheap commodities under some capital regimes.

if they were in the position to be "worked to death by capitalists," they were living in cities under a marketized capitalist economy & likely weren't eating a varied diet.

diet indeed did have something to do with it, then & now.

but poverty had more to do with it, because it affected diet, sanitation, & in fact every aspect of lifestyle.

as it does now. which is why the obsessive yuppie focus on "food choices" is so idiotic.

[Warpy]

70. Yes

It was late and my eyes were crossed and I missed your point, one I agree with.

Blaming the poor for eating the food they can afford just piles insult onto injury.

Grains and cole crops were indeed what the poor had to eat for centuries. The only protein they got was whatever they could pull out of streams that the rich didn't want to eat because hunting and fishing were forbidden to them.

[Touchdown]

10. You'd attract more pearl clutchers if you titled it "...Can of Skoal"

BTW: The professionally offended is all your going to get in this thread.

[Hannah Bell]

61. "professionally offended" is about right. you'd think there were hordes of people following them

around blowing "second-hand smoke" at them every minute of their lives, with the degree of self-righteousness on exhibit.

[zipplewrath]

11. They'll still qualify for medicare and medicaid

Their very liable to qualify for medicare and/or medicaid and as such still cost us money. Furthermore, between the veterans administration and the people that will qualify for subsidies of their mandated insurance, the government will still bear a cost of medical costs due to smoking.

[NYC_SKP]

12. In California, at least some of the taxes are directed toward non-smoking campaigns...

...and childrens' programs designed, at least in part, to prevent them from taking up the habit.

:smoke:

[sandnsea]

13. And pay for the subsidies how???

Biting tongue...

[Warren Stupidity]

14. stop smoking?

[Statistical]

16. The taxes were never about health and always about the $$$$. n/t

[Uben]

21. Ding, ding, ding!

It was always about the money!

[Statistical]

24. Minorities are always easier to tax than everyone.

Say you want to raise taxes.

You could tell everyone their taxes are going up
OR
Say only taxes on smokers (26% of population) are going up.

Which is easier to get public support.
BTW: I don't smoke and I support bans on smoking in restaurants I am just calling a spade a spade.

[damntexdem]

17. There were lawsuits to recover costs of treating smokers.

Some tobacco taxes have been justified on the basis of recouping costs of treating smokers; but there have been other rationales: to discourage smoking by increasing costs, to fund efforts to discourage smoking, to recoup costs of treating those suffering the effects of second-hand smoke, and simply as a source of revenue -- vice taxes have been very useful for the latter purpose.

What do I think should be done? I think tobacco taxes should be hiked ever higher -- much, much higher than the puny taxes now exacted. It's like taxing fuel to fix roads, and then facing the costs of major oil spills that devastate the environment and the economy, meaning that fuel taxes should be hiked ever higher.

[Uben]

33. I agree, in theory....

..with what you are saying. I want to see other products, specifically alcohol, taxed as agressively as tobacco. There is no doubt that alcohol causes as many medical expenses as tobacco, and it contributes to the deaths of other people, moreso than tobacco. Put a $5/sixpck tax on beer and a $5/bottle tax on liquor. The result would be less alcohol consumption, fewer deaths related to alcohol, and less spent on treatment of illnesses associated with drinking alcohol.
The tobacco taxes are not an issue with me. It just seems that those who do smoke are being singled out to pay an unfair amount now that health insurance is mandatory. Lord knows the government needs all the revenue it can get. Taxation levels are now at 1950 levels (income tax)! Our whole taxation structure needs to be revamped. If we are ever to reduce the deficit, more monies will have to be collected.

[Mosby]

43. or maybe a HUGE black market would result

Smokers and heavy drinkers are addicts. They will find a way. I'm really unconfortable with the idea of dealing with addiction through taxation.

(I'm an ex-smoker, 30 years 2 packs a day stopped about 8 months ago)

[snooper2]

69. Russian cigs :)

nt

[daylan b]

18. Their premiums will be 50% more than non-smokers based on the bill that passed

Personally, I rank tobacco taxes just a notch above the lottery in terms of taxes on stupidity.

[rurallib]

20. There is a disconnect in your logic.

Maybe some places cigarette taxes were designated for health care. That didn't happen where I live (Iowa). The tax was to increase the price of smokes to give incentive for quitting. Plus some of the money went to anti-smoking PR campaigns and cessesion programs.
Some of the money may have gone to health care, but I don't thinks so.
But my local right wing republican made a big to-do about tobacco taxes going only for health care. He now makes a big deal about voting against tobacco taxes because they didn't go to health care. Much like his national counterparts he would have never voted for any tobacco tax increase and only sought to make himself look good.
My Dem friend in a local district says 'I don't care where the money went if it stops people from smoking.'
(BTW some of the money at the time went to schools also)
Were money designated for HC some comparable part of the budget would have been shifted.

[xchrom]

22. I smoke -- if I get cancer I will cost society more

Than the taxes I pay on smokes.

That being said every penny of those taxes should
have gone to hospitals.

[provis99]

31. actually, you're wrong.

over their predicted lifetime, smokers pay more in taxes than they receive back in medical care. Remember, the vast majority of health care expenses come at end of life for old people. Since smokers kill themselves off earlier, before they start getting health care in old age, they cost the health care system less.

[daylan b]

38. Interesting

What's the source of that info?

[HereSince1628]

25. Why did that temporary tax on telephones for the Spanish American War never go away?

Because

1) taxes once recieved are fungible.
2) once people get used to paying a tax, they keep paying even if they don't like it.
3) see reason number 1

[notesdev]

29. Because it's open season on smokers

And the foolish self-righteous hypocrites who froth at the mouth at any chance to punish smokers and smoking seem oblivious to the precedent they are setting. Now replace smokers with gays and cancer with AIDS and you will get a glimpse of the next stage of health care cost demonization.

[The Straight Story]

39. A LOT of anti-choice people around it seems - they are like puritans

Tax your 'sins'. Might as well tax abortion as well, you choose to have sex and get pregnant (just following their logic...)

[Warren Stupidity]

46. yeah - tax voluntary purchases, fine with me.

booze, butts, pot if they ever legalize it, luxury items, entertainment - tax 'em all. You would prefer perhaps that the states raise property taxes, income taxes, general sales taxes? Or perhaps instead, the states should just cut all the programs funded out of state tax revenue.

[Hannah Bell]

62. i'd have no problem if it were every "voluntary" purchase, or with

even a 50% tax on cigarettes, + sales tax.

i object to taxes of 300-500%, + higher insurance premiums, + having to listen to all the idiots telling me my house is covered with a thick film of crud, my clothes all stink, i stand outside the doors to public buildings just waiting to blow smoke in people's faces, i throw my butts at dolphins, i throw burning cigarettes out car windows & set entire forests on fire, etc.

jesus christ, their driving habits (i typically buy about $10 worth of gas/month, less than half a tank) just killed everything in the gulf of mexico, & they're all outraged because somebody's smoking half a block away.

not only that, some of them will deliberately approach you, though you're nowhere near them & not in their path, & they could easily avoid both you & your smoke -- JUST TO GIVE YOU THE SNIFF & THE EVIL EYE. This is outside, mind you, in a very large park.

psychotic ninnies.

Bellevue, washington, home of the stupidest yuppies in creation, circa 1990s.

[Motown_Johnny]

48. there are still costs involved. Your point makes no sense at all.

[Uben]

50. What costs are uncovered?

While smokers are under 65, their insurance covers. Since smokers die, on average, 10-15 yrs sooner and the average lifespan in America is 77.7 years, most will never hit medicare age. Surely the majority that dies earlier will have contributed to Medicare enough to cover those fortunate enough to live a bit longer. So, yes, logic dictates that my point does make sense. The only thing that makes no sense is your snide remark. I call em like I see em.

[Motown_Johnny]

55. covered or not the cost still exist. Government money is being spent on health care

so taxing tobacco to help cover those costs makes sense.


Didn't mean to be snide but your point of view still does not make any sense. The fact that they are now covered changes nothing.

[gravity]

53. The government is going to subsidize the costs of insurance

[seabeyond]

54. if everyone quit smoking health care nationwide would rise, not decrease.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/337/15/1052

Results Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.

Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

[donco6]

65. And if everyone just died young, we'd pay even less. n/t

[seabeyond]

66. point being, studies show the person who smokes is not more costly than the nonsmoker.

you want to argue smoking, hate smoking, sneer at smokers, fine.... there are valid reasoning. to state they cost more is not true. it all comes out in the wash