Obama wants to raise tobacco taxes - again...

[OohPooPahDoo]

I only pay copays.
My employer pays 100% of my premiums and my company has an ACA waiver

Does he pay higher premiums for his smoking employees?

Far as I know it's a single group rate

RIght, but if he winds up with a lot of smokers there will be more claims and that may prompt the insurance company to jack the rate up. With a group they are looking to post a net profit (as opposed to an individual where obviously its expected that numerous individual policies will result in a net loss)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I had no idea that genetic illnesses were a choice people made.

Why should that matter?

Why should personal responsibility matter? Is that what you're asking?

Choice or no...it's an illness that all of us are having to fund, right? Screw 'em...afterall...they were defective from jump street!

Well okay then, let's spend money taking care of tobacco users that might have been spent on people born with disabilities. Sound good?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Personally I think the added cost of taking care of tobacco users should be figured into the price of the smokes. Add it to the price, take it out of the revenues, and send it to the insurance company or the government, whichever is taking care of you when you get lung cancer, to make up the difference.

As a moderate (~8 per day) smoker I'd have no problem with this.

 

[jan]

Why should personal responsibility matter? Is that what you're asking?

What about the personal responsibility of the parents who bred a genetically inferior brood? Personal responsibility goes a long way...we could even stretch it out further to get more folks off the dole of the heathcare system if indeed we're desperate enough to cut more costs in that area.

Well okay then, let's spend money taking care of tobacco users that might have been spent on people born with disabilities. Sound good?

No. My point is that it's a slippery slope when we start picking and choosing what health conditions we're gonna fund. If we charge smokers more or exclude them, who's next? Obese? Genetic defectives? Ya know...cancer is a big cost too...maybe we should ditch that and save some more costs. I mean...they probably brought it on themselves by something they did anyway. Screw 'em!

(Just in case you don't recognize it, sarcasm oozing in my post!)

 

[Wyatt earp]

Most people on welfare are not doing drugs. That's what they found out, so there is no real savings, but there is a huge cost to test all the non druggies. Damn, don't you read the news? You believe too many of those chain letters you see on Facebook.

Yea ok, then who is doing the drugs the working folks like me who have to take a random drug test or all the 1%"ers?

Nope. Its the working folks that don't have to take random drug tests. ******* duh. Not our fault you decided to apply for work at a company that sticks their head up your dick.

You know dang well they are using a simple pee test, use a hair test and it would be a different story.But your right it is a waste of money.

A hair test would be an even bigger waste of money considering they cost more.

Yawn.... for every one middle class factory job that you can name that dont have a drug some kind of a drug test I can name a 1000 that do. In fact this is the first factory that I have worked at since the 80's that dont have a drug test. Also name me a temp service that dont require a drug test? and no kidding about the hair test thats why I wrote that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why should personal responsibility matter? Is that what you're asking?

What about the personal responsibility of the parents who bred a genetically inferior brood?

So now failing to abort a pregnancy of a genetically costly child is akin to choosing to smoke a pack of smokes every day for 30 years. Got it.

Personal responsibility goes a long way...we could even stretch it out further to get more folks off the dole of the heathcare system if indeed we're desperate enough to cut more costs in that area.

The "dole" of the health care system. You make it sound like people like going to the doctor. The only people who do are called hypochondriacs - and they should be going to the doctor for their hypochondria anyway.

No. My point is that it's a slippery slope when we start picking and choosing what heath conditions we're gonna fund.

EVERYTHING is a slippery slope if you want it to be. Rolling out of bed in the morning is the slippery slope to becoming an ax murderer.

If we charge smokers more or exclude them, who's next? Obese?

Sounds good. We should add a tax to foods that contribute the most to obesity and remit the proceeds to whomever is providing the healthcare.

Genetic defectives? Ya know...cancer is a big cost too...maybe we should ditch that and save some more costs. I mean...they probably brought it on themselves by something they did anyway. Screw 'em!

(Just in case you don't recognize it, sarcasm oozing in my post!)

Maybe we should hand out cigarettes at the doctor's office. I mean, NOT doing that is a slippery slope to charging people more for their genetic defects.

 

[jan]

Rolling out of bed in the morning is the slippery slope to becoming an ax murderer.

Oh for heaven's sake! Are you suggesting we all just stay in bed all day?
You're being ridiculous!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Rolling out of bed in the morning is the slippery slope to becoming an ax murderer.

Oh for heaven's sake! Are you suggesting we all just stay in bed all day?
You're being ridiculous!

I'm not the one making slippery slope arguments.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This highly pisses me off - again. Not one penny of tobacco taxes goes toward smokers' healthcare - so why in the hell should smokers (tobacco users) be taxed to pay for children's healthcare and schooling?

On this - I say **** you, Obama!

...and it hits poor people disproportionately harder.

But since the government is paying for your healthcare they should be able to control your behavior, amiright?

 

[jan]

I'm not the one making slippery slope arguments.
__________________

Worse! You're making bedhead arguments at this point!

You're way off topic!

 

[auditor0007]

This highly pisses me off - again. Not one penny of tobacco taxes goes toward smokers' healthcare - so why in the hell should smokers (tobacco users) be taxed to pay for children's healthcare and schooling?

On this - I say **** you, Obama!

As an ex-smoker, I think we should tax the shit out of cigarettes, and I will tell you why. While it is unfair to those who are already addicted, the key to reducing smoking is to keep young people from starting. The more cigarettes cost, the more difficult it is for young teenagers and young adults to afford in the first place. That means a lot less young people start smoking and a lot less people become lifelong smokers.

The excuse that "it is my right to smoke" is all horseshit. Smokers who say that are just too afraid to quit because it's not easy, even though they know they should. Smoking doesn't add one positive thing to the smoker's life. Not one thing at all.

After smoking for 30 years and finally quitting, I have seen so many benefits to now being a non-smoker. I feel so much better. I was actually able to lose weight because I can now exercise and run. When I smoked, I used to get headaches a couple of times per week. Now I get a headache once every three months. My blood pressure is down to 110/65. My resting heart rate is down under 45. My cholesterol is down under 160. I can go on and on. My clothes don't smell like shit anymore. My hair doesn't smell like shit anymore. I've made a lot of new friends who are non-smokers. I probably will live much longer than if I continued to smoke, but the real benefit is that I will live those years well, and I will enjoy living them.

Yes, cigarette taxes are unfair, but I support raising them 100%.

Really? Your resting heart rate is less than that of an athlete who is 18 to 25 years old?

Resting Heart Rate Chart

I call bullshit..................................

Why? Because when I was 30, I had a resting heart rate of around 50 to 55 bpm, and I was riding 50 to 100 miles/day on a bicycle. I was also able to drive it up to around 200 (and on one or two occasions to 220, just to see what it felt like, and it was very tough), when I was sprinting in a race (monitored by a Pace heart rate monitor).

Nope............................I don't believe that your rhr (resting heart rate) is 45 bpm. I'm guessing it's more like 60.

Nice try on pulling the wool on other people's eyes though. Unfortunately, I was a Navy Physical Readiness Training (PRT) Coordinator, and I know what the charts say.

Please try again.

Since I was at the grocery store this afternoon, I stopped at the pharmacy and checked my BP and heart rate on their machine. Now granted, this wasn't really a resting heart rate since I had been running around the store, so it was a bit higher than normal.

When I go to the doctor and sit in the waiting room for 30 minutes before they check it, then it is almost always below 50. BTW, I don't just sit on my ass all the time. I run between 15 and 25 miles per week, and I lift weights three times per week. My body fat is between 12% and 17% depending on what machine I use to test it. Sometimes the truth is just the truth.

 

[tjvh]

Yanno.......................I chew tobacco (Copenhagen Long Cut in the red topped can is my favorite) and, if paying a bit more for my bad habit is going to help fund education, go ahead.

Matter of fact, you can increase it from the current price I pay at 3.50/can to 4.50/can.

I'd really like to see our kids educated.

And you know..........................if it's for the children to be educated, I don't really have a problem. If it gets too expensive, I'll quit.

But, if it's to educate kids, that may mean I won't quit until it's over 10.00/can and only after we're turning out at least one Einstein type child per school per year.

That's your choice, but not all tobacco users can afford that. First, Obama hit them with a 156% increase in 2009 and now he's planning to DOUBLE that again. I can also afford the increase - but that's not the point. It isn't right. It isn't fair.

Lakhota crying about Obama not being fair... I need to get my eyes checked.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I recently quit smoking and figure by doing so I am saving about $200 a month.

The increasing costs (my ciggies are $8 a pack) and the planned new Fed and State taxes certainly played a role in my decision to quit.

Government often turn to what they like to call SIN TAXES because they know that they will get support from those who object to those"sinful habits".

Alcohol obviously also gets taxed far more than it ought to be taxed.

You guys wait..sugar is next on the hit list, I suspect.

you sinned when you voted democrat nut bar.

Can you provide a Bible reference that states specifically "thou shalt not vote Democrat"?

Never heard of that Commandment before, is it in the new GOP translation of the Bible?

 

[Lakhota]

Obama's war on tobacco via tax increases is typical of an ex-smoking self-righteous fanatic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

By Tara Culp-Ressler

President Obama unveiled his budget proposal on Tuesday morning, confirming early reports that his initiatives include an expansion of universal preschool programs by raising revenue from additional tobacco taxes. Obama’s preschool plan is winning praise from both anti-smoking advocates and early childhood education proponents, but it isn’t popular with everyone. Even before the specific details were made available on Tuesday, the proposed tax increase garnered criticism from the powerful companies that comprise Big Tobacco.

The current federal tax on cigarettes is about $1 a pack, and President Obama’s proposal would increase that by an additional 94 cents. That hike would raise $75 billion to help subsidize preschool for children whose families who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line, in a national effort to encourage more four-year-olds to enroll in pre-K programs. The tax increase would also raise $1.6 billion for the Early Head Start program and $15 billion for other programs.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has praised the policy, noting that higher tobacco taxes are a proven method of reducing smoking rates as well as a reliable revenue source. The advocacy group also points out that the majority of Americans support increasing taxes on tobacco products. In a statement released last week in regards to Obama’s forthcoming budget, the Campaign described the proposed tax as “a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will raise revenue to fund an important initiative and reduce tobacco-related health care costs, and a political win that is popular with voters.” Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking are estimated at $96 billion.

More: Big Tobacco Already Resisting Obama's Proposal To Fund Universal Preschool With Cigarette Taxes

Good I hate ******* TOBACCO!

 

[Lakhota]

By Tara Culp-Ressler

President Obama unveiled his budget proposal on Tuesday morning, confirming early reports that his initiatives include an expansion of universal preschool programs by raising revenue from additional tobacco taxes. Obama’s preschool plan is winning praise from both anti-smoking advocates and early childhood education proponents, but it isn’t popular with everyone. Even before the specific details were made available on Tuesday, the proposed tax increase garnered criticism from the powerful companies that comprise Big Tobacco.

The current federal tax on cigarettes is about $1 a pack, and President Obama’s proposal would increase that by an additional 94 cents. That hike would raise $75 billion to help subsidize preschool for children whose families who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line, in a national effort to encourage more four-year-olds to enroll in pre-K programs. The tax increase would also raise $1.6 billion for the Early Head Start program and $15 billion for other programs.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has praised the policy, noting that higher tobacco taxes are a proven method of reducing smoking rates as well as a reliable revenue source. The advocacy group also points out that the majority of Americans support increasing taxes on tobacco products. In a statement released last week in regards to Obama’s forthcoming budget, the Campaign described the proposed tax as “a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will raise revenue to fund an important initiative and reduce tobacco-related health care costs, and a political win that is popular with voters.” Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking are estimated at $96 billion.

More: Big Tobacco Already Resisting Obama's Proposal To Fund Universal Preschool With Cigarette Taxes

Good I hate ******* TOBACCO!

Okay, so what do you like - that I can hate?

 

[ScienceRocks]

More: Big Tobacco Already Resisting Obama's Proposal To Fund Universal Preschool With Cigarette Taxes

Good I hate ******* TOBACCO!

Okay, so what do you like - that I can hate?

Pepsi
Science
Space
weather
geology
etc

 

[Lakhota]

Good I hate ******* TOBACCO!

Okay, so what do you like - that I can hate?

Pepsi
Science
Space
weather
geology
etc

Shit, nothing there I can hate. Pepsi is my favorite drink - next to ice-cold milk.

BTW, Native Americans have a long history with tobacco - long before it was tainted with chemicals.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

By Tara Culp-Ressler

President Obama unveiled his budget proposal on Tuesday morning, confirming early reports that his initiatives include an expansion of universal preschool programs by raising revenue from additional tobacco taxes. Obama’s preschool plan is winning praise from both anti-smoking advocates and early childhood education proponents, but it isn’t popular with everyone. Even before the specific details were made available on Tuesday, the proposed tax increase garnered criticism from the powerful companies that comprise Big Tobacco.

The current federal tax on cigarettes is about $1 a pack, and President Obama’s proposal would increase that by an additional 94 cents. That hike would raise $75 billion to help subsidize preschool for children whose families who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line, in a national effort to encourage more four-year-olds to enroll in pre-K programs. The tax increase would also raise $1.6 billion for the Early Head Start program and $15 billion for other programs.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has praised the policy, noting that higher tobacco taxes are a proven method of reducing smoking rates as well as a reliable revenue source. The advocacy group also points out that the majority of Americans support increasing taxes on tobacco products. In a statement released last week in regards to Obama’s forthcoming budget, the Campaign described the proposed tax as “a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will raise revenue to fund an important initiative and reduce tobacco-related health care costs, and a political win that is popular with voters.” Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking are estimated at $96 billion.

More: Big Tobacco Already Resisting Obama's Proposal To Fund Universal Preschool With Cigarette Taxes

Good I hate ******* TOBACCO!

Then don't ******* smoke.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I still remember when, while living in California, people voted for the Lottery because we were told that the money would all go to education. LOL! That of course was a lie.
This is one of the problems I have with politicians who claim to only want to tax the rich. The rich who produce products simply raise the prices of their products so it's the poor and middle class who end up paying more.
Make no mistake about one thing. This money will not be going where government says it will be going. It will be going to politicians who use the money to feed special interests. This is how it works.
Of course, the funny part is when smokers start turning to the black market then the government will raise taxes on something else. It really doesn't end unless you nip it in the bud.