Goddammit, I’m tired of this shit. Yes, smoking causes disease and is a burden on the health care system. That was supposed to be the purpose of the massive tobacco settlement. Some want to raise tobacco tax to pay for added expenses caused by smokers.
States such as Minnesota and a shitload others keep justifying tax increases to pay for health programs.
So here’s the proposal. There are billions upon billions upon billions of dollars the tobacco companies have agreed to pay states for health costs caused by tobacco. There have been countless tax increases in the name of covering the added cost of health care caused by smokers.
There are also millions of these dollars spent on things not related to health care. Some spent on prevention with kids, some (as the cited article states) for things wholly unrelated to health care.
Here’s what I propose, since any increase on tobacco tax is followed by the inevitable “We need to pay for the health costs of smokers! And children!”
Keep the taxes where they are now. Any increase is because of smoker’s health care. Any raise in tobacco tax shall be kept in a special fund that pays for chronic care from that raise forward. It’s a win-win. The tax is used to pay for the added health care, AND it’s entirely funded by smokers.
If the tax is going to be raised for the cost of health care for the user, it should be used solely for the user’s health care.
If it’s used in part for prevention, wouldn’t that benefit the non-smokers? Shouldn’t they pay for prevention as well? Us smokers aren’t enticing the kids. That’s what the Big Tobacco settlements were about.
Again. I’m willing to pay the higher taxes from this day forward as long as the money is used to pay for smoker’s care, since that’s why the taxes are regularly raised.
I’m so ridiculously tired of having to pay additional taxes on my cigarettes for healthcare costs, when the government doesn’t give me crap for healthcare.
I understood it when France raised the tax, because the French government actually-you know-uses that money for health care of smokers. The US takes my money to pay for the healthcare costs of smoking, and then tell me to STFU and pay an HMO if I want healthcare, and the HMO coincidentally often charges more to smokers too.
I’m sorry, I thought for some reason I was in the pit. Maybe that’s where I usually see duffer complaining about various oppressions of the smoking class.
cricetus and Snowboarder Bo, do either of you have an opinion on whether money extracted in the name of and earmarked for smoker’s health care should actually be used for that?
Well, it doesn’t make sense to set up a single-payer federal health insurance program for smokers only and then fund it through taxing cigarettes, no. But taxing cigarettes is a cheap stunt, like casinos and lotteries, to avoid raising taxes or cutting programs.
But still. Just quit smoking and the taxes and the non-smoking policies and everything else ceases to hurt you. It’s interesting that duffer doesn’t resent the tobacco industry for taking his money and his health.
When the whole Mississippi Governor/Attorney General suit over tobacco came to light, it was seen in that State as a big sham. Governor Fordice, after all, was a tobacco farmer. I think it has only gotten worse. The insurance companies, (the laziest of all industries) have even found a way to jack up rates, (And why do they take DNA samples for life insurance?) With all the campaign ads to stop, people under 25 are the ones I see smoking. (If you tell them not to, they want to know why)
I think the main reason for the tax hike is more to do with a huge loss in revenue than anything else, (The tobacco suit and the CA. Legalization of Marijuana coincide with each other). It shows that people would rather smoke marijuana, and there is no government intrusion, (unless the DEA is kickin’ down the door). Does tobacco use kill any more/less today since the lawsuit? I also think we should stop smoking tobacco altogether, and cut down or eliminate alcohol consumption. We can call it the Great Tax Revolt of the 21st Century!
Marijuana smoking is unregulated and I think it is high time to cut the availability of money going to rogue corporations and support the California Farmer. Besides, If they tell you not to, then you want to know why, as well.
Oh, right. I saw your name and thought your were on another smoking-related rant. I didn’t actually read the first post. I just assumed. So, what it is this thread about?
But what about “second hand” smoke…isn’t that part of the justification, too? Or is that for just banning smoking indoors. I can’t keep track of these things…
See, this is the United States. This is supposed to be the bastion of liberty, of democracy, of capitalism.
Is smoking good for me physically? No.
Is it good for me mentally? That can be argued.
Is it something that I enjoy? Yes, it is.
See, I value my freedom to smoke. I also value your freedom to choose not to.
It’s a personal choice, it’s a matter of choosing what you want to put in your body, and allowing others to do the same.
As it stands, I am allowed to do so but I have the government constantly trying to raise taxes on cigarettes based on the thinly veiled guise of “healthcare costs”, all the while not paying a cent of my healthcare costs.
I don’t know what people’s opinion is of the OP. and it’s really not my concern-but most people should be able to see the idiocy of raising taxes based on healthcare, and then using the money elsewhere because…ding ding ding…the US doesn’t pay it’s citizens healthcare costs.
I’m still irate that several citys/states in this great bastion of freedom can’t give a business the freedom to choose whether to allow smoking or not in their establishment.
In Nevada, a large portion of the tobacco settlement money went/goes to a scholarship fund that only benefits kids entering college, and I think that’s a crock. I think the justification is that the settlement contains language about some of the money being for educational purposes. :rolleyes:
But the money is not and cannot be earmarked only for smoker’s health. Smoking and related costs drive up health care costs for everyone. Smokers are taking up beds, facilities, doctors, nurses, etc. that would be available to others, except that people made/make a conscious decision to endanger their lives by consuming tobacco products. It’s a choice, and people can make the choice to stop smoking, thereby reducing their risk of lung cancer, emphysema, etc. and reducing their overall tax bill.
I’m not aware of any tax that specifically earmarked tobacco tax money to be used only for smoker’s health care, and then saw the funds diverted for other purposes. If there is, I would likely feel that the tax was flawed, for the reasons given in the previous paragraph. I would also likely feel that things were dead wrong if the tax was going to any purposes other than health care related purposes.
While the US doesn’t have a government-run health care program like that enjoyed by Canadians, Medicare and Medicaid are, in fact, government-run health care programs, and the costs borne out by those programs are a part of the expenses incurred by the State which are cited in the tobacco settlement.
While the federal government and/or your state government may not be paying your health care costs now, it is likely that they will pay for or subsidize your health care later in life. Assuming you live that long, that is.
Well, that raises another point. A case could be made (though I admit I don’t know with how good evidence) that by dying relatively young and relatively quickly, smokers actually save health care costs.
You would need to show that such smokers recieved no health care before death, tho. Prolly hard to show that, since lung cancer, et. al. are generally not quick killers.
But the money is and cannot be earmarkers only for obese peoples health. Over eating and related costs drive up health care costs for everyone. Obese people are taking up bed, facilities, doctors, nurses, etc. that would be available to others, except that people made/make a conscious decision to endanger their lives by consuming fatty foods. It’s a choice, and people can make the choice to exercise more and eat less, thereby reducing their risk of diabetes, heart problems, etc. and reducing their overall tax bill.
Just looking for the future justification of taxing food the government deemed not healthy.
I agree that tobacco taxes should go directly for smoker’s health care, but there’s a slight problem…people get lung cancer and other diseases from reasons other than smoking, so who’s to decide whether it was smoking-related? Not a deal killer, but it would need to be addressed.
I also think it makes sense to use some of the tobacco tax to discourage young people from smoking and to help people quit. Maybe even to transition tobacco farms to marijuana farms…OK, I’m just dreamin’ there…