Anti Smoking Nuts Hit Iowa

[red states rule]

I understand employers have the right to hire who they want - but this is going too far

Employers could lose a damn good employee, and what does it matter if they smoke AWAY from work?

What's next? Not hiring people who drink? Who are overweight?






Des Moines’ largest hospital plans to start testing prospective employees for the presence of nicotine to ensure that the company is not hiring smokers.

Mercy Medical Center-Des Moines said the new policy will take effect July 1. Any job applicant whose urine test comes up positive for nicotine will have to wait six months to apply again for a job at Mercy’s hospitals or clinics.

Mercy said it is the first Iowa hospital company to take the step.
“We recognize smoking or using tobacco products is not illegal,” Chief Human Resources Officer Robyn Wilkinson said in a press release. “However, our employees have an obligation to set a good example for the communities we serve. By implementing a nicotine-free hiring policy, Mercy will be expecting its employees to model the same healthy behaviors it encourages of its patients and their family members.”
The policy will not apply to current Mercy’s 6,600 current employees, although if they smoke, they will be encouraged to quit. Mercy and most other Des Moines hospitals banned smoking from their premises, including their parking lots, in 2006.

Mercy spokeswoman Traci McBee acknowledged that the nicotine test could come up positive if a non-smoking job applicant was exposed to second-hand smoke at home. “If the individual explains that he or she is subjected to second-hand smoke but is not a smoker, he or she will be encouraged to reapply after six months,” McBee said in an e-mail response to a reporter’s question.

http://www.tobaccoworld.org/mercy-medical-center-will-no-longer-hire-smokers/

[Monkeybone]

I can sort of understand where they are coming from though. It is like the 400 lbs, 5' 3" Doctor telling the 6' 1" 240lber to lose some weight. Or here where you see the Cancer nurses inhaling the cigs right outside the Cancer Center when you drive by.

[red states rule]

I can sort of understand where they are coming from though. It is like the 400 lbs, 5' 3" Doctor telling the 6' 1" 240lber to lose some weight. Or here where you see the Cancer nurses inhaling the cigs right outside the Cancer Center when you drive by.

As I said they have the right - but where does it stop?

Will they not hire overwight people? Will they tell you what food you can and cannot eat as a condition of employment?

I have seen some big Doctors and Nurses and they were talking to people about their weight and how they needed to lose weight

So that argument does not cut it with me

Smoking is legal and smokers are becoming second class citizens and many do not seem to care

[gabosaurus]

Obviously you don't understand the risks that smokers pose to health insurance costs. It's much the same reason why employers don't want to hire those who abuse drugs. Since nicotine is a drug.

[jimnyc]

Obviously you don't understand the risks that smokers pose to health insurance costs. It's much the same reason why employers don't want to hire those who abuse drugs. Since nicotine is a drug.

If that were the case, they can opt to deny health insurance to smokers, or drug addicts.

[red states rule]

Obviously you don't understand the risks that smokers pose to health insurance costs. It's much the same reason why employers don't want to hire those who abuse drugs. Since nicotine is a drug.

I would love to see your reaction if they did the same thing with gays due to the cost of AIDS

Smokers pay a higher rate - but of course you know that but the hate you have for smokers is well known

[gabosaurus]

If you employ someone, then deny them the health insurance extended to others, that can be viewed as discrimination.
And let's face it, companies can hire or fire anyone they want. You can't ask someone if they are gay. You can ask them if they smoke.
If someone denies you employment because you smoke, you can either stop smoking or look for another job.

Yes, I do dislike smoking intensely. The smell is disgusting, and smokers normally smell like dog poop. Smokers don't know they reek because your sense of smell is one of the first to go. It's a disgusting habit.

[jimnyc]

If you employ someone, then deny them the health insurance extended to others, that can be viewed as discrimination

Only if you offer to some smokers and not others. MANY companies have opted this route and let their staffs know that they either quit or seek employment elsewhere as they start new insurance to save money.

Discrimination only applies if you treat 2 equal parties differently. Being a "smoker" is also not a protected class.

Additionally, if you lie about being a smoker, and they find out this after the fact, it is perfectly legal to not only terminate the employment, but to also deny any medical claims made.

[red states rule]

If you employ someone, then deny them the health insurance extended to others, that can be viewed as discrimination.
And let's face it, companies can hire or fire anyone they want. You can't ask someone if they are gay. You can ask them if they smoke.
If someone denies you employment because you smoke, you can either stop smoking or look for another job.

Yes, I do dislike smoking intensely. The smell is disgusting, and smokers normally smell like dog poop. Smokers don't know they reek because your sense of smell is one of the first to go. It's a disgusting habit.

IO knew you would change your tune Gabby

Gays and risky sex if OK but smoking is bad

So let the gays screw but they better not light up afterwards

I said in the OP employers can hire who they want. But if their excuse for not hiring smokers is the added health costs, then they should take a look at the cost of AIDS

If they do not not to cover AIDS, then the gays can get another job or stop the risky behavior

[gabosaurus]

RSR, since you have a ton of free time to look up things, find and compare the number of gays who contract AIDS to the number of smokers who get cancer.

By the way, heterosexuals can get AIDS. Gays can avoid AIDS the same way straight people can avoid it. If you smoke, how can you avoid lung cancer. I don't see any cigarette condoms on the market.

[Kathianne]

Gabby, while you sent RSR off on an internet search, here's one for you. How many pack a day or more smokers that started smoking by 15, lived to be 85 or older?

[red states rule]

RSR, since you have a ton of free time to look up things, find and compare the number of gays who contract AIDS to the number of smokers who get cancer.

By the way, heterosexuals can get AIDS. Gays can avoid AIDS the same way straight people can avoid it. If you smoke, how can you avoid lung cancer. I don't see any cigarette condoms on the market.

I see when a liberal group is brought up you get your shorts in a knot. I thought libs like you were for fairness abd everyone is treated the same

I guess that is not the case.

Like with any good intended plan, where will it stop. First smokers, then maybe fat people. Then maybe the gays due to the cost of AIDS, Then hunters due to the risk of injury?

It could never stop. and I am sure libs like you will fully support those ideas since it is for our own good

Execpt the gays - they get a pass (no pun intended)

[red states rule]

Gabby, while you sent RSR off on an internet search, here's one for you. How many pack a day or more smokers that started smoking by 15, lived to be 85 or older?

It has been 35 years for me so far and no sign of lung cancer

My Doctor was surprised and I told him when I die and they open me up they may find the cure

After 35 years if I don't have lung cancer I might have something that eats it up

[gabosaurus]

I fail to see the correlation between gays and smokers. How many carcinogens do gays bring into their bodies every time they have sex?
Do you think obese people get a break on health insurance? If you think smokers get a raw deal on being hired, try being obese.

Stop doing your apples vs. oranges bit and tackle the real topic.

And by the way, RSR, tell us about YOUR health insurance plan. Do you have health insurance? I can't get any on my job (too many pre-existing conditions), but my husband can cover me on his policy. But it is hellaciously expensive.

[Kathianne]

It has been 35 years for me so far and no sign of lung cancer

My Doctor was surprised and I told him when I die and they open me up they may find the cure

After 35 years if I don't have lung cancer I might have something that eats it up

In general, I think we all are born with some predispositions to various cancers. Some might not kick in for many decades, face it, no one is surprised at a cancer diagnosis at 70 something. Even 50 something. There are environmental factors and behavioral factors that may trigger them earlier or later. Smoking is the most studied which is why I brought it up.

40 years ago, most men would have been considered to have had a 'good life' if they live to 70. Perhaps they died of a heart attack or colon cancer. They were a 2 pack a day guy, but the lungs were clear enough, though filled with tar. No cancer, not even emphysema.

Now many are living with bad hearts through 40's, 50's, 60's, and even into 70's. These folks may have pace makers, open heart, double, triple, quadruple by pass surgeries and be doing well. At 77 lung cancer sets in. Time's up. Carried the gene and now it's active. Not for the first 76 years, when in the past other things would have claimed your life, but now? Time's up.

In fairness though, Life is a death sentence, no matter how healthy a lifestyle you adopt from however early.

[red states rule]

I fail to see the correlation between gays and smokers. How many carcinogens do gays bring into their bodies every time they have sex?
Do you think obese people get a break on health insurance? If you think smokers get a raw deal on being hired, try being obese.

Stop doing your apples vs. oranges bit and tackle the real topic.

And by the way, RSR, tell us about YOUR health insurance plan. Do you have health insurance? I can't get any on my job (too many pre-existing conditions), but my husband can cover me on his policy. But it is hellaciously expensive.

Gays want to engage in risky activity like smokers they should be treated like smokers

My insurance is great. I pay a tidy sum every 2 weeks for it and you know what Gabby? Unlike what libs say aboiut those evil insurance companies, they paid every claim submitted

With group insurance there is usually no pre-existing conditions. To libs they expect the insurance companies to cover them. I guess they would also expect an insurance company to issue a policy on a house that burned to the ground last week

[Kathianne]

Red's reply reminds me to update once again, my opinion of what health insurance reform should look like.

All should be in a group. Obviously those in businesses that qualify already are. Those that aren't should find a place available.

Age/sex/occupation/behaviors included.

Using what I know best:

US substitute teachers:

age?

sex?

smoking or not?

Drink beer or wine once or less per day?

Drink a cocktail, (hard liquor) one or less per day?

Are within 25 pounds of your ideal weight?

Those questions and answers should be good enough to assign significan risk factors and premiums.

[red states rule]

Thank you Kat. Reading Gabby's posts reminds me of what Ronald Reagan said about libs like Gabby and boy was he right

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.

[KSigMason]

I can sort of understand where they are coming from though. It is like the 400 lbs, 5' 3" Doctor telling the 6' 1" 240lber to lose some weight. Or here where you see the Cancer nurses inhaling the cigs right outside the Cancer Center when you drive by.
And I thought we lived in a free country.


As I said they have the right - but where does it stop?
Why not dictate what they eat, watch, how they exercise, and what they do on their off time so as not to cost money to the employer.

[red states rule]

And I thought we lived in a free country.


Why not dictate what they eat, watch, how they exercise, and what they do on their off time so as not to cost money to the employer.

Sounds like what wil happen under Obamacare

[fj1200]

And I thought we lived in a free country.

Why not dictate what they eat, watch, how they exercise, and what they do on their off time so as not to cost money to the employer.

We do. It's just that the employer is now free to hire you or not.

The problem with our HC is that there is no direct link from your behavior to how much your HC costs. The whole concept of insurance is risk management, it's been perverted to a HC payment plan where we feel everything must be paid for by insurance. If it's not we're apoplectic.

[red states rule]

We do. It's just that the employer is now free to hire you or not.

The problem with our HC is that there is no direct link from your behavior to how much your HC costs. The whole concept of insurance is risk management, it's been perverted to a HC payment plan where we feel everything must be paid for by insurance. If it's not we're apoplectic.

Like Kat I had to answer many health questions to determine how much I would contribute towards the total cost

I have the usual co-pays and deductibles based on the answers I provided.

While I agree employers have the right to hire who they want, onde again it is smokers wh are being singled out

[fj1200]

While I agree employers have the right to hire who they want, onde again it is smokers wh are being singled out

They should be able to single out fat people too. Those whose behavior is detrimental to their health.

[red states rule]

They should be able to single out fat people too. Those whose behavior is detrimental to their health.

What about gays?

What about those who race cars, climb mountains, and skydive? Very risky activities and many end up in the ER with injuries

[jon_forward]

when you get right down to it, we all engage in some sort of risky behavior. The risk factor could be very low or off the charts. do you swim? where? go for walks? drive aggressively ? cheat on the wifey? If i choose to smoke,drink, eat raw fish, screw the lady next door[heart failure/shot] Its my choice to do so. I dont need my behavior modified .to suit the suits in fancy desks pulling down millions a year doing the same thing they are telling us to stop. i can only hope the judge that is assigned to hear this case is a huntin,fishin, beer drinking, skirt chasin, chain smoker thats never had a sick day in his life. I agree that smoking is bad for you, so is bacon, too much sun and the lady next door.

[red states rule]

when you get right down to it, we all engage in some sort of risky behavior. The risk factor could be very low or off the charts. do you swim? where? go for walks? drive aggressively ? cheat on the wifey? If i choose to smoke,drink, eat raw fish, screw the lady next door[heart failure/shot] Its my choice to do so. I dont need my behavior modified .to suit the suits in fancy desks pulling down millions a year doing the same thing they are telling us to stop. i can only hope the judge that is assigned to hear this case is a huntin,fishin, beer drinking, skirt chasin, chain smoker thats never had a sick day in his life. I agree that smoking is bad for you, so is bacon, too much sun and the lady next door.

and so is allowing liberals to regulate every aspect of your life

It is clear smokers are considered second class citizens by many (mostly of the left)

Yet thanks to the smokers the government takes in massive amonut of tax revenue. What would happen if libs like Gabby got her wish and every smoker stopped smoking?

Does she think the government would really be happy over the loss of all that revenue? Or the tens of thousands of people who would lose thier jobs and thus even more lost tax revenue?

Libs like Gabby have so much to learn about hw the real world works

[jon_forward]

the libs can only see as far as their nose, as long as it suits them they dont care of the implications down the road, or how it will effect them years from now. they seem to live in the moment. sorry but I aint wired that way. next thing you know they will want to make it illegal to smoke, period.

[maineman]

Yet thanks to the smokers the government takes in massive amonut of tax revenue. What would happen if libs like Gabby got her wish and every smoker stopped smoking?


Here is a very interesting article that discusses the cost of smoking related illnesses versus the revenues from cigarette taxes.

http://www.preventionminnesota.com/objects/pdfs/C%20tobacco%20economics.pdf

[jimnyc]

Here is a very interesting article that discusses the cost of smoking related illnesses versus the revenues from cigarette taxes.

http://www.preventionminnesota.com/objects/pdfs/C%20tobacco%20economics.pdf

I just downloaded and read this 9 year old PDF file. Not accounting for the fact that taxes have probably went up about 200% since then...

I found nothing at all in this PDF about tax revenue. Care to point it out to me so I can read it for myself. Surely you read this very short file and can tell me where it is...

[maineman]

I just downloaded and read this 9 year old PDF file. Not accounting for the fact that taxes have probably went up about 200% since then...

I found nothing at all in this PDF about tax revenue. Care to point it out to me so I can read it for myself. Surely you read this very short file and can tell me where it is...

gladly.

"As shown in this chart, the dollars spent on excess medical costs attributable to smoking tower over the state’s 2004 budget for early childhood education ($48 million), transportation ($79 million), veterans’ homes ($30 million), and higher education ($1.3 billion) combined.4 In contrast, 2004 Minnesota’s cigarette tax revenues amounted to merely $172 million."

[red states rule]

Here is a very interesting article that discusses the cost of smoking related illnesses versus the revenues from cigarette taxes.

http://www.preventionminnesota.com/objects/pdfs/C%20tobacco%20economics.pdf

I thought Clinton's tobacco settlement was to take care of the costs?

Oh, seems Dems are using the money for everything BUT those costs. They are using that money to shore up their budgets and telling the smokers to piss off

Now as far as the taxes that smokers pay, as well as the tobacco company employees - libs would shit their pants if they lost all that money

[jimnyc]

gladly.

"As shown in this chart, the dollars spent on excess medical costs attributable to smoking tower over the state’s 2004 budget for early childhood education ($48 million), transportation ($79 million), veterans’ homes ($30 million), and higher education ($1.3 billion) combined.4 In contrast, 2004 Minnesota’s cigarette tax revenues amounted to merely $172 million."


So we have medical data from 2002, revenue from 2004 and a multitude of data from 2002... Now tell me how much the states tax has increased since then. And then figure in the nation, not just one state you can find to fit your viewpoint. I think you'll find that Minnesota has since tripled - as has just about every other state.

[red states rule]

So we have medical data from 2002, revenue from 2004 and a multitude of data from 2002... Now tell me how much the states tax has increased since then. And then figure in the nation, not just one state you can find to fit your viewpoint. I think you'll find that Minnesota has since tripled - as has just about every other state.

Stick the fork in MM he is done early tonight :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Stick the fork in MM he is done early tonight :laugh2:

I watched my smokes since then go from $2.50 to $12.00 here in NY and 90% of that is taxes!! One just need to do a tiny search to see the skyrocketing tax revenue increase for EVERY state since 2002.

[red states rule]

I watched my smokes since then go from $2.50 to $12.00 here in NY and 90% of that is taxes!! One just need to do a tiny search to see the skyrocketing tax revenue increase for EVERY state since 2002.

Me, I pay 1/3 retail and NO taxes on them. The libs kept jacking up the cost and I buy them duty free. No rhe Dems get ZERO taxes and many of my friends no ordeer them online and save a ton of money

[maineman]

So we have medical data from 2002, revenue from 2004 and a multitude of data from 2002... Now tell me how much the states tax has increased since then. And then figure in the nation, not just one state you can find to fit your viewpoint. I think you'll find that Minnesota has since tripled - as has just about every other state.
and the costs of treating smoking related illnesses has remained stagnant, I bet.

[maineman]

and again, in Minnesota, smoking related illness costs: nearly 2 BILLION dollars... while cigarette tax revenues: 172 million.

[red states rule]

and the costs of treating smoking related illnesses has remained stagnant, I bet.

Hey Virg, I reminded you that the Clinton tobacco settlement was to pay for the medical costs but Dems are using the money for other purposes

Having trouble keeping up old man?

[jimnyc]

and the costs of treating smoking related illnesses has remained stagnant, I bet.

Then post updated stats of both instead of being a blowhard and posting 9 year old data to look cute in a debate.

Here, here's a few stats on the increase on taxes, use this as a starting point. You've pointed out to us how blessed you are to have your intelligence, surely you should be able to post individual and country wide stats for us in no time!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

This shows 16 billion in revenue as of 3 years ago, and the largest tax increases ever have hit since then.

[jimnyc]

and again, in Minnesota, smoking related illness costs: nearly 2 BILLION dollars... while cigarette tax revenues: 172 million.

And I believe Red was pointing out how much revenue was brought into government as a result of taxes. How much of that 2 billion was paid for by the government, how much by insurance companies, how much by the individuals? I'LL WAIT...

[red states rule]

Then post updated stats of both instead of being a blowhard and posting 9 year old data to look cute in a debate.

Here, here's a few stats on the increase on taxes, use this as a starting point. You've pointed out to us how blessed you are to have your intelligence, surely you should be able to post individual and country wide stats for us in no time!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

This shows 16 billion in revenue as of 3 years ago, and the largest tax increases ever have hit since then.

If this was a boxing match the ref would stop the match out of mercy for ol' Virg

He is getting an old fashoned Texas ass whipping

[maineman]

Then post updated stats of both instead of being a blowhard and posting 9 year old data to look cute in a debate.

Here, here's a few stats on the increase on taxes, use this as a starting point. You've pointed out to us how blessed you are to have your intelligence, surely you should be able to post individual and country wide stats for us in no time!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

This shows 16 billion in revenue as of 3 years ago, and the largest tax increases ever have hit since then.

I'm watching the red sox, so this is one off the top of my head:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf

Tobacco-Related Monetary Costs in the USA
Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking: $96 billion - Annual Federal and state government smoking-caused Medicaid payments: $30.9 billion
[Federal share: $17.6 billion per year. States’ share: $13.3 billion] - Federal government smoking-caused Medicare expenditures each year: $27.4 billion - Other federal government tobacco-caused health care costs (e.g. through VA health care): $9.6 billion
 Annual health care expenditures solely from secondhand smoke exposure: $4.98 billion
Additional smoking-caused health costs caused by tobacco use include annual expenditures for health and developmental problems of infants and children caused by mothers smoking or being exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy or by kids being exposed to parents smoking after birth (at least $1.4 to $4.0 billion). Also not included above are costs from smokeless or spit tobacco use, adult secondhand smoke exposure, or pipe/cigar smoking.
Productivity losses caused by smoking each year: $97 billion
[Only includes costs from productive work lives shortened by smoking-caused death. Not included: costs from smoking- caused disability during work lives, smoking-caused sick days, or smoking-caused productivity declines when on the job.]
Annual expenditures through Social Security Survivors Insurance for the more than 300,000 kids who have lost at least one parent from a smoking-caused death: $2.6 billion
Other non-healthcare costs from tobacco use include residential and commercial property losses from smoking-caused fires (about half a billion dollars per year) and tobacco-related cleaning & maintenance ($3 billion).
 Taxpayers yearly fed/state tax burden from smoking-caused gov’t spending: $70.7 billion ($616 per household)  Smoking-caused health costs and productivity losses per pack sold in USA (low estimate): $10.47 per pack
 Average retail price per pack in the USA (including sales tax): $5.29

[red states rule]

Having a problem with the facts about the tobacco settlement Virg? :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Again, Virgil, if you can read - HOW MUCH WAS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT, which is what we're discussing. Red CLEARLY stated it about them receiving the revenue via smoking taxes. If an insurance company or individual pays money as a result of smoking - how the fuck does that hurt the governments bottom dollar? Then if you look at how much money the insured's pay to the companies, compared to what they pay out on claims - I'm sure the companies win out there as well. Seems like everyone is making money off the smokers, even including the $$ spent on their healthcare.

[maineman]

Again, Virgil, if you can read - HOW MUCH WAS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT, which is what we're discussing. Red CLEARLY stated it about them receiving the revenue via smoking taxes. If an insurance company or individual pays money as a result of smoking - how the fuck does that hurt the governments bottom dollar? Then if you look at how much money the insured's pay to the companies, compared to what they pay out on claims - I'm sure the companies win out there as well. Seems like everyone is making money off the smokers, even including the $$ spent on their healthcare.

and it seems that if, like magic, cigarettes disappears, the benefits would far outweigh the costs... regardless of whose paying them.

[red states rule]

and it seems that if, like magic, cigarettes disappears, the benefits would far outweigh the costs... regardless of whose paying them.

like Dems would give up on the lost tax revenue? Sure.......

What you want them to raise taxes on to cover the lost revenue?

Property taxes? Income taxes? Sales taxes? All the above?

[jimnyc]

and it seems that if, like magic, cigarettes disappears, the benefits would far outweigh the costs... regardless of whose paying them.

So it appears that you are now conceding the fact that the government makes a ton of money off of cigarettes and would stand to lose a pretty penny if smoking was banned altogether. Funny how simple facts and questions get you to "admit" that. Of course you'll come back and deny that, and then I'll continue to show you how much tax revenue they make and ask you to show us how much they spend -which you'll continually ignore.

[red states rule]

So it appears that you are now conceding the fact that the government makes a ton of money off of cigarettes and would stand to lose a pretty penny if smoking was banned altogether. Funny how simple facts and questions get you to "admit" that. Of course you'll come back and deny that, and then I'll continue to show you how much tax revenue they make and ask you to show us how much they spend -which you'll continually ignore.

Like with beer, if the libs are dumb enough to try and make cigarettes illegal, there are some families in NY and across the nation that would be happy to step up and supply the public with cigs

and the government would not get the cut of the take like they are now

Which is the saddest thing for Virgil. Whenever the government goes without, that is when Virg goes into mourning

[maineman]

So it appears that you are now conceding the fact that the government makes a ton of money off of cigarettes and would stand to lose a pretty penny if smoking was banned altogether. Funny how simple facts and questions get you to "admit" that. Of course you'll come back and deny that, and then I'll continue to show you how much tax revenue they make and ask you to show us how much they spend -which you'll continually ignore.

I am suggesting that the money that the government takes in is dwarfed by a factor of 10:1 by the costs to society.

[red states rule]

I am suggesting that the money that the government takes in is dwarfed by a factor of 10:1 by the costs to society.

and you think the Dems would give that money up if people stopped smoking?

Hell no

Everyone would see their taxes go up. Dems will never allow government to go without

[maineman]

like Dems would give up on the lost tax revenue? Sure.......

What you want them to raise taxes on to cover the lost revenue?

Property taxes? Income taxes? Sales taxes? All the above?

I would think that the reduction in medicare and medicaid expenses related to smoking would lessen the impact significantly... and the increased health of the population in general would improve productivity, and longevity which would tend to increase tax revenues.

[red states rule]

I would think that the reduction in medicare and medicaid expenses related to smoking would lessen the impact significantly... and the increased health of the population in general would improve productivity, and longevity which would tend to increase tax revenues.

and what about the taxes that are no longer being paid by the people who no longer work for the tobacco companies? the trucking companies that no longer ship the cigs? Or the clerks or no longer work in the stores that use to sell the cigs?

All the income taxes that are not being paid. All the sales taxes that are being collected since those people no longer have the money to spend

No Virg. libs would be crying an ocean of tears over that lost tax money and the rest of us would then have a massive Bullseye on our wallets

[maineman]

and what about the taxes that are no longer being paid by the people who no longer work for the tobacco companies? the trucking companies that no longer ship the cigs? Or the clerks or no longer work in the stores that use to sell the cigs?

All the income taxes that are not being paid. All the sales taxes that are being collected since those people no longer have the money to spend

No Virg. libs would be crying an ocean of tears over that lost tax money and the rest of us would then have a massive Bullseye on our wallets

Red... I cannot imagine that trucking companies cannot haul other products. And I cannot imagine why we would not, as a society, seek to continually discourage and hopefully decrease and eventually eliminate the use of a product that, if used as designed, will kill the user.

I would NOT cry tears if cigarettes were magically gone and, if it can't be done by magic, it can be done by public policy and tax policy and if we ever got to the point where there were no more cigarettes used and no more cigarette tax revenues collected, I would rejoice in the increased health of my fellow citizens.

[jimnyc]

I am suggesting that the money that the government takes in is dwarfed by a factor of 10:1 by the costs to society.

And that does NOTHING to negate the amount of billions that the government makes from tax revenue with cigarettes.

[maineman]

And that does NOTHING to negate the amount of billions that the government makes from tax revenue with cigarettes.


you don't think that medicare and medicaid incur costs due to smoking related illnesses? you don't think that workers being removed from the workforce does not cost the government tax revenues? NOTHING? REALLY?

[jimnyc]

you don't think that medicare and medicaid incur costs due to smoking related illnesses? you don't think that workers being removed from the workforce does not cost the government tax revenues? NOTHING? REALLY?

Then give us info showing exact costs to the government for their expenditures directly related to smoking. I'm sure there are costs, but I just doubt it is anywhere near the amount it takes in from tax revenue from cigarettes. We'll wait for your information...

[maineman]

Then give us info showing exact costs to the government for their expenditures directly related to smoking. I'm sure there are costs, but I just doubt it is anywhere near the amount it takes in from tax revenue from cigarettes. We'll wait for your information...


from the previous link:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf

"Annual Federal and state government smoking-caused Medicaid payments: $30.9 billion
[Federal share: $17.6 billion per year. States’ share: $13.3 billion] - Federal government smoking-caused Medicare expenditures each year: $27.4 billion - Other federal government tobacco-caused health care costs (e.g. through VA health care): $9.6 billion
 Annual health care expenditures solely from secondhand smoke exposure: $4.98 billion"

versus tax revenues...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

extrapolate from 2008 and you got maybe $20B

[jimnyc]

Ummm, Virgil, I told you that graph was just a starting point for you. It doesn't take into account FEDERAL GOVERNMENT taxes at all. It's outdated, so those figures for the states are probably about 30-40% higher now as smokes have skyrocketed in the past 3-4 years. Now find the figures on what the feds are taking in. Even your own PDF states it costs anywhere from .50 - 3.00 per pack to cover medicaid/medicare - while smokes are generally 7-13.00 a pack now.

[maineman]

Ummm, Virgil, I told you that graph was just a starting point for you. It doesn't take into account FEDERAL GOVERNMENT taxes at all. It's outdated, so those figures for the states are probably about 30-40% higher now as smokes have skyrocketed in the past 3-4 years. Now find the figures on what the feds are taking in. Even your own PDF states it costs anywhere from .50 - 3.00 per pack to cover medicaid/medicare - while smokes are generally 7-13.00 a pack now.

I'm trying to watch the bruins and google at the same time. I can't find a link that gives a total dollar revenue for the feds... what I did find was that most states - except the southeast tobacco states - and many of the most populated states have taxes of 1 to 2 dollars a pack. and the states total is maybe 20B this year.... the feds have a tax rate of $1.01 per pack so I can't imagine that their revenue is significantly greater than the total state take. If you say that the feds take in 30B, that still does not cover the costs my prior link indicated.

and the canucks just tied it up at 2-2

gotta go

[jimnyc]

Ok, now once you add up the state AND federal tax revenues on a pack of cigarettes - then add in the following:

JUST the feds rake in:

$1.09 per pound of pipe tobacco
$2.83 per pound of loose tobacco to roll your own, which is only a few cartons per pound
$.03 for every roll of papers
$.06 for every tube - which is every single cigarette rolled yourself, about another $1.20 per pack for people who roll their own

I'm just getting started... And I can assure you that the roll your own market is MASSIVE, as it's cheaper to an extent for the consumer, but the taxes are similar. Also keep in mind - the above rates are just the FED numbers...

[maineman]

again... we are talking feds only, right?

from my prior link:

"Annual Federal and state government smoking-caused Medicaid payments: $30.9 billion [Federal share: $17.6 billion per year. States’ share: $13.3 billion] - Federal government smoking-caused Medicare expenditures each year: $27.4 billion - Other federal government tobacco-caused health care costs (e.g. through VA health care): $9.6 billion

that's annual federal costs of $55B

and I found the following link:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.shtml

which states that the federal government will bring in less than $18B in all tobacco excise taxes this year and even less in following years.


It seems to me that that link would tend to support my contention that the feds spend a hell of a lot more on tobacco health issues than they receive in tax revenues.

[jimnyc]

again... we are talking feds only, right?

It seems to me that that link would tend to support my contention that the feds spend a hell of a lot more on tobacco health issues than they receive in tax revenues.

NO, we are talking GOVERNMENT, which would be state and federal. I've already proven that they make a minimum of 30 billion and likely a LOT more as the largest ever tax increase was passed in 2009 which is not included in my figures...

But lets move on to what YOU say the government spends, and lets start with Medicare. You state they spend $27.4 billion - but WHO funds this program? Seems to me that a TON of medicare is funded from an individuals own payroll and from the companies they work for. Hospital care is funded that way (likely the majority of the money), medicare program administration, combating fraud, nursing care, home health care...

So I wonder, how much of what medicare spends is paid for by the government, and how much by the individuals and companies. Can you tell us that? I'd imagine that's quite a few billion chopped down right there.

Your ship is sinking, Virgil, and if you took the time to research this subject it's all over the place that this is a source of + revenue for the government. You're debating a guaranteed losing battle. The government makes money from smoking. Period. End of story.

[LuvRPgrl]

In fairness though, Life is a death sentence, no matter how healthy a lifestyle you adopt from however early.

Not for me, I'm gonna live forever,,,,and until I die, you can't prove me wrong,,,and if I do die, its too late to prove me wrong... :)

[LuvRPgrl]

I can sort of understand where they are coming from though. It is like the 400 lbs, 5' 3" Doctor telling the 6' 1" 240lber to lose some weight. Or here where you see the Cancer nurses inhaling the cigs right outside the Cancer Center when you drive by.

Seems to me as though working in a hospital is pretty dangerous, exposing yourself to all those germs and sick people and all, so just by working there, arent they being kinda hypocritical and giving a bad example to the patients?

[LuvRPgrl]

and the costs of treating smoking related illnesses has remained stagnant, I bet.

smoking related illnesses????hahhahaha,,,HAHAHHAHHA....
BWHAHAHHAHAHHA,,,,BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA H

[gabosaurus]

I never said we should make smoking illegal. I just think it should be banned in public places. If you want to smoke, go home and smoke.

I have always wondered by tobacco is legal and marijuana is not legal. Both are drugs. If the government legalized marijuana and taxed it like tobacco, it would bring in enough revenue to wipe out a significant portion of the national debt.

I would also like to see casino gambling legalized for the same reason. Anyone who says gambling is evil and victimizes poor people has never seen destitute people spend their last bucks on cigs and alcohol.

[NightTrain]

If you employ someone, then deny them the health insurance extended to others, that can be viewed as discrimination.
And let's face it, companies can hire or fire anyone they want. You can't ask someone if they are gay. You can ask them if they suck dick.
If someone denies you employment because you suck dick, you can either stop sucking cock or look for another job.

Yes, I do dislike sucking dick intensely. The smell is disgusting, and cock suckers normally smell like cock suckers. Fellatio artists don't know they reek because your sense of smell is one of the first to go. It's a disgusting habit.

Fixed.

[maineman]

NO, we are talking GOVERNMENT, which would be state and federal. I've already proven that they make a minimum of 30 billion and likely a LOT more as the largest ever tax increase was passed in 2009 which is not included in my figures...

But lets move on to what YOU say the government spends, and lets start with Medicare. You state they spend $27.4 billion - but WHO funds this program? Seems to me that a TON of medicare is funded from an individuals own payroll and from the companies they work for. Hospital care is funded that way (likely the majority of the money), medicare program administration, combating fraud, nursing care, home health care...

So I wonder, how much of what medicare spends is paid for by the government, and how much by the individuals and companies. Can you tell us that? I'd imagine that's quite a few billion chopped down right there.

Your ship is sinking, Virgil, and if you took the time to research this subject it's all over the place that this is a source of + revenue for the government. You're debating a guaranteed losing battle. The government makes money from smoking. Period. End of story.

I provided you two solid links.

One that shows that the FEDERAL government spends $55BILLION on smoking related illness. Dollars out.

The other that shows that the FEDERAL government gets $18BILLION from tobacco excises taxes. Dollars in.

The federal government spends more of its money (our money) on smoking related illness every year than it receives in excise tax revenues on tobacco (smoker's money). If smoking magically went away, and along with it, the illnesses that it caused, they would LOSE $18B and they would SAVE $55B. That is a tax deal that any liberal would jump at.

[jimnyc]

I provided you two solid links.

One that shows that the FEDERAL government spends $55BILLION on smoking related illness. Dollars out.

The other that shows that the FEDERAL government gets $18BILLION from tobacco excises taxes. Dollars in.

The federal government spends more of its money (our money) on smoking related illness every year than it receives in excise tax revenues on tobacco (smoker's money). If smoking magically went away, and along with it, the illnesses that it caused, they would LOSE $18B and they would SAVE $55B. That is a tax deal that any liberal would jump at.

But the "dollars out" money is also funded by individuals and employers, or could you not properly read my last fucking post? Do you know how medicare is funded? Get back to me when you can read...

[jimnyc]

again... we are talking feds only, right?

from my prior link:

"Annual Federal and state government smoking-caused

First you try to minimize the numbers by trying to change the argument and limit it to federal only, knowing that the federal government spends more than the states. Then a half inch away, your very next sentence, certainly within reading and comprehending distance - you quote prices for both.

You're cooked, done, burnt, stick a fork in you. You're already at the point where you're ignoring my questions in repeated posts.

[maineman]

But the "dollars out" money is also funded by individuals and employers, or could you not properly read my last fucking post? Do you know how medicare is funded? Get back to me when you can read...


EVERY dollar out paid by the government comes from individuals and employers. do YOU know how government is funded?

We take in tax dollars from a variety of sources... medicare payroll deductions... tobacco excise taxes.... income taxes...

and we pay OUT dollars for a variety of causes... $55B of which goes out to pay for diseases that come from a product whose use only generates $17B in income.

[maineman]

First you try to minimize the numbers by trying to change the argument and limit it to federal only, knowing that the federal government spends more than the states. Then a half inch away, your very next sentence, certainly within reading and comprehending distance - you quote prices for both.

You're cooked, done, burnt, stick a fork in you. You're already at the point where you're ignoring my questions in repeated posts.

you really do need to read more slowly and try to digest more fully the actual content and meaning of the words.

Here... let me help ya a little bit:

"Annual Federal and state government smoking-caused Medicaid payments: $30.9 billion [Federal share: $17.6 billion per year. States’ share: $13.3 billion] - Federal government smoking-caused Medicare expenditures each year: $27.4 billion - Other federal government tobacco-caused health care costs (e.g. through VA health care): $9.6 billion

17.6 + 27.4 + 9.6 = 54.6

and from your own link... the states get maybe $20B in tax revenues from tobacco... state and federal revenues wouldn't even cover the federal costs, let alone the state's costs.

does the fork hurt?

[jimnyc]

Yes, MEDICARE you fat bastard, which is also directly paid by individuals and employers but will be listed as total Medicare payments to the hospitals and doctors. And why are you trying to eliminate state taxes from the argument?

And why are you continually ignoring my request for total taxes received from cigarettes? Where is the data from all the tobacco related products I have requested thus far? I haven't even started yet, we're about 25% through what is taxed!!

[jimnyc]

EVERY dollar out paid by the government comes from individuals and employers. do YOU know how government is funded?

We take in tax dollars from a variety of sources... medicare payroll deductions... tobacco excise taxes.... income taxes...

and we pay OUT dollars for a variety of causes... $55B of which goes out to pay for diseases that come from a product whose use only generates $17B in income.

Yes, government is funded by people like Chimpy in Chief stealing money from people like me, then using that money to pay for shitheads like you to have heart procedures.

And you state 17b in income? Are you fucking retarded as usual? With cigarettes alone I have shown you about 40b between state and federal taxes AS OF 2008! That was PRIOR to the largest tax increase in the history of cigarettes! And also prior to the lengthy list of other products you have yet to account for.

[maineman]

Yes, MEDICARE you fat bastard, which is also directly paid by individuals and employers but will be listed as total Medicare payments to the hospitals and doctors. And why are you trying to eliminate state taxes from the argument?

And why are you continually ignoring my request for total taxes received from cigarettes? Where is the data from all the tobacco related products I have requested thus far? I haven't even started yet, we're about 25% through what is taxed!!

total taxes received from cigarettes equals state totals plus federal totals, yes? you have seen links that give you state totals and last night I gave you the link that lists federal totals.

and I took the state out initially because RSR was saying that democrats in congress would never allow the federal government to go without the income it got from tobacco. I have shown, in several posts, that the money that the federal government spends on tobacco caused illnesses is WAY more than the money it receives from the sale of tobacco products. 55 > 17

[jimnyc]

total taxes received from cigarettes equals state totals plus federal totals, yes? you have seen links that give you state totals and last night I gave you the link that lists federal totals.

and I took the state out initially because RSR was saying that democrats in congress would never allow the federal government to go without the income it got from tobacco. I have shown, in several posts, that the money that the federal government spends on tobacco caused illnesses is WAY more than the money it receives from the sale of tobacco products. 55 > 17

AGAIN, you ignoramus, 17b was JUST federal AS OF 2008 - and WITHOUT the income listed from all the other tobacco products I listed AND BEFORE the largest ever tax increase by Chimpy in Chief. Now how about you figure in those increases and account for those other products? Then maybe I'll add a TON MORE to the list that is taxed by the government. Is this really that fucking hard for you to comprehend?

[maineman]

Yes, government is funded by people like Chimpy in Chief stealing money from people like me, then using that money to pay for shitheads like you to have heart procedures.

And you state 17b in income? Are you fucking retarded as usual? With cigarettes alone I have shown you about 40b between state and federal taxes AS OF 2008! That was PRIOR to the largest tax increase in the history of cigarettes! And also prior to the lengthy list of other products you have yet to account for.
the $55B is FEDERAL costs

the $17B is FEDERAL revenues from tobacco taxes

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.shtml

go to table 4.7 in the link.

[jimnyc]

sale of tobacco products. 55 > 17

Just an Fyi - the LARGEST tax increase was .39 to 1.01 that's MORE than doubled JUST FOR THE FEDS and would bring JUST THE FEDS to nearly 40b - not even accounting for the states and ALL the other products listed you keep ignoring!!

[maineman]

AGAIN, you ignoramus, 17b was JUST federal AS OF 2008 - and WITHOUT the income listed from all the other tobacco products I listed AND BEFORE the largest ever tax increase by Chimpy in Chief. Now how about you figure in those increases and account for those other products? Then maybe I'll add a TON MORE to the list that is taxed by the government. Is this really that fucking hard for you to comprehend?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.shtml

table 4.7


does not say diddly about cigarettes... says tobacco excise taxes.

[jimnyc]

the $55B is FEDERAL costs

the $17B is FEDERAL revenues from tobacco taxes

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.shtml

go to table 4.7 in the link.

You're a dense fat bastard!

that was 2008, prior to the 1 1/2 x increase AND NOT ACCOUNTING FOR STATE TAX - NOR THE OTHER PRODUCTS - which will have it EASILY SURPASS THE 55b with PLENTY to spare.

[maineman]

Just an Fyi - the LARGEST tax increase was .39 to 1.01 that's MORE than doubled JUST FOR THE FEDS and would bring JUST THE FEDS to nearly 40b - not even accounting for the states and ALL the other products listed you keep ignoring!!

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.shtml

table 4.7

[jimnyc]

You know when you have the fat fucking blowhard virgil beaten when he starts repeating himself over and over. I guess it's time for him to go outside and kick the dog! :laugh2:

[red states rule]

You know when you have the fat fucking blowhard virgil beaten when he starts repeating himself over and over. I guess it's time for him to go outside and kick the dog! :laugh2:

When has he NOT been beaten? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Just an Fyi - the LARGEST tax increase was .39 to 1.01 that's MORE than doubled JUST FOR THE FEDS and would bring JUST THE FEDS to nearly 40b - not even accounting for the states and ALL the other products listed you keep ignoring!!

and I thought Obama "promised" not to raise taxes on ANYONE making less then $250,000/yr?

[fj1200]

the $55B is FEDERAL costs

the $17B is FEDERAL revenues from tobacco taxes

That doesn't take into account savings from Social Security not paid to smokers who die early. I seem to remember a study that showed smoking was a net saver to the government.

[fj1200]

What about those who race cars, climb mountains, and skydive? Very risky activities and many end up in the ER with injuries

Accepting your premise for the moment, I wonder how the private sector would price that?

[red states rule]

Accepting your premise for the moment, I wonder how the private sector would price that?

The moment the government is providing your ins coverage you know damn well they will start telling you how to live your life. The costs will be busting the budget and the government will be desperate to cut costs

The private sector does offer accident ins and other polices to cover high risk activities

[LuvRPgrl]

I would think that the reduction in medicare and medicaid expenses related to smoking would lessen the impact significantly... and the increased health of the population in general would improve productivity, and longevity which would tend to increase tax revenues.

That statement is so patetently in error, its disturbing that you would either A: Actually believe such an absurdity, or
B: You are spreading lies.

MOST of those whose reduction in health issues related to smoking would be seniors who would be collecting SS or living off some other aspect and would not be working and producing and/or paying taxes.
In fact, people dying from smoking would help the Feds in keeping more of the SS funds thus allowing them to spend more and more of the money they force us to put into a fund that is SUPPOSED to benefit us at retirement, but in actuality, they spend on whatever pet project they have going that week.

[LuvRPgrl]

the $55B is FEDERAL costs

the $17B is FEDERAL revenues from tobacco taxes

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.shtml

go to table 4.7 in the link.

Your 55B in medical expenditures is a joke at best.

First, you get the figures from a website "tobaccoFREEkids" and you consider the numbers legitimate?

Second, the cost of "tobacco caused" illnesses is impossible to determine. You could determine a maximum amount, but not a minimum amount, as many illnesses which are associated with tobacco, may have occured anyways, smoking or not smoking patient, whereas, all the illnesses that tobacco could possibly cause, could be added up to give a maximum amount possible, which is the figure you present us with 55B, assuming the highly biased site you used is accurate, which I will bet my next cartoon of smokes it isnt ;unbiased.

Third, alot of the funding for medicare etc, etc to cover the costs of tobacco illnesses comes from elsewhere, and in fact doesnt cost the govt anything, it costs the taxpayers, but is a neutral amount as far as the govt goes.

In other words,

NOPBODY SMOKEs, the feds get no funds for medical programs to treat smokers, and pay no amounts either. Its a net draw.
Feds also get no revenues from taxes, its a loss of 17B??

If people smoke, (lets just assume BEST CASE scenario for your arguement), Feds receive funding of about 55B to pay for about 55B of treatments, etc, for smoker caused illnesses, a net of zero,

Feds get about 17B in revenues,,,,opppps, thats a net gain of 17B.


So, if nobody smoked, the feds neither lose nor gain anything.
,
If people do smoke, the feds gain 17B in revenues,

so, by having people smoke, the Govt, gains at MINIMUM , 17B in revenues to spend.