Federal Tobacco Tax.

[Soliloquy]

This whole thing just rubs me the wrong way. God forbid the government taxes alcohol! Alcohol is more likely to injure someone else then tobacco is. Smokers, generally, only harm themselves.

But then again, it's not PC to smoke anymore.

Big brother man... big brother..

[AGDee]

This one goes even further. It's an employer who is charging employees if they are obese, smokers, diabetic or have high cholesterol or hypertension. Check it out:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/070802/au...&.pf=inusrance

I can understand charging smokers more because there is some life choice there but the others cannot always be controlled...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This one goes even further. It's an employer who is charging employees if they are obese, smokers, diabetic or have high cholesterol or hypertension. Check it out:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/070802/au...&.pf=inusrance

I can understand charging smokers more because there is some life choice there but the others cannot always be controlled...

So? Even if we accept that they cannot be controlled (which I'm not sure is the case for obesity, and may be arguable for hypertension), these people cost more to insure and miss more time at work on the whole.

This means something has to give, and if they are more expensive to insure, their employer has every right to force them to pay the additional cost.

These people aren't "victims" - this is common sense and sound business.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So? Even if we accept that they cannot be controlled (which I'm not sure is the case for obesity, and may be arguable for hypertension), these people cost more to insure and miss more time at work on the whole.

This means something has to give, and if they are more expensive to insure, their employer has every right to force them to pay the additional cost.

These people aren't "victims" - this is common sense and sound business.

So, where does it end? Is there anybody on this planet who doesn't have some health problem at some point in their life? Is someone with high cholesterol more expensive to insure than someone with all the other diseases in the world?

What about the logistics of this? Do you run blood tests and check blood pressure every pay period? How many times do you have to have a high reading to get fined? What if you typically have great blood pressure but just had a very stressful event happen and you have a one time reading of a high blood pressure? How in the world do you figure all this out? Aren't these people already paying by paying more co-pays for prescriptions and doctor visits?

When do we get to the point that everybody has to have genetic testing to make sure they aren't predisposed to illness because employers don't want to pay for their health insurance? Who would be employable then??? Where do you draw the line on this concept?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

So, where does it end? Is there anybody on this planet who doesn't have some health problem at some point in their life? Is someone with high cholesterol more expensive to insure than someone with all the other diseases in the world?

No, but people with "other diseases" often . . . pay more!

If you have AIDS and switch employers, see how quickly you're placed onto their insurance - or see what rates you get when you go outside your employer if you've had even something like plantar warts removed.

This is just employers catching onto what the insurers have done for decades - and that's how it should be.

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among a large group - and if you make up more of that "risk pool" why on Earth shouldn't you pay more? For that reason, who cares "where it ends"? It SHOULDN'T end!

Originally Posted by AGDee

What about the logistics of this? Do you run blood tests and check blood pressure every pay period? How many times do you have to have a high reading to get fined? What if you typically have great blood pressure but just had a very stressful event happen and you have a one time reading of a high blood pressure? How in the world do you figure all this out? Aren't these people already paying by paying more co-pays for prescriptions and doctor visits?

Co-pays are a small to negligible amount (depending on the type of visit), and don't account for the increased risk you carry . . .past that, all of these are logistical elements that the company can work out on its own, and don't seem particularly invasive to me.

Originally Posted by AGDee

When do we get to the point that everybody has to have genetic testing to make sure they aren't predisposed to illness because employers don't want to pay for their health insurance? Who would be employable then??? Where do you draw the line on this concept?

Why is this so scary? If you're predisposed to, say, MS, shouldn't that affect what you pay in? If it doesn't, aren't you charging the healthy people more?

I think you're being needlessly alarmist - especially since if people do indeed find this offensive or invasive, then market forces will handle whether employers do this sort of thing.

If you're a healthy individual and you're paying the same as an obese smoker with a tendency toward long-term, expensive, debilitating illness, you are getting screwed by the system, right?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Soliloquy

God forbid the government taxes alcohol! Alcohol is more likely to injure someone else then tobacco is.

Ummm . . . the government does tax alcohol.

Originally Posted by Soliloquy

I would rather see more rules in place to prevent drunks from behaving violently or possibly murdering someone by getting behind the wheel, then extreme taxes on smokers. Obviously hard time isn't effectively controlling people's will to drink and drive.

Well, last I heard, one couldn't be criminally charged with smoking and driving. In many places, drunk driving that results in death is being prosecuted as murder.

You're right that hard time isn't deterring some people, but I'm not sure what "rules" would be more effective than the threat of prison. Not higher taxes, certainly.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

No, but people with "other diseases" often . . . pay more!

If you have AIDS and switch employers, see how quickly you're placed onto their insurance - or see what rates you get when you go outside your employer if you've had even something like plantar warts removed.

This is just employers catching onto what the insurers have done for decades - and that's how it should be.

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among a large group - and if you make up more of that "risk pool" why on Earth shouldn't you pay more? For that reason, who cares "where it ends"? It SHOULDN'T end!



Co-pays are a small to negligible amount (depending on the type of visit), and don't account for the increased risk you carry . . .past that, all of these are logistical elements that the company can work out on its own, and don't seem particularly invasive to me.



Why is this so scary? If you're predisposed to, say, MS, shouldn't that affect what you pay in? If it doesn't, aren't you charging the healthy people more?

I think you're being needlessly alarmist - especially since if people do indeed find this offensive or invasive, then market forces will handle whether employers do this sort of thing.

If you're a healthy individual and you're paying the same as an obese smoker with a tendency toward long-term, expensive, debilitating illness, you are getting screwed by the system, right?

Following that kind of logic, why not just get rid of insurance completely so the people who use the system don't pay anything?

[Tom Earp]

Interesting comments to be sure.

Thank you one and all.

But when tobacco, the first profit item of this country is banned and all of not only Me, but the thousands are put on the streets, who pays for them? We do.

Ow, everyone says that tobacco is the cause for so many things. What about all of the other things that are not listed here?

Booze Taxes, Yes, I am familiar with that from owning a Booze Joint and they wanted to raise taxes yearly.

But, we have to love the Legislatures as they love to drink and do not want to screw that up.

I just love the rightous who want to be so PC just like the other A W in the world!

Why don't you get off of your asses and try to try to run a real business instead of kissing Corp. rears.

Thank you! Try to really be important.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Following that kind of logic, why not just get rid of insurance completely so the people who use the system don't pay anything?

That conclusion doesn't follow my logic at all.

Restated:

Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among many people. Therefore, those in the pool with the greatest risk should pay more.

I don't see a problem here . . .

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Soliloquy

Smokers, generally, only harm themselves.

Really? Ever heard of 2nd hand smoke? It's just as, if not more dangerous than smoking the cigarette yourself. And, what's worse, normally the "victims" are the person's children that cannot speak for themselves... And while we're on that topic, let's discuss smoking while pregnant. I suppose that's only harming themselves as well? Cigarettes are just as bad as alcohol as far as harming others.

[Soliloquy]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Really? Ever heard of 2nd hand smoke? It's just as, if not more dangerous than smoking the cigarette yourself. And, what's worse, normally the "victims" are the person's children that cannot speak for themselves... And while we're on that topic, let's discuss smoking while pregnant. I suppose that's only harming themselves as well? Cigarettes are just as bad as alcohol as far as harming others.

Hence the word choice "generally" in my statement. So there is no need for internet snarkiness...

Second hand smoking cannot be compared to the devestation created by drunk drivers.

I would rather see more rules in place to prevent drunks from behaving violently or possibly murdering someone by getting behind the wheel, then extreme taxes on smokers. Obviously hard time isn't effectively controlling people's will to drink and drive.

Anyway, second hand smoking has been controlled a great deal by states banning it in public places. We have no right to say what people do inside their homes, so we have to rely on education and proper resources to take care of young children exposed to it. I know plenty of smokers with children and they smoke outside to prevent just that. My mom smoked, but quit when she was pregnant with me. Lots of women do just that, the women that don't... well that's their idiotic choice. Hopefully their growing child won't be punished for the mother's poor judgement.

ETA: I looked up a few state laws and apparently Louisiana has a state law that bans smoking in vehicles when anyone under 12 is present. I couldn't really find any concrete information on any other state laws that are similar to this.

[AKA_Monet]

The ole "sin taxes"...

Well, I don't like smoking although I myself have tried it... I drink alcohol, but drunk drivers suck. And well, abusing drugs--I have "scripts" for them!

And what your med insurance pays for vs. Medi-who-cares pays? If you get hospitalized you will be paying for the 2X2 gauze...

What to do? I dunno. I guess they are legislating more ways to get money from the taxpayer. Make folks pay for their sinful delights? Is it right? Probably, because we all are adults that know these things are harmful for us. To think it is not, is to live in denial.

But, like I said, we are ADULTS... We make decisions all the time. The difference is, the kids. Especially for fattening food, like french fries and sodas everyday. Kids' brains are still developing, you get your knowledge of satiety from what you are eating and the timing you fed. Who knows?

On another note: Hypertension have several affected genes that are environmentally responsive. Increased blood pressure may precede organ failures: namely kidney, brain, and heart. There are others. Diabetes is dysregulation of blood sugar and may be due to loss of pancreatic function and/or insulin resistance. Heart Attack, the genes are numerous. And we have not started the discussion about cancers...

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Soliloquy

Hence the word choice "generally" in my statement. So there is no need for internet snarkiness...

Second hand smoking cannot be compared to the devestation created by drunk drivers.

I would rather see more rules in place to prevent drunks from behaving violently or possibly murdering someone by getting behind the wheel, then extreme taxes on smokers. Obviously hard time isn't effectively controlling people's will to drink and drive.

Unless a smoker is alone 100% of the time when they smoke, I don't think that "generally" works either.

My mother owned a DUI counseling center, where I worked for MANY years. I've seen all the videos, training materials, etc, etc. and I've met the clients...hundreds of them, and out of all of them, more rules might have stopped 10 of them from drinking & driving. You can make all the rules you want, but until car companies start putting foolproof BAC meters on ALL cars, there will always be drinking and driving. I wish rules and stipulations and fines and etc would stop people, but it doesn't.

Oh, and about "hard time" controlling people's will to drink and drive...you must be talking about the 5 hours before their buddy comes and bails them out of the city jail, DUI offenders don't do "hard time" unless they kill someone. At least not in most states.