Here's how Democrats plan on paying for healthcare

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

If you're going to pick an example of liberals destroying family businesses with taxes, you should probably pick a business whose products don't directly cause cancer in users and those unfortunate enough to be around them...you'd probably get more sympathy.

the only "unfortunate enough to be around them" argument that really holds water is children, everything else is crap

and if people choose to kill themselves with cigarettes, let them

part of the problem is the gov't forcing insurance companies to keep rates low for smokers, thus offsetting the cost of cancer for them which costs us all more money

smokers should have to feel the blunt of all their costs of their activity

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by hsmith

the only "unfortunate enough to be around them" argument that really holds water is children, everything else is crap

and if people choose to kill themselves with cigarettes, let them

part of the problem is the gov't forcing insurance companies to keep rates low for smokers, thus offsetting the cost of cancer for them which costs us all more money

smokers should have to feel the blunt of all their costs of their activity

How does the government force insurance co's to keep rates low for smokers? And what happens to smokers without insurance?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

hence the "for the children" part at the end?

children dont get lung cancer. If that is your goal, then tax the general population not cigar smokers.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

A 20,000% tax increase would hurt many smoking business would it not?

That 20,000% is a falicous number, and no it would not effect the businesses. People have been smoking for a long time. They get addicted. They will pay whatever it costs untill they simply can't afford it. If you can afford a 30 dollar cigar, you can afford a 40 dollar cigar. In most cases people are going to be paying 7.50 for a cigar that used to cost 5.00. Who cares. No one will go out of business for a couple dollars.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That 20,000% is a falicous number, and no it would not effect the businesses. People have been smoking for a long time. They get addicted. They will pay whatever it costs untill they simply can't afford it. If you can afford a 30 dollar cigar, you can afford a 40 dollar cigar. In most cases people are going to be paying 7.50 for a cigar that used to cost 5.00. Who cares. No one will go out of business for a couple dollars.

You don't get addicted to cigars.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That 20,000% is a falicous number, and no it would not effect the businesses. People have been smoking for a long time. They get addicted. They will pay whatever it costs untill they simply can't afford it. If you can afford a 30 dollar cigar, you can afford a 40 dollar cigar. In most cases people are going to be paying 7.50 for a cigar that used to cost 5.00. Who cares. No one will go out of business for a couple dollars.

People typically do not get addicted to cigars. I know numerous people that smoke a cigar a week and none are addicted

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You don't get addicted to cigars.

That's arguable but it's not relevant to this discussion.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's arguable but it's not relevant to this discussion.

Correct, it's not relevant to this discussion, only to your post where you claimed the 20,000% tax increase was connected to an addiction to smoking...cigars.

That 20,000% is a falicous number, and no it would not effect the businesses. People have been smoking for a long time. They get addicted.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Correct, it's not relevant to this discussion, only to your post where you claimed the 20,000% tax increase was connected to an addiction to smoking...cigars.

A few people do get addicted to cigars, but the majority of tobacco use today is ciggarettes and addiction plays a major role there. People continue to smoke even if it's too expensive. That market would be uneffected by a tax increase. Cigars are luxury goods in my opinion, and Like I said before, if you are buying a 5 dollar cigar, you will still buy a 7.50 cigar if you like that particular brand. If you are buying a 30 or 40 dollar cigar, you don't care about the cost and the tax increase will not effect your decision. The tax increase would not harm small tobacco shops to any appreciable extent.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

A few people do get addicted to cigars, but the majority of tobacco use today is ciggarettes and addiction plays a major role there. People continue to smoke even if it's too expensive. That market would be uneffected by a tax increase. Cigars are luxury goods in my opinion, and Like I said before, if you are buying a 5 dollar cigar, you will still buy a 7.50 cigar if you like that particular brand. If you are buying a 30 or 40 dollar cigar, you don't care about the cost and the tax increase will not effect your decision. The tax increase would not harm small tobacco shops to any appreciable extent.

The cigar makers in Tampa disagree with you

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

How does the government force insurance co's to keep rates low for smokers?

the states regulate exactly what is in an insurance policy and what is covered. most stipulate "flat" rates for everyone, regardless of age, ect

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

And what happens to smokers without insurance?

they die

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by hsmith

the states regulate exactly what is in an insurance policy and what is covered. most stipulate "flat" rates for everyone, regardless of age, ect

You sure about this? In my state, I'm pretty sure a 66 year old smoker doesn't pay the same for health insurance as a 19 year old non smoker. Do a lot of states really make smokers and non smokers pay the same for insurance?

Originally Posted by hsmith

they die

Right, but even if a smoker doesn't have insurance, it's not like the hospitals tell him to fuck off. He will end up costing the system, at least for emergency care when he goes to the emergency room with increasing frequency until he dies.

Anyway, if there were a way to make smokers completely bear their own costs, I would think it's unjust to target tobacco companies with taxes. But since society inevitably has to shoulder the costs of tobacco companies' products, it makes sense to tax their products at a higher rate.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

You sure about this? In my state, I'm pretty sure a 66 year old smoker doesn't pay the same for health insurance as a 19 year old non smoker.

eh, varies state to state

most states at least force younger people to subsidize older people by forcing premiums for 20yo's to be the same for 70yo's, even though the costs are through the roof for 70yo's. we are getting fucked.

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Right, but even if a smoker doesn't have insurance, it's not like the hospitals tell him to fuck off. He will end up costing the system, at least for emergency care when he goes to the emergency room with increasing frequency until he dies.

Anyway, if there were a way to make smokers completely bear their own costs, I would think it's unjust to target tobacco companies with taxes. But since society inevitably has to shoulder the costs of tobacco companies' products, it makes sense to tax their products at a higher rate.

Well actally, from what I recall smokers actually save insurance companies a lot of money because they die younger and don't have the long care costs of older people