Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should Smokers Pay Extra Taxes For Universal Healthcare?

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I am not against smokers paying more. Smoking is a choice. But Id rather have it as a tax on cigarettes than increased health insurance costs, its simpler that way.




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schnib
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


No, its perfectly reasonable to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical treatment.
Thats democracy.

How about we cut medical costs by about 1/5, because otherwise, socialism is looking very, very nice.
Middle class CANNOT pay these medical bills. My old man just got a $450,000 dollar medical bill from a colon surgery.
How the hell does someone making minimum wage $8/hour pay for that?

$450,000 divided by $8 = 56250. Thats 2,343 days of work ASSUMING you work 24/hours a day every day with no sleep, or, 7031 work days. So that would be 168744 hours of work just to pay that bill.

Oh wait, but you need insurance!
Tell me, whats the difference between paying money every month to an insurance company vs the Government?
I'll tell you, the insurance covers 75% whereas socialism would cover 100%. And of course insurance is BULL-POOP. Medical, for example---lets pretend we have medicare with an $1,000 co-pay. We go to the hospital and get a $4500 bill. Medicare should cover all but $1000, but they don't. Why?
THEY SPLIT UP THE BILLS
Labratory--$900
Doctors---$900
Medication---$900
Office visit---$900

And now, since no single medical cost is above $1000, medicare covers NOTHING. These corporations are scam artists and greedy gluttons, and I would MUCH rather pay into a universal health-care than private insurance.

Your choice is this--pay to line the pockets of a CEO so he can cover 75% of your medical costs, OR, pay into a universal health-care that covers all costs for you and your fellow Americans.

Yeah, socialism looks pretty nice, What's an extra $50 a month in taxes when it covers medical bills as outrageously overpriced as here in the US?

Lets not even get started on colleges and their money-grubbing ways.

Look, I'm all for democracy, but we are in a corporate republic. And by Jeeves, Socialism is better than corporatism.


medical cost are so high because the hospitals know they can get away with charging you up the butt because your insurance is now backed by the government. the more governments get involved, the higher the prices are going to go up, because we all know the government is a cash cow gravy train if you can get a ride on it.

And even before obamacare the bills were high because the insurance companys were not alowed to cross state boarders to compete creating a state to state monopoly. Who set that up.... the government. So drop obamacare, open the state boarders for competition and throught the free market, watch prices fall!! Its not rocket science.

another great example would be schools and student loans. Now that all the studient loans are backed by the government. Collages have been jacking the prices up now knowing that all kids can get government backed studient loan and will pay whatever at no limet to get in these schools. There is no more competition so prices will keep climbing. Simple economics
edit on 19-9-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


You have a point, but the fact remains that most people making minimum wage under the age of 30 simply cannot realistically cover these bills. Perhaps socialism isn't the answer, but what we have right now sure isn't the right choice either.

--edit

Yes, I agree, drop Obamacare like its hot.

---edit/edit

Colleges are a scam, and yeah, it all comes down to the fact that if someone thinks they can rip you off, well, they will.
--------------------------

And to comment on the point of this thread, taxing smokers more, I half Agree. See, I smoke.
I can agree taxing cigarettes more would be great, but ONLY if those funds went to medical, NOT wars and roads and other wastes of it. As for taxing someone more on their bills for smoking----wouldn't it be really easy to lie about smoking? And a invasion of privacy to force required tests?
The only realistic way to tax smokers more is to tax the cigarettes more.
edit on 19-9-2012 by Schnib because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-9-2012 by Schnib because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schnib
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


You have a point, but the fact remains that most people making minimum wage under the age of 30 simply cannot realistically cover these bills. Perhaps socialism isn't the answer, but what we have right now sure isn't the right choice either.

--edit

Yes, I agree, drop Obamacare like its hot.
--------------------------

And to comment on the point of this thread, taxing smokers more, I half Agree. See, I smoke.
I can agree taxing cigarettes more would be great, but ONLY if those funds went to medical, NOT wars and roads and other wastes of it. As for taxing someone more on their bills for smoking----wouldn't it be really easy to lie about smoking? And a invasion of privacy to force required tests?
The only realistic way to tax smokers more is to tax the cigarettes more.
edit on 19-9-2012 by Schnib because: (no reason given)


true people under the age 30 cant cover bills NOW, but do what i pointed out and through the free markets a market or insurance policy will open up for that age group because they are young and "low" risk. Right now were lumped in with everyone by law so I have to pay more then i should to cover other people. Free markets really work when you let them.

I can even set an example for car insurance. ever since california forced its people to buy car insurance BY LAW, car insurance has sky rocketed. Insurance companys are no longer fishing for those without car insurance through low prices because they know now by law everyone has to be covered so there is less competition = jacked up prices. again, government getting in the way and making problems.
edit on 19-9-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
The air on Aeroplanes is dirtier now than it was when smoking was allowed.

When you were allowed to smoke, clean air was pumped into the cabin.
You couldn't smell the smoke because of this.

Since the ban, the clean air no longer gets pumped through the cabin.
This saves the airline but also causes nausea, headaches and flu's and viruses are more common, especially on long haul flights.

Second hand smoke is a lie.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The tax was first levied to pay off the fines against the big tobacco companies; those have been long since paid off. The thing is, once we allow government to step in, they bring in all the red tape and statutes around whatever it may be...and once those are in place, and they are gaining a profit stream for it...good luck removing it because like the spiderman, they are always hungry. Sorry had to throw a Cure reference in there it just fit.

Some background:
I smoked about two packs a day for 18 years, then just quit cold turkey one day for some unknown reason the craving up and vanished. I just wasn't interested in having one. There wasn't any anxiety or panic either that typically was present if I wasn't on schedule for one as usual either, before this the very first thing in the morning, a smoke was in my mouth and irritation would occur if I couldn't have it in peace, like a meditation and the rest of my day would feel off.

I coughed up a lot of crap in the first few days, my taste improved, my lung capacity and breathing have gotten better, unfortunately there's a lot of unpleasant smells from quitting, smoking pretty much killed the ability to smell anything unless it was really strong, so I really miss not being able to smell a lot but that's about it.

My girlfriend smokes and it doesn't bother me at all, I actually like the smell of tobacco smoke though it's like a different form of incense...but it's not perfumed dried poop on a stick, like incense is.

I learned this a long time ago, but I think it important to mention it here. Most people only see one side of the coin on something and it's typically just the side they agree with. This is usually, because they have no actual experience of the other side, just notions and idea's they have adopted from somewhere for their belief against whatever the other thing is. Growing up with smokers or seeing a relative die from smoking is NOT smoking experience, it is still just a non smokers experience around smokers.

I don't suggest stepping in their shoes and pick up a pack, but instead relate smoking or whatever it is you have a disdain for to something you enjoy. Now bearing that something you really personally enjoy in mind, picture the government and groups raising taxes on it and fighting to take this thing you enjoy away, and making you out to be some outcast of low social standing in society for what you enjoy. Does the thought of that make you happy? nervous? upset? angry? all of the above?

The fact is this has been happening with other things besides smoking. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is out the window and not coming back, the frame work for these things to be taken away has been lain. The precedence has been set, to allow courts to uphold bans as legal. It will take people to see the two sides of the coin and learn tolerance and respect for others; just trying to pursue their idea of happiness in this short life, just like you are. These people are not your enemy; they are you, and your neighbors, your sister, your brother, your family.

When things are tough all over because of decisions the government decides on it's own, or from back door deals with lobbyists or party pressure...it isn't time to be hard on your fellow citizens in the same boat, that is in fact the time to be soft to them, to help ease the burden instead of add to it. Otherwise the tension just grows and builds until it snaps. Sadly, that's what we have been seeing people snapping and lashing out at those not responsible for this mess. Use the system to change the system while you still can, I don't think it is too late.

Even though I smoke no longer, anyone can smoke where ever they want around me. Because I see it as a small flag of freedom waving that represents what America was and meant to be....free.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


I can only pray I will have a day like that, and stop. I've been on a pack a day for 6 years, so perhaps I am not too far-gone.

Good post, by the way.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
In true universal health care it does not matter what your health condition is or what caused it. If you need health care, you are provided with health care. Universal Health Care is the idea, in my understanding, that everyone in society is paying into a system which will benefit everyone regardless of what kind of care they need or what caused them to have a need for health care. Everyone in society, as humans, need health care so all are provided with it by default.

When we start picking and choosing who pays what amount we no longer have universal health care. We end up with capitalist fighting over who is the more valued member of society. That is not fair nor is it scientific. There must be no arguing over who deserves health care and how much they should have to pay. Everyone pays into Universal Health Care depending on their total production. Those who cannot pay benefit from the over production by everyone is society.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Actually, if smokers die younger, and few just "keel over and die", allowing that pretty much everybody gets some sort of illness before death, the longer you live, the more sicknesses your likely to have....

Smokers should get a reduction in health care costs. They die younger



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
No, certainly not. Aside from the people that previously stated that socialized medicine has not place in America, why single out just smokers. This is a slippery slope and it would be very bad if the gov't started picking and choosing whom they thought were high risk. Why would they stop at just smokers? What about hereditary diseases, those people have a higher rates of getting sick. What about alcoholics? Diabetes? Do you see where this could head?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I think we;re looking at this the wrong way. Smokers (I'm one of them) smoke, over eaters over eat.

Let's stop pointing fingers at a single group.

The number 4 killer in the United States is.......dump to dum.......Prescription drugs!

Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., data show


Fueling the surge in deaths are prescription pain and anxiety drugs that are potent, highly addictive and especially dangerous when combined with one another or with other drugs or alcohol. Among the most commonly abused are OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma. One relative newcomer to the scene is Fentanyl, a painkiller that comes in the form of patches and lollipops and is 100 times more powerful than morphine.


Antidepressants & Suicide, FDA Warns


The FDA has warned that children and adults taking antidepressants can become suicidal in the first weeks of therapy and that physicians should watch patients closely when first giving the drugs or changing dosages


These are just a couple of examples.

How about we do this instead to reduce the cost of our health care?

For every death that can be attributed to prescription drugs, the drug companies get fined. I'm not saying the Dr. get fined. It would be great, but, we need Dr.'s and we need healthy prescription drugs without the side effects of kidney disease, strokes, heart attacks, death.




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Ok, firstly I am against universal healthcare first and foremost
I think it's wrong and absurdly inneficient and immoral.

Now with that said, if such a system is forced down my throat should Smokers Pay more taxes for healthcare?

The Amount of money being poured on smokers is ridiculous
And it seems wrong to me that smokers pay equal amount of taxes but as a group take up so much in healthcare costs under a univseral system

Thoughts?


Maybe different racial groups should pay more taxes for prisons? Maybe people who are going to live longer should pay more into pension funds? Maybe the rich should pay more and maybe politicians should pay more for causing the hardship and despair leading to emotional and mental problems? Maybe drinkers should pay more because of all those health issues. Maybe women should pay more because of their reproductive processes, periods and associated health issues. Maybe the LGBT crowd should pay more because of the increased chances of contracting STDs and AIDS/HIV?

These would be more of that slippery slope. We could go on and on...

Cheers - Dave



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomwv
In true universal health care it does not matter what your health condition is or what caused it. If you need health care, you are provided with health care. Universal Health Care is the idea, in my understanding, that everyone in society is paying into a system which will benefit everyone regardless of what kind of care they need or what caused them to have a need for health care. Everyone in society, as humans, need health care so all are provided with it by default.

When we start picking and choosing who pays what amount we no longer have universal health care. We end up with capitalist fighting over who is the more valued member of society. That is not fair nor is it scientific. There must be no arguing over who deserves health care and how much they should have to pay. Everyone pays into Universal Health Care depending on their total production. Those who cannot pay benefit from the over production by everyone is society.


lets get real, Universal Health Care sounds great on paper, but this is the real world. When you set up conditions for everyone to pay into one system, you lose competition. And let’s get real, US health care has never truly been able to apply free market principle to lower cost because of their mandated state to state monopolies the government provide through law.

With single payer you lose competition, you set up a system were the provider will charge the insurer “government” any cost it wants because of the fact there is no competition to keep them honest. So prices start to skyrocket.

Employees of the healthcare provider demand higher wages and better benefits after seeing the money being racked in. The healthcare provider caves in and grants the large wage increases and pensions creating a bubble in the providers overhead

Government fires back and prices fixes goods and services, Provider starts to ration or stop all together the treatment of those price fixed serves because they can no longer turn a profit because of their ballooned overhead. Lines start to form for healthcare services. Quality goes down and the death spiral continues.

It’s the same song and dance as every other government provided service that is going broke right now.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I am not against smokers paying more. Smoking is a choice. But Id rather have it as a tax on cigarettes than increased health insurance costs, its simpler that way.


Yes, smoking is a choice.

So is a high fat diet.

So is a sedentary lifestyle.

So is high risk sexual activity.

So is illicit drug use.


The only difference is that smokers have already paid more in taxes. A pack a day smoker pays an extra $750 a year, a 2 pack smoker pays $1,500 a year.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
My personal opinion is we should just ban smoking altogether. That, or start actually regulating what the tobacco companies can put in them. If they only used tobacco leaf, I wouldn't have too much of a problem. But I'm pretty sure even the most dedicated chain-smoker will agree that benzene has no place in a product for human consumption.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadeWolf
 


You're right, it is really about the additives. I have many friends that smoke organic tobacco and roll their own with tobacco leaves. They should ban the addition of chemicals to cigarettes. I'd say more likely than not, that's what leads to cancer, rather than the tobacco itself. Instead of increasing taxes, address the root of the problem.
edit on 19-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
if you eat gmo products - you should pay the organic tax ...the universe - or rather more taxes - as a matter of fact you should pay my annual opt out fee - ty.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
What is the evidence that suggest that smokers are a burden on the Healthcare system to begin with?

I have been smoking for over 20 years and I do not get sick often. I do not run to the doctor for every cough, sniffle or cold.

I live in an area where the Cancer rate is unbelievable high. It has nothing to do with smokers, but more to do with the countless factories and plants in my area that continually release lord knows what into the atmosphere.

Do some smokers get sick more often? Absolutely, but you will find some people in ANY group that gets sick more often than others.

I got a better idea.... instead of attacking smokers. Attack the Government that allows tobacco companies to continue to put obscene amounts of chemicals into cigarettes in order to make them more addictive.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Ok, firstly I am against universal healthcare first and foremost
I think it's wrong and absurdly inneficient and immoral.

Now with that said, if such a system is forced down my throat should Smokers Pay more taxes for healthcare?

The Amount of money being poured on smokers is ridiculous
And it seems wrong to me that smokers pay equal amount of taxes but as a group take up so much in healthcare costs under a univseral system

Thoughts?


If we were to do such a thing, I think it would make much more sense to charge signficantly more to the obese, and to heavy consumers of fast-food, processed food, and corn syrup. Treatment of diabetes eats up a great deal more money than do smoking-related diseases (Emphysema, Lung Cancer, Heart Disease.) If we were going to target a group for higher premiums, those people would be my first choice.

Now, I'm against Universal Healthcare as well, but only if we are going to refuse treatment to those who do not have coverage. As a taxpayer, it costs me more for an uninsured person to show up at the ER for a cough than it would for them to go to a Walgreen's Take-Care Clinic. As it stands, the uninsured cost us far more than they would if they were covered. What we really need to do is rein in costs, and punish people for unhealthy choices, or choosing prescription meds over lifestyle changes.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthermantwo
smoking is a freedom of personal choice, yes its addictive but so what. The fact we pay 4-15 dollars a pack depending on where you live is larceny or something near that. And its not guarenteed that all smokers will burden the health care system. And also the health care system could be lying to a degree about how many people have visited due to smoking. I think we need a massive protest to bring cig prices back down to 2-3 dollars a pack. Id rather suffer than pay taxes to the government, only to get some disease and pay health care loads of money, you think smokers are going to get insured for causing their own problem. HEY GOVERNMENT LEAVE US THE HECK ALONE, GO SMOKE YOUR STOGIES AND LEAVE OUR CIGS ALONE.


Doesn't it bother you that you don't have the legal right to cultivate your own tobacco?






top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join