Obama state of union coverage

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

What are the thoughts. Obama is a great orator. Is the media enamored with that and thus not asking tough questions? What is the toughest question Obama has taken recently?

[Dan Conner]

What are the thoughts. Obama is a great orator. Is the media enamored with that and thus not asking tough questions? What is the toughest question Obama has taken recently?

Well Joe, your conservative stripes are showing again. The press is still assessing the presentation like they always do. The telling thing is that polls have come in showing the speech was rated at 92% in one poll and 80% in another. This President is highly regarded by the public. I realize conservative republicans don't like that, but that's the way it is for now. Remember, he's been in office for 5 weeks.

I've heard Republicans say they were disappointed because it was short on specifics, but these speeches almost always are. There's not usually the time to get into specifics. Bush hardly ever did. The press is not enamored with Obama, the public is. Until that wears off, I'm sure the press won't be too critical...just like Bush.

[Ben Willaert]

At this stage Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the public or media. He said no one making under $250,000 is getting their taxes raised one cent. Yet, he put a $.61 tax per pack of cigs. That works out to $222.65 per year on low and middle class citizens that smoke a pack a day. That tax goes to pay for middle class government health care (SCHIP). That means he raised the tax on the poor to pay for a middle class program. Our Robin Hood seems to be flipping.

And yes, I know smoking takes its toll on health care but that has been paid for in court fines, taxes and increased insurance premiums. Private health insurance programs are focusing on helping people quite smoking, while the government wants to take advantage of smokers vise to fund programs that may not benefit them at all. At this point the remaining smokers are not going to quit because of a raise in taxes. They continue to smoke no matter how high the cost goes. Obama is banking on that.

I want someone to ask Obama about those taxes.

[Dan Conner]

At this stage Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the public or media. He said no one making under $250,000 is getting their taxes raised one cent. Yet, he put a $.61 tax per pack of cigs. That works out to $222.65 per year on low and middle class citizens that smoke a pack a day. That tax goes to pay for middle class government health care (SCHIP). That means he raised the tax on the poor to pay for a middle class program. Our Robin Hood seems to be flipping.

And yes, I know smoking takes its toll on health care but that has been paid for in court fines, taxes and increased insurance premiums. Private health insurance programs are focusing on helping people quite smoking, while the government wants to take advantage of smokers vise to fund programs that may not benefit them at all. At this point the remaining smokers are not going to quit because of a raise in taxes. They continue to smoke no matter how high the cost goes. Obama is banking on that.

I want someone to ask Obama about those taxes.

There is a proposed increase in the Federal tax on cigarettes, but it has not happened yet. It's simply a proposal as yet. If you are dead against it, I suggest you talk to the President. Also, talk to the conservative Congressmen who can filibuster it in the Senate. Yes, it is a tax, but not a universal tax. It applies only to smokers. Obama is not employing a Pawlenty trick and calling the tax a fee. Obama was referring to inocme taxes when he said no one under $250,000 would see their taxes increased, not sales taxes, commodity taxes, or use taxes. Also, SCHIP is not a middle class health program. Actually, it is more intended for the poor.

Use taxes may not be limited to cigarettes. Taxes on gasoline might be increased in the future. This is being done to induce people to switch to more "green" alternatives for transportation. Much like smoking, if people still choose to drive Hummers, big SUV's (like me), and gas-guzzling autos, they will pay for that privilege. I realize that I need to pay for bad habits, if our country is going to improve. I don't see where I'll be getting an added benefits for that additional gas tax I pay. It not like the government is going to add gold-leaf to my driveway. I realize that an additional tax will discourage enough people to try other better products for either their health or transportation. Then, they will let this flawless capitalistic system (as you call it) set the new demand for the product. Why would you object? It's using capitalism to improve our society. Then fewer people will smoke, endangering fewer people with second-hand smake and fewer people will be driving those heavy polluting gas guzzling vehicles. It's a way to your your capitalist laws to actually improve our society, environment, and health. That's a win-win.

The best way to combat that is to start driving more green, eneergy efficient vehicles and find another alternative to smoking to enjoy.

[Dan Conner]

At this stage Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the public or media. He said no one making under $250,000 is getting their taxes raised one cent. Yet, he put a $.61 tax per pack of cigs. That works out to $222.65 per year on low and middle class citizens that smoke a pack a day. That tax goes to pay for middle class government health care (SCHIP). That means he raised the tax on the poor to pay for a middle class program. Our Robin Hood seems to be flipping.

And yes, I know smoking takes its toll on health care but that has been paid for in court fines, taxes and increased insurance premiums. Private health insurance programs are focusing on helping people quite smoking, while the government wants to take advantage of smokers vise to fund programs that may not benefit them at all. At this point the remaining smokers are not going to quit because of a raise in taxes. They continue to smoke no matter how high the cost goes. Obama is banking on that.

I want someone to ask Obama about those taxes.

There is a proposed increase in the Federal tax on cigarettes, but it has not happened yet. If you are dead against it, I suggest you talk (call or write) to the President. Also, talk to the conservative Congressmen who can filibuster it in the Senate. Yes, it is a tax, but not a universal tax. It applies only to smokers. Obama is not employing a Pawlenty trick and calling the tax a fee. Obama was referring to income taxes when he said no one under $250,000 would see their taxes increased, not sales taxes, commodity taxes, or use taxes. Also, SCHIP is not a middle class health program. Actually, it is more intended for the poor.

Use taxes may not be limited to cigarettes. Taxes on gasoline might also be increased in the future. This is being done to induce people to switch to more "green" alternatives for transportation. Much like smoking, if people still choose to drive Hummers, big SUV's (like me), and gas-guzzling autos, they will pay for that privilege. I realize that I need to pay for bad habits, if our country is going to improve and I don't see where I'll be getting an added benefits for that additional gas tax I pay. However, I realize that an additional tax will discourage enough people to try other better health and transportation products.

The additional use taxes for smoking and gasoline will enable this flawless capitalistic system (as you might refer to it) to set a new demand for the product. accordingly, the demand should drop for those products. Why would you object? It's using capitalism to improve our society. Then, fewer people will smoke, endangering fewer people with second-hand smoke and fewer people will be driving those heavy polluting gas guzzling vehicles. It's a way for the capitalist axioms to actually improve our society, environment, and health. That's a win-win.

The best way to combat these use taxes is to start driving more green, energy efficient vehicles and find other healthier recreational alternatives to smoking.

[Ben Willaert]

Quitting smoking is a difficult endeavor by anyone. Every case needs different motivations and usually multiple aids. Putting a $.61 tax on cigarettes is only providing one deterrent that negatively affects smokers. Private health insurance provides many aids for helping people quit without negatively affecting their wallet. True, they also charge higher premiums for smokers, but like I said, they are figuring out just hitting smokers wallets doesn’t do much to get them to quit. It is time for the government to stop hiding behind the excuse they are raising taxes on smokers because they want them to quit. They need to stop preying on this vise.

I agree with you on the gas tax. I would like to see gas tax based on the miles per gallon of the vehicle. Vehicles could “plug in” to the gas pump and report their mpg rate since the last fill up. Higher mpg could get a discount off of gas taxes based on their ranking on a private or commercial scale, depending on what the vehicle is used for. That way fuel economy is encouraged. I disagree with the proposal by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to add a straight mileage tax. He says it is needed to make up for the current short comings of gas tax because of Americans becoming more efficent in their fuel consumption. Obama was right in rejecting that proposal.

[Dan Conner]

Quitting smoking is a difficult endeavor by anyone. Every case needs different motivations and usually multiple aids. Putting a $.61 tax on cigarettes is only providing one deterrent that negatively affects smokers. Private health insurance provides many aids for helping people quit without negatively affecting their wallet. True, they also charge higher premiums for smokers, but like I said, they are figuring out just hitting smokers wallets doesn’t do much to get them to quit. It is time for the government to stop hiding behind the excuse they are raising taxes on smokers because they want them to quit. They need to stop preying on this vise.

I agree with you on the gas tax. I would like to see gas tax based on the miles per gallon of the vehicle. Vehicles could “plug in” to the gas pump and report their mpg rate since the last fill up. Higher mpg could get a discount off of gas taxes based on their ranking on a private or commercial scale, depending on what the vehicle is used for. That way fuel economy is encouraged. I disagree with the proposal by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to add a straight mileage tax. He says it is needed to make up for the current short comings of gas tax because of Americans becoming more efficent in their fuel consumption. Obama was right in rejecting that proposal.

You astutely point out that the cure for the smoking habit is multi-faceted and that taxes is only one of those facets. Where do you propose that we start in getting people to stop smoking? I propose that taxes is a good place to start and it's easy to initiate and enforce. Then, other facets should be implemented as well. I think there will be efforts to stop many of the other "vices" as well.

I agree with your assessment of Ray LaHood's proposal. I think it will be too costly to implement and manage. I think the easiest way is to charge a surcharge on both new and used cars based on mileage. The surcharge should be graduated based on mileage certified by the manufacturer. As the gas guzzlers get more expensive, they will go more green. Another way would be to increase the gas tax and use revenues to develop green alternatives to oil. You would still save a lot of money by driving a fuel efficient car, because you won't have to buy that much gas. This is also extremely easy to manage.

[Ben Willaert]

You astutely point out that the cure for the smoking habit is multi-faceted and that taxes is only one of those facets. Where do you propose that we start in getting people to stop smoking? I propose that taxes is a good place to start and it's easy to initiate and enforce. Then, other facets should be implemented as well. I think there will be efforts to stop many of the other "vices" as well.


Taxes are not a start for the government to rid us of any vise. Taxes only punish. Private health insurance started charging smokers higher premiums long ago. The government started taxing smokers long ago. The government is still focused on getting every dime they can out of smokers, while health insurance has innovated the new ways to help smokers quit. Private health insurance is using the higher premiums to pay for those innovations. The government is using those taxes to pay for programs that may not affect the person taxed at all.

Just like evil CEOs, smokers are an easy target for the government officials to hide their own inadequacies.

[Dan Conner]

Taxes are not a start for the government to rid us of any vise. Taxes only punish. Private health insurance started charging smokers higher premiums long ago. The government started taxing smokers long ago. The government is still focused on getting every dime they can out of smokers, while health insurance has innovated the new ways to help smokers quit. Private health insurance is using the higher premiums to pay for those innovations. The government is using those taxes to pay for programs that may not affect the person taxed at all.

Just like evil CEOs, smokers are an easy target for the government officials to hide their own inadequacies.

Let's just say that we disagree. You say higher health insurance premiums go for preventative smoking programs. Isn't that a punishment? Is it only taxes that are a punishment to you? If you don't feel higher insurance premiums are a punishment for you, you should consider that they sure are for me and other non-smokers. Also, if I follow your logic, why should I, or anyone else who doesn't smoke, pay higher insurance premiums for innovative quit-smoking programs for you? Isn't that the same logic? So, I guess you feel gouging insurance premium payers is better than taxpayers

Do you want to lower the price (taxes) of cigarettes so you aren't punished? Will that help you quit? I don't think you need to worry about the Government getting every dime out of smokers. I think they have money left over. If they didn't then they are also being financially irresponsible in their smoking habit.

I don't get your analogy about smokers and CEO's being alike. CEO's have shown to be a particularly difficult target, even though we are paying their salaries. Smokers can be too. There are still too many of them smoking. I think you are generalizing too much.

[Ben Willaert]

Higher private health care insurance premiums for smokers go to preventative smoking programs (i.e. helping smokers quit).

Higher government taxes for smokers go to government children’s health care insurance (i.e. not helping smokers).

We don’t pay higher premiums or taxes because of smokers anymore. They are more then paying their fair share plus some. Next time you get any insurance check the little box next to “tobacco user” and watch your premium soar.

Actually I don’t smoke. Look who is unwilling to help fellow Americans now. That is our difference, I advocate helping people correct their mistakes and achieve their fullest potential, while you want to provide for us and dictate everything we do like we are a bunch of children.

How is smoking ever financially responsible? The majority of smokers are low income, so no; they don’t have the money to spare. They are addicted and will spend their last dime on cigs. Sit at a gas station some day and see how many people pay for their pack with change they scrounged up.

Smokers and CEOs are the scapegoats of our society. Everything is always their fault. It is convenient for the government to blame them for all our problems.

[Dan Conner]

Higher private health care insurance premiums for smokers go to preventative smoking programs (i.e. helping smokers quit).

Higher government taxes for smokers go to government children’s health care insurance (i.e. not helping smokers).

We don’t pay higher premiums or taxes because of smokers anymore. They are more then paying their fair share plus some. Next time you get any insurance check the little box next to “tobacco user” and watch your premium soar.

Actually I don’t smoke. Look who is unwilling to help fellow Americans now. That is our difference, I advocate helping people correct their mistakes and achieve their fullest potential, while you want to provide for us and dictate everything we do like we are a bunch of children.

How is smoking ever financially responsible? The majority of smokers are low income, so no; they don’t have the money to spare. They are addicted and will spend their last dime on cigs. Sit at a gas station some day and see how many people pay for their pack with change they scrounged up.

Smokers and CEOs are the scapegoats of our society. Everything is always their fault. It is convenient for the government to blame them for all our problems.

Ben, you still miss the point--us non-smokers pay those higher premiums for you too. So, I'm subsidizing you. Then, why do you find it objectionable to subsidize someone else? If you take form me, certainly others should be able to take from you.

You contradict yourself in the the third paragraph. There you say you or I don't pay higher premiums. Ben, what is it? Do we or don't we? My health insurance asks nothing about smoking. If you work, I doubt it does there either, but insurance treats smokers. Who pays for that treatment?

Ah, so now you admit that some insurance asks about smoking...(I know it's not typical employer health insurance or Medicare, so maybe you are talking about life insurance)? It really doesn't matter. Here you are paying more for your smoking by private insurance, and that's apparently OK, but let the Government do it and wow! Now, you're complaining about who is asking for more payment.

I think you confuse "unwilling to help". You know my mother made me eat that esparagus because it was good for me. I didn't like it, but I still had to eat it. She would say, "Try it, it's good for you." I think higher taxes on smoking IS good for the smoker. It incentivizes quitting. I certainly don't think you are helping a smoker by removing the obstacles to smoke. Would you be helping an alcoholic by giving them another drink? Helping someone is not looking the other way when somone is doing something injurious.

Hey, I don't want to provide for you. I think you are capable of taking care of yourself, unless you have an issue? You've been telling me I'm trying to take from you. What is it, taking or providing? Increasing cigarette tax is not providing anything, it's like increasing a premium.

Ben, I don't want to be sitting at a gas station. I already spend enough time there with my cars. However, I propose YOU stop "nannying" smokers and actually help them GET OFF IT. I would hope you would do the same for an alcoholic friend. He doesn't need another drink. My kids helped me quit by continuing to crush the cigarettes I put up to my mouth or ones in the ashtray. I finally got the point. Someone or something need to give these people the point.

I think you have contradictions in this post. Maybe you need to restate your view to be clearer.

[Ben Willaert]

First off, I repeat, I don’t smoke. Reread my third paragraph above remembering that I don’t smoke. We = non-smokers. You and I do not pay the same premiums as a smoker. Check your health insurance again. I’m pretty sure they charge more for smokers.

“Some health insurance companies charge 10-40% higher premiums to smokers.”
http://www.iwebquotes.com/vurl/articles/2518/Health___Smoker_s_Rates.aspx

Apply for health insurance here and notice "check here for tobacco use" is right after date of birth. "Checking here" will increase your premium.
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/individual-health-insurance.ds

We already agreed that raising the cost of smoking alone will not lead to people quitting. The government is only raising the cost. Private insurance is raising the cost AND providing other services to aid in quitting.

My question is why is government taking money from smokers and using that money elsewhere? The government doesn’t want people to quit. They would loose a scapegoat and a cash cow. They don’t care smokers don’t have the money to afford it. They know smokers don’t quit on cost alone. All they know is the public loves to make smokers pay for their uncivilized habit. Obama was elected by those low class citizens on the notion he was going to redistribute the wealth. Now he is taking advantage of them too and taking more of what little money they have.

[Dan Conner]

First off, I repeat, I don’t smoke. Reread my third paragraph above remembering that I don’t smoke. We = non-smokers. You and I do not pay the same premiums as a smoker. Check your health insurance again. I’m pretty sure they charge more for smokers.

“Some health insurance companies charge 10-40% higher premiums to smokers.”
http://www.iwebquotes.com/vurl/articles/2518/Health___Smoker_s_Rates.aspx

Apply for health insurance here and notice "check here for tobacco use" is right after date of birth. "Checking here" will increase your premium.
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/individual-health-insurance.ds

We already agreed that raising the cost of smoking alone will not lead to people quitting. The government is only raising the cost. Private insurance is raising the cost AND providing other services to aid in quitting.

My question is why is government taking money from smokers and using that money elsewhere? The government doesn’t want people to quit. They would loose a scapegoat and a cash cow. They don’t care smokers don’t have the money to afford it. They know smokers don’t quit on cost alone. All they know is the public loves to make smokers pay for their uncivilized habit. Obama was elected by those low class citizens on the notion he was going to redistribute the wealth. Now he is taking advantage of them too and taking more of what little money they have.

Wrong! At least there is no additional fee with Medicare, which is the nation's largest health care insurer. It costs the same smoker or not. In fact, I don't think there is with any group health insurance policy. I don't think insurance companies are allowed to discriminate because of smoking for groups . I think that's the law. An individual policy might be different, but I'm not sure. You need to do more research.

You are asking foolish questions. Why does government tax dinners at a restaurant and use the money for road repair? Because they need it there. Why did your 1/2% sales tax in Mankato go for a Civic Center? It's because that where they needed it. Why did some of our property tax go for new streets in front of your favorite bar? Because that's where the city needed it. Does your employer pay you and tell you that you can only use percentages of your paycheck for food, or rent, or gas? Of course not. It's income that is apportioned as needed. There is not a requirement, except in very limited cases were use taxes are levied for a very specific reason, like the gas tax.

Well, you're wrong about increasing cost not causing one to quit. That is another reason I quit. It was an unreasonable amount of money to spend on a destructive habit. It just was not worth the cost. Cost will cause anyone to quit, we're just haggling over the amount. Maybe they need cigarettes to be $50/pack. Would they quit then? Don't give me the feel sorry for smoker routine. I guess you would want to allow drugs too. You would probably want to have drugs available cheap so we wouldn't pick on drug users. Might as well not tax liquor either because we wouldn't want to interfere with alcoholics. And Marijuana? Might as well make that cheap too. Do you think making those things cheaper will cause a reduction in their use? Not!

Your arguement about what the Government's motivations and purpose is isn't even realistic let alone true. There seem to be too many trips you want to make, going all the way in reverse. You come at many issues 180 degrees out of kilter.

[Ben Willaert]

You appear to be right about Medicare.
Here is some supplemental Medicare insurance if you would like. Since you quit smoking it is cheaper then before you quit. http://www.state.mn.us/portal/mn/jsp/content.do?id=-536893703&subchannel=null&contentid=536886568&contenttype=EDITORIAL&programid=536916280&sp2=y&agency=Insurance

You will have to find me that law against higher rates on group insurance policies. From what I can find the insurance company can change the rate based on health factors. I would take that to mean a company with no smokers will pay less then a company with even a few smokers.

The taxes you mention aren’t nearly as exorbitant as the tax on tobacco. They also aren’t on items people are addicted to. 100% of smokers are addicted. Any of the other things you mentioned could have some addiction but for the most part are voluntary.

If the government truly does want them to quit smoking, why don’t they raise the tax to $50 a pack? Or better yet make it illegal? They don’t because they like using smoker’s addiction to take money from them. Not very ethical if you ask me.

It is interesting that you keep calling for responsibility in taking care of everyone, yet I am the one always defending them. Seems none of the rest of us is free to our pursuit of happiness if you don’t agree with it.

[Bob Jentges]

Ben, I had been doing quite well in practicing self-restraint in this thread over the past couple day's, but the final sentance in your last post broke me. Although some politicians seem to outwardly express an interest in taking care of everyone, sometimes I get the impression the real underlying issue for them might be control over everyone.

I do not have any .org website to cite for proof, but it is my opinion (just an opinion) and I'm sticking to it. Some might say I am "wrong again"; I could be. I will consider any proof in that regard.

[Dan Conner]

You appear to be right about Medicare.
Here is some supplemental Medicare insurance if you would like. Since you quit smoking it is cheaper then before you quit. http://www.state.mn.us/portal/mn/jsp/content.do?id=-536893703&subchannel=null&contentid=536886568&contenttype=EDITORIAL&programid=536916280&sp2=y&agency=Insurance

You will have to find me that law against higher rates on group insurance policies. From what I can find the insurance company can change the rate based on health factors. I would take that to mean a company with no smokers will pay less then a company with even a few smokers.

The taxes you mention aren’t nearly as exorbitant as the tax on tobacco. They also aren’t on items people are addicted to. 100% of smokers are addicted. Any of the other things you mentioned could have some addiction but for the most part are voluntary.

If the government truly does want them to quit smoking, why don’t they raise the tax to $50 a pack? Or better yet make it illegal? They don’t because they like using smoker’s addiction to take money from them. Not very ethical if you ask me.

It is interesting that you keep calling for responsibility in taking care of everyone, yet I am the one always defending them. Seems none of the rest of us is free to our pursuit of happiness if you don’t agree with it.

Group rates have to be the same for everyone. They can't distinguish for age, health, smoking .etc. There has to be the same benefit. Sometimes young people complain they have to pay the same premium as an aged person, even though health costs are higher for the elderly. However, the insurance spreads the risk equally among everyone.

Not everything is going to be precise, especially considering the subjective difference. Smokers might pay more, but it might be that smoker cause more collateral diseases. Remember, innocent people's health is damaged from being chronically around smokers. 2nd hand smoke also damages health. It very might be that 100% of smokers are addicted. I would say that 100% of drug users are probably addicted too, but I wouldn't want to ensure they have cheap legal drugs available to them because I want to "defend" them.

You are asking about motivations of government about the cigaratte tax. I can only speculate, and that's all you can do too. However, I will tell you that whenever these taxes are raised, there is a tumultuous wailing about the unfairness of the tax. I can only assume government only taxes it after great consideration of the coming fallout.

Your last paragraph kind of says it like it is. Making smokers quit is taking a responsibility to care for them. You might be defending them, but I don't believe that is in their best interest. Lung cancer is a very deadly, messy and painful death.

Pursuit of happiness is fine, as long as others aren't hurt making one happy. So, your friends should be able to make themselves happy, but they don't have the right to hurt others while they are doing that. If the pursuit of happiness means driving drunk, that isn't acceptable. The lives of others are risked in one's pursuit of that happiness. Do you understand what I am saying?

[Ben Willaert]

Group rates are the same for everyone in that group. The insurance company can increase the rate if there are smokers in the group. Many businesses are then raising the premiums paid by smoking employees to offset the increased rate.

The government isn’t making smokers quit. They haven’t raised the price of a pack to $50. They haven’t made it illegal. All the government does is take advantage of their addiction by making them pay more taxes. The drugs you are referring to are illegal. You will be forced to quit by incarceration if caught. And no, not many people defend the smokers when a new tax is placed on them. Trust me, not many people like my position. Evil CEOs and smokers make wonderful fall guys.

I am not advocating smoking. I am defending smokers from being robbed by the government because of their affliction.

Driving drunk is illegal. Stop stereotyping everyone that drinks into your deviant model of an alcohol user. The majority of the entertainment district’s patrons are responsible in their alcohol use. Illegal activity by a few is discouraged and punished. Laws prevent us from infringing on other’s right to the pursuit of happiness.

[Dan Conner]

Group rates are the same for everyone in that group. The insurance company can increase the rate if there are smokers in the group. Many businesses are then raising the premiums paid by smoking employees to offset the increased rate.

The government isn’t making smokers quit. They haven’t raised the price of a pack to $50. They haven’t made it illegal. All the government does is take advantage of their addiction by making them pay more taxes. The drugs you are referring to are illegal. You will be forced to quit by incarceration if caught. And no, not many people defend the smokers when a new tax is placed on them. Trust me, not many people like my position. Evil CEOs and smokers make wonderful fall guys.

I am not advocating smoking. I am defending smokers from being robbed by the government because of their affliction.

Driving drunk is illegal. Stop stereotyping everyone that drinks into your deviant model of an alcohol user. The majority of the entertainment district’s patrons are responsible in their alcohol use. Illegal activity by a few is discouraged and punished. Laws prevent us from infringing on other’s right to the pursuit of happiness.

You can not say what businesses are doing about raising premiums on smoking employees only. If you have studied that subject, then fine. Tell me what companies are charging different for employees in a group rate so I can verifiy what you are saying. It's not that I don't trust your figures, but you have been wrong a lot lately.

You're right Government hasn't made people quit. People should know to do that for themselves (remember about being responsible?). Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's either, so why would the Government order people to quit? Smokers have that right, in tact. It's just that they will need to pay for that right. It's like paying a fee for many kinds of rights. If you want to build a home, you need to get a permit. If you want to drive a car, you need to get a drivers license. You also need to get a license for the car. Bars need to buy liquor licenses. Hunters need to get hunting licenses. I guess Government picks on just about everyone. So, if everyone is picked on, then smokers aren't alone. It could even be extrapolated that smolers are not even being "picked on." It's just complaining about what everyone else has to do too. OK, I'll concede your point about illegal drugs,but alcohol is not illegal and it is taxed. That tax has gone up over the years. So what's the difference there?

It doesn't matter that the majority of drinkers are responsible. I consider myself responsible when I drink, but I also realize it doesn't take a majority, minority, or even a small number of irresponsible drinkers to cause staggering tragedies. It only takes one drunk driver to kill several people in an accident or one drunk father to kill his family. You might find that acceptable. I don't, particularly if it was someone in my family. It doesn't matter to the dead victims that the drunk driver was doing something illegal, or if their father was drunk. They're still dead.

You're right about smokers and CEO's as fall people. That's because both need to change. They can continue to complainand whine, but, at the end of the day, it still isn't change. They're just wasting timeour time and theirs. Acting responsibly would be trying to change.

[Ben Willaert]

You can not say what businesses are doing about raising premiums on smoking employees only. If you have studied that subject, then fine. Tell me what companies are charging different for employees in a group rate so I can verifiy what you are saying. It's not that I don't trust your figures, but you have been wrong a lot lately.


Sure, just like all the other times you say I am "wrong", I come back and cite that I am correct. There is a difference between actually being wrong and you not understanding me. I will admidt though, I was surprised to learn Medicare does not charge more for smokers. But isn't that what this is all about, expanding and learning more about these subjects through the different perspectives.

"A growing number of private and public employers are requiring employees who use tobacco to pay higher premiums, hoping that will motivate more of them to stop smoking and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11394043/

[Dan Conner]

Sure, just like all the other times you say I am "wrong", I come back and cite that I am correct. There is a difference between actually being wrong and you not understanding me. I will admidt though, I was surprised to learn Medicare does not charge more for smokers. But isn't that what this is all about, expanding and learning more about these subjects through the different perspectives.

"A growing number of private and public employers are requiring employees who use tobacco to pay higher premiums, hoping that will motivate more of them to stop smoking and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11394043/

You are right about learning. I hope we all do. You were also wrong about corporate taxes. Your last paragraph couldn't have said it better. You complain that government taxes more for cigarettes, but I never heard one word of complaint about the above employers. The employers have stated things just as I have. MOTIVATE TO STOP SMOKING AND LOWER COMPANY HEALTH CARE COSTS. Why aren't you complaining? Aren't they picking on smokers? I guess they don't care either?

Also, unrelated to this particular post, I suggest you read Joe's post about the troubles with major fighting at downtown bars. Remember when we discussed this? I tried to tell you there were problems, but you thought everyone at the bars were responsible. That doesn't look like the case.

[Ben Willaert]

Employers have to pay higher health insurance rates because of smokers. They pass that expense on to the smokers.

Private health insurance pays for quit smoking programs. They pass that expense on to the smokers.

The government taxes the smokers and then funds other programs with that money. There is a difference.

[Dan Conner]

Employers have to pay higher health insurance rates because of smokers. They pass that expense on to the smokers.

Private health insurance pays for quit smoking programs. They pass that expense on to the smokers.

The government taxes the smokers and then funds other programs with that money. There is a difference.

Government pays for many smoking cessation programs, but I will gladly look at whatever evidence you have that shows companies do and government doesn't. Where are smokers picked on more than drinkers?

[Ben Willaert]

Government pays for many smoking cessation programs, but I will gladly look at whatever evidence you have that shows companies do and government doesn't. Where are smokers picked on more than drinkers?

My initial beef is with the government over the $.61 tax per pack of cigarettes that is not going for cessation programs. They are using it to fund the children’s health insurance program.

Not sure if I would be upset about the tax on alcohol because most people that use alcohol aren’t addicted. A small tax could be added to make the same amount of tax revenue because a lot more people drink then smoke. I may think it is excessive if it were $.61 per drink though. The best policy is to control the spending in the first place so we don’t have to worry about raising taxes.

[Dan Conner]

My initial beef is with the government over the $.61 tax per pack of cigarettes that is not going for cessation programs. They are using it to fund the children’s health insurance program.

Not sure if I would be upset about the tax on alcohol because most people that use alcohol aren’t addicted. A small tax could be added to make the same amount of tax revenue because a lot more people drink then smoke. I may think it is excessive if it were $.61 per drink though. The best policy is to control the spending in the first place so we don’t have to worry about raising taxes.

You are going back to that lame arguement about cigarette taxes? After all this talk...The only thing I have to add is "tough." Cigarette users need to get used to it. It is far more laudatory to help children than smokers. And there are all sorts of programs taxed that fund unrelated areas.

I detect a little hypocrisy when one says it's OK to tax drinkers, but not smokers. It is my understanding that the tax on liquor is far higher then cigarettes, but you say that's OK. Your rationale makes no sense to me. I'm just surprised you are willing to throw the drinkers under the bus in an effort to protect smokers.

Guess what, I feel both are very bad habits and need to be taxed, maybe a lot higher. You know, that saying, "You wanna play, you gotta pay."

[Ben Willaert]

You are going back to that lame arguement about cigarette taxes? After all this talk...The only thing I have to add is "tough." Cigarette users need to get used to it. It is far more laudatory to help children than smokers. And there are all sorts of programs taxed that fund unrelated areas.

I detect a little hypocrisy when one says it's OK to tax drinkers, but not smokers. It is my understanding that the tax on liquor is far higher then cigarettes, but you say that's OK. Your rationale makes no sense to me. I'm just surprised you are willing to throw the drinkers under the bus in an effort to protect smokers.

Guess what, I feel both are very bad habits and need to be taxed, maybe a lot higher. You know, that saying, "You wanna play, you gotta pay."

Federal sales tax:
A liter of 80 proof booze would be $2.86. (the tax varies by proof)
A can of beer is $.05
A pack of cigarettes $1.00
http://www.ttb.gov/tax_audit/atftaxes.shtml

That means drinking 20 beers or 8-9 oz. of 80 proof booze would be equal to one pack of smokes. An average person can get quite drunk for $1 of federal sales tax. Most people can choose to drink or not. Smokers are addicted.

We need to focus on getting people to quit smoking, not use them as a cash cow. Where is your compasion to help people with a problem instead of taking advantage of them?

[Dan Conner]

Federal sales tax:
A liter of 80 proof booze would be $2.86. (the tax varies by proof)
A can of beer is $.05
A pack of cigarettes $1.00
http://www.ttb.gov/tax_audit/atftaxes.shtml

That means drinking 20 beers or 8-9 oz. of 80 proof booze would be equal to one pack of smokes. An average person can get quite drunk for $1 of federal sales tax. Most people can choose to drink or not. Smokers are addicted.

We need to focus on getting people to quit smoking, not use them as a cash cow. Where is your compasion to help people with a problem instead of taking advantage of them?

Since you seems so determined to get people to quit, how do you propose to do it? Waste more tax dollars? I hope not, you don't like paying them. Let them alone? that hasn't worked. What do you want? I give up.

[Ben Willaert]

Since you seems so determined to get people to quit, how do you propose to do it? Waste more tax dollars? I hope not, you don't like paying them. Let them alone? that hasn't worked. What do you want? I give up.

Like I pointed out long before, private health care insurance companies are putting a lot of money into cessation programs for smokers. The insurance companies know they can save money from less claims if they can get their clients to quit smoking. Sure, they also charge the smokers higher premiums, but that is in relation to the higher health care costs already incurred. Encouraging healthy habits will result in profits for the insurance companies. Capitalism at work; what’s best for the business is also best for us.

Get the government out of the picture. Don’t allow them to fleece these people anymore. High prices alone won’t get many people to quit, all it does is put a bigger dent in their wallets. Many of the people that smoke can’t afford it in the first place.

[Dan Conner]

Like I pointed out long before, private health care insurance companies are putting a lot of money into cessation programs for smokers. The insurance companies know they can save money from less claims if they can get their clients to quit smoking. Sure, they also charge the smokers higher premiums, but that is in relation to the higher health care costs already incurred. Encouraging healthy habits will result in profits for the insurance companies. Capitalism at work; what’s best for the business is also best for us.

Get the government out of the picture. Don’t allow them to fleece these people anymore. High prices alone won’t get many people to quit, all it does is put a bigger dent in their wallets. Many of the people that smoke can’t afford it in the first place.

They don't pay nearly enough in premiums to cover the enormous additional cost of smoling, but you show me where it says that. They pay nothing extra for Medicare. They don't pay the medical costs of others who have contracted lung diseases from your smoker's second-hand smoke. It doesn't even pay for the enormous cost of care for lung cancer/surgery. Also, there are studies smokers are not as productive as non-smokers because they aren't as healthy and are gone more from work. Frequently, they end up disabled and ynable to work from such diseases as emphasema. Then, there on that socialist Social security disability program. Hardly something a capitalist would tolerate. There is nothing positive about smoking. It's a big time loser for the smoker and a loser for the rest of society.
Let's just say we disagree here and always will.

I say get the government in the picture.

[Ben Willaert]

They don't pay nearly enough in premiums to cover the enormous additional cost of smoling, but you show me where it says that. They pay nothing extra for Medicare. They don't pay the medical costs of others who have contracted lung diseases from your smoker's second-hand smoke. It doesn't even pay for the enormous cost of care for lung cancer/surgery. Also, there are studies smokers are not as productive as non-smokers because they aren't as healthy and are gone more from work. Frequently, they end up disabled and ynable to work from such diseases as emphasema. Then, there on that socialist Social security disability program. Hardly something a capitalist would tolerate. There is nothing positive about smoking. It's a big time loser for the smoker and a loser for the rest of society.
Let's just say we disagree here and always will.

I say get the government in the picture.

We can both agree smoking is bad for society. When I talk of government intervention, I am specifically talking about the new $.61 tax that only hurts smokers finances. This specific tax does little to help smokers quit. We agreed earlier higher prices alone don’t get many people to quit smoking. I would feel differently about a tax that is used to fund a national quit smoking education program.

[Bob Jentges]

We can both agree smoking is bad for society. When I talk of government intervention, I am specifically talking about the new $.61 tax that only hurts smokers finances. This specific tax does little to help smokers quit. We agreed earlier higher prices alone don’t get many people to quit smoking. I would feel differently about a tax that is used to fund a national quit smoking education program.

I have not smoked a pack of cigaretts (total) in my lifetime so I have no idea how difficult it might be to quit. I have known people that have enrolled in a variety of smoking cessation programs; some have had success, others have not. I have also known people who have smoked cigaretts for years and quit cold turkey and never smoked again. From that I have concluded (right or wrong) it's all in a state of mind.

My position is that people should be able to smoke if they so choose, so long as their smoking does not infringe on others e.g. in resturants, the work place, etc. My position also is that those who chose to smoke should be able to (under the pretense stated previously) without having to pay excessive cigarett taxes.

The solution I propose is reforms that make private health insurance more affordable for everyone. I do not know specifically what those reforms might be, but if there are some and I am reasonably confident there are (maybe this is one area where we might consider letting the government do our thinking for us without getting into government controlled health care), we could eliminate one small part of government intrusion in peoples lives.

[Dan Conner]

I have not smoked a pack of cigaretts (total) in my lifetime so I have no idea how difficult it might be to quit. I have known people that have enrolled in a variety of smoking cessation programs; some have had success, others have not. I have also known people who have smoked cigaretts for years and quit cold turkey and never smoked again. From that I have concluded (right or wrong) it's all in a state of mind.

My position is that people should be able to smoke if they so choose, so long as their smoking does not infringe on others e.g. in resturants, the work place, etc. My position also is that those who chose to smoke should be able to (under the pretense stated previously) without having to pay excessive cigarett taxes.

The solution I propose is reforms that make private health insurance more affordable for everyone. I do not know specifically what those reforms might be, but if there are some and I am reasonably confident there are (maybe this is one area where we might consider letting the government do our thinking for us without getting into government controlled health care), we could eliminate one small part of government intrusion in peoples lives.

What does this response have to do with Obama's State of the Union?

[Bob Jentges]

What does this response have to do with Obama's State of the Union?

Although I consider responding a waste of my time, since I have a little extra time before our family arrives for Easter Sunday Dinner here goes.

Joe first posted this thread on 2/25/09, which was followed by your post
(#2), followed by Ben's (#3) mentioning SHIP. From that point the exchange was between you and Ben, all discussing smoking up until my post (#15). My post (#15) did not mention smoking!

You and Ben continued your exclusive discussion up through post #29, and each of those posts included discussion of smoking issues. My post #30, which you question, was in reply to Ben's post.

You could have found why I referenced smoking in my post #30 (the first post on page 4) by simply going back to the preceeding page (page 3) and working back from there, or better yet by going back to the first page in the thread and scrolling ahead from there.

[Dan Conner]

Although I consider responding a waste of my time, since I have a little extra time before our family arrives for Easter Sunday Dinner here goes.

Joe first posted this thread on 2/25/09, which was followed by your post
(#2), followed by Ben's (#3) mentioning SHIP. From that point the exchange was between you and Ben, all discussing smoking up until my post (#15). My post (#15) did not mention smoking!

You and Ben continued your exclusive discussion up through post #29, and each of those posts included discussion of smoking issues. My post #30, which you question, was in reply to Ben's post.

You could have found why I referenced smoking in my post #30 (the first post on page 4) by simply going back to the preceeding page (page 3) and working back from there, or better yet by going back to the first page in the thread and scrolling ahead from there.

Ok, great. Then, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from pointing out my divergence from previous threads. You have complained about who sins the most here. And I think you might need some confession time yourself.

[Bob Jentges]

Ok, great. Then, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from pointing out my divergence from previous threads. You have complained about who sins the most here. And I think you might need some confession time yourself.

If you had read the posts in this thread, like I suggested, you would have seen it was not me that began the talk about smoking in this thread. Moreover if you had read my last post you would have seen that out of the 30+ posts in this thread only two were mine and only one of them (#30, the one you compalined about this morning) even mentioned smoking.

[Dan Conner]

If you had read the posts in this thread, like I suggested, you would have seen it was not me that began the talk about smoking in this thread. Moreover if you had read my last post you would have seen that out of the 30+ posts in this thread only two were mine and only one of them (#30, the one you compalined about this morning) even mentioned smoking.


Bob, Bob, Bob, it's like you have told me in prior posts. You departed from the thread. You can blame the others all you want, but you are simply ducking the truth that you responded out of thread. This was just a helpful reminder, just like yours. There's no need for the excuses, it was just off thread.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, Bob, Bob, it's like you have told me in prior posts. You departed from the thread. You can blame the others all you want, but you are simply ducking the truth that you responded out of thread. This was just a helpful reminder, just like yours. There's no need for the excuses, it was just off thread.

Although my post you questioned was in direct reply to the immediatly preceeding post, if it will put an end to this nonsense I will agree I "departed from the thread" in one of my two posts in this 30+ post thread discussion between you and Ben. Any more about this would just cause both of us to depart from the thread more. You are ahead here, and as far as I am concerned you can stay ahead.

[Dan Conner]

Although my post you questioned was in direct reply to the immediatly preceeding post, if it will put an end to this nonsense I will agree I "departed from the thread" in one of my two posts in this 30+ post thread discussion between you and Ben. Any more about this would just cause both of us to depart from the thread more. You are ahead here, and as far as I am concerned you can stay ahead.

Great Bob. You can admit you are wrong. Also, I didn't realize you were keeping score. I was just sending you one of those sarcastic posts like you have me. Now, if only you would acknowledge your factual inaccuracies in other posts, I would be able to say you have made progress. Just remember, it should be about the truth, for it shall set you free.

[Bob Jentges]

Great Bob. You can admit you are wrong. Also, I didn't realize you were keeping score. I was just sending you one of those sarcastic posts like you have me. Now, if only you would acknowledge your factual inaccuracies in other posts, I would be able to say you have made progress. Just remember, it should be about the truth, for it shall set you free.

My post #36 was a concilliatory attempt to end this, and one I did not think needed a reply, especially one like yours quoted above!

[Dan Conner]

My post #36 was a concilliatory attempt to end this, and one I did not think needed a reply, especially one like yours quoted above!Thanks for being so concilliatory.