[jbander]

A $1.50 per pack tax equals $500 to $1,000 per year tax on many people who do not make enough money to file income taxes. $1,000 to $2,000 for a couple. I see no way a humane person could justify this as being 'good' for them. Yes, 2% to 6% of them might quit but the remaining 95% are hit with an unfair tax burden.

I'll tell you whats unfair me paying for the million dollar hospital, end of life stays, so there family can watch them die from cancer in one of the worst possible ways to die. 1965 45% of people smoked now 18% smoke in 2001 40% of high school kids smoked , now it is 16.7% saving millions of lives probably. So no your wrong way more people would quit.

[jbander]

Really? They are? Why, I had no idea companies of any ilk are in the business of making money,

1. Increasing the tax doesn't increase the cigarette makers profit, full stop.
2. Increasing the tax 10 fold will cause families will lose their bread winner then and there.
3. Increasing the tax 10 fold will create crime. You can't take something that addictive and price it out of the reach of people, and not expect crime.

Apparently you missed the point of my post. It is fundamentally unfair for one group of society to underwrite the costs of all. It's enough to expect folks without kids to pay school taxes, as one example. So, charge them more at the counter to encourage them to quit, and discourage kids from starting, but let them claim it back in due course. Who Knows? Maybe they'll put some into a pension plan so you won't be supporting them forever.

Your fundamentally fair crap is old old old, Tell me a country in the world, a civilized country, that doesn't have a progressive tax base. Increase taxes by a factor of 20. that's what would help the situation. They would love you after they quit.

[One Degree]

I'll tell you whats unfair me paying for the million dollar hospital, end of life stays, so there family can watch them die from cancer in one of the worst possible ways to die. 1965 45% of people smoked now 18% smoke in 2001 40% of high school kids smoked , now it is 16.7% saving millions of lives probably. So no your wrong way more people would quit.

This was not a guess. These are the figures put out by both sides of the argument. If more than that quit, then the increased taxes would not offset the decreased sales. It is about tax revenue, not health. They carefully consider this because they are not about to lose tax revenue due to this increase. And LOL that we won't need to worry about cancer expenses if everyone quits smoking.

[Stormsmith]

Your fundamentally fair crap is old old old, Tell me a country in the world, a civilized country, that doesn't have a progressive tax base. Increase taxes by a factor of 20. that's what would help the situation. They would love you after they quit.

1. Income tax is progressive. Consumer taxes are not.
2. What cost effective way are you planning to die?
3. You could present your arguments more politely with hardly any effort.

[jbander]

This was not a guess. These are the figures put out by both sides of the argument. If more than that quit, then the increased taxes would not offset the decreased sales. It is about tax revenue, not health. They carefully consider this because they are not about to lose tax revenue due to this increase. And LOL that we won't need to worry about cancer expenses if everyone quits smoking.

Now you getting ridiculous , Smoking is the main cause of cancer and death by cancer and there is multiple other diseases that comes from smoking . 1/2 million a year die of smoking a year and the taxpayer pays for many of their million dollar deaths in hospitals while their family watch them die.. This is only a health issue , unless your a capitalist first and humanist second. The numbers I gave you are from a source that is acceptable and not a source that is arguing your side of the point with you. Your source is crap. In 2005 20.9% of people smoked ,now it is 15% , Your numbers are crap.

[One Degree]

Now you getting ridiculous , Smoking is the main cause of cancer and death by cancer and there is multiple other diseases that comes from smoking . 1/2 million a year die of smoking a year and the taxpayer pays for many of their million dollar deaths in hospitals while their family watch them die.. This is only a health issue , unless your a capitalist first and humanist second. The numbers I gave you are from a source that is acceptable and not a source that is arguing your side of the point with you. Your source is crap. In 2005 20.9% of people smoked ,now it is 15% , Your numbers are crap.

You are obviously just parroting stuff you have heard and know nothing about the subject. Smoking does not cause cancer. Your belief in the benevolent views of our legislators just show you are ignorant of reality.
Yes, a legislator who is an anti-smoker will propose a tax hike, but it would never pass unless the other legislators were assured it would bring more tax dollars in. They are not going to do anything to curb smoking that will lose them money. The reductions in smoking you mention are the real reason for the tax increases.

[jbander]

You are obviously just parroting stuff you have heard and know nothing about the subject. Smoking does not cause cancer. Your belief in the benevolent views of our legislators just show you are ignorant of reality.
Yes, a legislator who is an anti-smoker will propose a tax hike, but it would never pass unless the other legislators were assured it would bring more tax dollars in. They are not going to do anything to curb smoking that will lose them money. The reductions in smoking you mention are the real reason for the tax increases.

There you go I"m out of arguments finding out that Smoking doesn't cause cancer, have you let anyone else know this or are you and I the only ones that know that now.

[One Degree]

There you go I"m out of arguments finding out that Smoking doesn't cause cancer, have you let anyone else know this or are you and I the only ones that know that now.

We are discussing taxes, not smoking and cancer, but since it seems to be slow...
We believe cancer is a genetic mutation. We believe different genes mutate depending upon the type of cancer.
We believe some substances are connected to cancer actually developing from these mutations and we call them carcinogens. Tobacco products contain some of these carcinogens. Only 6 out of 100 heavy smokers get lung cancer. So, we believe it is true substances exist in tobacco products that are not good for you, if you are genetically predisposed. They do not however cause cancer by themselves.

[jbander]

We are discussing taxes, not smoking and cancer, but since it seems to be slow...
We believe cancer is a genetic mutation. We believe different genes mutate depending upon the type of cancer.
We believe some substances are connected to cancer actually developing from these mutations and we call them carcinogens. Tobacco products contain some of these carcinogens. Only 6 out of 100 heavy smokers get lung cancer. So, we believe it is true substances exist in tobacco products that are not good for you, if you are genetically predisposed. They do not however cause cancer by themselves.

No we are talking about lots of things here considering the name of the thread and one of the many things we are talking about is smoking and cancer and multiple other diseases caused by smoking. You and blowing smoke is synonymous. Everyone that is reading this knows that your just blowing smoke. Your numbers are crap as I told you before and so is your knowledge. You have zero credentials , you lost them entirely when you said smoking doesn't cause cancer. SO Just off hand I would say that we are done with this nonsense. It has been a slice.

[jimjam]

I am starting to get a sense that the republican replacement for Obamacare is going to be very thin indeed and result in millions of folks losing health care. Looks like it is shaping up where "tax credits" will replace the $200,000,000,000 per year that currently finances Obamacare once this money is given back to the rich folks from wence it came. A tax credit won't be worth a piss hole in the snow to a guy making the annual minimum wage of $15,080. A health savings account? Same piss hole in the snow for poor folks. Ted Cruz and the so called "freedom caucus" don't even like the tax credit. Their man Donald pays zero taxes but a "tax credit" for a generic American? .... God forbid!!

Once the poor folks get dumped into the gutter and it becomes obvious what mean spirited sons of bitches the republicans are ........... it will get interesting. Republicans may even get a taste of the thing they fear the most .... loss of power.

Perhaps republicans can provide a good luck charm ............. a rabbit's foot to every voter who loses health care as a part of their replacement plan.

[Zagadka]

Which is a shame, since Trump is gutting healthcare and safety organizations (like OSHA, water safety, etc), so he's apparently trying to kill people.

[jbander]

I am starting to get a sense that the republican replacement for Obamacare is going to be very thin indeed and result in millions of folks losing health care. Looks like it is shaping up where "tax credits" will replace the $200,000,000,000 per year that currently finances Obamacare once this money is given back to the rich folks from wence it came. A tax credit won't be worth a piss hole in the snow to a guy making the annual minimum wage of $15,080. A health savings account? Same piss hole in the snow for poor folks. Ted Cruz and the so called "freedom caucus" don't even like the tax credit. Their man Donald pays zero taxes but a "tax credit" for a generic American? .... God forbid!!

Once the poor folks get dumped into the gutter and it becomes obvious what mean spirited sons of bitches the republicans are ........... it will get interesting. Republicans may even get a taste of the thing they fear the most .... loss of power.

Perhaps republicans can provide a good luck charm ............. a rabbit's foot to every voter who loses health care as a part of their replacement plan.

The right is only concerned about two things as far as Obama care is concerned . It gets it's funding from people who make over $250,000.00 a year in household income. The people who control the right. That and the fact that they won't let that little black man get any credit. Now we will hear from small hands, I'm the most non racist person in the world , BELIEVE ME! and the same quote will come from our opposition in this thread. Don't believe them.

[jimjam]

The broader Republican quagmire — the party’s failure so far to make significant progress toward any of its policy promises — isn’t just about Mr. Trump’s inadequacies. The whole party, it turns out, has been faking it for years. Its leaders’ rhetoric was empty; they have no idea how to turn their slogans into actual legislation, because they’ve never bothered to understand how anything important works.

Take the two lead items in the congressional G.O.P.’s agenda: undoing the Affordable Care Act and reforming corporate taxes. In each case Republicans seem utterly shocked to find themselves facing reality.
The story of Obamacare repeal would be funny if the health care — and, in many cases, the lives — of millions of Americans weren’t at stake.

First we had seven — seven! — years during which Republicans kept promising to offer an alternative to Obamacare any day now, but never did. Then came the months after the election, with more promises of details just around the corner.

Now there’s apparently a plan hidden somewhere in the Capitol basement. Why the secrecy? Because the Republicans have belatedly discovered what some of us tried to tell them all along: The only way to maintain coverage for the 20 million people who gained insurance thanks to Obamacare is with a plan that, surprise, looks a lot like Obamacare.

Sure enough, the new plan reportedly does look like a sort of half-baked version of the Affordable Care Act. Politically, it seems to embody the worst of both worlds: It’s enough like Obamacare to infuriate hard-line conservatives, but it weakens key aspects of the law enough to deprive millions of Americans — many of them white working-class voters who backed Donald Trump — of essential health care.

[jbander]

Well Said Jim Jam.

[jimjam]

Well Said Jim Jam.

I cannot accept your compliment. I am, essentially, a lazy person. A lot of what I post is copied and pasted. That was no exception. I do not provide attributions because I do not copy entire writings. I pick paragraphs here and there to express and highlight my thoughts and sometimes add my own words. But I do get my thoughts out there and whatever I copy and paste must have the official jimjam seal of approval .

[Stormsmith]

It is a crying shame that Ryan's vision of health care is growing closer to becoming a reality, at least for now. If it could be stalled until the 2018 elections maybe you could flip Congress.

Failing that, I'm fairly sure by 2020 sane Americans will turn out in droves to restore health care. It's a drag to think you could lose it, but now that people have had a taste of it, their appetite will grow for it, and you stand a chance of having a single payer system replace Obamacare.

[jimjam]

Republicans have shown, finally, their hand on an Obamacare replacement. They want to jam it thru in two days ........... before the Congressional Budget Office can estimate how many people will be dumped.

Millions of people who get private health coverage through the Affordable Care Act would be at risk of losing it under the replacement legislation proposed by House Republicans, analysts said Tuesday, with Americans in their 50s and 60s especially likely to find coverage unaffordable.

A report from Standard & Poor’s estimated that two million to four million people would drop out of the individual insurance market, largely because people in their 50s and early 60s — those too young to qualify for Medicare — would face higher costs. Other analysts, including those at the left-leaning Brookings Institution, have estimated larger coverage losses.

Meanwhile the Pay Or Die branch of the Republican party is not happy.

“This is not the Obamacare repeal bill we’ve been waiting for,” said Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, who was joined by a constellation of conservative groups, including the Club for Growth, Heritage Action for America and Charles G. and David H. Koch’s Americans for Prosperity. “It is a missed opportunity and a step in the wrong direction. We promised the American people we would drain the swamp and end business as usual in Washington. This bill does not do that.”

Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, said twice at a briefing with reporters at the White House that the bill was “a work in progress.”

A work in progress? The quagmire has arrived.

[Drlee]

This bill is a massive transfer, yet again, of money from the lower economic classes to the higher ones. It is a travesty.

[MistyTiger]

We have to tolerate a fucking work in progress? That is insane.

My mother is not quite old enough to get medicare, just a few years shy. I worry for her.

[jimjam]

This bill is a massive transfer, yet again, of money from the lower economic classes to the higher ones. It is a travesty.

I have said repeatedly that the primary reason Republicans want to end Obamacare is the one reason they will not state. They want to grant a tax reduction to the upper one to ten percent upon whom the financing of Obamacare rests.

A tax break for those who do not need it at the expense of death and suffering for the lower economic classes. Pure and simple.