Congress Raising Fed. Cig Tax to $1 from $0.39 for CHIP

[bandaidwoman]

---
Funny, no one ever asked me if I smoked before an operation.
R.I hospital and Mass General.
BTW: My uncle had a hip replacement in 1992 and in 2005.
He smoked all of his life and he was out in just a few days
He was 83 years old when he had the last operation.

There are always exceptions to the rule but I see at least 30-50 hospitalized patients a week and the consensus is there. . There is unbiased, non testimonial research to back up my experience.

Smoking causes so much problems in terms of wound healing, postoperative pneumonias cardiac events that socialized medicine trys to save money and expense by not doing elective surgery on smokeers

Smokers To Be Denied Surgery, ASH Notes - Will Slash Costs And Recovery Times And Surgical Complications, UK

Under the rules, smokers are to be denied operations under the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand, and doctors will require patients to take a blood test for nicotine residue to prove they have not been smoking.

Medical research shows that smokers take far longer, on the average, to recover from operations, and are far more likely to suffer serious medical complications. This not only greatly increases the cost of providing surgery to smokers, but also ties up beds and hospital facilities urgently needed by other patients.

Your grandfather was lucky. One of the plastic surgeons here has some of the best outcomes from surgery in the state because he will not do surgery unless someone stops smoking for four weeks beforehand. His numbers look better than anything at Mass General I bet. If they aren't smart enough to realize they can improve outcomes by getting a smoker to quit, than so be it.

LAWLS Library

Eighteen percent of those who quit smoking had post-surgical complications, while 52 percent of smokers had problems, mostly related to wound healing. Thirty-one percent of smokers suffered wound-healing complications. Even more frightening, 15 percent of the smokers required second surgeries while only 4 percent of non-smokers needed a second surgery.

Surgeons are fools if they don't try to get their smokers to try to quit. Their numbers would look better, their malpractice liability goes down etc/ Fortunatly I work with surgeons who do their best to help my patients get through the surgeries and smokers tend to really listin when a surgeon tells them to quit.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

There are always exceptions to the rule but I see at least 30-50 hospitalized patients a week and the consensus is there. . There is unbiased, non testimonial research to back up my experience.

Smoking causes so much problems in terms of wound healing, postoperative pneumonias cardiac events that socialized medicine trys to save money and expense by not doing elective surgery on smokeers

Smokers To Be Denied Surgery, ASH Notes - Will Slash Costs And Recovery Times And Surgical Complications, UK




Your grandfather was lucky. One of the plastic surgeons here has some of the best outcomes from surgery in the state because he will not do surgery unless someone stops smoking for four weeks beforehand. His numbers look better than anything at Mass General I bet. If they aren't smart enough to realize they can improve outcomes by getting a smoker to quit, than so be it.

LAWLS Library




Surgeons are fools if they don't try to get their smokers to try to quit. Their numbers would look better, their malpractice liability goes down etc/ Fortunatly I work with surgeons who do their best to help my patients get through the surgeries and smokers tend to really listin when a surgeon tells them to quit.

---
Sorry but I just don't believe that.

 

[bandaidwoman]

---
Sorry but I just don't believe that.

So between my experience WITH 15,000 patients and scores of clinical data showing smokers have more complications , if that doesn't convince you, so be it. Since all the searches I do will only provide empirical( not testimonial proof) that smokers have more hospital complications, then go ahead try to find clinical research data that proves the contrary. Right now I have six patients in the ICU on ventilators after surgeries ( gallbladder, cartoid endarterectomy, aneurysm repair), 5 are smokers and one is a bad asthmatic with BOOP....... yeah, I don't think I am going to change my clinical practice soon based on an internet testimonial about how smoking doesn't hurt a smoker's post operative outcome.

My best friend snorted cocaine for years and was lucky enough not to have a massive myocardial infarction but I have over 100 20- thirty year old young cocaine addicts that have had cocaine induced heart attacks as young as 18. My best friend still does not believe cocaine causes coronary arterial spasm based on her experience. Oh well.....

and I keep finding more unbiased clinical data..
Log In Problems

An intensive smoking cessation program for at least 3 months improved continuous smoking cessation outcomes and reduced mortality in hospitalized high-risk smokers with cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to the results of a randomized trial reported in the February issue of Chest.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

So between my experience WITH 15,000 patients and scores of clinical data showing smokers have more complications , if that doesn't convince you, so be it. Since all the searches I do will only provide empirical( not testimonial proof) that smokers have more hospital complications, then go ahead try to find clinical research data that proves the contrary. Right now I have six patients in the ICU on ventilators after surgeries ( gallbladder, cartoid endarterectomy, aneurysm repair), 5 are smokers and one is a bad asthmatic with BOOP....... yeah, I don't think I am going to change my clinical practice soon based on an internet testimonial about how smoking doesn't hurt a smoker's post operative outcome.

My best friend snorted cocaine for years and was lucky enough not to have a massive myocardial infarction but I have over 100 20- thirty year old young cocaine addicts that have had cocaine induced heart attacks as young as 18. My best friend still does not believe cocaine causes coronary arterial spasm based on her experience. Oh well.....

and I keep finding more unbiased clinical data..
Log In Problems

---
I never said that you had to change your clinical practice from someone posting on the internet. I said these are my real life findings.
I did not say that your findings are wrong. I said I don't really believe your findings.
I don't know you, where you work or what experience you have in this field. Its not like I believe everything on the net espically on a forum.:mrgreen: You sound like your sincere though and I respect your findings. There just not what I found in my little world.
---
Cocaine? Is that concidered tobaco, ciggarettes or a cigar? I know nothing about that as I, my family or my friends never did that.

 

[bandaidwoman]

---

---
Cocaine? Is that concidered tobaco, ciggarettes or a cigar? I know nothing about that as I, my family or my friends never did that.

I'm sorry I did not clarify with the cocaine analogy. ( I use cocaine because both nicotine and cocaine are highly addictive drugs). An individual's real life experience with a drug varies from person to person, so my friend who has snorted cocaine for ten years without any adverse effect other than her addiction and anorexic weight..., her real life experience suggests there are no adverese effects to cocaine but if you pool a large number of cocaine addictis then you start seeing what it does to the "average" cocaine addict ( cardiac arrythmias, early heart attacks, nasal septum perforation , rhabdomyolysis ( muscles dissolve and destroy kidneys) etc. etc.)

There are some smokers who never get lung cancer from cigarettes but it doesn't mean that it doesn't cause lung cancer ( since 90% of lung cancer is found in smokers). There are some obese people who never get type II diabetes but that does not mean obesity is not a big risk factor for type II diabetes.

For that matter I have smokers who do well following major surgery like your grandfather but on average, they do poorly ( take longer to get off the ventilator, higher risk of heart attacks etc.). This is where clinical trials are so important because in medicine the effects of any drug or treatment varies from person to person and its liklihood of causing a outcome can be known with large scale data. I know of people who died after having their appendix taken out but that does not mean that for the most part we don't save lives when we take out an ruptured ,gangrenous appendix.

 

[26 X World Champs]

---
Sorry but I just don't believe that.

Let me see if I understand you. Bandaidwoman posts several facts with links that back up exactly what she is claiming AND she also has practical experience herself as a health professional....and your reply is "I just don't believe that."

You didn't bother to provide one single fact, nothing except your relative's hip replacement operation and that he smokes?

If we were scoring this debate you would lose by the mercy rule because it is so one-sided against you....

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Let me see if I understand you. Bandaidwoman posts several facts with links that back up exactly what she is claiming AND she also has practical experience herself as a health professional....and your reply is "I just don't believe that."

You didn't bother to provide one single fact, nothing except your relative's hip replacement operation and that he smokes?

If we were scoring this debate you would lose by the mercy rule because it is so one-sided against you....

---
I didn't provide anything because its just something I don't believe.
The medical journal in England has stated that second hand smoke does not do as much damage like the U.S.A. reports. I know thats not about this but I believe American doctors and the yuppies are just on their own personal 'do what I tell you to because I don't like the smell of smoke'.

If you read all of my post you would see that I did not believe it because of my personal findings in hospitals with operations and doctors asking me if I smoked before a operation were different than my experiences.
I stated my findings in "my little world". I guess you didn't see that.
---
BTW: Scoring??? Whats the score?:mrgreen:

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

I'm sorry I did not clarify with the cocaine analogy. ( I use cocaine because both nicotine and cocaine are highly addictive drugs). An individual's real life experience with a drug varies from person to person, so my friend who has snorted cocaine for ten years without any adverse effect other than her addiction and anorexic weight..., her real life experience suggests there are no adverese effects to cocaine but if you pool a large number of cocaine addictis then you start seeing what it does to the "average" cocaine addict ( cardiac arrythmias, early heart attacks, nasal septum perforation , rhabdomyolysis ( muscles dissolve and destroy kidneys) etc. etc.)

There are some smokers who never get lung cancer from cigarettes but it doesn't mean that it doesn't cause lung cancer ( since 90% of lung cancer is found in smokers). There are some obese people who never get type II diabetes but that does not mean obesity is not a big risk factor for type II diabetes.

For that matter I have smokers who do well following major surgery like your grandfather but on average, they do poorly ( take longer to get off the ventilator, higher risk of heart attacks etc.). This is where clinical trials are so important because in medicine the effects of any drug or treatment varies from person to person and its liklihood of causing a outcome can be known with large scale data. I know of people who died after having their appendix taken out but that does not mean that for the most part we don't save lives when we take out an ruptured ,gangrenous appendix.

---
I guess i'm in that little amount of people having no problems after a operation.
---
I know just what you mean about appendix, I had a two year old sister die from her appendix bursting.
---
I hear you about 'average' peoples findings, that puts it in a different light now that you have said that.
---
Where do you fit my two stoggie cigars per day? Are cigars worse than butts?

 

[RightOfCenter]

You mean more money from the people who are causing everyone else's health care costs to escalate and that money going for health care for kids who otherwise would not have it.

People are "free" (ha ha) to smoke all they want they just have to pay for their addiction the same way most addicts do.

:roll:

If people are dying because of second hand smoke AND nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, then how come no one's addicted to second hand smoke? If you're dying from it, you must have been addicted at some point, right? Do you know anyone who gets stressed and goes to an AA meeting and inhales deeply?

(thanks to Doug Stanhope for that one)

 

[RightinNYC]

Yeah, it's real easy for you to say, "I prefer them taxing someone else other than me". This is nothing more than nanny staters using bullshit justifications to further fulfill their nannyish tendencies. The reality is no argument can ignore the motivation behind this, and that motivation is not the absense of tax revenues, but to force people to stop smoking without outright banning smoking. It's just a backdoor way of doing it because if these fascists were honest and went for what they really want, first banning of cigarettes but ultimately it's managed lifestyles according to what these nanny state fascists think it best, they wouldn't get the time of day. This is how freedom erodes. I don't even smoke anymore, but this **** still makes my blood boil, I'd rather cover these taxes in my income tax over allowing these fascists to do anything, cause everything they want to do is bad for this country. I'm serious, ask 26x a question and his answer will ALWAYS be bad for this country, and that's the train of thought that leads to this sort of legislation.

They already DO tax **** that I like, namely booze, gambling, and income. Do I think it sucks? Yea. Do I wish they didn't tax the things that I like? Yea. Do I think it's constitutional/legal/whathaveyou? Of course.

 

[Mendacious]

I never met a dem who didn't like raising or imposing any kind of tax.

 

[The Baron]

“Hooray! Our government has finally put doing the right thing ahead of politics and did so by taxing the $hit out of tobacco! Poor smokers will have to pay even more for their damn, sickening addiction!” – 26 X World Champs

Won’t work.

Smoking is an addiction and people will pay the cost to feed that addiction. The government’s actions are un-warranted.

“You mean more money from the people who are causing everyone else's health care costs to escalate and that money going for health care for kids who otherwise would not have it.” - 26 X World Champs

Really?

I didn’t realize I was paying the health care cost of smoker’s everywhere.

If, however, you are suggesting that my health insurance premiums are higher to cover the cost of smoker’s then you may have a point to argue here.

Unfortunately, health care costs are extremely high for many stupid reasons. I am forced to pay for health insurance in case my wife ever gets pregnant again (I, like many others, get my health insurance through the company I work for). Since that is an impossibility for us at this point I fail to understand why I should have to pay this additional cost.

This, of course, could be remedied through more competition and less government regulation.

“Yeah...sure...why should the "people" be forced to pay the outrageous health bills for all the nicotine freaks who will develop deadly diseases far earlier than most people forcing taxpayers to pay their bills as they lie dying in the cancer ward?” - 26 X World Champs

They shouldn’t. Throw them into the streets to die. They made a choice to smoke and the consequences should not be suffered by the rest of us.

“The TRUTH is the more the cigarette tax is raised the less people will smoke and the overall cost of health care will decrease for everyone as will the overall health of our country...why would anyone be against that scenario?” - 26 X World Champs

Because it is not the truth.

People know that cigarettes will cause cancer, hearth disease, lung disease, high blood-pressure, and a host of other problems. They know it smells bad. They know it is expensive.

They still continue to smoke.

And the government is not going to change that.

“The Senate defied President Bush on Thursday and passed a bipartisan bill that would provide health insurance for millions of children in low-income families.” – Robert Pear, NY Times

“You mean more money from the people who are causing everyone else's health care costs to escalate and that money going for health care for kids who otherwise would not have it.” - 26 X World Champs

On the other hand, why in the he!! does the government think I need to pay the health care cost for kids.

If you can’t afford ‘em, don’t have ‘em!

This--to me--is a far bigger crime than taxing cigarettes.

“Perfect...the government stepping in an robbing one class to pay for another's welfare. More socialism...worked great for the Soviet Union!!!” – Jallman

Thank you for an excellent comparison. You are well reasoned, as usual.

And I haven’t seen anybody point out that if the tax did work and reduce or eliminate smoking, what would the government use then to fund health-care for all those little kids?

“Considering that we live in a society with some socialistic tendencies, I find this to be one of the least objectionable alternatives. At least in this situation, those who do not choose to participate in the luxury that is being targeted do not get taxed.” – RighinNYC

So now the government gets to decide what is or is not a “luxury”?

Next they will be deciding what is or isn’t “moral”.

Oh, wait!

Uh, nevermind…

Seems to me that if the government really cared about kids having health insurance and financing it with tax dollars from cigarette sales then they would encourage smoking.

“An upfront tax on a specifically targeted class of products would be much easier.” – RightinNYC

Doesn’t work.

The government was going to increase its tax revenue by punishing the rich once again by putting huge taxes on the purchase of a yacht.

After all, only the evil rich can afford yachts.

So the tax was levied and yachts became so expensive that even the evil rich stopped buying them.

And the entire yacht industry nearly “went under”.

And the tax had to be repealed to prevent the whole yacht-building industry from going under.

“I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I'm trying to figure out how my healthcare problems (if I had any) cost anyone else any more money? How does that work, exactly? How is it that IF I had a smoking related illness, someone else would be footing the bill?” – rivrrat

I’m under the impression that most of us get our health insurance through our employers. Essentially, you “purchase” a health insurance policy with all of the other people in your company (for me, this includes thousands of other people across the country).

Since you are purchasing your health insurance policy with numerous others, the argument can be made that the poor habits of others (smoking, drinking, obesity, etc.) will force your premiums to rise over time (or, if you’re insurance is obtained through an employer you will see a reduction in benefits over time).

But in the interest of full disclosure, I am a reformed smoker and I know how addictive nicotine is.

I had it bad.

I smoked two-and-a-half packs a day. And I smoked for 23 years.

It didn’t matter how much cigarettes cost, I was going to buy them because I loooooovvvveed to smoke.

I finally quit. But I had to have help because my nicotine addiction was “bigger” than me.

I went and got “the shot” (Home - Center for Nicotine Dependency) and for me it was the miracle drug I needed to stop.

I have heard that nicotine is more addictive than heroine. I can't say from personal experience if that is true or not but after getting the shot I gave quitting a half-hearted effort and it turned out to be the easiest thing I have ever done.

If anyone has any questions about “the shot” feel free to PM me.

 

[GottaHurt]

I quit smoking a year ago last August, 24 years of pure smoking pleasure, but I feel better now after quitting the habit.

With that said, I can only laugh at the idiots who think that raising the tax on cigs is going to do away with this habit forming addiction.It's also not going to help offset healthcare costs or lower the death rate.

I suspect over the next 20-30 years people will start growing their own tobacco, and we'll see an underground tobacco industry immerge.Better smoke through private cultivation.

We make our own beer, our own wine, we grow our own veggies and weed, what's 25 sq.ft more of garden space, to throw in another crop.

Fvck the government and it's taxes.

 

[Kushinator]

I quit smoking a year ago last August, 24 years of pure smoking pleasure, but I feel better now after quitting the habit.

With that said, I can only laugh at the idiots who think that raising the tax on cigs is going to do away with this habit forming addiction.It's also not going to help offset healthcare costs or lower the death rate.

I suspect over the next 20-30 years people will start growing their own tobacco, and we'll see an underground tobacco industry immerge.Better smoke through private cultivation.

We make our own beer, our own wine, we grow our own veggies and weed, what's 25 sq.ft more of garden space, to throw in another crop.

Fvck the government and it's taxes.

Not only do i post here for political debate, but for the humor as well. Some people are ****ing hilarious!!!!


In one of my ethics classes, we talked about how cheap beer among college students was directly related to the spread of gonorrhea.

When they increased the tax of beer as a whole, the spread of gonorrhea went down.

The center for disease control compared the changes of gonorrhea rates and the changes in beer tax rates and found that when they increased the tax of beer, the rates of the spread of gonorrhea decreased.

So to anyone who thinks that raising an excise does jack **** except give washington more money are only partly right. It does give washington more money to play with, but it does decrease the risks associated with it...

 

[Kushinator]

And for what its worth, its not the tar that is responsible for 90% of the lung cancer rates, its the inorganic phosphate fertilizers...

They are radioactive, and after continued build up in the soil, the rates of lung cancer are going up, while the education and amount of smokers is decreasing...

So maybe it would be good for people to "grow their own" whatever. I mean, after all, it is a plant...

 

[TheAX]

Congress Raising Fed. Cig Tax to $1 from $0.39 for CHIP...yes the congress surely is raising tax on CIGARETTES....the working man's choice of tobacco smoking....just as the tax has been raised on beer...another working man's choice of drinking alcohol.

But do note that not one cent of tax has been raised on CIGARS and there will be no tax raise on CIGARS as long as the fat cats in the private sector and congress keep buying and smoking $100.00 per each cigar either or $500.00 per box of fifty; cigars by the way some of which are CUBAN made ordered and sold out of South and Central America under different brand names. I recall George Allen, the old time vaudville/early T V performer's cigars cost $300.00 each.

I'm personally a cigar smoker...and for a Christmas present last year, a close friend gave me one very definitely Cubano cigar that cost him $125.00..and man was it smooth.

As an aside for any interested smokers that may read this reply and paying upward of fifty or more dollars for a carton of cigarettes, Have A Tampa, King Edward and several other cigar manufacturers are selling "Little Cigars" in places like Sam's Club currently for $8.59 (here in Arlington Texas) per carton...per 10 pack carton...not per pack....cuz there ain't no extra added taxes on them either...cuz they're filter tipped all tobacco ceegars not ceegarettes and don't fall under the new higher tax catagory.

 

[UtahBill]

I am late into this discussion, but here I am....
Taxes on cigs is just another tax on the stupid, and I am all for taxing the hell out of stupidity. Name your poison, and I can find studies that say over indulgence is dangerous for your health. So the guvmnt can tax gambling, the lottery, tobacco, alcohol, etc. all they want. Fast/prepared foods are already taxed in some areas more than raw foods. Even prostitution is taxed where it is legal.
Now, that being said, I can honestly say that for most of my family, smoking did next to nothing to them that can be quantified. All of them quit, eventually, except the youngest (59), and he is now paying the price, but the others seemed to suffer no ill effect. I, however, will throw up immediately if I try to inhale, so the few times I did smoke, I was a "puffer", like Bill Clinton.
I learned while in the nuclear navy how the lungs are different than the digestive system with respect to bad things entering the body. Inhaled radioactive contamination in the form of dust or gas, etc. tend to have a much longer biological half life than similarly bad, but solid, substances that get into our stomachs.
If taxes on stupidity would just have the effect of making us smarter instead of just making us more healthy, it would be an even bigger bonus.
And it ain't socialism if it is done with pure, righteous intent, right?:roll:

 

[LaMidRighter]

Even when you have insurance your RATES go up to cover the added expenses nicotine junkies force upon us. The extra expenses are passed along to EVERYONE...not just the idiots who smoke...not to mention the costs of second hand smoke....

bullshit.
I am a life/health insurance agent, you get a break as a non-smoker in the preferred class, there is also a preferred tobacco class which typically gets the same rate as a standard non-smoker. Health insurance increases ARE related to increases in care, but this is because of price increases due to overregulation, tort abuses, "freebies", fees, etc. Increases are increases, but if people smoke it does not cost any more than the obese diabetic that has to get an amputation because they didn't follow their diet, or the geriatric patient with chronic conditions that "just won't cooperate and die", etc.