Cigarettes and Health Care

[flip]

I'm wondering if anyone else remembers this the way I do. I remember when I first started smoking cigarettes were around 0.65 a pack. I can't remember exactly but around 10 years ago I guess, there was a lot of debate about the health risks of cigarettes and the cigarette companies supposedly got hit hard. Almost over night cigarettes go from 0.65 a pack to over 5.00. The way I remember it, was that with this huge price increase money would be generated and set aside for the health care of smokers. I know there's a shitload of money been made since then, but even with the passing of a healthcare bill, I've not heard one mention of it.

[TechPro]

Sucks to be addicted to the cancer stick. Glad I never fell for that one.

Yes, there is a LOT of money collected from the sale of cigarettes, but in typical government fashion ... it's used in many other places. Nearly all states (if not all states) usually pick on increasing the tax on cigarette sales whenever more money is needed or just wanted. Don't expect to get a single cent due to choosing a poor health choice. (yeah, I've always thought smoking was not real smart. No offense, it's just my opinion.)

[flip]

No you missed my point. I'm not advocating smoking or think that smokers should get a pass for making a poor choice. (Although I do think the deck is more than stacked against them.) My point is that I specifically remember this being pressure put on the cigarette industry by Congress itself. The end result being a huge increase in the cost of cigarettes and with a great portion of that money going towards an eventual HealthCare bill. Now, several years later and a huge sum of money, we get the health bill that's been talked about for 25 years, but no mention of all that money.

[TechPro]

Yeah, no mention at all of that money. Instead ...

... it's used in many other places. Nearly all states (if not all states) usually pick on increasing the tax on cigarette sales whenever more money is needed or just wanted.

Here is some information on how that money is actually used:

In California: http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub93.pdf (a PDF file)
As found on eHow: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5656578_cigar ... -for_.html
A 2007 column on MSNBC.com through the Associated Press: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17170991/ns ... _business/

[flip]

Cigarettes have been taxed from the very beginning. I'm talking about the changes that happened when cigarettes went from 65 cents a pack to over 5 bucks overnight. Certain changes went into effect at that time and I was sure that the main reasoning was to take the bulk of the money and use it specifically for health care. I could be wrong.

[Nightshade]

I think the reasons given by the government are to:

1) Cover health costs.

2) Discourage smoking.

I agree with Tech that the government simply takes the new revenue and spends (squanders it) on all sorts of things other than the stated intention of covering health costs.

Being a non-smoker...and a person that hates being exposed to 2nd hand smoke, I do like the fact that smoking is being pushed out of the public places I frequent and lessen my chances for any disease that might arise from being exposed to it. However, I don't like the government's "modification" of our behavior by coercive means whether it be "good" for us or otherwise.

[Tunnelcat]

Let's see, whenever money gets put into some pot, you can guarantee that that pot will be raided and used for purposes other than the original intended purpose. In Oregon, we have (or had) a similar stash of tax dollars that are/were taken from smokers and were supposed to be put towards health care, but it mysteriously seems to be constantly raided for other purposes when funds became tight in this state. You can't lock up a big stash of money for long. The politicians just can't resist spending it.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/quit_smoking ... gon/costs/

[flip]

LOL if I can get a resounding "lying bastiges" I'll shutup and go back to my corner

[flip]

As public health groups that are parties to the federal government's racketeering lawsuit against the tobacco companies, we vigorously oppose the companies' efforts to delay and weaken remedies imposed to address their fraudulent conduct. Even after being found guilty of deceiving the American people, the tobacco companies are still seeking to escape the consequences of their actions.

Keeping the proposed statements secret serves only to give the tobacco companies the opportunity to delay and weaken the statements and furthers their goal of continuing business as usual. As our court filing states, "The public has the right to know what the government is proposing, and why."

In 2006, Judge Kessler issued a landmark verdict finding the major cigarette manufacturers guilty of violating civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Judge Kessler's 1,683-page opinion found that the companies have engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public and target children with their deadly and addictive products. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals in the case, allowing Judge Kessler's verdict to stand.

One of Judge Kessler's remedies, since upheld on appeal, requires the tobacco companies to make corrective statements about the health harms of smoking and secondhand smoke and their deceptive practices through newspaper and television advertising, at point of sale, on their web sites and on cigarette packaging. The government has been conducting research to determine the most effective corrective statements and, as ordered by Judge Kessler, was scheduled to submit the proposed statements to the court on Thursday. But public disclosure of the proposed statements was delayed because of a challenge by the tobacco companies.

This makes my point perfectly. Here we have the Federal Government suing the tobacco companies and losing. I'm still wondering how they justify the huge overnight increase in cost. I'm betting the Federal Government sees a very small portion of that money and the tobacco companies pocket the rest. The only penalty I see is they are forced to state the obvious. Heh. Who's in charge now?

The nation’s second biggest tobacco company earned $381 million in the third quarter, or $1.30 per share, a 5 percent increase from a year earlier.

The company’s cigarette sales rose almost 3 percent to nearly $1.9 billion, but the number of cigarettes sold by the company fell 2.6 percent to just over 20 billion. Reynold’s share of the tobacco market rose close to 28 percent thanks to increases in both Pall Mall and Camel cigarette brands.

[Burlyman]

The purpose of increasing the price of cigarettes like this has always been to gain a considerable profit.

I'm still waiting for C-SPAN to show the rest of the footage of the construction of the ISS.

[flip]

This case is wildly different.

Beating a dead horse.
From the first link in Techpros post. Aside from having to say cigarettes are bad for you, This is the Federal Governments take from cigarettes after this ruling. Cigarettes are subject to tax and surtaxes.

stamp=.87
tax= .12
surtax=.75
discount of .85 percent

This is what is paid from the cigarette company to the Federal Government. Then to sweeten the pot, the cigarette company can pass these costs off to the merchants who in turn pass it of the consumer. A 500% increase in cost resulting directly from a judgment made 'against' them in court. The results? I have to pay 5 bucks for a 65 cent pack of cigarettes and they have to tell me it's bad for me. Cigarettes have nothing to do with it. I just use it to illustrate what happens when the Federal Government goes toe-to-toe against corporate America.

Edit: I guess healthcare was the WMD of the cigarette industry.