Healthcare (or "I have a right to your time and money!")

[adciv]

Re:Fuggle,
From here we get $20.7B is tobacco tax collections in 2005. From here we get 378 billion cigarettes sold in 2005. From here I'm getting an 82¢ raise equals a 20% increase in the cost of a pack, giving a pack the cost of $4.92 (2009) or $4.10 (2005 est). 20 cigarettes/pack, means 18.9 billion packs, or about $77.5 billion dollars gross sales included taxes. (Warning, rounding) So we get about $56.8B going to the tobacco companies (gross) and $20.7B going to various governments directly, not including income taxes. Using Philip Morris to get an idea of the industry, they have a worldwide revenue of $10.8B and a net income of $2.4B and they are one of the more profitable companies. From this, we get an estimated $12.6B is tobacco profits for companies. I'd say the 60% higher tax revenue (minimum) over profits is a good margin, wouldn't you?

Consider the government probably collects more in taxes on cigs than the companies make, by a good margin.

You are also comparing revenue to profit. If you compare revenue to revenue, the tobacco companies do better (in general >$2 per pack ). If you do profit to profit, I'm not sure. State and federal governments do incur tobacco related expenses, mostly in health care expenses, but also in tobacco cessation programs. In fact, in Ohio the tobacco tax is only allowed to fund tobacco prevention and cessation programs. If the state eventually has no smokers, then the need for those programs are removed and the state isn't really losing money if this revenue stream dries up.

Define how a state makes a 'profit'. I would argue all tobacco taxes they collect are 'profit' as they have no direct costs associated with them. Everything you've listed is voluntary programs they have enacted. Most states use tobacco taxes for general revenue, not specific anti-tobacco programs.

[Dr. Tower]

Direct costs to the state due to tobacco use include tobacco related Medicare and Medicaid expenses. Here is a link to an obviously biased site. However, it lists its sources at the bottom. Some of the sources are a bit old, but I would guess those more relate to the healthcare costs rather than the income generated from taxes, and I'm not sure how much the costs have changed since the implementation of various taxes.

From what I see in there, the states typically get more from tobacco taxes (and settlements) than they pay out, but the national government pays more in tobacco related health care costs than it takes in.

[StruckingFuggle]

Re:Fuggle,
From here we get $20.7B is tobacco tax collections in 2005. From here we get 378 billion cigarettes sold in 2005. From here I'm getting an 82¢ raise equals a 20% increase in the cost of a pack, giving a pack the cost of $4.92 (2009) or $4.10 (2005 est). 20 cigarettes/pack, means 18.9 billion packs, or about $77.5 billion dollars gross sales included taxes. (Warning, rounding) So we get about $56.8B going to the tobacco companies (gross) and $20.7B going to various governments directly, not including income taxes. Using Philip Morris to get an idea of the industry, they have a worldwide revenue of $10.8B and a net income of $2.4B and they are one of the more profitable companies. From this, we get an estimated $12.6B is tobacco profits for companies. I'd say the 60% higher tax revenue (minimum) over profits is a good margin, wouldn't you?

I don't know why all this is being directed than me. My view of profiting from cigarette taxes being unpalatable but less so than profiting from advertising and selling cigarettes had little to do with "one profits more than the other."

[adciv]

You asked

Consider the government probably collects more in taxes on cigs than the companies make, by a good margin.

What would be more by a good margin?

I answered.

Tower, I call BS on any "health related" costs. For starters, the state & federal health insurance programs are optional that should not be there in the fist place.

Further, even if we assume they are 'costs', the document omits other funding sources that are used to pay it. "Federal Smoking Medicaid Costs are federal expenditures within the state to cover the federal share of in-state Medicaid expenditures caused by smoking " This is the raw amounts, and does not deduct the premiums paid by smoker annually. As the US population of smokers was listed at 47 million in the GAO report, this would be a sizeable amount of premiums.

Other notes: Interesting. Federal Tobacco Tax revenues are not included.

[Dr. Tower]

Well, you'll just have to believe that health related costs to the state from tobacco doesn't exist, regardless of the truth of the matter. You asked what the costs were, I answered.

[Deacon]

Do I have a right to medical treatment regardless of my ability to pay? If so, then I necessarily have a right to expect my neighbor to pay for it, and we tackle that issue. If not, then I don't, and this discussion regarding government provided healthcare is pretty pointless and allows us to shift the discussion to what problems, if any, there are with the cost of healthcare. If there are problems, we identify the root cause of the problems and implement regulations if necessary to increase the efficiency of the system as a whole.

That's one thing that bothers me, that Obama's push toward a single payer system is being called "reform" when in reality it's not reforming anything. Reform means fixing problems, not replacing altogether.

You don't think health care companies compete today? Sure they do. But they're only the ones who pay for medical treatment, not the ones who control the entire medical industry. If the medical industry charges $500 for a procedure, then the insurance companies have to pay that, which then means they have the pass those costs to those who pay for the insurance plus whatever profit margin the market will bear. But the medical industry is so convoluted due to (what may often be well-intentioned) government involvement and civil suits that everything costs more than it probably should. So we end up with inflated costs that must then be paid by someone.

It's my opinion that you do not have a right to make your neighbor pay your bills for you. However, it's also my opinion that the medical treatment costs more than it needs to, and that's what we need to look at regardless of political philosophies.

[adciv]

Buy Our Version of Healthcare or Pay us Tribute or Go to Jail.
*edited for clarity*

[ampersand]

So in other words, it's going to be exactly like being required to get automotive insurance.

[adciv]

Except there are plenty of people who get by without a car or insurance and the tribute isn't based on how much you make. Also, auto insurance isn't there to protect you, it's there to protect who you run in to.

[collegestudent22]

Also, this opens the door for a full government takeover in the future. Just redefine "acceptable level of health insurance" to something that can only be provided by a company running a massive deficit (effectively, only the government can provide this) and jack the "tribute" up from 2.5% of income to something like 20% of income and BAM! Government takeover!

[Springy]

I can't think of a country which uses 20% of anyone's income for healthcare.

[adciv]

He's saying that's the tax penalty, not the actual cost. Quit trying to change the subject. Given that once you have a penalty in law, you then have penalty creep, it's not impossible. $1000 fine over a $500 difference in deductible? Welcome to the sausage factory.

And then there's the tax on 'Cadillac plans'. So, you have congress saying we are mandating everyone have coverage, of at least this amount, but not coverage that costs more than X. Taxed for having too little, taxed for having too much. Does someone want to tell me how that is exactly like auto insurance?

[Springy]

He's saying that's the tax penalty, not the actual cost.

Whoops. My mistake, sorry!

[collegestudent22]

BTW, why is that such a big discussion for a measly cost of a 100 billion bucks?

What number is that from? The current healthcare proposals in the US range from 900 billion to 1.2 trillion. Not 100 billion.

Or to ask the other way around: Why was there no discussion about the 680 billion in military spending that was passed and that number didn´t even include the two wars?

Answer: Healthcare "estimates" for bills have commonly been WAY below actual costs. Medicare, depending on the specific portion, outgrew estimates from between 200% and 1700%. The military budget remains constant, precisely because it is not an "estimate" (i.e. a number a congressman pulled out his ass to sell the bill) but an actual budget. Thus, people are more wary about the new healthcare proposal.

Furthermore, (almost; we can really ignore those nut-jobs that think we don't need one at all) everyone agrees that there needs to be a military, and past experience determines the cost. This is not so with healthcare - because some people, like myself, do not want it at all, and others are extremely wary of adding yet more spending on top of a budget already in the red.

[StruckingFuggle]

Furthermore, (almost; we can really ignore those nut-jobs that think we don't need one at all) everyone agrees that there needs to be a military, and past experience determines the cost.

Past experience and unnecessary expenditures like baseless wars of aggression such as the Iraq invasion. Liberation? Human rights? Maybe. But what motivated us beyond that to go to war was aggression (and probably greed), not anything so noble- I mean, there's no Operation Somali Liberation, or wars to the Congo. Nope. Human nobility is a secondary concern and potential byproduct of the war, not a character of the war.