Video: Care enough to smoke?

posted at 8:35 am on October 30, 2007 by Bryan

The Dems’ proposed S-CHIP expansion would cost about $35 billion. That money has to come from somewhere.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yeah, strange that the Libs are silent on this aspect of it.
Thanks, Bryan, I’m sending this one to my mother-in-law.

SouthernDem on October 30, 2007 at 8:44 AM

Hmmm looks like Nancy Pelosi has her own YouTube thingy.

- The Cat

P.S. This is one’na them thar catchy 22 things.

MirCat on October 30, 2007 at 8:48 AM

Bryan!?!? WHY ARE YOU SMEARING GRAEME FROST!?!?. Do you wingers have any scruples!?!?!?!?!

!?!?!?!?*

*for added outrage

Hoodlumman on October 30, 2007 at 8:52 AM

I love it! Need that to play on primetime network broadcast time.

I wonder if all these cities banning smoking think about the tax aspect of it?

JamesLee on October 30, 2007 at 8:52 AM

Lady: “Well that’s insane. Congress would never have health care DEPEND on smoking!”

Dude: “C’mon. This is CONGRESS we’re talking about!”

That says it all.

T J Green on October 30, 2007 at 8:53 AM

Heh. Nice.

csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 8:54 AM

LOL

orly?

Black Adam on October 30, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Being a liberal frees one from ever having to explain the financing of public initiatives….. what with all the money belonging to the state in the first place. The problems start when those ingrates that have been allowed to keep money think it actually belongs to them!

highhopes on October 30, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Well, I’m doing my part!

reine.de.tout on October 30, 2007 at 9:07 AM

Perhaps they should finance SCHIP through higher taxes on fast food. Come on, Congress. No one’s going to stop eating a McDonald’s. Get on the trolley!!!

The problems start when those ingrates that have been allowed to keep money think it actually belongs to them!

highhopes on October 30, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Oh yes, can you imagine the chutzpah of people actually wanting to keep the money themselves? Heaven forfend.

mjk on October 30, 2007 at 9:07 AM

I actually don’t see the problem with this. It’s not like the government is forcing people to smoke to pay for health care as this ad portends.

If people are going to smoke anyway, an action so destructive to health, why not use the act to help enhance health? Also isn’t there a chance additional cost will make some people smoke less?

What am I missing here?

12thman on October 30, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Also isn’t there a chance additional cost will make some people smoke less?

What am I missing here?

12thman on October 30, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Right there. As cigarette consumption decreases, where are they going to get the money? In order to get the revenue they depend on smokers. At least for now.

Keljeck on October 30, 2007 at 9:15 AM

Actually, 12thman, there’s not really an issue with the government wanting to use cigarette taxes to pay for health care. The issue is the inherent contradiction in governments both local and federal banning smoking everywhere, telling people smoking is bad (which it is), managing to get people to quit, then suddenly deciding that taxing cigarettes is going to fund healthcare. The stats of people smoking have been steadily decreasing over the past few years and more and more people have been giving it up. So what this “ad” is saying is that it’s counter intuitive to ban smoking yet decide to tax smoking to pay for an ill thought out attempt at socializing medicine.

At least that’s my interpretation.

mjk on October 30, 2007 at 9:17 AM

“What am I missing here?”

1.) The fact that the high costs lead to people quitting smoking and then this provides the impetus to acquire the money from other means which means “justifying” raising taxes.

2.) Knowing full well that the tax revenue from cigarettes is never going to be enough to cover projections and then this also prompts the ability to raise taxes.

3.) It is yet another back door means of placing punitive taxes on the cigarette industry because they do not agree with the industry. People are murdered by gun violence all the time and rap songs glorify gun violence…yet, no special taxed on rap Cds. Illegal Aliens have destroyed many hospitals due to their abuse of the emergency room. Yet, no taxes on wire transfers to foreign countries…etc

GogglesPisano on October 30, 2007 at 9:18 AM

The ad is brilliant. And that guy is perfect for the part.

“Thanks . . . flu season’s coming!”

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 30, 2007 at 9:34 AM

As cigarette consumption decreases, where are they going to get the money? In order to get the revenue they depend on smokers. At least for now.

Keljeck on October 30, 2007 at 9:15 AM

1.) The fact that the high costs lead to people quitting smoking and then this provides the impetus to acquire the money from other means which means “justifying” raising taxes.

GogglesPisano on October 30, 2007 at 9:18 AM

http://wildbillkblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/anti-smoking-zealots.html

WildBillK on October 30, 2007 at 9:36 AM

I’m not a smoker myself, but those Truth commercials make me reconsider.

Keljeck on October 30, 2007 at 9:45 AM

I hate the tobacco industry, but I have reservations about taxing tobacco anymore. Given the way things work in the American class system, smoking appears to me to be highly correlated with lower income. Thus, the Democrats are taxing the poor to pay for their program.

Also, the smell of barn in which tobacco is drying is one of the wonderful memories of my childhood.

thuja on October 30, 2007 at 9:47 AM

hey but its for the kids so smoke up

Mojack420 on October 30, 2007 at 9:54 AM

I actually don’t see the problem with this. It’s not like the government is forcing people to smoke to pay for health care as this ad portends.

If people are going to smoke anyway, an action so destructive to health, why not use the act to help enhance health? Also isn’t there a chance additional cost will make some people smoke less?

What am I missing here?

The problem with taxing smokers is that only a percentage of citizens are being targeted for tax. This is not fair. It isn’t right to tax people arbitrarily. Also, demographically, most smokers are poor or working class. It’s also a bit morbid to to finance health care (and schools) through cigarette taxation. Why doesn’t congress put a small tax on soda? A couple pennies a can would solve everything.

robblefarian on October 30, 2007 at 9:57 AM

Right there. As cigarette consumption decreases, where are they going to get the money?

Keljeck on October 30, 2007 at 9:15 AM

That’s easy. They’ll just raise the tax. And when it gets high enough to really impact revenue, they’ll go after some other group, preferably a group with a public image problem. Gun owners? How about a 50% tax on all firearms?

You’re never going to understand liberals if you keep thinking logically. They don’t.

Professor Blather on October 30, 2007 at 9:57 AM

preferably a group with a public image problem. Gun owners? How about a 50% tax on all firearms?

The propaganda machines are revving on Trans Fats.

My points was that taxing cigarettes is clearly unsustainable in the long term, especially if they got there way. I would guess they would make up for it either with some vilified industry or the rich.

Keljeck on October 30, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Thus, the Democrats are taxing the poor to pay for their program.

thuja on October 30, 2007 at 9:47 AM

Bingo. Exactly.

This is one of the universal truths liberals almost never understand. Almost *all* of their funding initiatives and taxes are really just taxes on the poor (who, sadly, then go out and vote for the Democrats who just made their lives worse).

When they bleat on endlessly about “taxing the rich” (which generally means anybody with more money than them – which is just about everybody) … they don’t think it through.

When you put punitive taxes on the top 1%, the top 1% stop investing. They invest overseas. And more importantly, they stop creating new jobs. When they raise taxes on “evil” corporations, the net result is always the same: slightly higher prices for consumers, and less jobs for people who need them.

A tax on the poor.

Just like this cigarette stupidity. Not only are you right that smokers are disproportionately poorer – but the lower economic classes are also the ones who rely on the tobacco industry.

Oh, there’s the final irony: I wonder how many illegal aliens work in tobacco fields or tobacco factories?

So there you go, Democrats: you’ve managed to support a law that 1) encourages smoking, 2) eliminates jobs, 3) hurts poor people, and 4) hurts illegal aliens.

Well done.

Professor Blather on October 30, 2007 at 10:03 AM

The propaganda machines are revving on Trans Fats.

Keljeck on October 30, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Yeah, it does look like trans fats is the next target for the Thought Police.

And I’m actually happy about it – because I think the fascist Left might finally be going after a freedom Americans might fight back for.

I think they just may tick enough people off if they go after trans fats that they’ll actually get hurt.

Americans like their onion rings just the way they are. And as long as we’re fighting to save our french fries, important rights like 2nd amendment rights will be well-protected.

Professor Blather on October 30, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Professor Blather on October 30, 2007 at 10:06 AM

I always used fatty foods as an absurd example for banning. Like when people bring up guns or cigarettes. I’m sure others have as well. I agree, it’s a dream come true.

Like I said, it’s absurd to ban fatty foods. There’s no second hand effects like cigarettes, it’s not addictive in and of itself, and you can’t use it to commit mass murder (or any murder for that matter). All you have are people who eat too much of it by their own choice or personal demon.

I don’t see average Joe American standing for it.

Keljeck on October 30, 2007 at 10:11 AM

I do not want to see sick people without health insurance.

But one of my problems with the S- Chip program deals with the negative economics caused by collectivist, bureaucratic “pie in the sky” type of planning that ignores reality.

More and more doctors, especially obgyns, are pulling out of healthcare due to the horribly poor financial reimbursement ratio of Medicaid, as well as negative economic realities caused by lawyers, medical liability issues, etc.

The movement away from private healthcare to public sector causes more people to naturally want to drop their own coverage (which they pay for) and pick up free state insurance coverage. But there is no “free lunch” in economics, as well as in life. Medicaid and public aid may have had a noble purpose at the beginning, but the rapid explosion of the Medicaid program since then has negative financial implications.

Somebody has to pay for this. And collective, socialized planning at the bureaucratic level tends to ignore financial reality.

Again, I do not want to see people without health care.

But the road to socialism is often paved with “good intentions” that have very bad economic results.

ColtsFan on October 30, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Many good points here. Thanks for the replies.

12thman on October 30, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Well, I smoke a pack a day, so all you parents out there might as well thank me. THANK ME!!!!!

Enrique on October 30, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Good stuff… I don’t know who this dude is, but he could make some noise if he keeps up this creativity.

RightWinged on October 30, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Whoa. I had a dream last night that I had become a smoker! It all makes sense now. I’ve wanted to get involved somehow, and now I have my direction. After all, it’s for the kids.

Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 11:23 AM

THANK ME!!!!!

Enrique on October 30, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Who do you think you are? Mark Levin?

It’s just another way to get more people on the government dole. If everyone is relying on the Dems for their healthcare , they’ll be the party in power FOREVER!!! Healthcare quality will totally suck, but there’ll be no alternative. It’s freaking brilliant.

jdpaz on October 30, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Obama claims to have quit smoking recently. I am sure that if asked, he would say that all Americans should kick the habit. So, there you have it, Obama working to deny funding for children’s healthcare.

I’ll vote for the first democrat that taxes fat people like they do smokers. They can even give licenses to illegal aliens if they make everyone weigh in and charge according to BMI.

rw on October 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM

The irony is that once upon a time, Tobacco was King in Southern Politics. Almost every older democrat in the South owes his or her position in office to the tobacco industry. This went down right into the county seats as well.

At what point will the economy collapse because a certain percentage of the population is now living off the democratic plantation?

Wuptdo on October 30, 2007 at 12:52 PM

Only bad habit I never had. Well, gambling too I guess. Had all the rest.

LtE126 on October 30, 2007 at 1:00 PM

As an X-smoker, when I see someone smoking, I just want to run up and give them a big open mouth kiss and suck all the smoke out of them.

But I don’t want to be taxed for it.

Kini on October 30, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Well, I smoke a pack a day, so all you parents out there might as well thank me. THANK ME!!!!!

Enrique on October 30, 2007 at 10:53 AM

I have NEVER had a non-smoker thank me for paying all these extra taxes. Maybe we should form a club or something… LOL!

Califemme on October 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Like I said, it’s absurd to ban fatty foods.
Yup, the Onion did a story about it back in 2000:
Hershey’s Ordered to Pay Obese Americans $135 Billion

I remembering laughing hysterically when I first read that back then. It was funny because it was absurd and unbelievable. Needless to say it’s not as funny anymore because it’s no longer unbelievable.

Kensington on October 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA “Hey thanks guys, flue seasons coming”.

Rode Werk on October 30, 2007 at 2:53 PM

ahem….

I demand credit.

cadetwithchips2 on October 30, 2007 at 3:47 PM

I’ve asked if anyone knew where you could find the stats on what the Feds collect now in tobacco taxes? Individual states set their own taxes for them too, right? I simply don’t believe this idiocy can be believed and that it will fully fund it. Besides, ever been behind someone at the grocery store using food stamp cards – after completing that sale they’ll fork over cash for a couple cartons of smokes and a six-pack or two. The very people this is meant to help will deprive their own children to continue buying whatever product it is they want. The only way to guarantee the program will be funded is to hit, again, the taxpayer – and they’re not going to want to do it.

24K lady on October 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

rw@12:46 – California tried adding a snack tax years ago. No one in retail could really tell you what a snack was…. because some consider an apple a snack, rather than just potato chips/dip. It was pandemonium at the check-out counters. But, since I don’t eat most of that junky stuff – tax the heck out it, sodas too. The BMI is a sure winner because a whole bunch of people would decide to lose some extra pounds, quicker than a flying french fry.

24K lady on October 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM

And this is to say nothing of the huge taxes on tobacco products already.

Smokers really should get a lot more credit for all the additional burdens we carry, but thanks to the anti-smoking crowd they have made smokers only slightly more socially acceptable than lepers.

Maxx on October 30, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Also isn’t there a chance additional cost will make some people smoke less?

What am I missing here?

12thman on October 30, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Right there. As cigarette consumption decreases, where are they going to get the money? In order to get the revenue they depend on smokers. At least for now.

Yes and if the pendulum swings the other way and people smoke more that will create more overburdening costs on the healthcare system. It a a lose-lose situation, a crazy gambit I’d said.

aengus on October 30, 2007 at 7:30 PM

LOLOL! Whatta great ad! The lady’s expressions are just perfect!

Well, I smoke a pack a day, so all you parents out there might as well thank me. THANK ME!!!!!

Enrique on October 30, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Channeling Bill Murray in Groundhog Day after catching the kid from the tree the umpteenth time, with the kid running away: “You little brat! You have never thanked me!”

inviolet on October 30, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Good call, inviolet. Terribly sorry I missed this; it’s great fun.

“……..fine.” Classic.

Jaibones on October 30, 2007 at 9:49 PM