Senate Votes to Give FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco - Good Idea or Bad Idea?

As soon as sales drop enough to affect the tax revenue that so many states have come to depend on, they'll start subsidizing it.

There is a pretty good tax base in cigarettes, both federal and state.

SCHIP comes to mind.

and that's the kicker, the tax revenue generated is far more important than the "we're trying to protect you" line they claim when they do such things.

The tax revenue is obviously important to the states and federal coffers, but the FDA would develop regulations based on the science.

Found this in the article: "The bill would also create a tobacco center within the FDA funded by fees from the industry that are estimated to reach more than $500 million annually by 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

One thing to keep in mind tobacco is already subsidized. I think that Jesse Helms fought tooth and nail to get subsidies for farmers.

Of course it is Kevin, its an ag product and about 30 or more % of those are subsidized.  Jesse Helms was just one of dozens of our elected 'leaders' form both parties who fought and still fight for such subsidies.  The problem is that the subsidy amounts for tobacco have not increased overly much for some time.  I don't like subsidies at all but what I do see here is a likely increase in them to offset the increased taxes.  The government takes away but gives with the other hand to politically connected types.  It would be far cheaper for the taxpayer if it wasn't taxed so the justification for the subsidy would go away.

Sorry David, the FDA is as politicalized as the rest of our government.  Decisions on how to and how much to regulate will be political far more than any scientific basis.  Everyone knows and has known for decades that tobacco by and large is unhealthy, additional regulation is not going to change that but it will increase the cost of the product-a socially engineered solution for "the better" of the those who smoke.

I would so love to get rid of all farm subsidies. Subsidies are truely a non-partisan issue. Everyone gives them out bribe the vote.

We can sure agree on that...but that's why they'll never go away.

That brought a chuckle.

Hard to argue that point.

I dont know enough about it

Now what do we do with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Fire Arms?

LOL, oh I could think of a few things!

So, is it a good idea for tobacco use to come under the regulatory arm of the FDA?  Will it save lives?

Nicotine is a drug.  It should be monitored by a group that oversees drugs in this country and has the right kind of resources to deal with drug products.  I think it may save lives.  I heard the other day that low-tar, 'light' cigarettes are actually just if not more harmful to your health than the old, straight unfiltered kind.  For years the industry advertised these kinds of 'light' cigarettes as being less harmful.  Drugs are drugs and the risks of using them should be fully disclosed. 

*************

Reduce health care costs? If people have the real facts about a drug, they are less likely to use a drug that is harmful.  I think it would reduce costs by reducing usage.

****************

Place a burden on the tobacco industry?  WTF cares?

Fail to result in changes in smoking habits?  No.  Again, when people know the facts, they can make their own decision based on it.  If the facts are right out there, there will be less litigation around tobacco use, as people who use tobacco products cannot claim that they did not know about the dangers.

Keep in mind nicotine is one of the most addictive drug known to man. It may very well be the most addictive drug. That is why it is manipulated in tobacco. A couple of smokes could get you addicted.

Nicotine is the tobacco plant's natural protection from being eaten by insects. It is a super toxin that, drop for drop, is more lethal than strychnine or diamondback rattlesnake venom, and three times deadlier than arsenic. Yet, amazingly, by chance, this natural insecticide's chemical structure is so similar to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine that once inside the brain it fits a host of chemical locks permitting it direct and indirect control over the flow of more than 200 neurochemicals.

Pretty interesting stuff, eh.

Very interesting stuff, David.  Thanks for that info, Kevin.

Okay, very interesting stuff, Sheryl. :)

It's an extremely good idea! Many of the ingredients in tobacco cigarettes are drugs or possible carcinogens - not the least of which is nicotine.

Nicotine is addictive, so will regulation help people stop smoking?

Regulations will drive the cost up... meaning people would be able to afford less.  Maybe that's the goal?

Costs are pretty high for cigarettes now because of the high "sin" taxes.  It seems the goal is to have the power to limit ways tobacco can be marketed in certain ways, perhaps reduce the amount of nicotine so they are less addictive, etc.

Tobacco smuggling is already a huge "problem" for higher taxed states.  Sin taxes drive consumption/production underground when pushed to extremes.  Seems we ought to learn someday about this.

Perhaps, but what should we learn?  We should remove all taxes from cigarettes and people would stop smoking?

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol because of the reasons you state.  People will always pursue these choices, and you really can't regulate away choice.  But you can make the choice harder to make...up to the point that it creates the underground market.  Tough to figure out where that break point is I would imagine.

Nope, can't see anyone banning cigarettes ever.  But they can work, through regulation, to find alternative ingredients that have the same properties (odor, taste, filler) without the ones that have the addictiveness (nicotine) or toxicity (a bunch of others).  But without knowing how FDA might regulate tobacco, it's all just speculation at this point.

I have mixed feelings about this one....

I seem to recall during the peanut scare that the news outlets were carrying stories claiming that the FDA was stretched and that lead to the lack of compliance of their own rules and regulations... Leading to lax inspections, etc.  Now we are giving them more authority?  Maybe we should be making sure they are properly handling the responsbilities they already have before we add more to the plate.

Or, maybe for the good of us all we need to fund the FDA properly, so it will have the staff to do its job.  Bush gutted it and put people in charge who were diametrically opposed to its mission.

Personally, I think the majority of government operations could use a "sanity check" every now and again... and the FDA is definitely one of them.  There is a lot of waste, a lot of outdated regulations, etc, in most government agencies.  I don't necessarily agree the answer is to hire more people... they may just need to clean house!

I just left this comment above and will repeat it here: "The bill would also create a tobacco center within the FDA funded by fees from the industry that are estimated to reach more than $500 million annually by 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

I had read that.  I still believe the answer isn't always more people or more fees/taxes.... I believe we need to ensure the processes and policies are correct as well.  Good money after bad, as a principle, doesn't make any sense.

I would say there has to be a firm idea of what they would want to accomplish before they could actually do anything substantive.

Is it a good idea?  I don't know. 

i ttoo have mixed feelings on this one

Trouble is when Goverments decide to regulate Tobbacco its all in the intrest of the public domain they have the inter structual data, its deregulating something else and its a curve that allso leans in the direction of the retailers, producers, and tax collectors, and effects the trend of consumer sustainability, that pushes up other commodities and doesnt realy lower the incidence of user sustainability, my impression is it just coerces more users, and its allways  a flagellant demand, you see this now where its been done the addvocation is control of substances but its directive is political commerce, rational supreme has all ways been one of personal diversity to rationalise denoted quid pro quo sensabilitys.

This is so STUPID, why don't they ban the substance?  Cigarettes have killed more people than handguns have.  Instead of getting rid of it they have made it so, that they need people to smoke for the tax revenues.  They also want to use it as a regulation on behavior.  They want to tell you where you can smoke and when you can smoke.  They should just get rid of it all together.

Well, they tried to ban alcohol during Prohibition.  Didn't work too well and led to more crime, graft, and murder.  It's hard to change human behavior, especially when at least one of the components of cigarettes has been shown to be physiologically addictive (and the act of smoking is often psychologically addictive).

maybe they will come up with a better way to limit the use of tabacco other than tax the addicted into debt...i just quit about 2 months ago but i still consider myself a smoker at heart, and will have their "rights" if thats really what they are  in mind whenever things like this are brought up.

and without tobbacco, the usa wouldnt be where we are today, we made most of our money in the beginning from the sale of our tobbacco crops. we were founded on it,just like guns. its hard to just remove something like that from a culture when it is so deeply imbeded.

all in all though. it doesnt effect me too much considering i dont smoke. so my opinion should be void on the matter

Wouldn't it be nice if this country could use its smarts to develop products that are GOOD for us?  Gee.  What a concept.

Congrats on quitting!  That's quite a feat!

"the usa wouldnt be where we are today, we made most of our money in the beginning from the sale of our tobbacco crops. we were founded on it,just like guns. its hard to just remove something like that from a culture when it is so deeply imbeded."

The same thing could be said about Afghanistan and opium poppies.   Isn't it a bit hypocritical to force the Afghans to destroy their poppy fields while we subsidize tobacco growers?  Heroin is actually less addictive and more easily treated than nicotine addiction.

Interesting idea.  For farmers, tobacco and poppies are just crops that bring in a good income.

i never said it couldnt be done, i said its hard to just remove something that is that engrained in a society. thats all. even when i smoked i didnt oppose tax increases, bans in certain areas. because i knew what i was doing to myself. but i think heroine is a bit of an extream example. yes smoking will kill you, but i think heroine will kill you A LOT faster. even if it is less addictive. all i was saying is that it will be hard to remove completely, thats all.

Tobacco is already regulated, just not by the FDA. As someone else pointed out, it currently falls under the jurisdiction of the ATF.

Yup, tobacco should fall under the purvey of the FDA; it is a consumable drug. This could and should be an advantage for the tobacco consumer, as the FDA might better regulate what other chemicals get put into tobacco products.

I don't understand how people can compare regulation to Prohibition. Regulation is control over how something is manufactured, used or marketed; whereas prohibition forbids manufacturing, marketing and consuming. The two are not similar.

Yup, good idea. The move might save lives; might reduce health care costs, might place a burden on the tobacco industry (not that they can't afford it); and may change people's smoking habits.

True, tobacco is regulated by the ATF, though not as a drug.  It would be interesting to hear what FDA might do with the chemicals in tobacco products.  Most are pretty innocuous (flavors, aromas, fillers, etc.), though clearly there are those that are of greater concern under some circumtances.

Read what I posted above WRT nicotine. Plus the tobacco producers put other deadly chemicals in the cigarettes, such as mecury, arsenic. If they were required to list the chemicals in the cigarettes I am sure a lot more people would quit.

Kevin, I wish you were right about the ingredient list... but let's face it... most Americans don't even read the food labels!

We will never know until the manufactures are forced to put the ingredients on the package.

If people don't read food labels that's their problem.  A lot of us DO !!!

Kevin - I've seen lists of the most toxic chemicals in cigarettes, so we already know what they are.  The vast majority of chemicals are, as I said, not harmful at all.

By the way, the new chemical regulation in Europe - REACH - excludes tobacco from registration but all of the additives must be registered.  Which means they need to provide dossiers of health and safety data for each of the ingredients, including the toxic ones.

Just what we need, more government regulation.

Regulations, the Democrats most important product. Regulations, the threat that brings in their campaign cash. Regulations, the reason jobs are moving to other countries. Regulations, the reason American companies can't compete.

All countries have regulations.  And Republicans started both the FDA (Teddy Roosevelt) and the EPA (Nixon).  The Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act was signed into law by another Republican (Eisenhower).  There are lots of other laws and regulations put in place by Republicans, of course.

You might want to rethink your derision.

Plus of course the majority of Republican Senators voted for the bill.  I'm not sure what the split was on the original House version, but it appears that there would not be much concern of getting a similar version passed.  So I guess Republicans also think this is a good idea.

I agree that the GOP and the Dems are guilty and corrupt.

I was thinking of the Dems love for big government, but both parties love the power and the money.

Randy if we depend on the good will of the giant corporations who sell this crap to protect the health of the general public we are fools. That  is why we need government regulations. If it were not for government regulations we would all be roadkill for the unrestrained capitalist crowd. We tried that with the economy and that didn't work out so well.

We have a hell of a lot more reasons to fear the robber barons who prey on us than we have to fear the government.

Robert, I can't agree. The "robber barons" stay in business by pleasing their customers. If you don't like the "crap" they make, buy it from someone else.

The government, on the other hand, has a monopoly. If I don't like the way that the EPA's ridiculous regulations drive up the price of everything, I can't go to a competitor. So, I have to deal with idiots who believe that I am polluting when I exhale. 

Randy - Please explain to me how someone that doesn't want to buy a life saving drug from Company A can buy it from the another company, when Company A holds an exclusive patent on the drug.

In the case I've presented, I would be in favor of deregulation, because if the government didn't grant exclusive patents, then other companies would be able to make the same drug and sell it for cheaper; aka: market competition.

Second: staying in business is not usually the goal of charlatans. Scammers will gladly sell quantities of junk product quickly, and then fold the business and disappear with the money they've collected. In this case, consumers are nothing but victimized; and our current system of regulation and oversight provides both protection from scams and recourse for anyone that might be victimized.

Although I haven't heard anyone from the EPA say that your exhaling is polluting, I have seen how the EPA keeps companies from dropping toxic waste into our water supply and pumping deadly gases into our atmosphere. To get rid of the EPA or pull thier enforcement teeth means returning to days when rivers can catch on fire and the people of small towns can be ravaged by cancers. Personally, and for the good of my neighbors, I'm not interested in returning to those kind of days.

Bill, it's called cross licensing, and Company B pays Company A a royalty for the right to sell the drug.

BTW, what makes you thnk there would be new drugs if the governemnt didn't grant exclusive patents. I don't think companies would invest millions in a new drug, and then wait 10 years for approval from the FDA if they didn't think they could earn a profit from the drug.

With no patents, the copy cats could sell their drugs cheap, and the developer of the drug would never recover his hivestment. Only a fool would make an investment under those condition.

Re the EPA, you didn't know that they have declared CO2 a pollutant? Now all the people on the earth are sources of pollution and the EPA is working on a plan to shut us down (or force us to buy Carbon credits ... heh, heh,heh).

Corporate America is evil to the bone. Bring back the trust busters and skin the fat cats.

Robert (moving backward with Obama) it sounds like all your bets are on Obama and big government. Rotsa' ruck! Papa Obama will take "good" care of you (heh heh heh).

Most of my dollars have already moved offshore because I don't invest n socialist countries.

Does this mean no more advertising to kids ???  Good.

(Will the FDA also cover candy ciagerettes?)

no, I admit it, I CAN NOT SPELL !!!!!!

Actually, I think I saw that there would be some attempt to limit such things as candy cigarettes (though to be honest, I thought they already did that).

Its not a solely American affair, the sublime factor of any the worlds economys must be how much is realised from the industry, statistically in developing countries the world bank cant include tobacco in any report or recomendation, or can it, its completely a feaseability study must include everything, the whole human gamut of the A-Z, products, population, natural rescources, projected levels of monetary growth and debt repayment ability, its not so much any economy was built on the founding of tobacco, but tobacco must play a major part in the overall picture., of trade secures trade. 

Tobacco sales have been growing in emerging markets as they have been slowing in the US and Europe.

Yes, this is a GOOD idea.  I'm mostly interested in the FDA's ability to regulate what goes into those nasty little stics (sed th' 50-year smoker).  The won't be able to manipulate nicotine levels, add Ammonia and other bronchodilators, and dump other "not-good-for-you-suff in there just for th' halibut!

Would it be a cigarette without all that stuff?

Well, first of all, here we are with giving the government more control.  And here we are giving a specific department within the government more to do when it has proved that it cannot do its job presently. 

Far too many prescription drugs get approved than should.  Recently, I learned (from Self Magazine) that generic drugs only have to do trials with 20 persons and one dosage before being approved, since the name brand had already been through the approval process.  That's great, but if you're one who takes prescriptions regularly, you know that each generic is different than the next.  One pain of my pain meds can be a tiny white oblong pill, a large white round pill, a small white round pill or a large white oblong pill.  They're all supposedly the same dosaged.  But they have different additives in them and I react differently to each generic script.  Further, it has been proven that some generics are not doing the job that the name brands did.  If the FDA cannot figure all of this out, why do I want them messing with another aspect of people's lives?  I don't.

But if they are going to do this, I think the idea of taxing unhealthy foods more makes just as much sense.  More people die from heart attacks and heart problems from being obese than from cigarettes these days, don't they?  So let's start taxing fast foods, snacks that are unhealthy, huge and insane portions at restaurants, and the like.  :)

"So let's start taxing fast foods, snacks that are unhealthy, huge and insane portions at restaurants, and the like.  :)"

Don’t worry that will be next, they have already started raising insurance premiums for people who are over weight. And there have been whispers about lowering people’s premiums that join a health club. In 20 years McDonalds will be out of business. And of course soft drinks , cup cakes, potato chips etc. will be outlawed

I think some of that is already happening.  And it might make us healthier and reduce health care costs.  Personally I don't eat at McDonalds (that stuff will kill you), so it's no great loss in my book.

A smaill little film some years back callled "The Insider" gives a great backstory to just how powerful the "Nicotine Delivery Device" Industry is and there are several websites that show just how much money each of our elected representatives receive from this industry in the form of lobbying money!

Since smoking drives up the cost of healthcare, I don't care if Obama goes door to door and yanks it out of their mouths. I work in an ICU. Do you know how high the hospital bill goes when we can't get a patient off a ventilator? Sometimes hundreds of thousands to millions, for ONE patient! A simple surgery such as an appendectomy can go down this road if the pt is a smoker.

Jane said: "A simple surgery such as an appendectomy can go down this road if the pt is a smoker."

Which makes me wonder: is that because smokers tend to have a reaction to the anasthesia?

The FDA is a fraud, so BAD IDEA.  They take thousands of dollars from big pharma to approve their latest poisons.  So hundreds, and in fact thousands died from some of these drugs and/or had their health permanently deteriorated.

Regardless of our feelings about how people eat and or treat their bodies, it their right to do so.  They should also be responsible for their own healthcare insurance, and if they want to play, they must pay.  One rate for a smoker, one rate for a non smoker; one rate for an obese person and another rate for healthy weight, etc etc.

Let's look at the other side of the coin.  What about fluoride in the water?  plane fuels and discarded drugs in the water (Alzheimer’s?).   Aspartame (which is used in rat poison and the FDA first said no, but then Cheney used  his influence and money to push it through) and now is in thousands of products.  Try to buy any product w/o it, including chewing gum.

The un-tested vaccines given to our children.  The untested vaccine they will pass off as safe this fall, when they want to give you three shots, due to the "pandemic".  My doctor said it takes 2.5 years to develop a vaccine like this, so how do they have it ready to go?  Can you say big pharma and big money for all?

We must talk responsibility for our own health, our own research (even when doc recommends), and our own insurance decisions.

How can anyone justify saying what people can and cannot do with their own bodies.

You know they want to put a tax on cows because they release methane gas?  $75 per head per year?  Farmers could not afford to stay in business.  We should keep our govt. OUT OF ALL OUR BUSINESS.  Law and order and safety is one thing, but they can't even apply that equally to all.

It's about time.  How many millions of Americans does tobacco have to kill before it is treated as a dangerous drug and it's advertising to children limited?

400,000 people dead each year in the U.S. due to tobacco.

$100 billion in health care costs that drive up our insurance rates.

More billions in lost productivity due to illness.

Thousands killed and injurred by cigarette related home and hotel fires.

Yet people go to jail for possession of marijuana while others get rich selling tobacco.  Just shows you the power of lobbyists.

"it's advertising to children limited?"

tobacco is not allowed to advertise at all. when was the last time you saw a tobacco ad on tv or in a magazine or a billboard or hear one on the radio?

It seems that teh tobacco industry (according to what I heard on the news last night) is producing fruit and other candy flavored cigarettes.  Do you really thing the Marlboro man would be attracted to those?  Perhaps your daughter would be.

In the US, TV and radio advertising was banned in 1971, but billboards and magazines continued.  As a result of the tobacco lawsuit settlement, billboard advertisements were replaced by anti-smoking ads in 1999.  Tobacco is still advertised in magazines, though companies agreed in 2003 to stop placing ads in school editions only of four popular magazines.  Sponsorships (especially auto racing) were big advertising for tobacco but that is largely gone as well in the US.  Of course, advertising regulation in other countries may be different than the US.

Lest any worry about the ability of tobacco companies to advertise, they still turn a huge profit and have an ever expanding world marketplace as China and other areas turn to US brands.  The fact that nicotine is addictive certainly seems to help sales, as once you start it's hard to stop.

if i want to kill myself smoking this is my business not the governments, if i want to kill myself stuffing my face with big macs that's my business not the governments business. Do we really want to live in a world where the government regulates everything we do? Where the government decides what is “good” for us and what is “bad” for us?

And the paying higher insurance premiums is not fair. What about the people who have lung cancer that never smoked? What about the people who have heart attacks that are not obese? I like what my company did this year and it seems much more fair. Instead of raising our part of our insurance premiums they raised our deductible and co-pay so only the people who use the insurance pay more. I say this seems fair to me because of my experience. I am a smoker and I have not been to a doctor for two years and I work with a non-smoker who goes to the doctor every time she sneezes. Don’t people like that also raise health care cost? do we regulate it so you can only go to a doctor so many times?

Where do we draw the line on the government telling us how to live our lives?

If you don't like this regulation I suggest you visit www.nopom.info which provides a system in which there is no regulation because it isn't needed.

Private property, freedom, and the free market are the keys.

I pretty much agree completely with what Lecia had to say; and I have some ideas on how the government should draw some of the lines.

But first, I wanted to make a comment on:

"... I work with a non-smoker who goes to the doctor every time she sneezes. Don’t people like that also raise health care cost?"

In the late 1980s and early 1990s this was in fact cited by insurance companies as a reason why premiums had to be raised; that doctors were being plagued by people wanting appointments for minor scrapes, bruises and coughs. Supposeldy, this started happening for two reasons: 1) policies with high-ish premiums, moderate deductibles and low co-pays motivated people to "get their money's worth" by visiting the doctor whenever they felt like it; and 2) holders of moderate premium policies with higher deductibles and higher co-pays often took advantage of the fact that fees for doctor's visits were credited towards their yearly deductible, so constant and regular visits became a wide practice of insurance holders.

In the mid to late 1990s and into the 2000s, the insurance companies popular primary "reason" for raising policy rates became the fault of the uninsured and under-insured.

Other reasons for raising rates that insurance companies have given through both of these times has been that hospitals charge too much, malpratice laws are to stringent, and tort law.

What I find most interesting is that insurance companies have experienced exceptional growth throuout all these times. Although they continually have reasons for raising rates, they have continued to expand funding for, lobbyists, advertising, sports arenas and sports teams, all while executive salaries and compensations climbed to diamond studded platinum status.

In a government run program, the majority of the expenses above disappear; which means that significantly more of the money paid in by consumers, actually goes towards paying for health care services provided.

Very interesting analysis, Bill.

No complaints from me.. That is IF the FDA does their job properly?

Good idea or bad idea?  It would remain to see how it is implemented.  I understand, however, that the FDA's "power" carries restrictions with regard to tobacco and tobacco products, so this may be just a political ploy.  I'll reserve judgment at this point.  "The devil is in the details."

cutting the amount of nicotine allowed in cigarette is nothing more that a ploy to eat more taxes gained from increased sales of cigarettes. Think about it. Do they really thing people are going to smoke less? no. they know people will smoke more to maintain their level of nicotine.

Its stupid waste of money Boondoggle(Obamas new favorite word!) a cig Czar will be next! and for the dyslexics a  Czar Cig

And a cigar Czar?  I love it!

I really enjoyed the movie Demolition Man, I just didn't realize I'd be living it one day, and it looks like that day is fast approaching. Rat burgers anyone??

sign me up for one of those burgers

Does anyone know what the FDA actually plans to do to regulate tobacco?

I doubt that even the FDA knows.

Well, at this point that is probably very true, John.  The ink isn't even dry on the law yet. [Okay, truthfully the ink probably is dry, and it probably is toner and not ink anyway, so my statement is more of rhetorical flourish than to be taken literally with that who "ink not dry yet" thing.  Just in case anyone wasn't sure.]

No, Bill. It's because after smoking for 20 or 30 years their lungs are a piece of sh#t!

And the hospital care for smokers are costing taxpayers billions!

Are you assuming that smokers do not have insurance or what, Jane?

Actually, insurance rates are shared, so the healthy ones subsidize the costs of the not so healthy ones (not to mention the uninsured ones).  Which means if total costs of health care were reduced it would benefit everyone who pays insurance (or taxes).

On the other hand, one of the rare friends of mine who is a smoker claims that smokers tend to die earlier on average so they don't collect social security or need long-term care.  Not sure the math works out on that, but it seemed an interesting rationalization.

David,  that's an optomistic view.  I don't see the gov't cutting taxes and I'm skeptical at best that insurance companies will scramnble to cut their profits and willingly give money back to the premium payers.  Sure, they may "throw a bone" to stay competitive, but I'm not banking on that theory!

David,

The smokers don't live as long but their deaths tend to be long and lingering and expensive.  Also, they don't work as long (retire earlier) because of that bad health so they don't pay taxes and social security for as long.  The net effect of tobacco for the U.S., its tax payers, and its health insured is quite expensive.

Those were pretty much my arguments to my friend, Larry.  She didn't seem to buy the idea, though it was unclear to me whether she was being serious, facetious, or defensive.

I'll give you an anecdote from my family (maternal).  Those of my aunts and uncles who smoked are dead - all of lung cancer or emphysema.  Those who didn't smoke are living long healthy lives.  My grandfather smoked and died when he was around 60; his wife, my grandmother (who didn't smoke) is still alive at 100+ years old. 

What a comment on our sense of humanity, that our primary concern towards people who will likely die a long, lingering and early death, is that it somehow costs each of us a few dollars per year.

It's a facade. Look how strapped for money our major insurance companies are. They shell out hundreds of millions every year to fund lobbyists, sports teams, sport arenas, etc., AND they cover executive pays that ranges that go well above the ten million mark.

If a decent policy costs $10,000 per year, that means some twenty thousand policy holder's premiums, per company, are spent on these kind of non-health related business costs.

Or, put another way, if these costs were removed from the insurance equation, one million policy holders would see their costs drop by $100 to $200 per year, per company.

Our major insurance companies are NOT hurting for money; they just always want to make and keep more.

As far as smokers lingering death health care costs go: wasn't it the purpose of the past Big Tobacco law suits that the government was going to be receiving billions from that industry in the name of offsetting the health care costs resulting on the populous?

I seem to remember that Ohio received several billion; and they decided to spend it rather than keep it.

I just didn't really understand why Jan was saying that hospital bills were costing taxpayers billions. That would be true if they were on government insurance instead of private insurance where, yes, the risk is shared amongst all of the premium payers.  

Shannon, in the hospital where I work, HALF of patients are uninsured or on Medicare. Those are tax dollars.

Only half?  Some hospitals would be thrilled with only half.

I don't make assumptions. I've been in the business for over 30 years.

Jane - Who pays for those who come into the hospital without insurance?  Assuming hospitals treat at least life-threatening cases whether or not they have insurance (or adequate insurance), does the government step in to pay?  Or are the cost outlays for patients that do have insurance increased overall so that they cover those who are uninsured?  Or do hospitals just treat uninsured patients pro bono and take the loss (which at 50% uninsured seems unlikely)?

The comment above was in response to Shannon's comment, not intending to be rude though.

Update:

307-97 in the House

Cigarettes should be made more expensive.

Thanks all

My hospital gets some money from the state but not enough.

Politicians could care less about the public, its how to grab some money for next months easy raise. Stiffer rules for the public, but all of them are free to smoke at work.

it has been a long long road to this milestone. In some ways, the feds have desired to avoid this step because they wished to keep their hands "clean"- but is that  somewhat illusory in light of the tobacco agricultural subsidies?  I am not sure how I feel about FDA having authority to regulate. But do I trust FDA more than the tobacco companies themselves, who have proven themselves willing to say or do anything time and time again? well, yeah.  I can still remember that congressional hearing, the Execs lining up to say, no of course tobacco is not addictive. Please. Can't get a guy to stop lying if his job depends on dishonesty.

I am reassured that we have come a long way since World War II, when the rations given to GIs included a carton of cigarettes. My father in law who died of a heart attack when my wife was a college freshman got hooked that way in WWII, thanks much Uncle Sam. Smoking rates are declining now, and that is progress. Little by little, that is how we need to attack tobacco. Realize that the tobacco company profits come straight out of our taxes by way of our shared medical burden. Every person who never starts the addiction goes in the plus column, every person who gets addicted represents a failure. You can't just outlaw it, that mistake was done with prohibition and it failed. But we can make it so unattractive that relatively few young people will want to try that first cigarette. That is the way to shrink the problem, and it is possible that the FDA could help there. Not a sure thing though- the tobacco company lawyers will be in the conference rooms tomorrow morning. They are good, and they are well paid. But the message is getting through, they are not our friends.

"the tobacco company lawyers will be in the conference rooms tomorrow morning"

This raises an interesting point.  I don't know the details of the bill, nor any of the history of its debate, but it seems highly unlikely that the tobacco industry wasn't actively involved in lobbying for or against it.  Given that it passed overwhelmingly and bipartisanly, it would be interesting to see what the bill actually says, and how the industry feels about it.

I do think that I saw both Senators from Virginia voted for the bill.

About time...some makes them take responsibility for their actions.... And also someon one here give me the facts of whom in each of those families that control tabacoo companies smoke???? ZERO......that should make you wonder???? ZERO.....

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!