Boy, do I feel sorry for smokers these days.
Smoking used to be so fashionable and hip in the James Dean and Steve McQueen days.
Women who smoked used to be sexy. No sooner did they pull a Virginia Slim out of a cigarette case than men would rush at them with lighters.
Even when smoking was cool, people knew it wasn’t healthy. Some unhealthy smokers sued tobacco companies for concealing the unhealthful effects of sucking carcinogens into their lungs — and not one prevailed.
That changed in 1998, when 46 states sued the four biggest tobacco companies to recover Medicaid costs for tobacco-related maladies. The states won big. The tobacco industry has been nicotine-coughing up billions of dollars to the states ever since.
Or, to be more precise, smokers have been nicotine-coughing up billions. A pack of cigarettes costs five or six bucks. Taxes account for more than half of that price.
In any event, over the years, smoking has lost its coolness appeal among the public. Anti-smoking groups have made tremendous gains banning smoking in public places. To date, 38 states and all 60 of our biggest cities have public smoking bans in place.
To be sure, the anti-smoking sentiment is one of the few bipartisan issues left. People on both the left and right loathe smoking the way people used to hate polio and communism.
Many people on the right, sick of dining in restaurants where smoking was still allowed, were all for government bans on the legal activity. Didn’t secondhand-smoke studies warrant it?
Many people on the left were for such government bans, too, for the simple reason that they love when the government tells people what they cannot do — except when it involves smoking marijuana.
And so it is that the bipartisan anti-smoking mob has relegated smokers to secondary-human-being status.
Smokers are shunned at family gatherings and sent to the garage or the street, so as not to stink up the house. Even corporate CEOs who smoke are sent to the alleyway, where they mingle with other smokers like hapless pigeons.
And just when smokers thought things couldn’t get worse, boy, are they getting worse.
Government regulators, who are now interpreting President Obama’s Patient Protection and (ha ha!) Affordable Care Act, have determined that smokers should get hammered by insurance companies.
Starting next year, health insurers will be permitted to charge smokers who purchase individual policies up to 50 percent more for their premiums.
A 60-year-old smoker will pay, on average, $5,100 more than he is paying right now.
Why? Well, the fellow’s smoking could cause him to have health issues, which others in the insurance pool would ultimately have to pay for.
Since he is a higher risk for the insurance pool, shouldn’t he be required to pay more?
Many in the anti-smoking mob, on both left and right, surely think so — as they miss the larger point: If our federal government has gotten so big and meddlesome that it can single out a particular citizen who has freely chosen to use a legal product as a vice, what CAN’T our government do?
How long before chubby people and snack-cake eaters and people who like to hang-glide over mountain cliffs are also singled out by the government?
How long before the government in a big city, such as New York, bans salt and large soda drinks?
Oops, that has already happened.
Yeah, I feel sorry for smokers, but the way things are going, we’ll all be mingling like pigeons in alleyways, secretly enjoying snack cakes, salty snacks and sugary drinks and hoping the government doesn’t catch wind of it.
Copyright 2013 Tom Purcell. Tom Purcell is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review humor columnist and is nationally syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons Inc. Send comments to Tom at Purcell@caglecartoons.com.
bubba posted at 10:40 am on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Government taxes cigarettes to encourage people to quit smoking, while subsidizing tobbaco farmers to encourage them to grow tobbaco that is taxed to encourage people to quit smoking......strange circular logic.
ATJefferson posted at 11:11 am on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
This is not actually a new idea. It was back in the 90's when I was told I would have to pay more for insurance through my employer unless I was willing to sign a declaration that I did not use tobacco products. Fortunately for me, at the time I was married and my wife had better insurance anyway, so I was able to obtain a waiver from being included in my employer's insurance program based on the fact that it was not possible to be covered with no out-of-pocket premuims unless I lied and signed the waiver.
Anyway, I completely agree with the overall message, though. This fascist idea that our government should be allowed to dictate and control every aspect of our behavior has to stop.
Accuracy posted at 11:56 am on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Tom Purcell is questioning whether ObamaCare is too burdensome on smokers.
ObamaCare does allow insurers to apply a high surcharge (possible several hundred dollars per month) for tobacco use in older smokers. And millions of smokers may find that ObamaCare is just too expensive.
Smoking is considered an optional behavior, not an illness – ObamaCare will require new health insurance plans to offer smoking cessation products and therapy.
Rich posted at 12:43 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Obamacare is too burdensome on everyone. It leaves an inefficient, deteriorating system in place, that already costs twice what other developed nations spend. It is destroying the economy by being nearly 20% of the GDP instead of ten or less, and drives the federal debt to the point of unsustainable insanity. Forcing behavior on people, smoking, contraception and many others through extortion is certainly not desirable. Obamacare is a giant step backwards in all phases of our society, not just smoking. BTW, cigar smokers outlive non-smokers, do they get a discount?
VofReason posted at 1:32 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
I am no fan of Obamacare for obvious reasons, but I am not sure why private insurance companies could not charge more for people who use tobbaco in the first place. After all, people with unhealthy habit are going to use more care and cost more money- that is a fact. Same with over weight people. Wouldn't it make sense for a company to charge more to people who will cost them more?
bubba posted at 2:18 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Same as car insurance. Speeders, drunk drivers, red light runners, are all higher risks.
Accuracy posted at 6:58 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Rich wrote: “Obamacare is a giant step backwards in all phases of our society, not just smoking.”
There are 11 million-plus illegal aliens in our nation. Health insurance plans that are funded by government sources are generally not available to illegal immigrants . . . even though many hospitals say that Medicaid program helps illegals and their American-born children.
The claim that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is said to be a “myth.” – At the same time is President Obama’s “myth” that ObamaCare won’t cover illegal immigrants. Overall, ObamaCare may present an obstacle on the path to citizenship for the illegal immigrants.
rockinroller posted at 11:59 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
That's the way, Tom! You must be one of the seven people left in the US that thinks people do the "right" thing without being told. You also must think we should all pay for the bad habits of others.
If you think that the smoking issue is insufficient to impose sanctions and tariffs upon the participants--and you compare this to potential intrusion into the fast-food eaters and generally obese in this country (which by the way is currently estimated to be over half the US population)--then I think your views are skewed.
And "Obamacare" is hardly "Obama"--with the entire legislation being so corrupted, prostituted and altered by partisan politics in Congress that it hardly resembles much of what Obama had tried to put forward initially.
LiveInGilbert posted at 3:51 pm on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
I am not sure where Tom and some of you have been - but many, many employers and private insurers jumped on the bandwagon a long time ago and figured out that: a) smoking is bad for you; b) if you smoke you have a higher chance of illness/disease; c) smoking is a choice; d) if you choose to smoke, that's fine - but knowing the risk you will also have to pay a higher premium for it as you are choosing to increase your risk - and none of the rest of us should have to shoulder that financial burden for your individual choice. Don't blame Obamacare - it is just reflecting the shift that has already occurred. The slippery slope scare tactics of "what's next" really are just that - scare tactics - perhaps Tom should spend more time researching how unhealthy Americans are and what are the appropriate incentives to make them healthier - that would be a better article.
Accuracy posted at 12:07 pm on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
But there is some good news.
Baby boomers are living longer and are less likely to smoke than previous generations. Consequently, there's less emphysema and fewer heart attacks.