DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Smokers to Fund Kids Healthcare

Puffers , they aren't done with you yet . Why not just stop making the damn things and let the government find another source of tax revenue because sooner or later they are going to price smokes off the market. Wonder how people would feel about a hefty coffee tax..?




Low-income smokers targeted to fund kids' health care
Monday, October 1, 2007
By CHARLES BABINGTON






WASHINGTON Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education.

The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue.

Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor. They do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children.

All the better, they say, if higher cigarette taxes discourage smoking.

"I'm very happy that we're paying for this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, noting that the plan would not add to the deficit. "The health of the children is extremely important," he said. "In the long run, maybe it'll stop people from smoking."

Congress probably will revisit the cigarette tax issue soon because President Bush has pledged to veto the proposed $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The decade-old program helps families buy medical coverage if their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid.

Bush has proposed a more modest growth for the program, and both political parties seem inclined to pay for it through a tax on an unpopular group, cigarette smokers.

By most measures, the average smoker is less privileged than the average nonsmoker. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.

The American Heart Association reports that 35 percent of people with no more than 11 years of schooling are smokers. Those with 16 or more years of formal education smoke at a 12 percent rate.

Non-Hispanic black men smoke at slightly higher rates than do non-Hispanic white men. But the reverse is true among women.

The demographics of smoking and taxation received scant attention during last week's House and Senate debates, perhaps because many Democrats and Republicans agree that cigarettes are the best target for tax increase if the insurance program were to grow. A few lawmakers, however, took a swing.

"I know there is very little sympathy for smokers these days," Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said during the House debate. "But it is still a tax increase on the backs of the smokers. And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers."

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., defended putting the burden of expanded medical care on smokers.

"The tobacco tax is a great way to pay for it," he said, "because if you tax people who are smoking and they smoke less, then we have less health problems."

Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., did not buy that logic. "To propose funding a growing program with a declining revenue source is, I would submit, irresponsible fiscal policy," he said.

If the federal cigarette tax nears $1 per pack, smokers in many states will pay hefty sums into government coffers unless they kick their habit. On top of the federal tax, New Jersey levies a $2.57 per pack tax on cigarettes, followed by Rhode Island at $2.46.

California is near the middle, at 87 cents a pack. Three states tax cigarettes at less than 30 cents per pack. South Carolina is the lowest at 7 cents.

Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris USA, based in Richmond, Va., said a steep federal tax increase could accelerate the national decline in smoking to the point that the insurance would have to find other revenue sources.

The average U.S. price of a pack of cigarettes has risen by 80 cents since 1999, Phelps said, largely because of state tax increases. State and federal governments received more than $21 billion in cigarette excise taxes in the 2006 budget year, he said, "so we think this trend is unfair to adults who smoke and to retailers who sell tobacco products."

In Congress, these groups receive little sympathy. But some lawmakers say voters should know the details of the insurance program's proposed funding structure.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who spoke against the bill in last week's debate, said: "The headline ought to read, 'Smokers in America to pay for middle-class welfare."'

It is those people that regulations like this are for. People too stupid to breed who will sacrifice the needs of their family in favor of their own needs . Those are the types of people who need the government looking out for them because they are too stupid to do it for themselves.

Smoking's an addiction. It's not like you have a rotten excuse for a human being choosing cigarettes over the needs of the family. It's not like a long term smoker can just all of a sudden say, "I'm not going to smoke". The vast majority of people who smoke wish they could quit. I smoked for 30 years before quitting, and had 5-6 legitimate attempts before succeeding. It took a lot of consious effort, sacrifice, will power and suffering to finally succeed. It's still a struggle at times. Very few people can just stop smoking on a whim, and no one can be forced to stop.

Some of you need to get off your high horse and holier than thou attitudes and quit making smokers out to be low life scumbags who are choosing to ruin their lives.

Quote:

---

It's not like a long term smoker can just all of a sudden say, "I'm not going to smoke".

---

B.S. !! That is exactly what a smoker can do . I know because I did it. I smoked 2+ packs a day for 15 years . As for choosing to ruin their life , again that is exactly what they are doing . No excuses needed or accepted . I know it is an addiction and my case is in the minority and I don't think smokers should be made to pay for everyone but they should pay more in healthcare costs along with fat people who will statistically need more healthcare than nonsmokers . I doubt that you would give crackheads the same latitudes on that addiction and neither would I . You make a conscious choice to smoke and you make the same choice when you decide to quit .

Quote:

---

It took a lot of consious effort, sacrifice, will power and suffering to finally succeed.

---

But suceed you did right ? No high horse here brother been there done that .

First of all, congrats on quitting!

But for your case, there are hundreds that have tried and failed. It's not just a choice.....if that were true, we'd have very few smokers. Most people would have already quit if it were that simple.

As far as the crackheads go, they actually have a lot more resources to assist them in quitting....provided they haven't burned all their bridges in the community. It is also illegal.

Try Chantix. It took my mood swings away and SOME of the cravings.

I was a pack a day smoker for about 10 years. About 4 months ago I quit completey but 3 months ago I started smoking about 1-4 cigarettes a week. I'm still at about that level.

Progress

The "fat" thing was kinda tongue in cheek because we all know that is beyond the realm of possibility , isn't it ? Wouldn't the insurance companies like that though ? An ala carte insurance policy where they could pick and choose areas to screw you on... oh wait a minute.

I have a bad habit of oversimplification on some matters so if I came across like a jerk I'm sorry. Nicotine affects people differently so my case is probably not typical but I wonder sometimes when I see otherwise strong willed people have an utter dependence on smokes just how badly they want to quit. I was long past the point of enjoying the cigarettes I smoked so the time was right and I had never tried to quit before...lucky maybe.

As far as this concept I am kinda interested but I think that it would open the door for alot of other less palatable taxes. I can see the wheels turning in the minds of government and health insurance companies. I am of the firm opinion that smoking will be lawfully extinct in 10 - 15 years. They won't outright ban it but they will make it so expensive as to make it impracticle for common folks to spark up .

No offense taken. You walked the walk and earned the right to speak out on this. I get wriled when someone who's never smoked says something to the effect of, "why don't they just quit, the selfish bastids".

I think the powers that be are already milking the sin taxes for all they're worth. There has to be a point of diminishing returns. There's already a budding black market for smokes, and the heavy duty smokers aren't that particular about the brand....just look at all the people smoking those nasty Rogers these days..

So people have been laughing at you for 40 years?

They have been laughing longer than that

What about the fat, smoking, PB&J eaters out there?

DC already mentioned me

Completely irrelevant to this topic but the Smoking age has just been raised here in the UK (more specifically the 'buying' age)

What's the rule(s) regarding smoking on your side of the pond?

You have to be 18 to purchase tobacco in Ohio. A note from mommy won't cut it anymore.

The Health Nazis are coming for the smokers,beer and hard liquor drinkers,Krispy Kreme eaters and other foods which contribute to obesity and fat content in Americans.
Is there a fair measure of common sense in wanting to reduce the overweight/smoking/boozy Americans...Yes, there is. Is it the jurisdiction of the Federal gov't to tell you what you may drink or eat???No it isn't...and the power to tax certain items in a punitive fashion is equal to forcing a ban on these goods. The difference is the lawmakers don't have the guts to make these health concern items illegal so they take the cowards way out.

They have to raise taxes, because last time they raised them, more people quit, equating to less incoming taxes, so they raise them to make up the deficit.

Funny thing is that they need these taxes to help balance the annual budgets they set, yet, none of them is willing to give up the pork they always requisition in order to help ease the strain on the budget.

Unlike you and I, if we have bills to pay, we cut back somewhere to make up the difference, they just request more from the citizens, because they really need that 500k bronze fountain in the town center.

It isn't just in the U.S.



Cigarette sales 'slump after ban'

The smoking ban came into effect in England on 1 July
UK cigarette sales fell by 11% during July, the first month of the smoking ban in England, compared with a year earlier, research suggests.
The findings from Nielsen include all sales outlets. Previous figures showed a drop of 7%, but only covered sales in shops, not pubs and clubs.

AC Nielsen said July was an exceptional month and the combined drop of 7.3% in July and August was more indicative.

July's weather was notably bad and last year the World Cup helped boost sales.

Future trend

The drop seen in July was less dramatic in August, when sales were 2.8% lower than in August last year.

One reason was the better weather, said AC Nielsen, as smokers were more prepared to go outside to smoke.

AC Nielsen said July's sudden slump echoed the pattern seen in other countries that have introduced a similar ban.

The aim of the regulation is to reduce the number of deaths from second-hand smoke.

A spokesperson for the organisation said it was too early to predict future trends, but added that the next big test would be the impact of new rules raising the legal age for buying cigarettes from 16 to 18, effective this month.

This will have implications for outlets with vending machines as well as those selling cigarettes or cigars from behind the bar, said AC Nielsen.

Here's the problem with this type of funding .....

If or when cigarette sales decline, and the tax collected as a result also declines, does the program itself cut back its spending to accomodate the new tax income levels ...... or does it then become just another expensive program that has to be paid for out of the general budget.

Sorry ... rhetorical question, because we all know the real answer.

We are a nation that taxes ... and taxes ..... and taxes .......



As a side note ..... I just heard that Cuyahoga County went to a 7.75% sales tax.

Quote:

---

The Dems are back!!!

---

This kind of garbage crosses political divisions. Most of the cigarette laws have been passed within the last 8 years so your attempt at finger pointing is waay off base. There is a concentrated effort worldwide, civilized nations anyway , to do away with the right to smoke . Lessons were learned from the banning of marijuana so they will legally ban smoking from all public places ...for now by way of pricing them outside the reach of normal folks.

I'm talking more about the taxation and counting that revenue in future projections....not neccessarily this issue in particular. Given the way the current republicans are behaving, you may have an argument there, also.

More and more the two parties resemble just the other side of the same coin. One party is just as bad as the other party . They remind me of all the little tinpot leaders of third world countries who promise the world but in reality they don't want to change much but rather they want to be in control of the purse strings. Maybe I've just become too jaded.

No it really does seem that way, and will remain that way until the American public wakes up and realizes that negative campaign adds are not indicative of what your candidate will do in his term, but merely what his candidate supposedly won't or hasn't.

And with the current appetite or reality TV and such I don't see the American public waking up and thinking any time soon.

I can't stand smoking. I used to smoke two packs a day and know I hate being around it. That being said this is another stupid idea. It would be great if we could tax smoking out of exsistance but then who would pay for all our programs.

The government wants people to stop smoking? Give me a break. Smokers are such an easy target to raise money for them.

i say they should just legalize weed and sell it with a tax on it.. .would solve a lot of tax problems

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan
web page
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago

President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Democrats unleashed a stream of harsh rhetoric, as they geared up for a battle to both improve their chances of winning a veto override and score political points against Republicans who oppose the expansion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America."

Democratic congressional leaders said they may put off the override attempt for as long as two weeks to maximize pressure on Republican House members whose votes will be critical.

"We remain committed to making SCHIP into law — with or without the president's support," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., referring to the full name of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The White House sought little attention for Bush's action, with the president casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He defended it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa., addressing a welcoming audience organized by the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry in GOP-friendly Pennsylvania Dutch country.

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

But he seemed eager to avert a full-scale showdown over the difficult issue, offering that he is "more than willing" to negotiate with lawmakers "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children."

The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president argued that the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He has proposed only a $5 billion increase in funding. After Bush's speech, White House counselor Ed Gillespie said the president's offer of more money meant more than the $5 billion extra, but he wasn't specific about how much more.

Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But in the House, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override, despite sizable Republican support. A two-thirds majority in both chambers is needed.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups was staging more than 200 events throughout the nation on Thursday to highlight the issue. The group, which includes MoveOn.org, and several unions, also has a goal of more than 1 million contacts to Congress through calls, letters and e-mails demanding that lawmakers override Bush's veto. The coalition is spending $3 million to $5 million on the effort.

Didn't even read the whole thing purp.

Did it mention that it was vetoed because it was laid out for kids that fell into the "federal poverty level"? Hope it didn't. Did it mention that it was vetoed because it promised to cover kids, in families of one sort or another, that were making 4 times the federal poverty level? Again, I didn't read it, but my guess is the article didn't mention that kids whose parent or parents were making as much as 4 times the federal poverty level were covered.

That's nice. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml

Hell, I should be for it since, with a family of 4, my kids would qualify.

Granted, this example is from 2005, but, in 2005, a family of 4 is considered to be below the poverty level at $19,350. Multiply that by 4, and bam you have a family income of $77,400. Any family below that gets free federal health care.

Sorry. Just one more way to raise my taxes, and yours too. For "federal" health care. Yeah, like I want that.

This damn country is going to hell in a handbasket and the only reason people don't realize it is because the pols are saying "I'll give you this, I'll give you that, and you don't have to pay for it, it's your right......"

I'm flat out getting sick about all this crap. This country is going down, and sooner rather than later. Call me a doom and gloomer if you want, but unless things change, you'll see.