Am I the first to say that I hope Bush *does* veto SCHIP?

[Ghost in the Machine]

It has too many flaws to it, to begin with.

First and foremost is that it places the burden of insuring Americans at the expense of smokers. As a smoker, I resent that too. I'll petition Congress and ask them to rewrite the bill with drinkers helping to fund it through additional taxes on beer, wine & liquor.

Alcohol is responsible for more of our health care costs and demands than tobacco is if you count everyone from the guy with cirrhosis of the liver to the hundreds maimed and killed every day in alcohol related accidents. Included in these "alcohol related accidents" is everything from a drunk driver crashing to the drunk guy who wins his Darwin Award through his own drunken stupidity. Famous last words of many a Darwin Award Recipient: "hold my beer and watch this shit!"

I think that would make the bill fairer all the way around, don't you?

The second flaw is that what they are basing their revenue on a declining tax base. With the more laws they pass banning smoking here & there, the more some people will wind up quitting. Others simply die. What happens when the tax base shrinks enough to where it impacts the revenues? They'll be back looking for more money from somewhere else, right? Why not just put it in there now? Are they not capable of looking that far ahead? Hell, I'll quit smoking before I'll pay $5/pack for cigarettes. No question about it.

Does it sound like this bill is written on a solid platform to sustain it for longer than a year or two?

Think about it seriously. Yes, I know the importance of having health care available for every man, woman and child in this country, but it needs to be built on a more solid base than smokers.

Do you have any suggestions to make the bill stronger and more sustainable?

[lligrd]

1. I'm With You

I'd prefer Blackwater paid for it.

[ChazII]

2. I'd support a tax increase

on alcohol to help pay for this plan.

Edited as I hit post instead of spell check.

[Kelly Rupert]

3. I wouldn't mind taxing the fuck out of smokers, personally.

If y'all's cancer treatments are going to be raising everyone else's health care costs, the least you can do is pay for it.

(Please provide citation for claim that alcohol is responsible for more health-care costs than tobacco is)

[madrchsod]

5. they both are the main killers of people across this country

so tax both of them. if people would cut down on both or stop we would be a far healthier society with less health care costs

[Rosemary2205]

10. Nobody gets out alive.

What kills us isn't really an issue. What makes us sick and less productive between now and death might be something to talk about though. And if we are going to have that conversation I do believe we'll find all the many side affects of poverty probably contribute more than any other factor. Cheap but crappy food causing all sorts of health problems, learning problems, coupled with a lack of educational opportunities to rise up out of the situation........


I'm just sayin.........

[lligrd]

16. Deaths Actually Save Money

People living to ripe old ages cost a lot more.

[Kelly Rupert]

18. Slow, lingering deaths do not n/t

[lligrd]

21. Yep, Still Do

And they do very little for respiratory illnesses.

[Kelly Rupert]

22. Well, again, that really depends.

If you live to that ripe old age while fit and healthy, and die of a heart attack in your sleep, you've been a net positive for the system.

If you die ten years earlier, having taken medicine for diabetes and heart disease for twenty years before you die, having been to the hospital a half-dozen times for various issues, and with your life ending in a multi-year battle with cancer, you have not.

Smokers, on average, cost the system more than non-smokers do, despite the fact that they die earlier.

[lligrd]

23. The Statistics I Have Seen Do Not Bear That Out

And very few folks live to ripe old ages without any problems.

[Kelly Rupert]

24. Please link to statistics showing

smokers cost the health care system less than nonsmokers.

[robinlynne]

6. That is a fact. more deaths too.

[Kelly Rupert]

7. I don't disbelieve you.

I just want a citation so I can read and store it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. I've read it before, but have no link. I do, however, have personal experience

in the matter. I've personally lost 3 friends/family members due to alcohol in the last 2 years. One that drank himself to death and two in accidents.... None to smoking.

My 70 year old father smoked 2 packs a day of Camel non filters since he was 17 years old. He's healthy as a horse, but quit smoking out of protest 4 months ago when the price of his brand of smokes hit $4.55/pack.

I'll try to look something up for you if you can't find it yourself, although my research skills aren't that great. I do know how to look some things up on Google though... I'll see what I can find

[Kelly Rupert]

50. Those on the side of smokers

are often long on anecdotes and short on studies. Highest numbers I've found for alcohol-related deaths (that is, where excessive alcohol usage is in any way to blame) are in the 75,000-per-year range (per the CDC), or less than a fifth of what tobacco causes.

[Ghost in the Machine]

51. Those against the smokers

are long on diversionary tactics and short on reading comprehension skills. This is the second time you've tried to divert the issue away from what I said. I'm not just talking about whatever the official statistics call "alcohol related deaths", as you pointed out above. I believe the issue was overall health care costs, not alcohol related deaths.

In fact, if you read the second paragraph of my OP, you'll notice that this is *my* opinion, and I very clearly stated "Included in these "alcohol related accidents" is everything from a drunk driver crashing to the drunk guy who wins his Darwin Award through his own drunken stupidity."

What this means is that I'm basing *my* statement using a much wider range of alcohol related injuries and deaths, which include but are not limited to:

The drunk guy who gets mad and beats someone up in a bar badly enough for the person to require a trip to the emergency room to sew up a busted lip or fix a broken nose, jaw, arm, leg, etc..or

The drunk who beats his spouse or child, causing injuries that require medical attention

The drunk at the family gathering that takes a crowbar, gun, knife or anything else and injures someone else at the party.

The drunk guy who decides he's gonna be cool and teach his son how to "ride a wheelie" on bicycle and winds up flipping backwards and smashing his head on the pavement, causing an injury that requires a trip to the ER and a few stitches. (I know a guy who did this)

What about the drunk that falls asleep with a lit cigarette and burns himself badly, requiring lots of hospitalization and surgeries for skin grafts, reconstruction, etc. Does the CDC count these as "alcohol related" injuries?

What about the drunken mother who puts her baby in a tub of scalding water to bathe it? Couldn't the baby's injuries be classified as "alcohol related"?

You see, there are a lot more "alcohol related" accidents/injuries that occur than what the CDC or anyone else classify as alcohol related. Yes, I'm using a lot broader brush while painting *my* "alcohol related" health care costs, but it IS a valid use of that brush.

I hope that helped clear a few things up for you. Have you ever heard of someone smoking a cigarette and thinking they could jump from the roof of a hotel down into the pool? Alcohol induced 'bravery' adds way more to health care costs than my sitting here enjoying a smoke does. It's just *that* plain and simple to see, and you really don't have to look that hard to see it... unless you're just trying to avoid seeing it...

Peace!

[Ghost in the Machine]

52. **crickets**

[papau]

14. Good points - last I looked Alcohol was about 10% of the smoker's yearly deaths. n/t

n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. its a regressive tax and affects the poor disproportionately.

though i do understand how its easier to say "its your fault" rather than any complex analysis of how it will affect people.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. And if it discourages the poor from smoking,

it ends up saving them both the cost of cigarettes now and later medical bills. And increased cigarette taxes have indeed been proven to lower smoking rates.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. is there any actual proof that higher cost of cigarettes prevent smokers from smoking?

[Kelly Rupert]

40. Lots, actually

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-09-1Alede_N.htm?csp=34
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/nych-srh062107.php
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2007/colo-smoking-rate-declines.html

[Suziq]

33. For Your Information . . . .

As a smoker, I pay extra for my health insurance.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. As you should. nt

[madrchsod]

4. stop funding the war machine in this country.

most if not all first world countries have universal health care and very small military funding compared to the amounts we spend. for god`s sake the country of ghana has universal health care...

[NYC]

8. Yes, we spend way too much on defense

and defense contractors.

Many social programs could be paid for with that money.

[robinlynne]

9. I think if you tax smokers you MUST equally tax people who eat at mcdonalds, people who are

overweight, people who eat too much sugar, people who drink alcohol, people who kiss people who have a cold. otherwise it is TAXATION without REPRESENTATION! unless it is the smokers who get to vote on that funding.

[Kelly Rupert]

12. Taxation without representation?

Smokers aren't allowed to vote anymore?

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. I think she means "only" smokers should vote on it... think about it

if you were a poor African American, would you want a bunch of rich, privileged white people voting for what affects *you* personally?

If you're gay, do you like a bunch of old, straight, bible thumping xtians voting for *your* rights?

Where's the representation for smokers in this bill?

[Kelly Rupert]

17. So basically, you're suggesting that

laws should only apply to a group if that group approves of it. Yeah, that makes sense.

First, we'll let minimum-wage earners vote on what the minimum wage should be.
Then, we'll let the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies vote on what they think corporate income taxes should be.
Then, let's let the pedophiles vote on whether or not pedophilia should be legal.

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. It's not about *laws*, it's about *taxes*. Nice try at diversion though..

care to try again? It didn't work this time..

[Kelly Rupert]

20. Okay, so we'll stick to taxes.

Should the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies be the ones to decide what corporate income tax levels should be?
Should hunters be the ones who decide what hunting licenses should cost?
Should the oil companies be allowed to vote on whether they pay a windfall tax?

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. CEOs & oil companies already "vote" on the issues for themselves.

They just call it "lobbying", while flooding millions into corrupt politicians' bank accounts.

As for hunters, they do hold referendums and let hunters & fisherman voice their opinions before such a vote occurs over license increases, at least in the states I've lived in. Being a hunter & fisherman too, I have always fully supported increases in licensing revenues because they use the money for conservation and restoration efforts. Although I haven't hunted in 4 years, I still buy a combination hunting/fishing license every year, just to do my little part that I can do, besides turning in poachers, which I also just did yesterday over someone illegally killing a deer with a shotgun during bow season.

[Kelly Rupert]

35. And you support this behavior? nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. Support what behavior?

[Kelly Rupert]

41. Say, the CEOs and oil companies setting their own tax rates.

I would say they're living proof that it's obviously wrongheaded to let groups set their own tax rates.

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. That's the whole problem with that, it's NOT right that they're doing it

the way they are. Too many special interest groups with too much money influencing too much legislation.

Btw, I never said I agreed with the poster either, I was just telling you what I thought they meant... I could be totally wrong...

[robinlynne]

43. You nonsmokers are deciding to tax us. Actually I came up with a better tax. Tax parents!

[Kelly Rupert]

46. So you believe that groups should set their own tax/fee rates?

That means that only corporations should vote on corporate tax rates. Only those making 200k+ per year should vote on what that tax rate should be. Only hunters and fisher should vote on what licenses cost. Only oil companies should vote on what gas taxes are. Only bus riders should determine what bus fares are.

That all seem right?

[robinlynne]

47. of course not. just leave us alone. we are taxed to the hilt already.

[Kelly Rupert]

48. Then your talk about "taxation without representation" is just whining.

(Taxed to the hilt? Since you're still smoking, that's obviously false.)

[napi21]

11. I would prefer a plain old across the board tax increase!

If it were across the board, it would be rather small for each individual, and if we as a society really do care about insuring all children, then we should be willing to fork over a little bit. It's always easier to increase the "sin taxes" and only a minority complain.

[sandnsea]

26. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms

I bet a 1% tax would provide health care to everybody.

[Ino]

27. So if I quit smoking, somewhere a small child will die!

and it will be my fault

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. One thing they don't/won't tell you is where the burden will be shifted to if taxing cigs caused

all smokers to stop smoking.

Funny, that.

[REP]

28. A Veto is a Win-Win-Win

The Democrats pushed a popular bill - win. Bush looks petty, even to the 29% - win. I don't have to pay more for my butts - win!

Regressive taxes that mostly hit the poor are not the answer, though - tobacco taxes are popular because smokers are icky, but most smokers are poor or lower income. A more equitable tax, even though it may be less popular, is the right direction for more sustainable funding if the backers really want to help children and not just punish smokers (and diminsh that tax base - not everyone is so hopelessly addicted they'll find the extra money to pay these new prices).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. yup. the regressive tax thing is distressing.

[soothsayer]

29. as a cigar smoker, i'm totally with you. RIDICULOUS taxes planned!

[PDenton]

30. I'm disappointed in Democrats

Didn't they learn anything from the past 7 years of losses? Targetting minority demographics like gun enthusiasts or smokers? This is the sort of thing that drove wedges into the Democrat party in the first place. Taking cheap shots at seemingly politically powerless groups always has a way of comming around and biting Democrats in the butt. They get mobilized and go out and vote Republican. Republicans, when needed, can always be the refuge of people who don't want the government telling them what to do.

Democrats need to keep making the tent bigger, not smaller. Taxes and regulations should be proportional and not vindictive or predatory. And the taxes in the new sCHIP bill are totally unproportoinal to any harm caused by smoking, since they seem to help a group that is largely non-victimized by smoking. If this were a tax to fund cancer research or healthcare for the whole population, maybe it would feel better. But as it is, it stinks rotten.

[Liberal In Texas]

32. Tax the rich. Those making more than $1 million/year.

Especially the capital gains millionaires.

That tax base won't shrink.

[BlackVelvet04]

44. the only suggestion I have is that

democrats kiss my little ass.

I'm so sick of this shit.

[karynnj]

45. Best reason to keep it as it is:

You said "Hell, I'll quit smoking before I'll pay $5/pack for cigarettes. No question about it."

This was the only way that would have garnered the votes in 1997. There were a sufficient number of Republicans against smoking and for kids, to pass this in a Republican Senate. All bills that wanted money appropriated had to identify cuts in expenditures or new tax money to pay for it.

I want Bush to sign it.

[Cleita]

49. I should be funded out of the profits all the war profiteers are

making from Iraq. I say tax them 90% of their gross profits.

[BlackVelvet04]

53. I don't know if you are the first but I agree. n/t

[Hoof Hearted]

54. I would support a major tax increase on both tobacco and alcohol

Nobody has to drink, and nobody has to smoke, and the deadly effects of both are very well documented.

Tax that shit. That goes for 12oz. prime rib and French fries too.

Either that, or take the profit motive out of healthcare. Maybe a bit of both is called for.

One thing is for sure, as long as you have tobacco, meat, alcohol, and fast food companies lobbying for the same dollars that "healthcare" is trying to make off of their after-effects - we're ALL screwed.