Senate passes children's health bill

[Faygo Kid]

Source: Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- The Senate has approved legislation that would increase spending on children's health insurance and extend government-sponsored coverage to 4 million uninsured children.

The bill passed 66-32 and now goes back to the House, where a similar measure was approved two weeks ago.

Democratic lawmakers consider the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program one of their top domestic priorities.

They have moved quickly this year to renew the program and give President Barack Obama an early political victory.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012900325.html?hpid=topnews

---

Despite the death rattle you hear from the Republicans as they officially kowtow to Rush on all things, decency is indeed returning to our nation.

This is one to feel very good about. Congrats to all here who have advocated for extending kids' health care for so very long.

[DJ13]

1. This is one to feel very good about.

I disagree.

A childrens health bill should NOT be paid for by increasing a sin tax.

[Faygo Kid]

3. Parents of children who will now be covered will note your concern.

Your ideological purity is duly noted.

[DJ13]

4. Those parents will be some of the people your raising the taxes on

Im sure they will be thrilled you taxed them instead of someone with higher incomes.

[karynnj]

13. They are then hurting their own kids heath by smoking

They would also have to be BIG smokers if the value of the health insurance given to their kids is not higher than the cigarette taxes they spend. (In fact, the total price for their cigarettes might be enough to buy insurance for the kids.) Cigarettes are a luxury.

[bluestateguy]

5. There is a very easy way for people to avoid this tax

Quit smoking.

[DJ13]

6. Then how will the children get their health benefits?

Thats the major flaw in taxing a product that is already highly taxed to pay for this kind of program.

If it works out the way the anti-smoking people want the childrens health program goes unfunded.

[DollyM]

8. There are enough people who wont give up smoking to take care of that!

For the rest, if they do give up smoking it will also save money in children's health care because there is an established link between parents who smoke and and their children having more ear infections, more bronchial infections, and all the other effects of second hand smoke. So it is a win/win situation all the way around, healthier parents, healthier children, less money spent on treating both of them for conditions related to the effects of smoking.

[karynnj]

14. It actually doesn't - the link is just in justifying it for the budget

But, in over a decade there hasn't been a problem.

[Yo_Mama]

9. I Have To Agree

With this:
A childrens health bill should NOT be paid for by increasing a sin tax.

Look, if you decide to expand SCHIP coverage to families with higher incomes (last I looked some families with 60K incomes might get coverage), you do so because you think it is an important public good and therefore you must plan to pay for it.

But paying for it with a very targeted sin tax is going to produce a declining revenue base for the program. Why not spread it around more? It's just a fallacy to believe that this tax will pay for the program, because it will produce far less additional revenue than people believe, in part due to the economy. Sales and use taxes in CA dropped 19% from Nov 07 to Nov 08. Lower income people are very strapped, and the lower income proportion of the population has a far higher proportion of smokers! Unemployment is concentrated in demographics with a much higher smoking rate than the population as a whole. (Think construction workers, etc)

If unit sales of cigarettes are X, federal revenue on a pack is current .39X. Under this new program they will be 1.00X. But over six mmonths to a year, net sales will probably drop 20-25%. To see how this works, say X is 5,000 now. Within a year, between people quitting and people cutting down, X will be 4,000.

So previously, .39 * 5,000 = $1,950
In a year, 1.00 * 4,000 = $4,000

So you say, oh, but look, we have more than doubled revenue! The answer is no, you haven't, because you have forgotten to take into account the net reduction in taxes paid to STATE governments (who, btw, pay a good piece of Medicaid and other welfare costs). State taxes on cigarettes are often far more than federal. Here's a link to those taxes by state as of Jan 1, 2008:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html
The highest (New Jersey) was 2.57. The lowest (South Carolina) was .07 The median was about one dollar.
The states with the highest per pack rates are:
New Jersey (2.57), Rhode Island (2.46), Washington (2.025),
Maine/Maryland/Michigan/Alaska/Arizona/Connecticut (2.00),

A state with a $2 cigarette tax is going to lose significant state tax revenue if their sales drop 20% and total tax revenues will increase only marginally (look at total receipts):
2.39 * 5,000 = 11,950
3.00 * 4,000 = 12,000
I don't think they will, so let's say 10%
3.00 * 4,500 = 13,500
Net state revenues before = 2.00 * 5,000 = 10,000
Net state revenues after = 2.00 * 4,500 = 9,000

It's probably better to use the mean of $1 for estimation on effect of total tax revenues:
1.39 * 5,000 = 6,950
2.00 * 4,000 = 8,000 (plus 1,050) or 15.1%

So most of what is being done here is to shift tax revenue from the states to the federal government, which leaves this program's funding in jeopardy.

In addition, covering illegal immigrant population may be kind and decent, but it provides a huge incentive for immigrant families with sick kids to bring them here, so look for such immigration to increase and the costs of this program to rise in border states such as CA, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc.

You have to be careful about this sort of thing. It's like gas taxes - a lot of states raised them "to provide an incentive for conservation". Then people did conserve gas, and then total tax revenues dropped, so now you have those very states seeking to tax total miles driven, etc.

[karynnj]

12. Is your problem that there are sin taxes?

The reason historically for the funding being done that way was that it was done at a point where any increased spending needed an equivalent cut in spending or increase in revenue. This was a way that it could be passed in a 55 - 45 Senate - controlled by the Republicans! Frankly, it was an amazing accomplishment. If - due to the higher price - it made anyone smoke less, it was helped them. There is plenty of proof that smoking hurts the health of the smokers and those around them.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That is great news!

Obama's election has brought many good things to us!

Another rebuke to the Republicans...

:fistbump:

[JohnnyRingo]

7. The story in my Gannett owned conservative newspaper had a headline that

read: "Republicans fail to cut health care for poor children"

I felt that told the story best, but to on one's surprise, I can't find the article online under that title now.

Only stinking republicans would fight tooth and nail to cause pain and misery among their less wealthy constituants.

I'm about sick of this annoying minority of politicians trying to slow progress in our country. Whether it's for health care, living wages, a safe workplace, bankruptcy protection, or even help heating our homes, you'll find a horde of suddenly outraged republicans who want to pull the rug out.

[uppityperson]

10. k&r

[uppityperson]

11. "Senate Vote Likely to Lead to More Abortions"

I went and read it, so you don't have to give them traffic
http://www.earnedmedia.org/sbal0130.htm

Senate Vote Likely to Lead to More Abortions

Hatch Amendment to Codify Unborn Child Rule to State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Defeated in Senate Washington

Today the president of the Susan B. Anthony List commented on the Senate's defeat of an amendment sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that would have permanently codified the Unborn Child Rule in the State Children's Health Insurance Program:

"This action suggests that 59 senators are more committed to the demands of the abortion industry than to caring for the health of pregnant women and their unborn children," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "President Obama has said that he wants to reduce the number of abortions, but this misguided vote is likely to lead to more abortions. We are disappointed that President Obama failed to use his influence to persuade the Senate majority to preserve a policy that has affirmed pregnant women and their unborn children."

In 2002, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revised the definition of the term "child" under the SCHIP program to clarify that an unborn child may be considered a low-income child for the purposes of eligibility for the program. Currently, 14 states have approved plans to provide SCHIP coverage to children before birth, including President Obama's home state of Illinois, Arkansas, California, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. The rule can be rescinded at any time by the Obama Administration. A December report sent to the Obama-Transition Team by abortion groups called for abortion coverage in any government health care program.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced an amendment to permanently codify the Unborn Child Rule in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill yesterday. The measure effectively ensures that states can preserve the option to protect the health and rights of both the mother and the unborn child. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 39 to 59.