Why wasn't the children's healthcare bill written to be paid with a general tax?

[still_one]

This is the responsibility of every citizen

I was listening to Bill Maher, and heard that the tax would have been paid through a cigarette tax.

First of all, I am not a smoker, and I can't stand people smoking in my prescence, but this is not just a smokers issue, this regards everyone, and should be shared by everyone?

On Bill Maher's show the reason they gave was that it was the only compromise that the Republicans would accept.

It should have been a general tax on everyone. Why do the Democrats ALWAYS have to compromise?

[Kagemusha]

1. Even that compromise obviously wasn't enough, because of the presidency.

A Congress with an aggressively vetoing President in the White House is pretty weak. He had NOT been aggressive in vetoing at all until the Democrats took over, but since then he's become more so at least, and that maximizes the minority Republicans' ability to obstruct.

[still_one]

2. Yes, I understand that, but one group should not have been singled out to pay for this

and as you said, even that was not enough to over-ride a veto. If I heard correctly it would be a buck a pack tax. That is pretty unfair, and I can't stand smokers, and I don't think it is right

[Kagemusha]

3. Oh I see your point. I'm no great fan of it myself.

I'm just saying that without compromising, the Democrats wouldn't even have gotten a bill in a position to be vetoed against heavy public opposition.

[still_one]

5. I just think it will be another hollow victory for us, and the compromise won't even be mentioned

just that one group was singled out. I sense we were played again

It will be nice when 2008 comes. There are 26 republican seats in the Senate up for reelection, and we won't have to put up with this crap again.

[karynnj]

4. It was designed that way because

the MA Senators who wrote the original bill it was based wanted it to be budget neutral becasue otherwise it had no chance of passing. they justified it by the costs to the health system due to smoking.

[still_one]

6. I understand that, but I still don't think it is fair. The general tax payer should pay for this

We are paying for an illegal and immoral war, with much more money than we would need for this.

I am looking forward to a Democratic victory in 2008

Tired of the republican games

[karynnj]

8. They would both likely agree with you

But in 1996 when they were working on it there was no way the President would raise taxes. Kennedy has worked for healthcare sinde the 1960s.

[Clark2008]

42. Did you know that obesity has replaced smoking as the new

most costly health-related expenditure.

Probably all those people who were so taxed they were forced to quit smoking gained a lot of weight.

:)


(Funny, but it might be true).

[KT2000]

Agree totally

Sin taxes are not generally counted as raising taxes.
It is not a fair tax used by political cowards.
The health of children is the business of this entire country.

[TahitiNut]

7. It's easier to be self-righteous with other people's money.

Regressive taxes ... it's when even some 'liberals' discover their erectile tissue.
:puke:

[still_one]

9. LOL. Just a little over 12 months, and hopefully we will take back Congress /nt

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. Especially when the other people have no representation (n/t)

[Breeze54]

10. A 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax is regressive and unfair!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/333772_cigarettetax01.html

"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."

"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."

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. In Washington, it is $2.025
a pack.

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

More.

So, if you REALLY care about kids health? :sarcasm:

Smoke 'em, if you got 'em!! :smoke:


:grr:

[pnwmom]

12. The fact that 43% of children live with a smoker is sickening and unfair.

Even babies with parents who smoke outside have measurable levels of nicotine in their systems.

[Breeze54]

13. "over-eaters" should be ashamed of what they do to their poor kids!!

Obesity Driving Rising U.S. Health Costs!!

Yep, that's right! The obese use more medical services than smokers OR drinkers!

In fact they use 75% MORE!!!

Those "over-eaters" should be ashamed of what they do to their poor kids!!

They're killing them, for cripes sake!!

http://www.sharp.com/news/newsArticle.cfm?articleID=3680">Obesity Driving Rising U.S. Health Costs
TUESDAY, Oct. 2 (HealthDay News) --

Obesity is a big factor driving soaring rates of chronic disease in the United States,
with many more Americans chronically ill than their European counterparts, a new study finds.

It's an expensive problem, too: According to researchers, chronic illnesses such as diabetes
and heart disease account for some $100 to $150 billion in health-care spending in the United
States each year.... more...

------------

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:lvce7nbBoQcJ:www.businessgrouphealth.org/pdfs/fact_file.pdf+obese+use+more+medical+services+than+smokers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a">Weighing Our Options

As our waistlines expand, so have the costs to the U.S. healthcare system.

Obesity Costs
The annual cost of overweight and obese individuals: $122.9 billion.
Direct cost: $64.1 billion. Indirect cost: $58.8 billion
(comparable to the economic costs of cigarette smoking).

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that about 58 million American adults (26 million men and 32 million women) are obese. The National Institutes of Health calculate that overweight and obese individuals cost
the country approximately $122.9 billion per year—a figure comparable to smoking-related costs.

Obesity and related ailments result in at least $62.7 million in doctors’ visits and $39.3 million in lost workdays each year. The condition varies by age and race, with African American women and the middle-aged population the most affected.

Sadly, childhood obesity is also on the rise. Meanwhile, surgical procedures and drugs to reduce obesity
have become increasingly popular, as the population grapples with this persistent problem.

In fact, http://www.businessgrouphealth.org/pdfs/fact_file.pdf">RAND Corp. has found that obese individuals actually use more healthcare services and medications than smokers or heavy drinkers.
The following data suggest there is much work to be done to turn around this costly trend.

[pnwmom]

22. Overeating parents set bad examples, but the food they put in their mouths

doesn't end up in their children's lungs or stomachs.

And the food they eat doesn't contain addictive substances like nicotine.

[Breeze54]

24. The acorn usually never falls far from the tree...

if the parents are obese, I suspect that their kids are also.

They're passing along their bad eating habits and costly medical diseases to their young.

And the rest of us pay!!! :(

[pnwmom]

26. But there is a major difference here. Food is not an addictive substance, and

it is necessary for life.

Nicotine is addictive and deadly -- and children of smokers absorb it into their lungs and their skin.

[Breeze54]

31. Food IS definately addictive!

It most certainly is addictive!

http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/food-addiction.htm">Food Addiction – Are You a Food Addict?

Food addiction is a contemporary term used to describe a pathological disorder; the compulsive, excessive craving for and consumption of food. This condition is not only manifested by the abnormal intake of food, but the intake and craving for foods that are, in themselves, harmful to the individual. While society and the medical profession have readily understood alcoholism and drug abuse, it is only in recent years that there is an equal acceptance of the fact that persons may be addicted to food in the same way. When any substance is taken into the body regardless of its potential for harm or in excess of need, that substance is said to be abused. Individuals who abuse substances in such a way are addicts; these persons become physiologically and mentally dependent upon certain substances, in this case food.

One need only ask themselves a few key questions to determine his or her addiction:


* Do you eat when you are not hungry or when you feel low or depressed?

* Do you eat in secret or eat differently in front of others than when you’re alone?

* Do you consume inordinate amounts of food and then purge later with vomiting or laxatives to get rid of the excess?

* Are there foods that are harmful to you, but you eat them anyway?

* Do you feel guilty after eating?

If you can answer yes to any of these questions than you are likely addicted to food.

Ever heard of 'Over Eaters Anonymous'?

OA Program of Recovery

Overeaters Anonymous offers a program of recovery from compulsive overeating...


http://www.oa.org/twelve_steps.html">The Twelve Steps of Overeaters Anonymous

1. We admitted we were powerless over food — that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to compulsive overeaters and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

[pnwmom]

32. Not by any scientific definition, it isn't. n/t

[Breeze54]

33. There are scientific studies that disagree with you.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003A514-BAD4-1C5A-B882809EC588ED9F&pageNumber=1&catID=1">Food Addictions in the Brain

Are the obese addicted to food, much as some are addicted to drugs? The results of a new study suggest the answer may be yes. Gene-Jack Wang and Nora Volkow of the Brookhaven National Laboratory and their colleagues have discovered that obese people seem to share a neurochemical deficiency with many cocaine and alcohol abusers. In short, they have fewer brain receptors for dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with producing feelings of satisfaction. The results will appear in the February 3rd issue of the journal http://www.thelancet.com/">The Lancet. (The Lancet (www.thelancet.com) is a weekly medical journal, renowned for the publication of high-quality peer-reviewed research from around the world.)

"Since eating, like the use of addictive drugs, is a highly reinforcing behavior, inducing feelings of gratification and pleasure, we suspected that obese people might have abnormalities in brain dopamine activity as well," Volkow says. To find out, the researchers injected 20 volunteers¿10 obese subjects and 10 control subjects¿with a radioactive chemical tag designed to bind to dopamine receptors in the brain. Then they scanned these individuals using positron emission tomography (PET) and counted the numbers of receptors they saw (see image). The obese subjects not only had fewer dopamine receptors than did the normal-weight subjects, but the number of receptors was lower for patients who were heavier.

[Clark2008]

43. But McDonald's and Burger King is NOT necessary...

BTW, tomatoes, grapes and other vine fruits.... guess what... have NICOTINE in them.

So do processed foods - it's a natural preservative.

Do you think that MAYBE everyone has levels of it in their bodies because it's in our fucking FOOD?

[wuushew]

48. Nicotine in the fruits of the nightshades is many order of magnitude less than that of a smoke

> 10 μg/kg vs. 2 milligrams on average as a result of lighting up.

10-3 milli m
10-6 micro µ


In plain English I would have to eat over 5,000 tomatoes in the time it takes to finish one Camel or Winston to have equivalent nicotine exposure.

http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2003-531.pdf

[pnwmom]

11. Why do we always have to compromise? Simple.

We don't have the 2/3 majority in Congress that we need to override the President's veto.

So the choice is compromise and get a bill passed, or don't compromise and watch helplessly while Bush vetoes the bill.

[robinlynne]

16. There is another option. let him veto. send the bill again. let him veto. send the bill again.

Even the republicans would turn against him and make him pass it. He doesn't live in a total vacuum, even though he thinks he does. Remember how quickly he gave up on social security?

[pnwmom]

23. You give the Rethugs more credit than I do. And in the meantime,

while we were busy not-compromising, there would be millions of children with no health insurance.

[Strelnikov_]

14. Because "Politics is the art of the possible."

As Dr. Krugman explained, it was a choice of no bill out of Congress or tax the smokers. Kids win, smokers lose.

Yes, I agree it should have been a general tax. Even better, single payer health care, Medicare for all, instead of all these Rube Goldberg bandaids on a broken system.

[robinlynne]

15. THANK-YOU! I am a smoker and I am mad about it. Why not tax people who eat donuts?

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Well, you don't need to worry, 'cuz it was vetoed anyway. nt

[orleans]

17. i think a tax on fast food would have been more appropriate n/t

[OHdem10]

18. I am fast reaching the conclusion, that there is no difference

between Dems and Republicans . Neither group will raise
taxes, It is easier to raid Medicare and Social Security.

States raise the cigarette tax all the time. Did you
see how they Congress kept this pretty quiet.

They were planning on raiding Medicare, but the GOP
called them on it. Aarp was not too happy.

[TimBean]

20. makes sense to me

If cigarettes are more expensive. less cigarettes are purchased. (supply and demannd says higher price is a lower demand.
Less cigarettes means less time in the hospital. (science says so, if you don't believe this then you are drowning in Kool Aid)
Less time in the hosptial saves money. Plus the money from cigarette taxes will pay for when you do need it.

Looks like win win.

[Breeze54]

25. Smoke more and insure the kids!!!! - When are you going to start smoking?

Soon, I hope!!! The kids are depending on you!!!

:smoke:

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[TimBean]

35. I don't smoke

somebody else can ensure they're insured. The one's who can afford to waste their money on tobacco.

[sandnsea]

21. Republicans won't pass it

They'll only pass it with a cigarette tax so the tobacco companies can spend lots of money opposing it.

[REP]

27. Taxing the Poor and Disabled - Who Smoke More than the rest of the population - is OK for "the kids"

The poor and the disabled don't really count.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. According to Krugman, taxing smokers was the only way the GOP would pass it.

At least, I think that's what he was trying to say, but Fucker Carlson kept shouting over him and gesticulating wildly.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. A tax on cigarettes is also counter intuitive. The higher the price of cigarettes the less

cigarettes will be sold as more people will be tempted to quit. So the revenue from the tax on cigarettes will dwindle and less to fund the bill. It was very stupid.

And oh yeah, the wealthy smokers wouldn't be affected at all by the tax.

[TimBean]

36. less people smoking is a positive thing for society

or do you feel sorry for the poor tobacco companies?

[Daxxie]

37. Sure, it's a positive thing.......

but, if more people stop smoking because of the tax, then there will be less money to help kids who need insurance.......and just because their parents have stopped smoking doesn't mean that they are not going to need health care. That kind of defeats the whole purpose of the bill in the first place.

[TimBean]

38. so build that into the tax

if revenue goes down, tax a higher percentage.

[Daxxie]

39. And when all the smokers are gone.......

then what? Pick another group to tax? Let's be fair, this program is for ALL kids......the money should come from more than just one segment of the population.

[TimBean]

40. the smokers would never be all gone

Tobacco will become a more inelastic product as demand decreases, simple economic theory. There is a sustainable tax level that could fund this program, it's only a matter of finding it out.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. Excuse me? Where did I even close to saying this? I was saying that they

were looking at revenues from cigarettes to pay for the bill. If the revenue for cigarettes goes down, the financing for bill comes up short. Higher cigarette prices will deter the lower and middle classes from smoking.

Wealthy people would suffer no Financial hardship.

Please reread what I wrote as I was totally non-judgemental.

[Thothmes]

34. No guts

They would be labeled the same old "Tax & Spend" Demos during the next general election.

[Clark2008]

41. Good question - and one I brought up repeatedly.

It's just not good business (or policy, in this case).

If you keep taxing the same "sin" over and over, you reach a point of diminishing returns. People will either have said product taxed out of their price range or they'll buy it on the black market - both of which would result in fewer taxes collected for said program.

It should have been reworked to include a tax on trans-fat or something - something that actually harms more people nationally than smoking and something that more people actually purchase.

[Cleita]

44. I don't like sin tax. It's really another tax on the poor and

middle class. Rich people don't pay taxes on those luxuries, they form corporations to buy said items tax free by getting a resale number. I know I worked for rich people who did so. Usually, they paid a token tax on a very small inventory of "sales". The same with smokes. It's really a scam. It's how they stock their wine cellers and liquor cabinets for parties and such.

[riverdeep]

45. Here's another thread

people might be interested in. I started it right in the heat of the SCHIP debate when I was disturbed, but not surprised, to find that the origins of the debate weren't being discussed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1977432

Summary: There really isn't any need to tax anything. There is enough money available in waste in Medicare Advantage to pay for this program, but it touches Republicans close to where they live, their wallet.

[cuke]

47. Did you listen to Paul Krugman? He was on the very same show!

And he clearly explained why.