burnspbesq @ 97

Hold up a sec, there, bunky. The funding mechanism was selected by Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley, the chair and ranking member of Senate Finance. Neither is likely to be mistaken for a progressive any time soon.

Who cares who came up with it? I’m talking about the people I hear spouting the praises of paying for {insert project here} by raising cigarette taxes. And its not just this one bill, its all over the damn place.

Good point. One of the primary things I think of when I think of various taxes is Liberalism. I don’t think that should be the hallmark of a Progressive agenda.

OTOH, there should probably be significant taxes on the gateway drug nicotine. If we can’t practically outlaw cigarettes (tried & failed), then making them less available to young folk will make it harder for them to ruin their lives starting at 10 or 12 years old.

OTOH, back to the child health bill, I agree funding should come out of the general revenue fund to show we’re all backing this program, not just cigarette suckers.

Progressives have got to be careful and not just fall in with Liberal approaches/tactics because it’s easy. We need to find enduring good things for the country and find common ground when it’s possible to get anyone else to support those policies/laws.

masaccio @ 102

I don’t know if tobacco taxes actually reduces smoking. Smoking is an addiction, and is as complex an addiction to manage as say, her*in for instance.( Some people will probably be on metha*done maintenance for the rest of their lives.) What I do know is that making cigarettes prohibitively expensive like in NYC will create a sort of blackmarket (there are ways to get cheaper cigs in NYC.) To justify this, and say taxing reduces smoking is also highly paternalistic. And paternalistic government is a sliding slope of shit. The government should have monitored the quality of tobacco manufacture a long, long time ago. Its a little too little, too late.
As for smokers raising the cost of insurance, I laugh. There are many things that raise the cost of insurance. People living longer, for one and with chronic illnesses. Big Pharma is another. Emergency visits vs. preventative healthcare is another (you can thank HMO carve-outs for allowing seriously mentally ill persons only one visit a month to the shrink for some of that.) And so on. The insurance industry isn’t exactly innocent, nor are politicians in artificially raising the cost of healthcare. It is unseemly to point fingers at smokers for the rise in healthcare. Might as well point fingers at persons with some other chronic ilnesses that are considered the result of “lifestyle.” Or we can just be sane and humane and say it is no sin to be sick and tell polticians to suck it up.

While certainly nicotine is very addictive, the tax is *very* useful in reducing youth smoking, and there are good stats on this. Kids who are at risk to start smoking turn out to be very price sensitive. So a tax on tobacco is very effective for this reason alone.

As for insurance rates and costs to the system: good stats for this alone. When a person smokes, he or she imposes costs on other people, not only from second hand smoke, but in terms of increased health costs, much of which other people will pay.

In neither case would I call the tax “paternalistic”. To the contrary, it’s just using a tax to make markets work better, by making the costs of smoking better reflected in the price of cigarettes.

On the tobacco tax issue, I note that increasing taxes reduces smoking. For many progressives and for many personal responsibility conservatives, that is a desirable outcome. I know I have heard a bunch of moderate Republicans saying they hate it that their health insurance is paying for smokers, who increase costs and don’t pay their fair share.

I don’t know if tobacco taxes actually reduces smoking. Smoking is an addiction, and is as complex an addiction to manage as say, her*in for instance.( Some people will probably be on metha*done maintenance for the rest of their lives.) What I do know is that making cigarettes prohibitively expensive like in NYC will create a sort of blackmarket (there are ways to get cheaper cigs in NYC.) To justify this, and say taxing reduces smoking is also highly paternalistic. And paternalistic government is a sliding slope of shit. The government should have monitored the quality of tobacco manufacture a long, long time ago. Its a little too little, too late.
As for smokers raising the cost of insurance, I laugh. There are many things that raise the cost of insurance. People living longer, for one and with chronic illnesses. Big Pharma is another. Emergency visits vs. preventative healthcare is another (you can thank HMO carve-outs for allowing seriously mentally ill persons only one visit a month to the shrink for some of that.) And so on. The insurance industry isn’t exactly innocent, nor are politicians in artificially raising the cost of healthcare. It is unseemly to point fingers at smokers for the rise in healthcare. Might as well point fingers at persons with some other chronic ilnesses that are considered the result of “lifestyle.” Or we can just be sane and humane and say it is no sin to be sick and tell polticians to suck it up.

The ReThug Gov. did dispute that HHS cold-hearted hardass crony on the wisdom of cutting funds for kids’ health, but did so only as “a representative of the Governor’s caucus,” etc., refused to take on the topic of taxing big tobacco altogether.

PBS is ideologically nearly as bad as the rest of the MSM pack. However, they still produce material fitting for people w/ actual attention spans instead of the 14 sec. soundbite reports you get on most of the rest of TeeVee news.

some_guy @ 90

You know, this is the one of the things I can’t stand about a good chunk of my fellow progressives. What is it with the constant push to pay for stuff by raising taxes for other people? If some thing’s worth raising taxes for then be willing to pay for it out of your pocket also, not just mine.

You’re so against the unfair taxation that taxes you more than the GOP’s million dollar a year income earning friends, yet you’re all for unfair tax policies if they’re unfair to someone else.

Hold up a sec, there, bunky. The funding mechanism was selected by Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley, the chair and ranking member of Senate Finance. Neither is likely to be mistaken for a progressive any time soon.

Who cares who came up with it? I’m talking about the people I hear spouting the praises of paying for {insert project here} by raising cigarette taxes. And its not just this one bill, its all over the damn place.

That would be financed by higher taxes on cigarettes

You know, this is the one of the things I can’t stand about a good chunk of my fellow progressives. What is it with the constant push to pay for stuff by raising taxes for other people? If some thing’s worth raising taxes for then be willing to pay for it out of your pocket also, not just mine.

You’re so against the unfair taxation that taxes you more than the GOP’s million dollar a year income earning friends, yet you’re all for unfair tax policies if they’re unfair to someone else.

Hold up a sec, there, bunky. The funding mechanism was selected by Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley, the chair and ranking member of Senate Finance. Neither is likely to be mistaken for a progressive any time soon.

As a tax lawyer, I do have some issues, from a policy perspective, with using an increase in tobacco excise taxes as the funding mechanism. However, it appears to have one advantage over every other potential funding mechanism: it appears that veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress will hold their noses and vote for it.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association is opposing this bill because they say it “massive funding cuts to Medicare Advantage and an unprecedented level of government overregulation.”

While millions under age 65 have coverage that emphasizes coordinated care and chronic illness management, the CHAMP Act would take the option of these programs away once anyone is enrolled in Medicare. Coordinated care programs are the most popular programs for the working population, who would lose this option when moving to Medicare. Ironically, the bill recognizes those eligible for Medicare should have this option by calling for demonstration programs to develop what Congress is taking away.

Also lost would be the option of affordable choices, which is particularly critical for the most vulnerable – the retired, the disabled, the elderly and the low-income.

BCBSA urges Congress to reject the proposed CHAMP ACT. Congress should work on a bipartisan proposal to reauthorize SCHIP without jeopardizing benefits for 8.7 million seniors and the disabled.

Medicare Advantage does offer a range of supplemental coverage to seniors. What is the progressive response to this valid concern?

The “progressive answer” is the same as the “intellectually honest conservative” answer: CHAMP is a different program that should be separately evaluated on its own merits, and the discussion of CHAMP shouldn’t hold up reauthorization of SCHIP.

And before anyone asks, no, I don’t consider “intellectually honest conservative” to be an oxymoron. An endangered species, yes. An oxymoron, no.