Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > October > 03 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USSCHIP and the tobacco tax: How real life is better than the movie
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
On Tuesday, before President Bush vetoed the SCHIP bill, his spokeswoman said this about the Democratic plan to finance the expansion of the children’s health insurance program with an increase in the cigarette tax:
“In a time when [Democrats] think that they want to increase funding for children’s health care, they’re actually wanting to pay for it with a cigarette tax, which includes — people who smoke are usually — the majority are in the low-income bracket. And so they’re raising taxes on something to pay for a middle-class entitlement.”
Little in Washington is spontaneous. As proof, let us remind you of a pair of Georgia polls that the Phillip Morris Legislative Action Center put out in July. The surveys were conducted in the 8th Congressional District, represented by Democrat Jim Marshall, and the 12th District, represented by Democrat John Barrow.
(Marshall voted against the SCHIP expansion. Barrow voted for it.)
The main purpose of the surveys — a total of 11 districts were polled nationwide — was to test arguments for opposition to the SCHIP plan. Real-life “Thank You for Smoking” stuff.
Just one example:
“The U.S. Congress, in Washington, is considering raising the federal government’s tax on a pack of cigarettes by 156 percent to $1 per pack. That would be an increase of 61 cents per pack over the current rate of 39 cents per pack to help pay for expansions of a federal program. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this tax?”
In Barrow’s district, 53 percent said they would support it.
Here’s another question from the survey:
“The money raised from this increase in the federal cigarette tax is supposed to pay for an expansion in a national health care program that provides health care to uninsured children whose families qualify based on their income level. First of all, do you believe that IF Congress raises the federal cigarette tax up to one dollar per pack that this money will actually be spent as promised to provide health care to uninsured children?”
In Barrow’s district, 72 percent said no. Which was the answer the question demanded.
Click on either of the two links above to read the entire poll. It’s fascinating.
Services »
Comments
By Aaron Burr V. Mexico
October 3, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
The War on Children Marches on Full Steam Ahead!
By Pompano
October 3, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately the term “Uninsured” includes two sub-classes - the Irresponsible and the Illegal - who benefit most from this entitlement. These are also the same two groups that are taking down Grady.
How about some accountability by the parents. People get indignant when the Fed gov’t is slow to increase welfare. How about we direct that indignation at the people responsible for bringing all of these uninsured kids into the world with no plan as to how to support them.
By Galoco_lee
October 3, 2007 8:29 PM | Link to this
I love reading bloggers comments when the media pulls their chains with disinformation. The lack of understanding on the SCHIP’s bill is just what the Congress & the Liberal media was banking on.
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the parent program of PeachCare, was created a decade ago in a truly bipartisan manner by a Republican Congress and a Democrat President.
As conceived, SCHIP offers states funding to provide health insurance to children in households with annual income of up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
All congress had to do was renew the bill. But no they jacked it up another $35 billion. Why?
The plan passed by Congress last week offers taxpayer-funded assistance to those in households with income up to $62,000 per year or more, additionally including 21 year-old adults as children. DUH!
Proponents of the legislation have made it clear that this bill is just the next step in their desired march toward government control of all health care choices. He.. the Government cannot even deliver the mail, or secure the borders.
As Mr. Churchill stated “the best argument against a Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter”.
By Craig
October 4, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
Yeah those awful liberals like Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley were trying to put one over on us….
By Mykal
October 4, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
So many people miss the big picture while they get into arguments over details that are far less important than the matter at hand.
IT FOR THE CHILDREN!
Who cares where they come from, how they got here or why they are in need of this. We need to learn to find a way to take care of our fellow human without pointing fingers and assigning blame!
Raise taxes on cigarettes! Raise taxes on gas! Let just make sure we do what is necessary to keep the health of our children good. That should be THE priority on a list of things to accomplish as a nation. As people.
By Meghan
October 4, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this
As a pediatrician who cares for children currently covered by SCHIP it disturbs me that so many Americans are quick to place blame on their families for not being able to provide them with private insurance that would cover their health care needs. The reality is that SCHIP provides for those families who do have at least one working parent and who are therefore too well off to qualify for Medicaid (I see those families as well). By eliminating SCHIP funds you actually provide an incentive to families to stop working altogether, as they would then qualify for more public assistance than when working 40-60 hours a week at minimum wage. For those who are distressed that low-income families have several children or any children at all and then struggle to care for them, I would point out that this administration has gone to great lengths to make oral contraceptives and other forms of birth control difficult to come by. For those who are uninsured, the birth control pill and the doctor’s visit to get a prescription are likely prohibitively expensive. I would also like to point out that I doubt that there is any family, no matter what their income level, who has not, after the arrival of their first child, wondered how they will balance work and money and time away from home. These are not easy questions for anyone, they are simply harder for those who are poor. Pediatric care typically includes children up to age 21. This is not an attempt by Democrats to sneak adult coverage into this bill. The fact is that those adolescents between 18 and 21 frequently do not have access to the care that they need at the very time that good primary care and close follow up might prevent those unwanted pregnancies that previous comments to harshly criticize. Also, the primary reason that an expansion of funds to SCHIP is on the Democrat agenda is that the number of children who currently qualify for aid has increased by 20% since the program’s inception. This is not the fault of these children or their families, but of a health care system and society that spends 99% of all health care dollars in the last year of a person’s life instead of the first. Our priorities are grossly out of wack when we spend endlessly in one area but refuse even the most basic coverage for those children who, if cared for well, have the potential to be brilliant and active professionals when they grow up.
By RL
October 4, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Megan, Thank you for an intelligent response to some of the irrational people who post nonsense on this site. Some people just can’t see the forest through the trees. All they see is some poor kid “taking their money”.
By Pompano
October 4, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
Actually you are incorrect RL. We do not seee some poor kid taking our money. The “Poor Kids” tag is just the marketing line used to extort money from responsible taxpayers.
What we see are adults that shamelessly shirk their responsibilities and who expect other people to provide the financial support for their own lack of accountability. Funny how we’re quick to lay the blame on gov’t for not providing contraceptives and any other ill we encounter in life. Yet we give the people who are responsible for the well being of their children (the parent!) a free pass.
By DA
October 4, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
Actually, you are incorrect Pompano. We are not “blaming the gov’t for not providing contraceptives”, we are blaming the gov’t for actively discouraging the use of contraceptives.
Plus, I have to agree with Galaco_Lee: the gov’t is bad at many things. So let’s begin by preventing from waging wars because they really suck at that. And they are wasteful in their allocation in funds when it comes to defense contracts and basic research, so lets cut all the DoD budget. That ought to leave room for free healthcare and education while at the same time being able to lower taxes by about 50% or so.
By Hmmmm
October 5, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this
Every representative who voted against SCHIP is white…
every single one.
By Tony
October 5, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
We can’t afford children’s health care but we can afford to have our military stuck in Iraq?
That noise you hear is the whistling caused by the wind unobstructed through DC Republican ears.
By Amaliada
October 5, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
Just one question: Where in America can a family of four live on $20,500 a year? That is the federal poverty level. We expect that same family to pay rent, utilities, buy food, and medical insurance? I don’t want to hear about responsibility until we talk about the reality of where can any family of four live on this pittance?
By Will Jones
October 5, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this
And with the inflation caused by the unconstitutional Fed JFK got rid of (EO11,110) pumping $2Trillion more into the economy, fixed income and wage earners will have even less next to the manipulators, speculators, gov’t ripoff artists and thieves. Read A.D. White’s “Fiat Money Inflation in France” to really know up from down and why Our Founders made fiat money fractional banking unconstitutional.
By light
October 5, 2007 6:56 PM | Link to this
No one has mentioned the disabled who are grateful for a wheelchair over crawling.You don’t see them Mrs.Pom-pom but they are grateful.Cheers to Dr.Meg,I think a tax on dry-cleaners,home improvement,and lawn care,followed by a cocktail tax,would help.
By Bryan
October 5, 2007 8:22 PM | Link to this
My income is only slightly higher AFTER taxes. So, I am working to pay taxes and live slightly above the poverty level with a wife and 2 children… and I do it wthout 1 dime of government money. It’s not easy, and every dollay counts. It is tuely an unfair tax on people like me that smoke, are forced to pay a tax we cannot afford, and recieve absalutely no benefit from it. One post said, “I think a tax on dry-cleaners,home improvement,and lawn care,followed by a cocktail tax,would help”. To that list I would like to add: 1. airplane tickets tax, 2. gas guzzler tax, 3. restaurant tax, 4. jewelry tax (precious metals and gems), and all those other luxuries I cannot afford. By the way, 1 child is mine and one is my grand-child. No wonder I smoke! Won’t somebody just send me a $100,000 and I will promise to just fade away and shut up forever more!
By Glen
October 9, 2007 12:40 AM | Link to this
These are the kinds of comments we get from folks who think that someone else should pay for their children’s healthcare because it’s a nice thing to do. Frankly, my kids deserve BETTER than what SCHIP offers. Healthcare’s expensive because the government already has its tentacles in it.
Hey Doctor Megan, did you ever think that the 20% increase in poor children may be due to illegal immigration??? As for our priorities being “out of whack when we spend endlessly in one area but refuse even the most basic coverage”, how about people being responsible for their OWN children they bring into to world, especially those above the poverty line?? Maybe it’s time for those folks to re-prioritize their OWN finances; let’s hold off on the plasma TV and the trip to Disneyworld. SCHIP most definitely IS trying to get us all under a socialist system. Ask a Brit, it SUCKS. Truth is, the folks pushing SCHIP on us couldn’t give a damn about your kid’s health. It’s about power and societal control.
Oh yeah, basic care already IS available for children…thought you’d like to know..
DON’T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT THERE’S NEVER, EVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH MONEY????…but I guess it’s the thought that counts—those wonderful folks in Washington.
By Craig
October 9, 2007 3:38 AM | Link to this
Well said Meghan. We’re paying for care for these kids anyway, through grossly overpriced medical insurance plans. But I guess that’s okay with Glen. And it’s always good to drag out the “socialized medicine” bugaboo - even though SCHIP is nothing of the sort.
Ahh well, let’s keep pouring money down the rat hole for ungrateful and uncooperative Iraqis, spending in 41 days there the same amount that Bush just vetoed for SCHIP.
Brilliant, Glen.
By florencia vindel
October 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
Quit griping about Iraq. To Amaliada it is not the government’s problem that you have a family of 4 at 20.000 a year. That is your problem. Work anextra job. I had 3 kids, made about $20.000 working 2 jobs cleaning houses in the day, waiting tables at night because I needed Health insurance for the “CHILDREN”. Did not get a penny from the government. Get over it, quit depending on big brother and work for what you need and want.Forget the charity. Nobody gave it to me and you should not expect it either. The trick is WORK, WORK, WORK. Forget SCHIP