SCHIP: Care Enough to Smoke?

Congress still wants to use smoking to fund kids' health care. It's a dumb idea.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• SCHIP
• smoking
• healthcare
• kids
• congress
• dumb

[DancingTigerBait]

GREAT video!

When do we get the t-shirts that say, "Support children's healthcare--buy a carton of smokes today!" Or, "Uncle Same wants YOU...to smoke for children's healthcare"

LOL, did we really vote these people into congress?

[EmanBos]

Dude, you can't have both of them. With decreased consumption, i.e., fewer smokers, there is less revenue for the program, so all of a sudden, you can't fund the expansion. It is unsound fiscal policy to rely on "sin taxes" for vital revenues, because if they perform as designed, the revenue stream will eventually dry up. The problem is that members of Congress are not concerned with sound fiscal policy, rather "fiscal policy that will get me re-elected."

[EmanBos]

So tobacco use increases the need for health services for young children? Funny, I thought the increase happened with people age 60 and above. I'd heard about the old folks wanting to feel young, but this takes the cake! ;-) Wow. Never heard that before.

[pianomikey0]

There is no tax that liberals will ever oppose. Of course, republicans don't either...

[EmanBos]

Erm, I don't think the kids are the ones with lung diseases, so their problems wouldcontinue to be unaddressed. Also, smoking is not the only cause of lung disease. Finally, how much of this "health care for people with lung disease" is paid for with public money, and if it is such a concern, why don't the officials in charge cut it off?

[EmanBos]

The problem is the funding source. You want a public health care system that covers everybody? That's cool. Hopefully, you can find an equitable way to pay for it! Also, this program does not cover everyone.

[EmanBos]

(Continued) So, in effect, Congress is banking on sustaining the smoker population if not increasing so as to ensure a steady stream of revenues. Otherwise, they would have to come up with a new tax, and they would be out of office if they did that!

[EmanBos]

Dude, you're still in "sin tax" mode. My guess is that you see tobacco taxes as discouraging consumption by increasing the overall price. And that's generally true. The problem is that in this case, decreasing consumption leads to decreased revenues which leads to a lack of funding for children's healthcare.

[donnyboyblue]

duh.....u can buy them but you don't have to smoke them....just make it a charitable contribution......peace out.

[prfsnlwannabe]

Don't forget too that in virtually all states, obesity has overtaken smoking as the biggest health problem that each state is facing. So if you ask me, Dems should be looking in the mirror, and STOP obsessing about increasing the fed tobacco tax(and hiding by using the excuse of 'funding SCHIP'), just to appease anti-smoking groups. I'm tired of the darn hysteria that antis always reiterate, just in the end to only use the same tired junk science to justify bans and increased tobacco taxation.

[prfsnlwannabe]

At least these aren't those late spoof ads that were done by antis in favor of OR's failed Measure 50, which I didn't care for.

On the other hand, these commercials really made me laugh, and were excellent. TimeToVoice is also right that the only reason Bush vetoed the bill was b/c he was opposed to the funding mechanism(increasing the fed tobacco tax) and an expansion of it, and NOT the existence of SCHIP.