i"Since "everyone agrees providing health benefits to Oregon’s children are a top priority," perhaps Republican legislators will sign the pledge being circulated by Children First for Oregon, supported by 25 Democrats, "committing to vote for comprehensive, affordable health care for all children in Oregon this session."

Hmmm...even I'd agree that having access to health care is vital to the children of Oregon and beyond. However, many of us have strong reservations about who should provide it. Is it the role and responsibility of government to provide health care services to the masses? Would that make for the most efficient delivery method? Are we all really entitled to state of the art care regardless of our contribution to it? I say no to all of the above, while agreeing that our current system has immense room for improvement.

Let's see. We send one message that smoking is unhealthy and you should quit; another message that you need to keep puffing to pay for health care for kids.

The fact is, it's pretty easy to understand why jacking up "sin taxes" is bad policy. I don't think the GOP actually makes this connection; they're just ideologies opposed to "another damn government program". But you've got to consider the wisdom of the proposal anyway.

I've had my say about how flawed the cigarette tax is, but I really like Joe12pack's reasoning. If you're poor and don't pay a bunch into the system you can suck eggs. There's a pretty good argument to be made that those rich suckers wouldn't have anything if it weren't for the poor ones. There's also an argument to be made for not putting the poor ones in the position of just taking the rich ones stuff...

Talk about salemanship, this guy buys the plutocrats' argument, and he ain't one.

Joe12pack writes: Is it the role and responsibility of government to provide health care services to the masses?

The answer Yes.

He also asks: Would that make for the most efficient delivery method?

Again, Yes.

The U.S. is the only developed nation that does not provide health care for the masses and the result is an abysmal record on coverage of health care, which affects everyone in the country.

And those other developed nations have health care systems that deliver care far more efficiently than ours.

Why are we even having this argument?

The real argument against increasing the cigarette tax to pay for children's health care is the fact that even with the new revenue, the program is unsustainable after just 4 years (2011). That's because every time we increase the cigarette tax, people stop smoking...and the increasing rate of health care costs far outpaces inflation.

What we need is fundamental health care reform to control costs and provide health care to everyone...not just kids. Don't get me wrong, kids are great and cigarette taxes are great...we just need to force our legislators to keep their eye on the real ball: health care reform.

Health care is a right not a privilege. The government should have system for it. I figure that between Medicare and the Veterans Administration we would just have to expand one or the other and go with that. They're both based on successful systems run in other countries and would be a natural way to ween us out of this ridiculous private system we have now. We're already paying for it now anyway. We pay for the care of all those people that have to go to the hospital because they couldn't afford to go see a doctor 6 months before it became a problem. There are plenty of studies that show we would pay very little more than we're paying now for healthcare if we nationalized it. I've had plenty of friends living overseas and they all rave about their experiences with foreign countries health care systems so I don't buy the scare tactic that there would be lines out the door in hospitals. We need it and the kids in Oregon need this. My social Friday/Saturday night smoking habit can afford an extra $1.00 a week.

I would like to support the cigarette "sin" tax to help low income children, but serious problems exist.

While it's true that long term, price increases in alcohol and tobacco do tend to have a statistically significant impact on rates of usage (a good thing), it's been explained to me by outreach groups that short term (first few years) they find that the addiction overrides the ability to quit and the tax takes money out of the budgets of low income families. Substitutions toward inferior foods or other necessities takes place within the family, which has an immediate effect of hurting childrens' health.

This isn't hard to understand when you consider that the addictive power of nicotine is quite astonishing and its power to rob a poor family through taxation should not be underestimated. Nicotine is physically addictive, it is readily absorbed, easily administered, and bonds easily with natural acetylcholine receptors in nervous tissues. It almost completely crosses the blood brain barrier, has a very short half life, and reaches peak blood concentration in a few minutes. What all that means is that kinetic properties of nicotine addiction are similar to those of cocaine.

So quitting isn't easy. The other problem is who pays this "sin tax?" A much higher proportion of Americans living below the poverty line smoke than those above poverty (about 50% more). Smoking is also more prevalent among minorities, who live in higher proportions below the poverty line anyway. So essentially, you are putting most of the tax on the poor and recycling that revenue back to them as a healthcare benefit (which should actually please the screw-the-poor crowd), less the costs of implementing and administering the program.

The sin tax to help poor kids is a nice idea, but the devil is always hiding in the details, isn't he?

"but I really like Joe12pack's reasoning. If you're poor and don't pay a bunch into the system you can suck eggs."

And I said or suggested that when? I'm familiar with hyperbole, but Chuck takes it to a whole other level.

"To Joe12pack, I guess my question would be, do you want the kids insured?"

Yes I do, Jeff. I just don't happen to agree that it's the role or responsibility of the state to make it happen. Basic health coverage should be provided to the poor at little or no cost and such programs already exist. For the rest of us, we need to decide what level of health care we want, need, can afford and choose the appropriate level of coverage. I don't want a large government bureaucracy forcing ("providing") that service upon me any more than I'd want to be told where to live, what to eat or how to raise my family. It comes down to a fundamental philosophical difference really. I believe in freedom of choice, personal responsibility and smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government.

Allow me to sum up my take on the proposed scheme to cover Oregon's children by raising tobacco taxes. What is Ted smoking?

The argument in favor of cigarette taxes to pay for health care seems to have a bit in common with the argument that was used in Multnomah County to sell the 3-year county-wide income tax for schools: yes, we admit it's incomplete, a quick fix, but it's better than nothing because we're in a crisis, and by the way, we promise it'll expire. And the argument against is also similar to what was said about the MultCo income tax: it's incomplete and a quick fix and just puts the problem off for a couple of years.

Kids need affordable access to immunizations, periodic childhood wellness exams and to medical care for disease and injury. Anybody who disagrees with the foregoing is an idiot.

If the legislature and governor had sufficient backbone, they would pay for the cost of a children's medical access program out of the general fund and raise general taxes to cover necessary expenditures. They don't appear at this early date to have the backbone, and therefore they are searching for a politically risk free payment proposals. Since the majority of Oregonians are not smokers and don't particularly sympathize with smokers, the tobacco sin tax was proposed.

I am greatly disappointed in this early indication of cowardice on the part of the governor and the legislature. I assumed (incorrectly it seems) that Dems would use their newly elected positions of power to improve availability of necessary government services (like children's health care) and to raise whatever general fund taxes must be raised to pay for the services we need. Dancing around these core issues in order to enhance their chance to be re-elected is not the kind of good government I was expecting from the governor and the new Dem majority.

"...the former seeks to place the burden squarely upon a small minority which is dominated by the educationally and financially disadvantaged."

Gee - was that referring to smokers or uninsured families?

Seems that the burden is actually being placed on 117,000 children whose parents cannot afford health insurance. (FYI - 91% of those children live in a household with at least one working parent.)

While many here blow a lot of smoke (sorry, couldn't resist) as to why smokers should not be taxed, has anyone actually talked to any parents who smoke?

The few I have talked with have said that while they don't like the idea of tax increase(they're not stupid) they would support a tax if it was guaranteed to go to children's health care. (They also happen to be people who care about children.)

And BlueNote - your 'early indication of cowardice' comment is ridiculous. I'm sorry.

I was at the joint committee hearings last week, and the only 'indications of cowardice' I saw came from certain members who were clearly more afraid of their constituents than a bunch of poor kids and their parents. I would change the target, and add 'indications of a lack of conscience' to your list.

The fact is that none of the legislators who are fighting so bravely to protect smokers had the courage to step up on behalf of children, to either:

a) Create a program to provide, or help parents pay for, health insurance for their children -or-

b) Publicly pledge to fight for funding from the general fund.

If there's anyone here who can guarantee that Healthy Kids could be funded through the general fund -without causing harm cuts to other critical services- please share your proposal.

Until someone can tell me why children should continue to go without because the adults who've been running (and talking about) things can't do a better job and build a fair system for everyone - I'll be fighting for this bill to pass.

If you are going to have a serious discussion on this topic, please at least read up on the entire proposal before making comments about who's being unfairly targetted.

http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/sos2006/kids.shtml

Frank makes a good point about priorities, though auto insurance is required by law.

Let's assume that the stats Kevin provides in his argument are somewhat accurate and perform some simple calculations. Say the average smoker does earn less than $25k per annum. Can we also assume the average smoker consumes around a pack per day? With smokes running around $4.00 per pack at current prices, that's a good $125 a month from an already tight budget. Sounds like physical & financial suicide to me, but that's their choice. What else is this person foolishly frittering his/her sparse resources on? Dining out, alcohol, cable/satellite TV, driving vehicles beyond their means? Taking out expensive payday loans to temporarily cover things they cannot afford? This stuff aint rocket science folks. Before you accuse me of being inhumane or, god forbid, an evil republican, I recognize that there are those truly in need who find themselves in bad circumstances through little to no fault of their own and they deserve our utmost assistance. It's a sick society that does not take care of the sick and hungry. Then there's the rest. Those who choose to live irresponsibly are entitled to do so, but don't come crying to me to subsidize your out of whack priorities. Glad to help, but I won't be your enabler. I realize my little rant runs contrary to the current progressive school of thought where holding people accountable for their own behavior is taboo unless they happen to be on some political enemies list, but that's just my 2 cents.

No Kevin, I have never walked in those shoes. Doing so sounds just plain foolish to me. However, I used to have a significant smoking habit/addiction and believe I have lived at this "subsistence level" you speak of a time or two in my life. Adding children to that mix while maintaining relatively expensive, unnecessary habits would represent exceedingly poor judgment on my part. So, I should be rewarded for that?

I'd be quite surprised if the average smoker actually spends less than $100 a month on smokes. You also seem to make the assumption that nearly all smokers want to quit. Not buying that argument either. Most smokers I know say they want to give 'em up, but their actions speak much louder than words. I know from experience that until one's desire to quit becomes stronger than the desire to smoke, you're going to be a smoker. Comes down to personal choice really. In regards to your bogus assertion about education and affluence, who doesn't know that cigarettes are harmful to one's health, are addictive and cost money? Every U.S. citizen is well aware of those facts and are free to make their own decisions accordingly.

BTW, many of the low-income earners you seem to be referring to would already qualify for some type of state subsidized medical assistance if they wanted it.

I still don't understand why nobody's talking of banning cigarettes altogether? They've pretty much banned them everywhere already in a piecemeal fashion. Why not just go the next step and make them totally illegal?

--GREG--

Well it just proves the liberal Democrats are disingenuous liars. They aren't any more "progressive" than my dog! They don't care about people any more than the Republicans. They are just out to line their own pockets and try to make themselves feel important. By the way, you may as well quit trying to shut me down, I can get a new IP address, thus outsmarting any attempt to shut me down!

<h2>--GREG--</h2>