Yeh - and all those wonderful endorsements on the backs of candidates' campaign brochures were spontaneous statements by the person making them rather than written by someone on the campaign. This kind of criticism is just plain silly.

If you applied it to all the other corporate campaigns the only difference would be that most of the prominent spokespeople are getting a paycheck. If Ben Mathews isn't then that just shows how naive you have to be to let yourself get used by the tobacco industry drug pushers. Lets just hope he teaches shop rather than developing kids critical thinking faculties.

Now you see why some people hate politics to the point they just don't care. It is stuff like this that makes people so angry about our system that they just stay away from it and eventually not vote at all. Both sides are just too uptight about this issue even when the issue is such a no-brainer. People need to get a grip on both sides. I realize it is important, but to go this far? Now I know why my siblings don't care about politics - uptight people already and it isn't even October yet.

BTW - I am voting, but do we need to be so uptight?

"Will the deceptive tactics from Reynolds ever end?"

That is a rhetorical question, I presume.

BTW does "Ben Matthews" actually exist? The story doesn't make that clear.

Now you see why some people hate politics to the point they just don't care.

It is because enough people don't care that we get these dirty tricks. If Big Tobacco, most politicians and others like them knew that a large number of people would retaliate and oppose them in a determined manner we might be able to reclaim the republic so many claim to pledge allegiance to and bring the ruling corporatocracy to an end - or at least to heel.

"If you look closely, the letter is paid for by Oregonians Against the Blank Check, which is actually a cover group for big tobacco"

what does that mean "the letter was paid for..." what does a letter cost?

Eric J. is right about people needing to get a grip on both sides. Not that s/he would approve of what I argue that actually means.

The fact is that the primary goals of the power interests on both sides are not first and foremost delivering health care for children or anyone else. There are some followers on the "Yes On 50" side for whom that is the primary goal, as there are many who will be voting against M50 for whom that is their primary goal, but they are not the drivers on either side who have brought us to this disgusting situation.

Those on the "Yes On 50" side who do care most about delivering health care have resigned themselves to the view that these crumbs throwing money to private insurers are the best that the hypocrites in our legislature, the private health insurance and health care industries providing major funding to the "Yes On 50" campaign, and in the anti-tobacco interest groups really behind "Yes On 50" will ever offer or work to achieve.

Those voting against M50 can do so with moral conviction because they quite understand that the power interests behind "Yes On 50" are offering to those genuine, beaten-down health care advocates and their constituents a health care plan that most of those people representing in those power interests would never settle for themselves, believe they will never use, and is designed to prevent more responsible health care reform that might just require them to consider what they would give up in the name of equity.

Personally, I feel with profound sadness that those folks in the "Yes On 50" who have resigned themselves to settling for the crumbs in this way, and privately that is what they say they have done, have abdicated their moral responsibility to stand up to those power interests and fight for better. But that is their right. In particular, though, shame falls on the DPO for supporting this plan, which in more unguarded moments those sponsors listed above say with venom is about forcing lower income people who smoke more to pay for their own kids (because many of these folks either dropped out of the OHP or would never participate because they couldn't afford their required contributions), out of selfish political interests instead of fighting those obstructionists to real universal quality health care, because it so directly violates the core values of our Party.

It's ugly, and the power interests driving "Yes On 50" campaign no more occupy the moral high ground than those in the "No On 50" campaign.

The OEA gave a presidential citation to a "Ben Matthews" on the Salem EA Bargaining Team, in 2005. So it sounds like there is a real guy named Ben Matthews, who is likely a teacher in Salem.

So it sounds like there is a real guy named Ben Matthews, who is likely a teacher in Salem.

And a buddy of Mark Nelson's. Maybe he is short.

I actually Googled Ben Matthews when I received his form letter; and immediately sent him and email and copied his Principal, saying in part:

"And who is against it (Measure 50)?

Big Tobacco, an industry that has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to defeat similar measures in other states and target our children as their next generation of customers.....

And apparently you, a "First Grade Teacher" in Salem, Oregon. SHAME ON YOU!!!!! At least your sad form letter helped me become aware of this issue and will make me a proponent for health and not for profit for a tobacco conglomerate. Heaven forbid their cancer sticks are taxed so the poor saps who are addicted can help fund a good cause."

His response:

"I was paid nothing. No, I do not smoke. I am not in favor of tobacco companies. Yes, I am in favor of healthy children. However, I disagree with way the ammendment is structured and that it is being added to the Constitution. I think that there are better ways to deal with some of these issues.

Ben"

He apparently is a real person, and in my opinion, clueless.

An anti-measure 50 mailing recently arrived at my house addressed to a former occupant. I noticed that the "paid for by" attribution area was unable to be read due to an ink smear that seemed to have occurred during printing or before copying....in other words...intentional. Maybe it wasn't; I'll probably never know for sure. However, what I did do was immediately call the proponents for measure 50, inform them about the ad and then donated $20.00.

An anti-measure 50 mailing recently arrived at my house addressed to a former occupant. I noticed that the "paid for by" attribution area was unable to be read due to an ink smear that seemed to have occurred during printing or before copying....in other words...intentional. Maybe it wasn't; I'll probably never know for sure. However, what I did do was immediately call the proponents for measure 50, inform them about the ad and then donated $20.00.

I don't understand what's the problem with raising taxes on smokes. It's a completely voluntary tax. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy smokes.

Why would anyone care about defeating this measure? I mean, obviously, unless they were in the business of selling tobacco.

Curt

I received the letter as well and noticed something odd about the return address. First of all, why would a schoolteacher give out his home address? I had a feeling this was from some lobbyist.

Deception is how the political game is played. I've simply become used to it.

I'm voting against Measure 50. It isn't because I support big tobacco (or any large, multi-national company for that matter). It isn't because I am against providing health care for our children (or for us all). And it isn't because I am pro-smoking (I am a non-smoker and hate second hand smoke). It's because I am sick and tired of our government coming up with good-sounding plans but then wanting the people to pay for it. ENOUGH! We are already over-taxed to begin with. And studies have shown that the average smoker is in the middle to lower income range. Expecting them to pay more is utterly unfair.

If government had gone after big business and asked for some sort of a tax increase from them to fund this, I would be all for this measure.

I have a question, I wonder if anyone can answer. Suppose this tobacco tax increase results in a huge reduction of smokers. How will this measure continue to be funded into the future?

"I have a question, I wonder if anyone can answer. Suppose this tobacco tax increase results in a huge reduction of smokers. How will this measure continue to be funded into the future?"

I have asked this too - and no one in this neck of the internet woods has given a good sloid answer without being uptight over me asking it and lacingg it with inflated propaganda.

This Ben guys seems pretty sharp to me. I don't see any problem with his thinking that M50 is a silly way to go about solving a problem. (if in fact there even is a problem that needs to be solved)

I'm a no on M50 vote myself since I don't see any logical reason to tax smokes in order to pay health care premiums for some kids. If Oregon voters all want to collectively pay for kid health care premiums then they can all pay for it together. Sticking one group with the cost is unfair and is very bad public policy.

Another Item of note: This measure amends the constitution. I am sorry, but even though this sounds like a good deal, we can't allow anything like this to mess or alter our constitution. Any measure, good or bad, that alters the constitution is an automatic 'no' vote. If we vote in enough measures to our constitution in this manner, it will cease to be a constitution alltogether and end up just being a glorified paragraph of the ORS.

Well, Eric, that question has been answered here at Blue Oregon many times. The answer: the projections used to estimate the new revenue took into account that the higher price of cigarettes would lower the demand for cigarettes, so a decrease is already factored in. Plus, some of the money is set aside in a health reserve account that can be tapped to pay for the program if needed. The decrease in demand for smokes would have to be very, very large before it reduced revenue enough to threaten the program.

I don't understand what's the problem with raising taxes on smokes. It's a completely voluntary tax. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy smokes.

Curt, your view would make total sense except for that whole drug addiction thing.

Ben said: "However, I disagree with way the ammendment is structured and that it is being added to the Constitution. I think that there are better ways to deal with some of these issues."

To which Candace replies, "He apparently is a real person, and in my opinion, clueless."

WTH? That makes him clueless? Because he doesn't think the Constitution should be amended and thinks this isn't the best way to promote health care for kids? Geesh.

Andy says, "I don't see any logical reason to tax smokes in order to pay health care premiums for some kids. If Oregon voters all want to collectively pay for kid health care premiums then they can all pay for it together. Sticking one group with the cost is unfair and is very bad public policy."

To which I add - AMEN!

Also, I've seen some numbers bandied about that call into question exactly how much of the new taxes go into health care and smoking cessation. If they were accurate at all, and if my memory serves correctly, I believe the majority of $$ was just flowing into the general fund. And THAT'S a recipe for disaster, in my opinion. Anybody know what the real numbers and disbursement plans are?

This is the classic incrementalism versus "whole kielbasa" argument that constantly roils liberal debates. The truth is that it IS all about health care and it IS a bandaid. But of all the times this debate can be laid bare for what it is, M50 offers a case in point. Kids are going to be uninsured until you get the whole kielbasa. M50 was not what the legislature wanted--but after the GOP blocked it in the House (where you need more than a simple majority on spending items), this was the best we could hope for.

You coudn't be more wrong on so many points here Jeff. The situation is not even close to the palpably false spin you give here about "all or nothing" some really sold out Democrats in our state and country throw out there. The fact is, the Democratic majority had multiple health care reform options on the table, strategies all of which could have been pursued with simple majorities. Over the pitched objections of many genuine, hard-working health care advocates, the interest groups already enumerated behind this chose for their own selfish reasons, and with totally disregard for children or fixing our health care system, to play political chicken in this way for the most disreputable of political reasons. You're trotting out false talking points here and it does nothing except bring discredit on you.

The two important questions are first, whether you don't know better, or are just being deceitful when you make this argument. And second, what you are doing right now through this forum to pressure the "Yes On 50" crowd to tell us what they are going to do work for quality affordable health care for everyone if this measure fail. You don't hear groups genuinely advocating for anything from health care reform to ending the wars saying "it's this or nothing" like the "Yes On 50" crowd. Those kinds of dedicated advocates tell everybody they'll be back tomorrow and every day after that still working until they are successful.

I was thrilled to get the Ben Matthews letter tonight! I will start teaching statistics next Monday. Fraudulent claims and statistical propaganda, (i.e. how to lie with numbers), is my first topic.

Besides all of the other questionable assertions, the sixth paragraph of this letter uses percentages detached from their separate bases: "...tobacco tax revenues will decline by 2.2%, while the cost of these programs will rise 128%." I could not have asked for a better example of detached statistics!

So again, thanks Blank Check people! You saved me some prep time.

"I have a question, I wonder if anyone can answer. Suppose this tobacco tax increase results in a huge reduction of smokers. How will this measure continue to be funded into the future?"

Gad zooks... Let's be clear and to the point on this:

If not for the effects of cigarettes, there would already be enough money in our health care system to give every child under 18 free health care.

See, even if you've got insurance, every pack of cigarettes a person buys adds -- but slightly -- to increases in health care costs. Every cigarette you smoke adds to the risk of insuring you in the long run, and that increases your premiums and everyone else's. And the state's largest purchaser of health care... is the State of Oregon itself. A few nickels here, a few dollars there. It adds up to a $3.80 burden to the public health system per pack.

So if everyone suddenly stopped smoking, Measure 50 wouldn't raise any additional money... But we'd be saving so much due to a cheaper health care system and healthier citizens that we'd have to decide what to do with all the leftover cash.

Measure 50 isn't so much increasing the tax on cigarettes... as it is decreasing the subsidy that you and I pay smokers.

This would be a great deal, taking into consideration of JHL's post above...if it were being voted in as a statute to the ORS and not as an amendment to our counstitution. We already have too many of these laws in our weakened constituion that have become harder to change and have eventually trumped all statutary laws and administrative rules making it a glorified paragraph of the ORS. We don't need another one to further erode the document.

I'm voting no, and I'm also sick of the pose that the only people who want this left out of the constitution are tobacco industry executives. Learn to be a leftist without indulging in smoker scapegoating. I know it's hard. I know it's really sweet to have a population subgroup that it's entirely PC to feel so superior to. Promote revolution in healthcare and I'm with ya. If mainly you want to think better than me because I smoke, then not so much.

Persecution of smokers is privileged bourgoise classism.

Of course, JHL's assertion:

"If not for the effects of cigarettes, there would already be enough money in our health care system to give every child under 18 free health care."

is an example of the dishonest rhetoric the "Yes On 50" people are engaged in. JHL, there are two facts which expose the fraudulence of your comment:

First, these kinds of estimates are statistical game playing in which people like you blame most of the health care costs a smoker incurs on tobacco. These are accounting games which are not talking about budgetable real dollars that could be explicitly allocated and spent otherwise. And it is not legitimate to apportion most or all of the health care costs incurred by the average smoker to tobacco and ignore all of the voluntary and involuntary factors which can be more responsible for those costs in individual cases.

Second, there is already more than enough real cash being spent in the system right now to finance health care as you describe it, if only the 20% or more that goes to insurance company returns --- the people that are part of the club the promotors of "Yes On 50" have willingly joined for their own self-interested reasons --- went to health care delivery. The lion's share of the proceeds from "Yes On 50" will go to the "Office of Private Health Partnerships", which will be essentially identical to or actual instances of the private Accountable Health Plans being set up by the very same interest groups under SB329 for poor people who aren't in the "categorical groups" covered by SB3. These proceeds will be wasted in this way on private insurance approaches, or the only plans avaiable will be MCOs that will have very low acceptance. There were and are practical immediately implementable alternatives offered. The power interests behind "Yes On 50" rejected them for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with providing health care, and everything to do with perceived political gain. Alworth is either naive or dishonest for trying to spin this otherwise.

In the spirit of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", which is distressingly on point in this debate, we can easily see just how vacuous, and therefore propagandistic and dishonest, this "cost recovery" argument based on per-pack costs is: It's a fact that if current smokers smoked 10 times as much, extra costs on the system would not go up 10 times as much. For starters, many more of them would die from cancer sooner, and second-hand smoke effects would not be increased anywhere near 10 times. Not the least reason for which is that most smokers are far more courteous about mitigating second-hand smoks effects than the "Yes On 50" people behave towards anybody who stands up to their falsehoods and plain selfish mean-spiritedness. Let's assume health care costs double and take JHLs $3.80 per pack cost (I also point out "Yes On 50" people shriek numbers anywhere between $3.50 and $10.00 per pack depending on whatever one works best for them in the moment). That would mean that the cost per pack would fall to 76 cents, easily achieved as a per-pack tax right now. Conversely, if we got current smokers to cut their smoking by 10 times, health care costs would not fall more than a factor of a couple and we would get per pack costs of may $19.00.

So under the "cost recovery" rational (just to give those dollars to insurance companies which the "Yes On 50" people have explicitly struck a bargain with in SB3 and SB329) we should be doing what we can to increase consumption, to much more effectively recover these extra costs. The point is, it's an irrelevant, misleading argument. (We could take up the numbers used to make the arguments about deterring youth smoking, as well as the elasticity arguments, and show they are similarly misleading irrelevant arguments if the real goal is to provide health care in a cost effective and popularly supported way.) And I repeat, for those in the "Yes On 50" side who are going to start trying to splutter a rebuttal, go read "A Modest Proposal" and understand the multiple levels of meaning before wasting your or anybody else's time.

For those who want to understand better what "Yes On 50" actually means within the context of the health care debate - and what the power interests behind it including the unions and professional health interest groups like the ACS and ALA who make political bargains with the private insurance companies and private health care corporations (I'm not talking about those health care advocates I mentioned who have signed on to this as the only crumbs they'll get) - read this:

We Have Seen the Enemy — And Surrendered http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2007/09/we-have-seen-th.html

Measure 50 and Senate Bill 3 (the actual sadly misnamed "Healthy Kids" bill), along with Senate Bill 329 (the equally sadly misnamed "Healthy Oregon Act), are one example of the state level incarnation of precisely this surrender that we see happening all over the country. There is a good reason the "Yes On 50" people have pursued the "attack big tobacco" campaign. It's because they know they don't have a defensible argument when it comes to this destructive approach to providing health care for children or anyone else it represents. It's at best a quick fix, designed by a club of interest groups who are not primarily interested in actually providing health care TODAY and into the future in a responsible way, and in which they see no economic or political gain to themselves in actually doing. Shame on them and shame on the DPO for selling us out in this way.

Anybody who is thinking about voting for M50 at least owes it to your fellow citizens to think about the whole issue yourself while ignoring the misleading propaganda from both sides. And to remember that the legislature (still with a Democratic majority and a Democratic governor) will be in session February to do it right --- if they are being honest that they really do care first and foremost about providing us health care. I assure you they are cowering right now, just hoping they won't be held accountable for the responsibility they have ducked with SB3 and SB329.

Demand that the proponents tell us what they will be doing to pursue a different and more positive approach starting the day after the election if this measure fails. I think a prudent person would have to be very suspect if they can't or won't answer that simple question, as the vocal activists mainly speaking for the power interests (the private insurance companies and private health care industry, the governor and Democratic leadership in the legislature, the primary sponsors in the anti-tobacco movement and those who share their particular punitive approach to tobacco) behind "Yes On 50" have refused to do to this point.

Sorry Chris, I don't fully understand your comment and reference to another thread. In addition this thread is about M50, which quite appropriately includes the motives of the proponents and opponents. I have quite properly addressed facts and motives, and that is what I choose to focus on.)

"However, I disagree with way the ammendment is structured and that it is being added to the Constitution. I think that there are better ways to deal with some of these issues."

Is it a big surprise that Ben's stated reasons exactly match the campaign arguments identified by the tobacco companies' focus groups? Like the original letter, Ben isn't really the author of this response either. It just another letter from Mark Nelson restating the campaign talking points.

"...these kinds of estimates are statistical game playing ... These are accounting games which are not talking about budgetable real dollars."

Do you think the insurance companies set their premiums with a ouija board? The rates that you and I pay -- both directly and through our tax dollars -- are set by accountants and risk-managers who are "playing" these exact games.

Your argument would make sense in a vacuum, where people only pay for the exact health care costs that they incur themselves. But as it is, the insurance industry is a tad more complex and interdependent.

Frankly, I think it's great that your class read and analyzed Jonathan Swift... When you reach high school, though, your teachers may demand more of your writing than just length, and may grade you based on your ability to make clear and concise points. So keep up the reading and good luck! :)

HCV-please don't use your ignorance of scientific studies as justification for dismissing the "cost recovery" argument. Peer-reviewed studies by the CDC estimate (beginning with reports in 2002) every pack of cigarettes costs $3.45 in direct medical costs, and $3.73 in indirect loss of productivity, for a total cost of $7.18 per pack. An economic study by Duke in 2004 estimated the total cost over the lifetime of a smoker was $40/pack.

Also, it's been shown time and time again that the most significant impact of raising the tax (and thus price) of cigarettes is that dramatically less young people start smoking. Furthermore, most lifetime smokers are people who started young...very few smokers start after their teen years, which is why Big Tobacco continues to violate and skirt the Master Settlement Agreement by targetting some of it's advertising at youth.

So yes, it's correctly called Health Kids because it will help insure every child in Oregon, and it will help ensure that less kids pickup the smoking habit.

Candace; you truly are the clueless one here. I received my letter today and agree with this tactic. Lets be fair. The effrontery of even calling this the Healthy Kids Program is deceptive at best. When less than 50 per cent of the dollars raised go to funding health care for children that is a bold faced lie.

I am a non smoker, do not support the tobacco companies and believe in health care. I do not believe in taxing a declining revenue base for an exponentially rising cost base. If the state used the same projections for affording this that they use to estimate ODOT projects, the system will be broke in two years.

Health care is an important goal. A regressive tax forced into the constitution of our state is neither wise or progressive.

People, I am sorry, health care is not a right! Yes it is a nice benefit but it is not a right. You could go work at a company like Safeway for 20 hours a week and get great benefits.

I completely agree with Ben Matthews. We should not vote for such a sloppy measure that amends our constitution. Taxing something will not stop people from smoking nor will all the money go to kids. Government is notorious about botching programs, misappropriating money, etc. and this measure will end up costing more than a doctors visit without health insurance.

Michael -- Is education a right?

I just got this letter in my mailbox today, and aside from the general irateness about RJ Reynolds badgering me all week, I do have a question that's bugging me. Why is this a constitutional amendment instead of just a law? I was out of the state when this was getting placed on the ballot so I'm still catching up, and I haven't been able to find a quick & clear answer to this.

Ryan, this bad approach isn't a law because there weren't enough folks in Salem willing to end their careers by voting for it.

Ryan - Kurt Chapman's comment is correct, but perhaps in more ways than intended. The spin by proponents "we had no choice" is pure deceit: The Democratic majority were the ones who didn't want to stand up and ignore an unfounded, untested, and almost certainly legally invalid assertion from a couple of quarters that the legislature could not make the statutory referral on a simple majority and just do that.

In addition, they refused to perfect and advance a good constitutional amendment already on the table that would have declared health care to be a right, and which would have immediately set into motion a whole set of legal and political constraints and events leading to proper funding for health care. Instead, a number of interest groups (mis?-)calculated the political advantage they might gain, and decided to play chicken with health care. The sad part of this is that even if they WIN this game of political chicken, the end result is actually a quite poor private insurance based health care system for people least likely to be successfully served by such a system.

Ben - What I prefer to say in response to your comments, in a respectful way so please try to consider them from that standpoint, is this: My focus right now is Measure 50 and Senate Bill 3, so that's all I chose to address and have addressed. You seem to be intelligent, sincerely interested in the issue, have reasonably well thought-out useful comments, and a strong desire to learn while withholding judgement, all things for which I commend you. I think your points here are generally fine, as far as they go.

However, one thing one learns through experience with "movement" politics is that what really matters is what happens as each issue arises for specific action in the legislature. My comments have been addressed to what various parties have chosen to do, based on their own political calculations of what is most in their self-interest and independent of what it means for health care, as the rubber has met the road. (And "pragmatic" is not even close to the right word for it). Those comments are fair, well within the bounds of appropriate political debate, and based in facts on the public record or personal knowledge gained through direct witness. I hope you will stay alert to the well established grassroots rumbling for substantive health care reform over the next 6 months outside the "elitist" Portland-Salem political echo chamber. It has little to do with the photogenic "movement" building campaigns we see in the media.

"We should not vote for such a sloppy measure that amends our constitution. ... Government is notorious about misappropriating money, etc."

I like how you kinda answered your own question there.

Kurt Chapman,

Perhaps I am clueless re: the in-depth nature of the law and the necessity of some group trying to add this to the Oregon Constitution. It is so aggravating to see Big Tobacco using deceptive tactics once again. Both my parents were sent to their graves much too early because they were heavy smokers. If a change in the law, another tax to cigarettes could help deter young people from picking up that filthy, deadly habit, I am ALL for it.

Let's all send an e-mail to Ben Matthews to let him know how disgusted we are by his tobacco-laden letter: <u>[email protected]</u>