Dishonestly demonizing those who don't toe the party line is unbecoming of Blue Oregon. It's a tactic which led me to leave the GOP many years ago. It's also the kind of smug, self-righteous rhetoric which plays directly into the hand of those who say that the Dems and GOPers are more alike than unalike.

That said... I responded to TL in that thread.

But, if Measure 50 passes, I sincerely hope that our legislature will, within a few years, have to look for an alternative source of funding for the children's health program, as cigarette taxes dry up with cigarette usage.

I'm sure that they will have to anyways in 2009 when they discuss how to implement a universal health care plan in Oregon. To me, Measure 50 is a badly needed stop-gap measure that will hold us over until that plan is finalized. It's not perfect, but it is far better than the alternative of allowing 100,000 children to continue to go without health insurance and risk their lives.

Dishonestly demonizing those who don't toe the party line is unbecoming of Blue Oregon.

It's not dishonest, trackbacks and ip adresses make it pretty clear when someone works for a tobacco company.

That being said, I don't think that a cigarette tax is a particularly stable source of funding for a children's health program. My goal, and society's goal, is that cigarette usage will continue to decline, eventually to nothing. If it does, the source of funding for the children's health program will also wither away.

You know, I've finally figured out why this argument makes no sense to me.

Currently, the state incurs $3 per pack in public health care costs. If we pass M50, the per pack cost goes down by $.84.

Now, what happens if we get rid of every smoker in Oregon? Public health costs per pack = $0.

In other words, for every pack M50 causes some smoker not to buy, the state loses the state share of the tax revenue--but also frees up $3 in public health dollars to be used for something else.

The benefits of fewer smokers far outweighs the lost revenue to pay for the impact of smoking, as I can see it.

Fair enough, Nick. Having seen any who oppose M50's funding source dismissed previously at Blue Oregon as lackies of Big Tobacco, I assumed this was a replication of that rhetorical tactic. But if you've got evidence that those in the employ of Big Tobacco are commenting here then I'll take you at your word.

In other words, for every pack M50 causes some smoker not to buy, the state loses the state share of the tax revenue--but also frees up $3 in public health dollars to be used for something else.

Neat rhetorical obfuscation, TJ. The stunningly obvious flaw in your argument is that those are public health dollars, not tax dollars being recovered. Thus it's utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. In fact it underscores one of Big Tobacco's chief criticisms of M50.

I'm noticing quite a trend with you insulting folks' intelligence.

Unlike Tobacco, which is a declining public health problem, junk food manufactorers are at the center if the single greatest public health epidemic in American - obesity. It also has arguably an even greater negative impact on the health of children than 2nd-hand smoking does.

Does anyone doubt that if M50 went after the top public health problem to fund childrens healthcare that those corporations wouldn't likewise put up a full-court press to defeat it?

The difference is that far, far more Oregonians indulge in foods linked to the obesity epidemic and thus have the political power to dissuade politicians from seriously eying them as a funding source for childrens healthcare.

Dishonestly demonizing those who don't toe the party line is unbecoming of Blue Oregon.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... easy there folks.

We are definitely NOT saying that all opponents of Measure 50 are trolls or paid shills. There are plenty of legitimate folks who've been part of the BlueOregon community for a long time, like Kevin. (Though I wish you'd use a last name or secondary identifier, to prevent confusion.)

But with $10 million flooding into this state, we've been wondering how much of that money is targeting blogs with paid commenters.

And we've seen a big spike in anonymous one-off comments coming from IP addresses in Virginia, North Carolina, etc.

And we know that there are right-wing media firms promoting exactly this sort of "blog attack" service.

But rather than just block IPs and stuff (though we're doing some of that), we thought we'd actually try and engage them directly -- and use TL's excellent comment to do just that.

Ah, the last gasp of the morally bankrupt. When in doubt, blame the poor people for being poor. It's all their own fault.

I couldn't agree more, Nate. But it does beg the question of why focusing on a group which is heavily dominated by the poor and the near-poor as the funding source for a measure which claims to help poor people any less morally bankrupt? I mean, doesn't that turn the parable of the Good Samaratin on it's head?

I've seen plenty of blaming the poor by M50 boosters here.

How to pay for children's health? The same damn way we pay for most of the rest of the state budget: income taxes. The fact that it's politically more expedient to shovel the costs onto a relatively powerless minority of the population is frankly disgusting to me.

tj keeps making this argument:

Currently, the state incurs $3 per pack in public health care costs. If we pass M50, the per pack cost goes down by $.84.

A tax can't simultaneously pay for an increase in children's health care and offset its entire value in smoking-related costs.

Any portion of that $.84 that goes to anything other than paying for smoking-related public health care (say, for an increase in coverage of uninsured children) does not actually offset the $3/pack amount, unless the rest of the health care budget cuts its coverage for children and shifts the money to other programs that are covering smokers.

Get some change. Lay out $1. That's your current public health budget. Separate out $.25. That's the portion of the budget for children's health care. Put down another $.10 in a third pile to represent cigarette taxes (the amounts on this illustration don't matter, they're not in proportion).

Move $.05 from the cigarette tax pile to the kids health pile. You've now increased the budget for children's health so that you can cover more uninsured children. You've got another $.05 of cig tax revenue that offsets more smoking-related health costs. The rest of the health care budget hasn't changed is the same as it was before, though.

And, as I pointed out at LO the other day, this is the route that the state took with the lottery 25 years ago. It was supposed to be a way to tap into all of the illegal gambling going on around the pool halls and bars and provide funds for economic development in the darkest of the Reagan years. Ten years from now, Phillip Morris may be working with the state to make sure everyone knows that when you're lighting one up you're doing it to support children's health care.

I do smoke. So no I don't want to pay more in taxes. Being a smoker it's easy to feel like a very unpopular minority. So stick it to us, you have all the "reasons" you need to make yourselves feel justified. It's actually very Democratic, find a group that you can demonize and charge them extra. Basically it's a sin tax. I actually have no problem with that, but M50 is still bad legislation.

John,

I have also been known to buy the occasional pack of cigarettes, and I just mailed my ballot with a big YES on Measure 50.

That same ballot also had a YES on the City of Eugene's three-cent gasoline tax increase for road repair. I drive a car. Does it suck to pay more money for gas? Of course. Does it come back to benefit me through repaired roads (much needed in my neighborhood)? Yes.

It's the same principle with M50: I throw down some extra coinage on a pack of Lucky Filters, and little Tommy Oregonian gets his MMR vaccine. It may just be an exercise in solidarity, but I have no problem paying a little extra to fund health care for children. I would probably likewise support a tax on fast food or foods high in trans fats or hydrogenated oils to fund health care for children.

It's all a matter of cleaning up after yourself. Drive? Pay to fix the roads. Smoke? Pay to fix the kids.

Neat rhetorical obfuscation, TJ. The stunningly obvious flaw in your argument is that those are public health dollars, not tax dollars being recovered. Thus it's utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. In fact it underscores one of Big Tobacco's chief criticisms of M50. I'm noticing quite a trend with you insulting folks' intelligence.

Well, you're surely not insulting mine--because I don't have the first clue what you're trying to say here.

We're talking about public health dollars, and using a tax to recover the charges we don't have enough public health dollars for, in part because of smokers. It's fairly simple math: for each pack not smoked, the state saves $3, but forgoes the tax revenue on that pack. As long as the tax revenue is less than $3 a pack (which of course it is), every pack not smoked is a net benefit to the state public health system.

Drive? Pay to fix the roads. Smoke? Pay to fix the kids.

I understand the reasoning and am partial to the cause/effect nature of that philosophy. But I don't see anything even remotely close about the connection between smoking and healthcare for kids that I do in driving and paying to fix roads.

I haven't researched this exact point but I'd be willing to bet that for underpriviledged kids in Oregon that the effects of exposure to any form of tobacco pale in comparison to the effects of obesity in terms of healthcare needs for those very kids.

We can all dance around the political reality that smokers are politically weak in favor of citing societal costs as a rational for placing the entire burden for M50 on smokers. But none of that will alter the fundamental disconnect between that raionalization and what we KNOW to pose a greater health risk to those same kids. That pro-M50 folks dance around the issue indicates to me that either they don't know any better or they are just taking a page from the Reich Wing and using whatever is politically expedient to get a favored outcome.

Any portion of that $.84 that goes to anything other than paying for smoking-related public health care (say, for an increase in coverage of uninsured children) does not actually offset the $3/pack amount, unless the rest of the health care budget cuts its coverage for children and shifts the money to other programs that are covering smokers. Get some change. Lay out $1. That's your current public health budget. Separate out $.25. That's the portion of the budget for children's health care. Put down another $.10 in a third pile to represent cigarette taxes (the amounts on this illustration don't matter, they're not in proportion).

Not following you, Darrel. Sure the $3/pack cost does not go down, but an additional $.84 now can be applied to that cost where it wouldn't have been before. The effective social cost is now $.84 less per pack than before.

I think you make a mistake in suggesting there's a budget for public health care. There isn't. Whatever it costs, that's what we pay. There's no zero-sum for public health care; however much it goes up per year, that's what we have to come up with. (That's why TABOR was so dangerous; it did not account for high rates of cost growth in areas like health care, where there are few options for cuts or even holding the line without seriously unpalatable cuts in service).

Let's suggest 100 million packs a year in Oregon. That's $300 million added to public health costs, roughly.

Now we tax those 100 million packs an additional $.84. That's $84 million in new revenue. Apply that to the $300 million, and now our remaining costs are $216 million.

But say M50 causes a decrease of 10 million packs next year. That means $270 million in costs, and $75.6 million in tax revenue--for a resulting public health care cost of $194.4 million. So the reduction in smoking shorts the state a little less than $10 million in revenue...but the overall public health cost from smoking is now more than $21 million lower than before--even with 10% FEWER packs sold. That $21 million is essentially health care "profit."

"But I don't see anything even remotely close about the connection between smoking and healthcare for kids that I do in driving and paying to fix roads."

You don't see that every pack smoked makes it more difficult for the state to insure its children, because it's too busy taking care of smokers??

This "stable funding" meme (that the tobacco tax will continue to go down indefinitely) has apparently become solidified as truth. There are two problems: 1) it's not true; and 2) the fall-off in revenues has been calculated as a part of the formula. I, of course, am too ignorant to make the former case, but not too ignorant to quote those who can:

Yes, the per-pack tax will rise, but the number of packs consumed will thus fall. Consumers will stop smoking or smoke less. They will switch to substitutes (nicotine gum?). They may start purchasing more cigarettes when on vacation or in duty-free shops. Whatever the cause, to estimate the reduction in sales of packs of cigs in Oregon, we need to know the price elasticity of demand for cigarettes. This is simply, in percentage terms, by how much the quantity of cigarette packs will fall, given a 1% rise in price. I looked the economics literature and, surprise, surprise, estimates vary widely. I would say that about -0.50 overall is about average (or even a bit overstated) and it is a bit higher for youngsters. So this means we should see about a 1% decline in cigarette consumption for a 2% raise in price. Since Oregon’s tax increase would raise prices roughly 20%, we should see a 10% drop in sales. So revenues should increase by roughly 10% (though equilibrium price should settle even higher) of which the states share has increased 71% so tax revenues could be expected to increase by about 61%. This looks like about an extra $162 million. So my extremely crude back-of-the-envelope calculations are pretty close to what I have seen is the state’s projections.

Can we quit offering the instability argument as truth until we prove it? I'd like to see someone make the argument.

Rather than put a band-aid on our healthcare system, why not look at the root causes of our runaway costs? It's not the smokers that make our healthcare costs exponentially more expensive than the rest of the world.

Precisely!!

The reason they're not looking at the root causes is the same reason that they chose tobacco products as the mule to pull the train - political expediency.

You don't see that every pack smoked makes it more difficult for the state to insure its children, because it's too busy taking care of smokers??

Demagoguery only works if your audience really doesn't know the difference.

Are you suggesting that smokers are deservedly the target of M50 because they're the largest cause of societal costs which might otherwise be plowed into making sure those kids have healthcare?

To Sally and others...

They didn't mean you were a troll if you disagree with M50. And if you felt that way, I know that Kari and the rest of the gang at Blue Oregon didn't mean you to. There's actually an explanation up earlier from Kari on this.

They were actually talking to a number of commenters whose IPs seem to show them coming from the area of the country where the tobacco companies are located. And since it's a service that is being promoted to do just that - go around and comment on blogs on specific topics - it does seem to say there are people paid to come on here and be against the measure.

On another topic, I get really tired of comments like this:

Otherwise, maybe some people should think before they have any kids at all.

Those kinds of comments really fucking piss me off. And as anyone can tell you, I must be pretty mad when I start cursing.

There are lots of situations people can't control. Back in 2003, I lost my job just before our daughter turned 1. We went from a two income family making over $45,000 combined to making around $20,000. And since the state was in the middle of a recession, finding a job was almost impossible. Especially if you can't work jobs that require constant standing or lifting of heavy objects due to health reasons. So suddenly we didn't have enough money for food, or electricity, or rent, or anything. My sister moved in to help pay the bills, but it wasn't enough. We ended up on food stamps and WIC. We got assistance so we could keep minimal service on the phone, but there was such a need for electricity help that we never made it off the waiting list.

We had health insurance through my husband's work, which we could suddenly not afford. However, since we couldn't change your plan during the cycle, and with my health problems and a baby in the house, we didn't get rid of our insurance. We tried getting assistance from the state to cover the insurance, but we'd have to be without coverage for 6 months before they'd help us.

Thanks to my husband's friend's moving company, we were able to pull in enough odd job work to cover part of the premium. But it still meant going hungry - a lot.

Had we been in a position where we could have dropped our coverage, and I hadn't already had a major health problem, we would have very likely dropped our coverage. Which means our child would have been without coverage.

I just don't get what people think poor people should do. Should they give away their kids if they're poor? Should they have an abortion because they're poor? Should a married couple who is poor completely abstain from sex? You can take all the precautions you want, but only abstinence is 100%. Many pregnancies among the poor are completely unplanned. And with access to family planning services getting more and more difficult, that number will only continue to rise.

Yes, there are poor people who purposefully have kids and continue having kids even though they can't afford them. But that's a smaller population within the low income community. And even still, those kids shouldn't be without access to health care because they have crappy parents.

I think you make a mistake in suggesting there's a budget for public health care. There isn't. Whatever it costs, that's what we pay.

That's just a specious argument, tj. If that was the case, there wouldn't be any uninsured children, would there?

The state doesn't pay for everything it could. It doesn't cover everyone it could. That's the whole point behind this measure.

If you're really unaware that there's a budget for health services, let me point you to the Human Services budget for 2005-2007 (pdf):

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/docs/Publications/GRB0507/C-HumanSvcs.pdf

Here's a quote (my emphasis):

Major reductions to these programs fall into three main categories: managing costs within the fee-for-service system, reducing client benefits, and finally, reducing covered populations. The recommended budget includes reducing managed care cost growth, eliminating cost of living adjustments for fee-for-service providers, eliminating dental and vision coverage for adult clients, and eliminating coverage for General Assistance clients. Mental Health and Public Health – Over the course of the biennium, over 200,000 children, adolescents and adults will receive community-based mental health treatment and crisis response services. Major reductions to these programs include closing three geriatric wards at the Oregon State Hospital and closing the Eastern Oregon Psychiatric Center. Clients in these facilities will be relocated to other community placements. Other reductions include delaying provider cost-of-living adjustments and reducing community mental health services.

Feel free to explain how eliminating dental and vision coverage, etc. jibes with "whatever it costs".

The question that seems to be getting avoided here is.. What are the kids who are uninsured going to do if this measure fails? And the follow-up is, Are we all willing to pay through the nose through increased health care insurance in order to pay for those for those same kids when they show up in the ER?

Kevin, Nobody ever had an athsma attack due to second hand french fries. If I sit in your car with you and you wolf down a couple Jumbo Jacks with cheese and extra secret sauce, large fries, 48oz Mountain Dew and a fried apple pie, I will not get fat. I may throw up in your car, but that's about it. If you smoke three cigarettes while I'm in your car, you make my cothes, hair and skin stink, clog my nose and burn my lungs. If I am your six year old kid and we have shared this quality time since you brought me home from St Smokie's, I'm probably gonna have life long health problems. Thanks for nothing, Dad. While obese people do add a drain to the community, they don't take along passangers on the way to their demise. Smokers do.

And no kid ever died in a house fire caused by someone falling asleep while eating a pint of ice cream. (And I apologize for the stereotype images, that was kinda cruel.) Glen

Gerry,

I personally am skeptical about the cited cost figures and for the basic reason you cite. But I don't doubt for a second that smoking incurs very real costs that can be measured after a fashion. Such a premise seems exceptionally plausible to me. So I only partially agree with you.

And no kid ever died in a house fire caused by someone falling asleep while eating a pint of ice cream. (And I apologize for the stereotype images, that was kinda cruel.) Glen

That actually underscores a relevant issue here. While unquestionably tragic and very likely to incur some very real financial costs... the kid who died in a fire doesn't pose the systemic societal costs that TJ and others keep citing. Whereas the pint of ice cream, if it's a regular habit, does incur very real systemic costs in general.

That's not to suggest in any way that smoking doesn't incur systemic costs - it does! But other things do too. Which begs the question of why tobacco, but strangely enough... not cigars and their affluent smokers, is being singled out here.

I am thankful for the anti-50 folks that have come in here and actually answered Question #1 honestly with a resounding, "No!"

And that's just it, folks. Those who say "No" to Question #1 can sit here and argue all day long about whether this tax is fair, whether it's stable, and more. But the bottom line is: You're against health care for children. Period. End of story.

I think you're wrong. I'm not willing to let children in Oregon go uninsured one more day.

If you agree with me on that, but disagree on the funding mechanism - and there are plenty of folks here that do - then, let's hear your answer to Question #2. (And not, please, "anything else". That's not an answer. That's a punt.)

Posted by: gerry | Oct 23, 2007 2:44:49 PM Anyone else smell the junk science?

Junk science? So you think that the link between cancer and a whole raft of health problems and smoking cigs is junk science? Are you serious?

Posted by: Kevin | Oct 23, 2007 2:17:25 PM Are you suggesting that smokers are deservedly the target of M50 because they're the largest cause of societal costs which might otherwise be plowed into making sure those kids have healthcare?

They are one of the top two when it comes to healthcare costs.

Kari wrote:

And that's just it, folks. Those who say "No" to Question #1 can sit here and argue all day long about whether this tax is fair, whether it's stable, and more. But the bottom line is: You're against health care for children. Period. End of story.

That's like saying that it was worth any effort to get rid of Saddam Hussein in 2002. In fact, I think I heard almost exactly that paragraph from people who objected to concerns about how many Iraqis would die as a result of the invasion, how destabilizing it would be to the region, and potential refugee problems, and the lack of evidence for WMDs. Just replace "health care for children" with "freedoms".

A lot of those people were Democrats,too.

You've never addressed why an increase in income taxes shouldn't pay for health care, Kari. That was my answer to #2. Smokers would pay for it. So would everyone else.

Do you hate uninsured children? Why don't you want to pay for their health care yourself? Or is this sort of like the people who were more than willing to argue that the war in Iraq needed to be fought so long as it was done by other people and they didn't have to pay for it themselves? What's the children's health equivalent of "chickenhawk"?

Just to befuddle the actual trolls (although I looked back at the referenced posting and didn't see that many likely candidates), I don't have a problem with increasing the tax on cigarettes by far more than the amount proposed in Measure 50. Jack it up $2/pack and try to get more people off the stuff.

But it's an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Legislature to fund an increase in children's health services by a tax targeted to even an unpopular minority of the population. Especially when the number of smokers isn't going to go down all that much as a result of this tax.

Here's the lovely bit of info, from the Tobacco Tax Choices for Oregon from Tobacco Free Kids -- a Measure 50 supporter, believe it or not -- that gets to the nut of why this bill was put forward:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/Oregon_Report_10_2007.pdf

The New Revenues from Raising Oregon’s Cigarette Tax Rate will be Stable and Predictable for Years to Come Year to year, state cigarette tax revenues are more predictable and less volatile than many other state revenue sources, such as state income tax or corporate tax revenues, which can vary considerably year to year because of nationwide recessions or state economic slowdowns. In sharp contrast, large drops in cigarette tax revenue from one year to the next are quite rare because of the addictive power of cigarettes – the heaviest smokers, who are the most addicted and most resistant to quitting, cause total state pack sales and revenues to decline by smaller amounts, proportionately. After a major cigarette tax increase, state tobacco tax revenues typically decline by only about two percent per year, on average, because of ongoing reductions in smoking levels.

Ain't that lovely? "State cigarette tax revenues are more predictable and less volatile than many other state revenue sources". You know why? Because it doesn't do enough to actually get people to stop smoking.

lestatdelc,

What if smoking where third of the top three? Fourth of the top four? Fifth out of the top five? Would that REALLY make a difference here?

I'm deeply skeptical that it would.

"Are you suggesting that smokers are deservedly the target of M50 because they're the largest cause of societal costs which might otherwise be plowed into making sure those kids have healthcare?"

Not THE, but close to the top. Alcohol is the biggie.

1. I don't see any reason why I should pay for other kid's healthcare. So far, I haven't seen a good reason why I should fork over my money to cover other people's kids. People have been raising kids for 100,000 years now without subsidized health care, I figure they can do it for another 50 years or so just fine.

News flash--you already ARE paying for it. Under M50, you'd pay less.

darrelplant :

The comment you brought forth from Kari pertains to question #1. Question #1 has nothing to do with tobacco - it simply asked: "do you support funding adequate healthcare for all of Oregon's children?"

People who answer "no" to question number one would be against this measure no matter how it was funded. So them debating about how wrong the tobacco tax is just a waste since they are against the concept no matter how it is funded. So the "how it's funded argument" is actually just a straw man argument.

People who answer yes that kids should have health care, but disagree with funding it through a tobacco tax, are a different story. They honestly want to debate the funding of the issue.

There are a number of reasons why we already spend more on health care in this country than it would take to cover everyone. A few reasons...

1. Using the ER when you should instead go to a doctor. A lot of poor people do this because no payment is needed up-front, like it is at the doctors office.

2. Letting minor ailments go until they become major ones. This is often a problem with those at the lower income levels. Then they end up at the hospital with something that could have been treated much cheaper and easily at the doctor.

3. Costs of dealing with insurance. There are a lot of forms, processes, etc. that doctors offices have to deal with to bill insurance. They have to pay people specially to do this. Then there are all the people at the insurance company to deal with the incoming bills.

4. Profit. Insurance companies are for-profit organizations. Any service you get, any plan you sign up for is placed at a price high enough to ensure a large amount of profit.

5. Choice. Most people have very little choice in who they get their insurance from. Most have one company to choose from at their place of employment. They can get a plan on their own, but it will be more expensive than a group plan. Plus they'll be covering the entire cost themselves since most employers don't give you the funds they would have spent on your insurance if you turn their plan down.

6. Huge bonuses for executives. The tens of millions given to all these executives really add up.

7. Lack of service alternatives. Like was mentioned earlier, there are sometimes alternatives treatments that cost a lot less, such as midwifes, that aren't as widely available as they could be.

I'm certain there are even more reasons. These are just the few that come to mind immediately.

Jenni, you're right about that, I misinterpreted a line there.

Kari, I apologize for misunderstanding your point. I doubt whether people who don't care about funding health care for children like "andy" are actually going to give a hoot whether you call them on it. If they've got the guts to pseudonymously post that they shouldn't contribute to civilization, they're too far gone to shame. Not me. I've got shame coming out my ears.

darrelplant:

I thought that might be the case. I've done it a few times on here myself and had red ears the rest of the night. ; )

AnOregonReader wrote: Why haven't we required deposits on bottled water? Not because of any legitimate policy difference between that and fizzy drinks.

Actually, the 2007 legislature did exactly that. Starting in January, bottled water will also have a nickel deposit.

Other than that little note, your comment was spot on.

"What's a better way? Well, a marginal capital gains tax increase for all cap gains over $100,000 in a year would be one way."

How much do people who have stocks and bonds cost the public health system whenever they buy one?

I'm not going to read through the whole thread, but I will say I agree with this:

"Dishonestly demonizing those who don't toe the party line is unbecoming of Blue Oregon. It's a tactic which led me to leave the GOP many years ago. It's also the kind of smug, self-righteous rhetoric which plays directly into the hand of those who say that the Dems and GOPers are more alike than unalike."

I'm deeply disappointed that those on Blue Oregon would frame the Measure 50 debate they way they have. It seems like whether or not it's true, people are quick to jump on and demonize those who oppose Measure 50. Personally I have not paid attention nor read any of the anti-Measure 50 literature (I did see some of the ads on TV when I was in Oregon this past summer, but I didn't neither those or the pro-measure 50 ads swayed me.) I made up my mind on my own despite what some of the thugs on BO thing.

The post to me seemed like a blanket statement meant toward ALL those who oppose Measure 50, even those of us who are regular readers.

In several conversations I have been labled "a tobacco lobbyist" as have others. It's honestly funny how I could be one when A) I am an Oregonian currently living outside the country and B) When 100% of my income is coming from teaching.

People really need to think before they open their mouths.

I have to admit I feel a little funny about financing a specific health benefit with a specific tax on tobacco. (But not funny enough to prevent me from voting for it.) On the other hand, I think tobacco should be taxed sufficiently to pay what it costs, so I guess that means $3 to $11 (I've heard that range) per pack. I like the idea of taxing the ads someone mentioned above, though I suspect there's a constitutional issue there. And it makes perfect sense to dedicate the funds to the public health budget.

The other thing that should pay its way is alcohol. Listen to a police scanner for a while. Probably 3/4 of the police activity is directly alcohol-related. I'm pretty sure alcohol doesn't pay for 3/4 of our police expenses. As a confirmed happy beer-drinker I would hate to see prices go up, but like I said - i think it needs to pay for it's own damage.

David, nobody is calling Measure 50 opponents anything. Please read my clarification above. The hit on this post is targeted at the anonymous one-off comments coming here from IPs in Virginia -- not members of the BlueO community with legitimate disagreement.

A way up the comments, Terri published an immigrant-bashing lie. Unfortunately, SB3 is written explicitly to exclude children whose U.S. citizenship cannot be proven.

Brian said:

I'll bite. What goes through a persons mind with such limited income and then makes the decision to start a family?

Oh, probably the same thing that goes through most peoples' minds. Jenni said before she was laid off they were making about $45,000/year. That's a few thousand dollars higher than the 2004 median household income in Oregon (and above the median for the nation as a whole). I don't know what planet Brian's living on, but apparently he thinks half the households in the country aren't worthy to have children.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/statemhi.html

You see, Darrel... In Brian's world, nobody ever gets laid off. Nobody ever goes back to school. Nobody ever gets divorced. Nobody ever has to leave home under the cover of darkness to get away from an abusive partner.

Nobody ever makes a single dollar less this year than they did last year.

It's really that simple. What's not to get?

Bill,

I too had ear infections as a young child, although not nearly as bad as what you describe. None of my extended family has ever smoked except for my older brother who is two years older than me and that only lasted a year or so when he was a teenager. I was raised in a religious community that very overtly considered smoking a negative trait. My ear infections couldn't possibly have been caused by second-hand smoke because I was never exposed to any more of it than the general population would be when stepping outside of their homes.

I'm not a medical professional and perhaps your ear infections were caused by second-hand smoke. But I do know that there are other explanations than second-hand smoke.

At any rate... such anecdotal stories don't really address what I'd said.

Kari,

The truth is yes it is. This post encourages others on BO to take the same stance.

I understand what you are saying about specific IP's being used from a location you have reason to believe are being used specifically by the anti measure 50 campaign. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about those of us who ARE contributors to BO and have been insulted over and over again by others.

And for the record I have essentially been called a tobacco lobbyist by more then one BO reader. If you really support an open debate, then you should admonish those that act this way (it doesn't matter whether we are taking about the M50 debate or US Senate race where things have gotten just as nasty.

So Kari, I'm calling you on the carpet on this one. Do you really have the guts to tell people when to stop pulling this crap?

Do I think all children should have adequate health care? No, I think all Americans should have adequate health care. Unfortunately that's difficult to do in the US with our current F'd up policies and Leg for hire campaign finance system. So we sometimes have to do unpopular or uncomfortable or just plain tough things to help kids (and the other potential beneficiaries of M50) get what is needed to reduce SUFFERING when we can.. Here's an unpopular idea. You have kids? You get a tax break for each one? Put it in a "lock box" (to quote The Bard) so you'll have some cash for your kids treatments for athsma and other health problem. Donate it to the OHP so other Oregonians can have some access to health care. Or just file no exemtions and claim no kids, like a single person would. Kids are a fact of life: they need school, they need to see the doctor, they need day care, they need p[arental care for about 20 years before they start to pay back into the system. Ain't it a form of subsidy from all Oregon taxpayers with no such exemptions to support the needs of your kids? (and my kid is grown so I guess I'm in that group now.) The simplest way to address the cost of kids health care is to calculate the amount of tax money returned to families for child exemtion and put that amount into school and heath costs for kids. Oh, and I voted YES of 50 and 49. (Private to Carol; Plannig to quit in December? Quit today. You'll thank me in about a month when you no longer stink and make people sick. I'm pulling for you!)