WASHINGTON, July 7, 2007
Smokers May Pay For Kids' Health Insurance
U.S. Tobacco Taxes Viewed As A Likely Source Of Children's Health Funding
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Photo Essay
Smoking Bans
Some breathe deeply while others fume as tough anti-smoking rules catch on.
Democratic lawmakers will push for $50 billion in new funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program over the next five years. To pay for that increase, they must find new sources of revenue or cut existing programs.
Powerful trade groups representing doctors, hospitals and insurers have united around the idea of taxing tobacco. Democratic leaders have not said to what extent they will agree.
Still, the question now is not whether the tobacco tax will go up — but how much it will go up, said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group that promotes universal health insurance.
"I've every reason to believe an increase in the tobacco tax will be part of the way expanded health insurance for children is paid for," Pollack said.
Pollack said his assessment was based on "frequent and relatively recent conversations" with the committees that have jurisdiction over SCHIP. Democrats from the House and the Senate are expected to unveil their respective SCHIP proposals soon.
The federal tax on tobacco stands at 39 cents per pack, and it generated about $7.2 billion in 2005. The money goes into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.
States also tax cigarettes. The rates range from $2.58 a pack in New Jersey to 7 cents a pack in South Carolina.
Tobacco companies oppose another tax increase on their product, but it is unclear whether the industry has enough clout to fend this one off. The ban on unlimited contributions to the political parties, called soft money, has resulted in a significant drop-off in campaign contributions from the industry.
The Center for Responsive Politics reports that total campaign contributions from the tobacco industry fell from $9.2 million in the 2002 election cycle to $3.5 million in last year's cycle. The center also ranks industries when it comes to campaign contributions; since 1996, tobacco has fallen from 26th in the center's rankings to 62nd.
Most of the industry's contributions in recent elections — about three quarters — have gone to Republicans.
Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris USA, the largest U.S. tobacco company, said tax increases have already led to an 80 percent increase in the cost of a pack of cigarettes since 1999. The average cost of a pack now stands at $4.13, though those costs vary dramatically from state to state.
"We feel this trend is unfair to adult smokers as well as to tobacco retailers," Phelps said.
He said an excise tax increase may have unintended consequences because sales of cigarettes have been declining at about 2 percent a year while the cost of medical services provided through SCHIP have grown at least 4 percent annually.
"Relying on the cigarette excise tax to fund an important government program such as SCHIP will create long-term funding shortfalls," Phelps said.
But a tax increase on cigarettes would also have its benefits, said supporters of a tobacco tax increase.
For example, the American Medical Association, the trade group for doctors, said that for each 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, youth smoking is reduced by 7 percent, and overall consumption by 4 percent.
"The higher the tax, the more substantial the future public health benefit," said Dr. Ronald M. Davis, president of the American Medical Association. "Fewer smokers means fewer people with strokes, heart attacks, cancer, and other smoking-related health conditions."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that about 440,000 people in the U.S. die prematurely each year as a result of illnesses attributable to smoking.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Health
-
Video
Report: Eat Less, Live Longer
-
Video
Preventing Camp Injuries
-
Video
H1N1: A Looming Threat?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 128 Comments58,000 names on the wall remembering the dead.
tobacco deaths would require over SEVEN WALLS each year for how many years to make up the difference? 440,000 per year = 7+ walls each year
the war stopped in 1975.
32 years times 440,000 tobacco deaths =
maybe the t.v. people should cook up a channel that just runs names and faces of the tobacco dead on a daily basis, like PBS runs names and faces of the war dead....
"Support child healthcare...Start Smoking Today!!"
Posted by MichelleM99
Why?
"Life shouldn't be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly worn out, loudly proclaiming, "Wow, what a ride! Thank you, Lord!"
By the way, where does the current tax on tobacco go?
You are indeed welcome to your namesake, but I smoke. I enjoy it, will never apologize for it, and don't care that you don't like it.
I choose to smoke in my own home, or in smoking permitted areas only. I do this so my smoke stays where you are not exposed to it. If you choose to inhabit those areas, it is your own fault. I keep my smoke from offending you, kindly do likewise with your derision.
Smoking isn't drinking or eating or anything that's easy to keep to yourself. It isn't a right, and in fact will hopefully be illegal to do anyplace there's kids, or even might be kids, indoors or outdoors.
I live in the country, and 80% of the litter along my property is from smokers and drinkers, addicts all%u2026
If we are going to tax something related to the cause, we need to levy taxes on automobiles and oil products.
But tobacco companies and users do not have multi-billion dollar lobbies to bribe lawmakers.
Taxing tobacco is not going to pay for health care.
Posted by MyOpinion1 at 01:35 PM : Jul 07, 2007
Really?
Your idling vehicle is emitting far more noxious emissions than all the tobacco smoke combined.
I notice you exclude your own contributions with your exhaust emissions.
People everywhere have to breathe the air you pollute with your automobile. And that does not include all the other pollution that results from manufacturing, or, other pollutions associated with automobile ownership and use.
Automobile owners contribute far more to the destruction of the planet and poor health than any other single source.
Posted by itgrammy at 12:37 PM : Jul 07, 2007
I am an ex smoker in MN too. The price of a pack of cigarettes include tax, cost of the cigarettes themselves, merchants percent of profit and the cost of those lawsuits filed by the states(remember those huge settlements). Here in MN, Blue Cross/Blue Shield sued tobacco to recover the extra cost to healthcare. They won but did not reduce premiums or refund money to their costumers. BC/BS says it will go to prevention - right!
I'm a recovering cigarette addict, clean for 3 years now. $10 bucks a pack may just help a few more people decide to quit.
Posted by IOWEIGN at 03:28 PM : Jul 07, 2007
In January of this year, Texas imposed a $1 a pack tax on cigarettes (not cigars, "rich" people smoke cigars) so property owners could get a tax cut.
D_ Cheney and George Bush are both owners of property valued in the millions, so they managed to shift the burden from themselves and their equally wealthy friends to smokers, most of whom (statistically) are living near the poverty line.
Now, it appears the Democrats want to further penalize smokers to avoid taxing their wealthy cronies.
Some things never change. . .
Posted by CommentsRus at 03:36 PM : Jul 07, 2007
In other words, you want to live in a nanny state that tells people what they can or cannot do.
If we go down that road, are you also going to be okay with a $100,000 base price for any car, $50 a gallon gasoline, $10 a pound sugar, $10 a loaf white bread, and other price hikes for no particular reason other than to convince people they shouldn't consume products that contribute to poor health?
Or, is your crusade only against products that you personally (and others who agree with you) deem to be harmful?
Better go check your facts. Smoking kills about 400,000 Americans every year. In fact, smoking-related illness causes about 1 of very 5 deaths in the U.S. By comparison, auto accidents kill about 26,000 Americans every year,
Tobacco products are deadly, that point is now beyond debate. Why have they not been totally banned? What other product this deadly would be allowed?
Posted by GrammaWhamma at 04:19 PM : Jul 07, 2007
As a matter of fact...
Poor eating habits and lack of exercise is the second leading killer (leading killer is tobacco).
Better go check your facts. Smoking kills about 400,000 Americans every year. In fact, smoking-related illness causes about 1 of very 5 deaths in the U.S. By comparison, auto accidents kill about 26,000 Americans every year,
Tobacco products are deadly, that point is now beyond debate. Why have they not been totally banned? What other product this deadly would be allowed?
Posted by jimfinster at 04:16 PM : Jul 07, 2007
Automobiles.
I have known people who smoked their entire lives and died of old age. It is not an "established fact" that smoking is "deadly."
That is more hyperbole than fact.
So are your statistics.
But, the fact remains that if the government is going to legislate "good health," then the door is wide open for the diet and personal habits police to invade your home to ensure you are only engaged in healthy habits.
An outcome that is undesirable under any circumstances.
You are clearly in denial. I suspect you are either a tobacco addict or work for the tobacco industry. The statistics I posted are correct, and you can easily verify them with even a tiny bit of effort...
"Life shouldn't be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow, what a ride! Thank you, Lord!" author unknown
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm
Anti-tobacco zealots lie as much as any other zealots. Their (your) phony statistics rely on "second hand smoke" as a causative factor.
Unless you can eliminate all other factors in the environment, it is not possible to state with certainty that "second hand smoke" is a causative factor.
Heredity is as important as any other factor in a person's health. "Second hand smoke" is irrelevant.
As are your phony statistics.
Tobacco is not "deadly." That is hyperbole in the extreme and indicates you are a zealot for whom facts mean little or nothing.
In other words, you are what you project me to be.
Overpopulation is the biggest problem we face right now. But seems to me that we could deal with it via birth control, not killing ourselves with poisonous products.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Mortality statistics are very clear on this subject.
In fact, the 400,000 deaths are smoker deaths. Cause of death in each case is typically determined by the attending physician. So, I guess you are saying that the physicians are not capable of determining the cause of death?!?
Deaths from second-hand smoke is NOT included in the 400,000 statistic. The American Lung Association says that about 50,000 additional non-smokers die each year as a result of exposures to second-hand smoke.
Posted by jimfinster at 05:00 PM : Jul 07, 2007
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli
Yessir, buddy, that second hand smoke killed everyone born before 1950.
You are in denial.
You are clealy a total idiot. Goodby.
There is no such thing as "death by smoking."
Smoking tobacco is reported to cause lung disease, emphysema, heart disease and cancer. There is no such thing as "death by tobacco." (other than rare cases of tobacco poisoning)
Anyone who states as a fact that "tobacco is deadly" is a zealot unless he is referring to tobacco poisoning (extremely rare).
You are a zealot.
BTW, some doctors are equally zealous as you and would be equally inclined to lie.
Posted by GrammaWhamma at 04:52 PM : Jul 07, 2007
Excellent quotation.
It makes me wonder why some of these folks were born. If they want to be buried in pristine condition, they should have been late term aborted so their bodies would be perfectly formed (as much so as possible).
I never realized that allowing the government to mandate seat belts would lead to this.
But, here we are. Now the government wants to tell us what to do in our own homes.
Where will it end?
You are clealy a total idiot. Goodby.
Posted by jimfinster at 05:14 PM : Jul 07, 2007
Amazing how my discussions with you zealots also ends on the same note, regardless of subject matter.
I may be an idiot, but at least I'm not a zealot who mindlessly relies on phony statistics.
This is not a discussion you are involved in, it is a verbal assault. Too bad you did not learn how to debate respectfully. It appears this forum is just for pissed off people to attack each other. Like a lazy man's form of anger management by directing your rage at others you intend never to meet.
People with healthy self esteem do not need to make themselves feel bigger by making others feel smaller.
Your self revulsion is showing.
Posted by imholmes at 05:31 PM : Jul 07, 2007
You must be new to the Internet.
On the contrary, ad hominem (personal) attacks are a well used tactic in courtrooms around the world.
When the law and facts are not on your side, attack your opponent(s).
It has nothing to do with a person's self-esteem, it is more related to the inability to support arguments with logic or facts.
Welcome to the Internet, a place where insults appear to be a regular substitute for rational, fact based arguments.
So, using your logic, jumping off a building does not kill you. It is the sudden stop.
But I am happy to hear that smoking is not harmful to my health. I will start today! I always thought the diminished lung capacity, yellow teeth, bad breath, and stinking clothes were very cool. Thanks for your help!!
Oh, plus all the fires started by careless smokers. Those are great too!! See ya in the doorway with the others!!
Posted by tuckerndfw at 05:41 PM : Jul 07, 2007
Ad hominem attacks ARE appropriate when one is dealing with an idiot. By definition, that person is not able to debate a complicated issue. Better to just call it and move on. Jim Finster was right on the mark.
let those producing second hand smoke illnesses pay to provide the kids health insurance
as an asthmatic it is no joke breathing second hand smoke and yes my parents were both smokers
i dropped a ten year friendship because i did not think taking prednisone was a fair trade off for the pleasure of her company
she was shocked
I agree. Several members of my family have died in recent years from smoking. It was very sad at the end, to visit them in the ER.
People like tuckerndfw should spend a little time in the hospital with people struck down by tobacco. It is not pretty.
Keep smoking and you will not need to worry about the nursing home. And those "rights" won't do much good when you are DEAD.
Alcohol kills more people than cigarettes. Duh!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 128 Comments