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
-
(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.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 128 CommentsI call them cigerette cancer sticks. Yer know this here board we be talkimg about yer kids and yer having to pay their medical bills cos yer a smoker and yer kids they be smokers and this is why yer cigerette smoke is their 2rd hand smoke. Now it don't take fancy book learning to know that. Ben Franklin he done figger out the electricity whent he did that kite in da lightin storm so the history book saids. OH WELL.
The fact remains that "electromagnetic radiation" (aka "electricity") is known to cause cancer.
From the CDC's website:
"Radiation: energy moving in the form of particles or waves. Familiar radiations are heat, light, radio waves, and microwaves. Ionizing radiation is a very high-energy form of electromagnetic radiation."
"Exposure to radiation can cause . . . cancer."
Source: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/glossary
Electricity is the commonly used layman's term for "electromagnetic radiation."
If cancer has a single, major, causative factor it is electricity (in all its forms), not tobacco.
I do not find any basis for your claim in scientific studies, except for exposure to very high levels (such as powerlines).
Here are the conclusions from a National Academy of Sciences study in 1997 (Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309054478/html ):
1) There remains a statistically significant correlation between childhood leukemia and the wire code of a house (mostly based on the distance between the house and high current power lines). The highest-code houses have about a 1.5 risk factor (50% increase). There is no significant correlation for other childhood cancers or for any adult cancer.
2) There is no correlation between EMFs measured inside the households and childhood leukemia (measured after leukemia was diagnosed).
3) In vitro effects (cell culture) reveal abnormalities only at EMF doses 1,000-100,000 times greater than typical residential exposures. These effects on cells do not include genetic damage.
4) Exposure of lab animals to EMFs has not shown any consistent pattern with cancer, even at high EMF doses. Some behavior responses are seen at high doses, and there is an intriguing result that animals exposed to both a known carcinogen and intense EMF show increased breast cancer levels.
I do not find any basis for your claim in scientific studies, except for exposure to very high levels (such as powerlines).
Here are the conclusions from a National Academy of Sciences study in 1997 (Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309054478/html ):
1) There remains a statistically significant correlation between childhood leukemia and the wire code of a house (mostly based on the distance between the house and high current power lines). The highest-code houses have about a 1.5 risk factor (50% increase). There is no significant correlation for other childhood cancers or for any adult cancer.
2) There is no correlation between EMFs measured inside the households and childhood leukemia (measured after leukemia was diagnosed).
3) In vitro effects (cell culture) reveal abnormalities only at EMF doses 1,000-100,000 times greater than typical residential exposures. These effects on cells do not include genetic damage.
4) Exposure of lab animals to EMFs has not shown any consistent pattern with cancer, even at high EMF doses. Some behavior responses are seen at high doses, and there is an intriguing result that animals exposed to both a known carcinogen and intense EMF show increased breast cancer levels.
"Radiation: energy moving in the form of particles or waves. Familiar radiations are heat, light, radio waves, and microwaves. Ionizing radiation is a very high-energy form of electromagnetic radiation."
"Exposure to radiation can cause . . . cancer."
Source: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/glossary
"Energy moving in particles or waves" describes every known source of electrical activity, including power stations, power lines, light bulbs, computers, televisions, radios, cell phones, refrigerators, washing machines, and the list goes on for pages.
If cancer has a single, major, causative factor it is electricity (in all its forms), not tobacco.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 01:07 AM : Jul 09, 2007
Interesting. Can you cite any scientific studies or data to back this up?
I don't bring it up with Mary. They have a right to make her pay her part if she is that head strong and won't quit. Plain dunb.Then she will pay.I don't think the tax payers oaught pay a smoker's,drinker's medical bills IF they will not quit. If they are that poor then forgive me they got no business smoking and drinking. A cartion of smokes are 50 to 60 dollars. I rather be on the computer.
Posted by MichelleM99 at 01:54 AM : Jul 09, 2007
If Mary is suffering from medical problems that require medication or a doctor's care as a result of her smoking, she should quit smoking without having to be told to do so.
That is called "common sense."
Anyone who suffers problems, medical or otherwise, from a specific activity and who continues to engage in that activity is insane.
It is a fairly well established fact that smoking may lead to some rather serious consequences. If a person chooses to smoke and suffers from those consequences, and, he refuses to stop smoking, he should receive no public assistance at all.
On the contrary, insurance companies and government agencies are attempting to gouge the public.
They sincerely hope people do not quit smoking because that would deprive them of tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars (collectively) in income.
If cancer has a single, major, causative factor it is electricity (in all its forms), not tobacco.
According to the CDC, the relation between radiation and tobacco usage is unknown as it relates to developing cancer.
Yet, the CDC omits radiation as a possible factor in all those "smoking related deaths" they report.
That omission indicates the "experts" are promoting an agenda rather than providing objective, scientific data.
-----------------
From the CDC's website:
Glossary of Radiological Terms
"Radiation: energy moving in the form of particles or waves. Familiar radiations are heat, light, radio waves, and microwaves. Ionizing radiation is a very high-energy form of electromagnetic radiation."
Health Effects of Radiation Exposure
"Exposure to radiation can cause . . . cancer."
Source: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/glossary.asp
Lung cancer: interaction of radiation exposure with smoking.
"It is clear that the interaction between tobacco and radiation exposure is not known."
. . .
"In summary, this Reviewer suggests that the overall weight of evidence suggests that the interaction is indeed between additive and multiplicative, and we really cannot say more than that."
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/irep/1005mod/enclose7.pdf
Posted by oldsailor3 at 10:15 PM : Jul 08, 2007
Isn't that the truth.
He (???) also must have worked in a highly specialized field if he could not find a job because he smoked.
McD's and Walmart usually don't care what their employees do when they are not at work.
Perhaps his meant he refused to find a job because it interfered with his trolling.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 128 Comments