Children's health care.?

Question

The democrtas are pushing for this, and they say a tax on smoking will pay for it. How is this possible when California wants to ban smoking in all areas 9including your house and in public. How is that going to pay for this new entitlement???

So if the democrats keep saying that tabbaco will pay for it, I say that is crap and we the people will be paying for it.

Answer 1

As with any socialist program they don't believe in free enterprise. They believe for us to pay these higher taxes for the common good has been shown for they do not know, or have not understood economic history for the last 300 years.
Free enterprise works. In health care for children and adults I believe we need to stop frivolous lawsuits, and make health care available to everyone through insurance reforms.
To keep increasing taxes for mass programs here in the United States has been proved unsuccessful. We've witnessed the failure of these programs of redistribution and the financial crises that arise. Take a look at the socialistic economies in country's like Spain, France, and Germany. But we still see people defending and promoting these welfare type programs.

Answer 2

Smoking will pay for it. Look around. No one is smoking anymore. I'm 40. When I was growing up, you couldn't even walk through a hospital without there being a cloud of cigarette smoke hovering around the ceiling. Same goes for grocery stores, restaurants, airports, etc. Now what little smokers that are left are banished to a glass hut out in middle of the public place's yard if they want to smoke. No one is smoking any more. At least not like they used to, and we are all better off for it. I'm a former three pack a day guy myself.

61 cents a pack is going to raise 35 BILLION a year? That ain't going to happen. It's a lie. Just like everything else, they are going to have to either raise taxes or borrow to pay for this. We can't afford this. We don't have the money. It's funny how the democrats love to preach "fiscal responsibility" when it comes to defense spending, but when it comes to social programs like this, the sky is the limit. After all, it's "for the children." I don't think our children want to grow up and have to be taxed at a 60% rate to pay for all these programs. That's just my guess.

Answer 3

No matter what is taxed, and no matter what the tax money is intended for, and no matter what it is actually used for, the Democrats usually miss two key facts:

1. Taxes do influence spending behavior. Democrats always assume that it will not, but it always does. Depending on the tax, at least some of the people affected will not buy the thing taxed, or buy less, or buy out of state, or buy on the black market, or hire less, or work less, or report less income.

2. Subsidies do influence demand for what the government provides. People always want more of whatever is "free".

Never trust a government proposal that is based on "straight line" analysis.

On the other side of that, if a Republican proposal were to "win the war in Iraq" on a straight line analysis of merely sending more troops without considering the possible response of the opposition, Democrats would be quick to see the flaw in the assumption.

Answer 4

I see your point but, California is not a good example. California is quickly becoming a Communist republic and losing the cigarette tax will barely be a speed bump for them. They'll continue to fund with taxes, from some place, any mechanism to bring them down the road to socialism with San Fransisco leading the way.

However, you're right. That the politically correct, socialist base of the Democrats, on the one hand, want to raise money by taxing cigarettes and on the other hand want to do whatever they can to make cigarettes impossible to use and buy, does not make mathematical sense.

It's the result of these, 'urban planners', attending liberal universities where the math professors spend class time talking political opinion.

They can't count.
With the evidence staring them straight in the face, they have not been able to figure out the arithmetic behind lower taxes resulting in higher revenue so, none of this shocks me.

Answer 5

It Flat out doesn't work to stop smoking or raise revenue. I give you Michigan as an example. Governor Granholm, (D) raised the tax on cigarettes $7.00 a carton. Cigarettes now cost about $ 55.00 a carton in Michigan. The increase was suppose to raise a tremendous amount of revenue to cover health care in Michigan. What actually happened was this, they spent the health care money in anticipation of the increased revenue, but the revenue never materialized. Why, because Michigan residents now buy their cigarettes over the Internet, Canada, Ohio, or have a friend or relative buy them in another state. My friends and family that smoke are getting their shipped in from South Carolina for $14.00 a carton. So instead of generating revenue, she actually lost revenue because cigarette sales fell sharply since the increased tax. People didn't stop smoking, they just quit buying from Michigan stores. A huge failure, so Granholm, had to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall.

Answer 6

It's a bunch of crap from the word go. Childrens' health care is already funded for those who make up to 200% of the pverty level, and now the democrats want to raise that to 300%. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for free heath insurance for a family making $80K a year. This is a backdoor move to shove socialized medecine down our throats.

Answer 7

It's possible that the tobacco tax won't cover the entire cost, but the bill is better than the usual Republican plan of paying for something by going deeper into debt. If you think I'm exaggerating, consider the fact that Bush has nearly doubled the national debt (the one that took 210 years to accumulate) in just 7 years.

And don't forget the higher cost to our society if children's health problems are neglected until they turn into emergencies. Taxpayers will pay some now or they will pay a whole lot more later.

Answer 8

It seems unlikely as a true solution to childrens health. It's typical of the country club democrats in congress to push the costs of a childrens health care plan on the lower and middle class smokers. Why not tax alcohol or a tax on corporate jets? Because of who pays for it. They don't want to put a tax on the people (corporations) sending in political contributions.

Answer 9

Of course "we the People" will be paying for it.

Why someone making over $60,000 needs assistance with their health insurance is beyond me. I an an Insurance agent and have been marketing affordable health plans for years.

It doesn't cost as much as some would have you believe.

Answer 10

It is a smoke screen. Pun intended. The tobacco tax is just a front so they can claim they are paying for it. Since smokers are the new lepers it is ok to tax them unfairly without representation.

Beware the giver of gifts when they slip the bill to you along with the gift.