• Hi Guest - Sign up now for Secret Santa 2024!
    Click here to sign up!
  • Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Revisiting SCHIP

Robbmt

Thermal UP!!!!!!
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
1,289
No cussin,fighting here. I like the idea not the execution of the program and would be willing to expand it (a bit)

Just looking for sound knowledge based opinion. Any chance this can be passed? In what form would a compromise be? How far reaching will it be? Down to retailer?




A tobacco tax to expand this will not work indefinitely: unless they start a few more million people smoking.
 
I consider it flawed, and irresponsible. If they really were concerned with helping children, they would go for a larger tax base.
 
Funding for the current program expires in March so heads up. Time to stock up. Make sure you hug your favorite retailer as he/she may no longer be around at the end of 2009. (I'm such a negative thinker)

Stinki
 
To be blunt, IMHO, the schip program is terrible. Here in MN, most of the people they cover aren't even children.

It seems it's just a small step that leads to another step that leads to "universal" health insurance coverage. I just can't see how that's a good thing.

If people really wanted to make health insurance affordable to all, we would model it similar to auto insurance.

Just my opnion...
 
To be blunt, IMHO, the schip program is terrible. Here in MN, most of the people they cover aren't even children.

That's my problem with it. I don't want to pay for able bodies that choose to game the system rather than provide for themselves and thier family. I don't have a problem helping parently insure thier children. However like most programs there has to be safe guards against those who make fleecing the system thier only full time job.
 
CRA is about the best organization to fight this baloney, i was just involved with a letter writing campaign to Mayor Menino of Boston over a smoking law they were considering. CRA provided the link and i wrote the e-mail with my concerns. Not sure what the outcome will be but i'm sure i'll be notified. :thumbs:
 
Generally, governments prefer to pay money into, and out of, the general fund rather than having segregated funding. Which is not to say that a tax on tobacco will not occur - spending has to be paid for somehow. I'd argue, on the other hand, that a tax on tobacco is unjust given that most of the burden will be shouldered by the poor (smoking rates decline modestly with income).

On SCHIP specifically, there's clearly a gap between those people covered by Medicaid and those people who can afford health care on their own. SCHIP (which covers up to 200% of the federal poverty line, or about $42k in gross household income) still leaves a fairly substantial gap, since health insurance is very, very expensive (average premiums for a family of 4 range between 12k and 15k).

As such, "gaming the system" is going to be quite difficult, although certainly possible in extreme circumstances. For example, aging couples that divorce rather than be totally wiped out by one spouse's illness are "gaming" the system, but it's a fairly extreme case. More to the point, though, is that any plan, public or private, is going to have some funny business, from gaming income levels to outright fraud. The true question is whether we, as taxpayers, still want to do it.
 
The true question is whether we, as taxpayers, still want to do it.


By and large I believe most people's answer would be yes, but don't you dare raise MY taxes to do it. That seems to be the common theme. Look at people attitudes "what is the government going to do to help me?" There are many points to both sides of the issue, but is a tax shoulder by smokers really fair? Wouldn't a very, very small federal sales tax on all goods generate more money?
 
Suffice to say, the same flawed bill that has been vetoed twice will be ready to be signed very early in the new administration. It will be hailed as one of the shining points of the first 100 days.

Anything else I have to say about this legislation is likely to get me in a lot of trouble under the "no politics" rules.
 
By and large I believe most people's answer would be yes, but don't you dare raise MY taxes to do it. That seems to be the common theme. Look at people attitudes "what is the government going to do to help me?" There are many points to both sides of the issue, but is a tax shoulder by smokers really fair? Wouldn't a very, very small federal sales tax on all goods generate more money?

Good question.

It's hard to reconcile principles in this case. I personally think that as a relatively large government mandate it should come out of the general fund, and paid for out of personal income and corporate income tax. On the other hand, I'm neither deaf nor blind, and I know that a lot of general fund expenditures are simply unfunded and paid for out of borrowed money, which I'm not 100% keen on, and you shouldn't be, either, since the US federal debt has ballooned by 80% over the last 8 years.

Expanding the tobacco excise tax was a) an attempt to apply fiscally conservative pay as you go principles and b) fairly shrewd political gamesmanship. Now that one party holds congress and the white house, they don't need to play games and target tobacco explicitly. They might. But it's by no means guaranteed.

If given the option (ha! unlikely story.) I'd favor a segregated surtax based on income, which is progressive, then a sales, excise, or other consumption tax, which is in theory proportional (like a "flat tax") but in practice regressive, then a tax on any particular category of products, which is overwhelmingly regressive.

You can also look at this debate from another, more philosophical perspective, which I think that you were leaning towards. Yes, everyone is in favor of increasing services if they don't have to pay for them. That's because we have a transactional relationship - fee for service - with government. Government's no longer seen as an effective actor; it can't do anything right; all it does is fritter money away. In essence, there's no trust to do things right, and therefore no credit in situations where it can do something reasonably effectively, like SCHIP. So there you are, totally screwed again.
 
Last email from Fuente & Newman said the CCA along with RTDA and lobbyist are trying to get a compromise on the tax increase.

The tax is going to go up, just how much is yet to be determined. The CCA is working on an increase of 7-8 cents. Somewhere up in the neighborhood of 12-12.5 cents per.
 
Suffice to say, the same flawed bill that has been vetoed twice will be ready to be signed very early in the new administration. It will be hailed as one of the shining points of the first 100 days.

Anything else I have to say about this legislation is likely to get me in a lot of trouble under the "no politics" rules.

Yup...Obama said he would sign it if it came across his desk! :(
 
Top