SCHIPS Oregon style

[Fern]

LINK

Contrary to assertions by some, it isn't that popular of a program. Oregon, a Blue State, defeated it yesterday.

(I'd still be for the fed version if properly modified, except for the tabacco tax part)

Oh, the other "love of the libs" and cure of all mankind's diseases - (embryonic) stem cell research failed in the Blue state of NJ.

We should get rid of Congress and have monthly or quarterly referendums. The people themselves, even when Blue staters, seem to make the right decision.

Fern

 

[techs]

Altria Group Inc. and Reynolds American Inc. poured about $12 million into two groups opposing it, far outpacing the previous record amount spent in opposition to a state ballot measure there. The companies targeted two measures in 2006 in California and Missouri, with $65 million and $5 million, respectively.

Not surprising that a lot of money could carry a very off-year election

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry fern, it is that popular. According to what I read the tobacco companies spent almost $25 in advertising for EACH vote they got towards defeating it. That is by any measure a truly colossal expenditure. I would say this says more about the influence of money on politics then anything else.

Also, if you read up on it apparently the negative advertising message was NOT against the children's health care, which is quite popular, but fears that the additional tax would be spent on things other then that health care. Even the tobacco companies know you can't come out against health care for kids.

And no, we shouldn't have referendums. That's like the ballot initiative measure we have here in California, and that thing is a catastrophe. All that happens is that wealthy companies/individuals place large numbers of confusingly worded proposals on the ballot and half the time people have no idea what they are or are not voting for. I do not see why replacing the irritating but few legislators with millions of people ignorant of the subject matter would be an improvement.

 

[XMan]

Taxing cigarettes to fund any program is nonsensical. They're becoming illegal to smoke in more and more places, and consumption of them is trending downward.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You're wrong. I'm from Oregon, I'm in favor of SCHIP and health care for children, and I think a tobacco tax is, while not the best way to fund it, a good start. I voted against this measure. Why? Because it was written as a constitutional amendment rather than statutory law. Many voters found themselves compelled to vote against Measure 50 simply because a tax law has no place as a constitutional amendment (I personally know that most people in my family and my friends all voted against this and every single one of them said that this was the reason).

 

[Narmer]

Fine, if you guys don't want to tax tabacco companies, then all smokers should be banned from getting state healthcare since they are clearly choosing to worsen their own health. But that would be bias and illegal. Hence we have to tax them. That only makes sense since we cannot ban them from the public trough.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Fine, if you guys don't want to tax tabacco companies, then all smokers should be banned from getting state healthcare since they are clearly choosing to worsen their own health. But that would be bias and illegal. Hence we have to tax them. That only makes sense since we cannot ban them from the public trough.

Then the same should go for anyone who eats unhealthy.

Obesity kills vastly more people than smoking.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Narmer
Fine, if you guys don't want to tax tabacco companies, then all smokers should be banned from getting state healthcare since they are clearly choosing to worsen their own health. But that would be bias and illegal. Hence we have to tax them. That only makes sense since we cannot ban them from the public trough.

Then the same should go for anyone who eats unhealthy.

Obesity kills vastly more people than smoking.

Then tax the damn thing. Taxation can be extremely efficient if applied smartly. I don't understand why people hate it so much. It's meant for the public, not politicians.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern
LINK

Contrary to assertions by some, it isn't that popular of a program. Oregon, a Blue State, defeated it yesterday.

(I'd still be for the fed version if properly modified, except for the tabacco tax part)

Oh, the other "love of the libs" and cure of all mankind's diseases - (embryonic) stem cell research failed in the Blue state of NJ.

We should get rid of Congress and have monthly or quarterly referendums. The people themselves, even when Blue staters, seem to make the right decision.

Fern

Is it humanly possible for you to post anything without those ridiculous "liberal" and "blue state" comments? Seriously, not everyone is the same zombie robot you are, everyone doesn't consult their party to figure out how to vote on things. Maybe a better discussion would focus on the MERITS of these particular measures, eh?

 

[Hacp]

Its movement conservatism at its best. The people behind it take even one doubt, one shred, one outlier and magnify it to no end in order to come to a phony conclusion.

 

[theeedude]

I certainly agree that SCHIP needs to be funded with higher income taxes, not tobacco taxes.
The extra burden on healthcare system from tobacco use needs to be funded with tobacco taxes.
But anyways, if Republicans think this is some sort of sign that voters are against children's healthcare, we'll just make 2008 a referendum on that and see if they are right

 

[RKDaley]

Arizona had that on the ballot last November. It was Proposition 203, 'First Things First for Arizona's Children', and increased the state tax on cigs by 80¢ to pay for preschool programs and health screenings for low income children up to 5 years.

It passed.

Years before, there was another program that funded health clinics (Tobacco Tax and Healthcare Act) based on revenue from taxing cigarettes so it was nothing new.

Arizona is considered a 'red' state.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Narmer
Fine, if you guys don't want to tax tabacco companies, then all smokers should be banned from getting state healthcare since they are clearly choosing to worsen their own health. But that would be bias and illegal. Hence we have to tax them. That only makes sense since we cannot ban them from the public trough.

Then the same should go for anyone who eats unhealthy.

Obesity kills vastly more people than smoking.

Then tax the damn thing. Taxation can be extremely efficient if applied smartly. I don't understand why people hate it so much. It's meant for the public, not politicians.

I'm curious, do you live in Oregon?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
You're wrong. I'm from Oregon, I'm in favor of SCHIP and health care for children, and I think a tobacco tax is, while not the best way to fund it, a good start. I voted against this measure. Why? Because it was written as a constitutional amendment rather than statutory law. Many voters found themselves compelled to vote against Measure 50 simply because a tax law has no place as a constitutional amendment (I personally know that most people in my family and my friends all voted against this and every single one of them said that this was the reason).

And that's pretty much the only reason why it failed. Relatively few people were concerned about any aspects other than the amendment status, had it been a law it likely would have passed.

Of course the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth, both because of how the Republicans tried to block this from being sent to the voters (which is why it was sent as an amendment and not a law) and because the tobacco companies spent such silly amounts of money here. The latter is going to be a bad precedent I fear, and it's always going to leave the question dangling in peoples' minds if it really is possible to buy votes on such issues.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
Altria Group Inc. and Reynolds American Inc. poured about $12 million into two groups opposing it, far outpacing the previous record amount spent in opposition to a state ballot measure there. The companies targeted two measures in 2006 in California and Missouri, with $65 million and $5 million, respectively.

Not surprising that a lot of money could carry a very off-year election

So you can get the Dems to vote against something they supposedly hold dear by just dropping some dough on it? Incredible.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Fine, if you guys don't want to tax tabacco companies, then all smokers should be banned from getting state healthcare since they are clearly choosing to worsen their own health. But that would be bias and illegal. Hence we have to tax them. That only makes sense since we cannot ban them from the public trough.

Smokers already pay a sh!t load of taxes, it's built into the price of a pack of smokes. Just use that for smokers health care since they're paying for it already.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
LINK

Contrary to assertions by some, it isn't that popular of a program. Oregon, a Blue State, defeated it yesterday.

(I'd still be for the fed version if properly modified, except for the tabacco tax part)

Oh, the other "love of the libs" and cure of all mankind's diseases - (embryonic) stem cell research failed in the Blue state of NJ.

We should get rid of Congress and have monthly or quarterly referendums. The people themselves, even when Blue staters, seem to make the right decision.

Fern

Is it humanly possible for you to post anything without those ridiculous "liberal" and "blue state" comments? Seriously, not everyone is the same zombie robot you are, everyone doesn't consult their party to figure out how to vote on things. Maybe a better discussion would focus on the MERITS of these particular measures, eh?

Is it possible for you post anything accurate?

I rarely rarely ever post about such.

This is mostly in response to the bazzillion posts around here by some foretelling the death of the Repub party for rejecting the fed SCHIP program.

And here we have a Blue stae doing the same thing. Yeah, that's why the Blue state thing is important.

Funny you guys wanna talk the merits here, but on the fed SCHIP nobody did. Like adults and higher income kids getting coverage, even when they already had employer provided coverage.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
LINK

Contrary to assertions by some, it isn't that popular of a program. Oregon, a Blue State, defeated it yesterday.

(I'd still be for the fed version if properly modified, except for the tabacco tax part)

Oh, the other "love of the libs" and cure of all mankind's diseases - (embryonic) stem cell research failed in the Blue state of NJ.

We should get rid of Congress and have monthly or quarterly referendums. The people themselves, even when Blue staters, seem to make the right decision.

Fern

Is it humanly possible for you to post anything without those ridiculous "liberal" and "blue state" comments? Seriously, not everyone is the same zombie robot you are, everyone doesn't consult their party to figure out how to vote on things. Maybe a better discussion would focus on the MERITS of these particular measures, eh?

Is it possible for you post anything accurate?

I rarely rarely ever post about such.

This is mostly in response to the bazzillion posts around here by some foretelling the death of the Repub party for rejecting the fed SCHIP program.

And here we have a Blue stae doing the same thing. Yeah, that's why the Blue state thing is important.

Funny you guys wanna talk the merits here, but on the fed SCHIP nobody did. Like adults and higher income kids getting coverage, even when they already had employer provided coverage.

Fern

How many Senators would have voted for SCHIP in ANY form if it was a Constitutional Amendment? Very few. You're doing an apples to oranges comparison here. This is exactly like those commercials that politicians love to run during election season that accuse their opponent of voting to raise taxes 500 times (or whatever unbelievably high number they can come up with). Without looking at why people voted a certain way, you're completely missing the point of the results. Mindlessly concluding that us blue staters hate children because we voted against a poorly constructed measure is dishonest.

I can say with near certainty that if this measure had been offered as a piece of statutory legislation rather than a constitutional amendment, it would have passed. So much of the rhetoric coming from the anti- side focused on the fact that it was an amendment to our constitution. Without that, it became just another cigarette tax to go towards children, which Oregonians have a history of passing handily.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
LINK

Contrary to assertions by some, it isn't that popular of a program. Oregon, a Blue State, defeated it yesterday.

(I'd still be for the fed version if properly modified, except for the tabacco tax part)

Oh, the other "love of the libs" and cure of all mankind's diseases - (embryonic) stem cell research failed in the Blue state of NJ.

We should get rid of Congress and have monthly or quarterly referendums. The people themselves, even when Blue staters, seem to make the right decision.

Fern

Is it humanly possible for you to post anything without those ridiculous "liberal" and "blue state" comments? Seriously, not everyone is the same zombie robot you are, everyone doesn't consult their party to figure out how to vote on things. Maybe a better discussion would focus on the MERITS of these particular measures, eh?

Is it possible for you post anything accurate?

I rarely rarely ever post about such.

This is mostly in response to the bazzillion posts around here by some foretelling the death of the Repub party for rejecting the fed SCHIP program.

And here we have a Blue stae doing the same thing. Yeah, that's why the Blue state thing is important.

Funny you guys wanna talk the merits here, but on the fed SCHIP nobody did. Like adults and higher income kids getting coverage, even when they already had employer provided coverage.

Fern

Fed SCHIP won't kill the Rep party, lack of diversity will. As the country grows and more immigrants come in, the large marjority haven't been, and won't be voting Rep. As the white boy majority club shrinks, so will it's intollerance, science-hating, pro-war and wealthy-coddling messages. And in the long run that's not a good thing cuz we need at least 2 viable parties. The Reps are gonna need to update.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Is it humanly possible for you to post anything without those ridiculous "liberal" and "blue state" comments? Seriously, not everyone is the same zombie robot you are, everyone doesn't consult their party to figure out how to vote on things. Maybe a better discussion would focus on the MERITS of these particular measures, eh?

Is it possible for you post anything accurate?

I rarely rarely ever post about such.

This is mostly in response to the bazzillion posts around here by some foretelling the death of the Repub party for rejecting the fed SCHIP program.

And here we have a Blue stae doing the same thing. Yeah, that's why the Blue state thing is important.

Funny you guys wanna talk the merits here, but on the fed SCHIP nobody did. Like adults and higher income kids getting coverage, even when they already had employer provided coverage.

Fern

Everyone talked the merits when the federal one was up, and they were overwhelmingly positive. In fact, I remember spending about 20 minutes gathering info and debunking a whole load of fallacious information from chain emails/right wing blogs that I'm pretty sure you posted about.

If this measure is so unpopular then why is Altria pouring more then $25 per VOTE that it got into the state? That level of spending is almost unheard of... and why in their attack ads did they not attack the program itself, but conjure up ideas that the money would be spent on things other then on children's health care? They obviously don't believe that such programs are unpopular or they would attack them on the program itself instead of diverting to other topics.

The Republican party isn't dying because of SCHIP in particular. Their domestic policy has never been popular. On almost every single major domestic issue they lose to the Democrats and often lose badly. They generally make it up because our government is a collection of individual races in which broad ideology is paired up with personal issues that Republicans are far better at identifying with voters at. The sole exception is (was! haha) national security, and it seems that their catastrophic wars of the last 6 years have cost them even that. THAT's why the Republicans are dying... SCHIP is just a small part.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: XMan
Taxing cigarettes to fund any program is nonsensical. They're becoming illegal to smoke in more and more places, and consumption of them is trending downward.

last three years its been flat, according to what was in the paper this morning.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
How many Senators would have voted for SCHIP in ANY form if it was a Constitutional Amendment?...-snip-

Oh puhleez.

That whole thing about it failing just because it was an amendment instead of a law is pile of BS.

5% of population doesn't know the difference or care. You guys act like Oregon is a state full of constitutional lawyers who understand the nuiances and technicalities of law.

Bull.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-

-snip-

Fern

The Republican party isn't dying because of SCHIP in particular. Their domestic policy has never been popular. On almost every single major domestic issue they lose to the Democrats and often lose badly.

Bwuhahahah, you wish

It isn't soley because of foreign policy that the Repub controlled parts of Congress or the Exec branch.

The Dems mostly manage to "buy" support with big give-away programs. Look at HRC so far this election cycle. Jebus, if what she's attempting ain't vote buying, nothing is.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-

-snip-

Fern

The Republican party isn't dying because of SCHIP in particular. Their domestic policy has never been popular. On almost every single major domestic issue they lose to the Democrats and often lose badly.

Bwuhahahah, you wish

It isn't soley because of foreign policy that the Repub controlled parts of Congress or the Exec branch.

The Dems mostly manage to "buy" support with big give-away programs. Look at HRC so far this election cycle. Jebus, if what she's attempting ain't vote buying, nothing is.

Fern

This coming from party that expanded Medicare by leaps and bounds in a failed effort to buy senior's votes and presided over the greatest expansion of government since LBJ.
At least Democrats are honest about their goals of growing government programs, GOP talks small government, but does big government when it has the power.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-

-snip-

Fern

The Republican party isn't dying because of SCHIP in particular. Their domestic policy has never been popular. On almost every single major domestic issue they lose to the Democrats and often lose badly.

Bwuhahahah, you wish

It isn't soley because of foreign policy that the Repub controlled parts of Congress or the Exec branch.

The Dems mostly manage to "buy" support with big give-away programs. Look at HRC so far this election cycle. Jebus, if what she's attempting ain't vote buying, nothing is.

Fern

Look at polling on most wedge issues such as abortion, health care, education, etc. You will see significant majorities for the democrats' position for most if not all. This makes them losing all the more pathetic, but it doesn't change reality.