A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 19th 07, 06:21 PM posted to or.politics,alt.smokers,alt.support.cancer,misc.kids.health
Sin Nombre
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

J wrote:
Sin Nombre wrote:

I also enjoy music, reading, spectator sports, not procreation sex and
video games. What do those do for me? Are they also stupid?


Yes. get out and get some fresh air and cardiac exercise.


You are, of course, making the mistaken assumption that those are the
only activities I engage in. They are not. However, I used those
particular ones to make a point, which was lost on you.

As to those activities, which you claimed were stupid, what makes them
stupid? Are they stupid because you don't enjoy them?

As to the cardio and fresh air, while I appreciate your concern, let me
put your mind at ease; I get plenty of both, so please don't lose any
sleep over it on my account. I'm doing fine, thank you.


  #22  
Old August 20th 07, 08:41 PM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,alt.support.cancer,misc.kids.health
Wesee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

On Aug 18, 6:30 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:
~

News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 18, 2007

Big tobacco will spend big money trying to persuade Oregon voters to
reject a cigarette tax increase this fall that would insure more needy
children in what looms as one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns
in state history.

Cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed papers Friday with
the state Elections Division to form the "Oregonians Against the Blank
Check" committee opposing Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot. Philip Morris
USA, which makes Marlboro products, also registered its "Stop the
Measure 50 Tax Hike" campaign.

Last year, tobacco companies spent roughly $100 million to fight
cigarette tax increases and smoking bans on ballots in several states,
according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of
Southern California. They failed to defeat tax increases in South Dakota
and Arizona but succeeded in Missouri and California. Tobacco companies
spent $65 million in California alone, said Cathy Kaufmann, policy
director for the nonprofit Children First of Oregon, which is part of
the coalition backing the measure.

"They're going to bring a lot of money to the state, and they're going
to try to make this vote go their way," Kaufmann said, "but we're pretty
confident Oregonians aren't going to be fooled."

Measure 50 would amend the state constitution to increase cigarette
taxes by 84.5 cents a pack, raising an estimated $153 million for the
current two-year budget and $233 million for 2009-11, most of it to
provide health care for more than 100,000 Oregon children. Democrats who
control both arms of the Legislature couldn't muster the votes to pass a
straight-up cigarette tax increase, but they had enough Republican
support to put the issue before voters.

Opponents call the proposal unsustainable, unfair to smokers and
inappropriate to put into the constitution. They say the law gives
legislators flexibility to spend as much as $68 million on other health
services.

"Our contention is that it's not so much about insuring kids as it is
about providing blank checks for various interest groups," said J.L.
Wilson, a spokesman for the R.J. Reynolds campaign.

"When you see the money doesn't go to healthy kids, perhaps it's not
appropriate to be saying it's a healthy kids measure."

Wilson said he expects his campaign to spend $3 million. "Of course," he
added, "we reserve the right to spend more."

Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris, wouldn't comment on campaign
strategy or how much the company plans to spend in Oregon.

Last week, a group of supporters calling itself the "Healthy Kids
Oregon" coalition said it had raised $700,000 in cash and commitments
from hospitals, nurses, unions and health groups.

Spending by cigarette makers could rival or top that of Liberty
Northwest, the workers' insurance company that spent a record $5.6
million in 2004 on a ballot measure to get rid of rival Saif Corp. That
same year, doctors and others in the health care industry spent $5.2
million trying to limit medical malpractice awards.

Last fall, insurance companies ponied up $5 million to successfully
fight a ballot measure that would have banned the use of credit scores
in setting insurance rates.

~


I agree will all the detail about how the government and/or church
must protect us from the terrors of advertisement and what they are
pushing on us helpless dumb ones. But, in keeping with the this idea
of total protection from the evils of life lets also insist on the
limiting or stopping of the evil sugar and all its products. Look what
they have done to us all. Then there is fat and all the products we
eat every day with that evil useless product in it. We the helpless
dumb public really need those, who know all, to run the suppliers of
all these and even more evils out of out life. We need keepers and it
seems we have them, don't we fellow animals.

  #23  
Old August 23rd 07, 07:25 PM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,alt.support.cancer,misc.kids.health
JSM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

On Aug 18, 5:17 pm, wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:34 pm, MEG wrote:

On Aug 18, 12:28 pm, wrote:


On Aug 18, 1:31 pm, MEG wrote:


On Aug 18, 7:11 am, wrote:


On Aug 18, 9:30 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:


~


News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 18, 2007


Big tobacco will spend big money trying to persuade Oregon voters to
reject a cigarette tax increase this fall that would insure more needy
children in what looms as one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns
in state history.


Cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed papers Friday with
the state Elections Division to form the "Oregonians Against the Blank
Check" committee opposing Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot. Philip Morris
USA, which makes Marlboro products, also registered its "Stop the
Measure 50 Tax Hike" campaign.


Last year, tobacco companies spent roughly $100 million to fight
cigarette tax increases and smoking bans on ballots in several states,
according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of
Southern California. They failed to defeat tax increases in South Dakota
and Arizona but succeeded in Missouri and California. Tobacco companies
spent $65 million in California alone, said Cathy Kaufmann, policy
director for the nonprofit Children First of Oregon, which is part of
the coalition backing the measure.


"They're going to bring a lot of money to the state, and they're going
to try to make this vote go their way," Kaufmann said, "but we're pretty
confident Oregonians aren't going to be fooled."


Measure 50 would amend the state constitution to increase cigarette
taxes by 84.5 cents a pack, raising an estimated $153 million for the
current two-year budget and $233 million for 2009-11, most of it to
provide health care for more than 100,000 Oregon children. Democrats who
control both arms of the Legislature couldn't muster the votes to pass a
straight-up cigarette tax increase, but they had enough Republican
support to put the issue before voters.


Opponents call the proposal unsustainable, unfair to smokers and
inappropriate to put into the constitution. They say the law gives
legislators flexibility to spend as much as $68 million on other health
services.


"Our contention is that it's not so much about insuring kids as it is
about providing blank checks for various interest groups," said J.L.
Wilson, a spokesman for the R.J. Reynolds campaign.


"When you see the money doesn't go to healthy kids, perhaps it's not
appropriate to be saying it's a healthy kids measure."


Wilson said he expects his campaign to spend $3 million. "Of course," he
added, "we reserve the right to spend more."


Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris, wouldn't comment on campaign
strategy or how much the company plans to spend in Oregon.


Last week, a group of supporters calling itself the "Healthy Kids
Oregon" coalition said it had raised $700,000 in cash and commitments
from hospitals, nurses, unions and health groups.


(Why Sure ! They want job protection guarantees.)
through taxation laws.


Spending by cigarette makers could rival or top that of Liberty
Northwest, the workers' insurance company that spent a record $5.6
million in 2004 on a ballot measure to get rid of rival Saif Corp. That
same year, doctors and others in the health care industry spent $5.2
million trying to limit medical malpractice awards.


Last fall, insurance companies ponied up $5 million to successfully
fight a ballot measure that would have banned the use of credit scores
in setting insurance rates.


~


Using credit scores to set rate's only make sense to idiots.
Check with your company's...If they do that cancel them.. period.


Your paying habits have no reflection on driving ability,
homeownership
or health. A poorer statistic to use is wheather you brush your teeth
/ or not.


As a good measure you should change insurance companies every other
year.
Let them know they have to earn your business./ or out they go!


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...25/buy_cigaret...


Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, July 25, 2007


Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a
great
idea:
Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you
get
beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion
of the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase
in the
federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.
As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor
person's
spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her
income
than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes
highly
regressive.


A smoker stubs out his cigarette in an ashtray outside an office in
Brussels
January 30, 2007. Four European Union countries, including Belgium,
have
already banned smoking in pubs and restaurants as European Health and
Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou unveils his Green
Paper on
tobacco. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir (BELGIUM)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Swedes Get a Nicotine Kick From 'Snus'
VIDEO: Stop Smoking with "Cues"
According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for
a
$35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from
39
cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no
other
federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The
foundation's
Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette
tax hike
on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier
than it
would be if the government raised the money with the federal income
tax."
Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should
bear a
disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a
disproportionate
share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as
Harvard
economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves
taxpayers
money.
Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not
consume as
much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as
nonsmokers
do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New
England
Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go
up,
not down, if everyone stopped smoking.
Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994
report
from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes
in
all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably
could be
attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state
and
federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an
increase of
more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price
hike
needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the
states.
Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people
paying
for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from
it. The
current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP,
currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent.

  #24  
Old August 25th 07, 01:31 AM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,misc.kids.health
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

On Aug 23, 2:25 pm, JSM wrote:
On Aug 18, 5:17 pm, wrote:

On Aug 18, 4:34 pm, MEG wrote:


On Aug 18, 12:28 pm, wrote:


On Aug 18, 1:31 pm, MEG wrote:


On Aug 18, 7:11 am, wrote:


On Aug 18, 9:30 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:


~


News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 18, 2007


Big tobacco will spend big money trying to persuade Oregon voters to
reject a cigarette tax increase this fall that would insure more needy
children in what looms as one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns
in state history.


Cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed papers Friday with
the state Elections Division to form the "Oregonians Against the Blank
Check" committee opposing Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot. Philip Morris
USA, which makes Marlboro products, also registered its "Stop the
Measure 50 Tax Hike" campaign.


Last year, tobacco companies spent roughly $100 million to fight
cigarette tax increases and smoking bans on ballots in several states,
according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of
Southern California. They failed to defeat tax increases in South Dakota
and Arizona but succeeded in Missouri and California. Tobacco companies
spent $65 million in California alone, said Cathy Kaufmann, policy
director for the nonprofit Children First of Oregon, which is part of
the coalition backing the measure.


"They're going to bring a lot of money to the state, and they're going
to try to make this vote go their way," Kaufmann said, "but we're pretty
confident Oregonians aren't going to be fooled."


Measure 50 would amend the state constitution to increase cigarette
taxes by 84.5 cents a pack, raising an estimated $153 million for the
current two-year budget and $233 million for 2009-11, most of it to
provide health care for more than 100,000 Oregon children. Democrats who
control both arms of the Legislature couldn't muster the votes to pass a
straight-up cigarette tax increase, but they had enough Republican
support to put the issue before voters.


Opponents call the proposal unsustainable, unfair to smokers and
inappropriate to put into the constitution. They say the law gives
legislators flexibility to spend as much as $68 million on other health
services.


"Our contention is that it's not so much about insuring kids as it is
about providing blank checks for various interest groups," said J.L.
Wilson, a spokesman for the R.J. Reynolds campaign.


"When you see the money doesn't go to healthy kids, perhaps it's not
appropriate to be saying it's a healthy kids measure."


Wilson said he expects his campaign to spend $3 million. "Of course," he
added, "we reserve the right to spend more."


Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris, wouldn't comment on campaign
strategy or how much the company plans to spend in Oregon.


Last week, a group of supporters calling itself the "Healthy Kids
Oregon" coalition said it had raised $700,000 in cash and commitments
from hospitals, nurses, unions and health groups.


(Why Sure ! They want job protection guarantees.)
through taxation laws.


Spending by cigarette makers could rival or top that of Liberty
Northwest, the workers' insurance company that spent a record $5.6
million in 2004 on a ballot measure to get rid of rival Saif Corp. That
same year, doctors and others in the health care industry spent $5.2
million trying to limit medical malpractice awards.


Last fall, insurance companies ponied up $5 million to successfully
fight a ballot measure that would have banned the use of credit scores
in setting insurance rates.


~


Using credit scores to set rate's only make sense to idiots.
Check with your company's...If they do that cancel them.. period.


Your paying habits have no reflection on driving ability,
homeownership
or health. A poorer statistic to use is wheather you brush your teeth
/ or not.


As a good measure you should change insurance companies every other
year.
Let them know they have to earn your business./ or out they go!


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...25/buy_cigaret...


Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, July 25, 2007


Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a
great
idea:
Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you
get
beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion
of the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase
in the
federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.
As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor
person's
spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her
income
than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes
highly
regressive.


A smoker stubs out his cigarette in an ashtray outside an office in
Brussels
January 30, 2007. Four European Union countries, including Belgium,
have
already banned smoking in pubs and restaurants as European Health and
Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou unveils his Green
Paper on
tobacco. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir (BELGIUM)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Swedes Get a Nicotine Kick From 'Snus'
VIDEO: Stop Smoking with "Cues"
According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for
a
$35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from
39
cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no
other
federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The
foundation's
Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette
tax hike
on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier
than it
would be if the government raised the money with the federal income
tax."
Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should
bear a
disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a
disproportionate
share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as
Harvard
economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves
taxpayers
money.
Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not
consume as
much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as
nonsmokers
do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New
England
Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go
up,
not down, if everyone stopped smoking.
Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994
report
from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes
in
all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably
could be
attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state
and
federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an
increase of
more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price
hike
needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the
states.
Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people
paying
for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from
it. The
current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP,
currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent.
Some
legislators prefer a limit of 400 percent, which comes out to $82,600
for a
family of four.
A decade ago, SCHIP's supporters sold the program as a way of
providing
health coverage to children whose parents could not afford it but were
not
quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now they are proposing
changes
that would make SCHIP resemble a middle-class entitlement.
President Bush is not the most credible opponent of a new federal
health
care entitlement, given his support for the exorbitant Medicare
prescription
drug benefit. But he is right to oppose SCHIP expansion and the tax
hike
that comes with it -- a burden that nonsmokers eventually will find
themselves bearing as the percentage of the population that smokes
continues
to dwindle (an explicit goal of higher cigarette taxes).
SCHIP expansion is especially worrisome in light of research by
economists
David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, who found that making publicly
funded
health care more broadly available tends to crowd out private
coverage,
encouraging people to decline employer-provided insurance or drop
coverage
of dependents. According to a 2007 paper co-authored by Gruber, "the
number
of privately insured falls by about 60 percent as much as the number
of
publicly insured rises."
This research suggests that much, if not most, of the money spent on
SCHIP
expansion would pay to cover children who already have insurance. That
does
not seem like a smart use of taxpayers' money, even if the taxpayers
are an
unpopular minority.


So up the tax ante's and the unborn already have special interest
rights
because the medical industry hates smokers ~ probably their # 1 source
of income
and give entitlements to themselfs in the form of insurance for those
who
can and don't pay.


Total Asshole Policy


So BoYa


So, big tobacco is spending millions to stop the tax increase saying
it is unfair Fighting against a tax increase when already tobacco
costs US citizens 50 (B) Billion every year in medical


...


read more »


Hey ass-hole, nicotine is a narcotic and quite possibly the most
addictive drug there is. ADDICT!


So MEG the ignorant asshole is back!
Got the proof that tobacco is a narcotic....


No..then you lose...you own me ten bucks.
Obviously you want to take me up on my offer.


Come back with the proof asshole...
Smart talk and sassy replies are all you' ve got.


Back up your big Ignorant mouth with proof.
Give us a link to the narcotics like I gave you.


20 bucks next tiem through without the link.
Or just scram and run with your tail between
your legs lil darling.


Maybe you can find an easy group to passify
your need to bull****...


Come back to reality MEG your too far gone.
What a stupid ass....


Betten_Mann beat you loser.


Hey, butt f**k, check outwww.ash.org. They do have the low down on
tobacco.





So your back again, mouthfull of horse**** and a link.
Does your link show that cigarettes are narcotics as you have
posted?

No~ you're a loser again!


This group is about puffing on tobacco.. got it?
Not bull**** and the anti tobacco's goals here.
They have their own sites...Go there..
Stay at ash dot org.

alt.support.cancer has posted that they don't want
your type of traffic so it has been removed.

If any other groups so request it will also be honored.




Here's what I read first.

http://tinyurl.com/2g9w4n

Then I read **** like this

http://tinyurl.com/23n63h

and figger out yer an asshole.

One opinionated SOB that like to drop a load
of **** and lies on a group just to to see your fingers type.

Your down 30 bucks now as again you return to the group with
a mouthfull of horse**** and no link to show tobacco is
narcotics or any other drug what so ever.


Now if you come back again, this post will follow you to every
group you post to.

And you'll be seen as the sasshole you are for the next year.

Wanna bet more now?
Want your DNS hooked to see?

Be Gone Troll !

Betten Mann

Read from the top again, then look at this you misinformed idiot.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...512/-1/LOCAL17

Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, who wrote the legislation
providing the greater Hoosier Healthwise coverage,
said she was troubled by some analyses that show
Indiana generating as much as $300 million under the
tobacco tax increase but only getting $60 million back in new
SCHIP funds.

Quite benificial ain't it?
Oregon, will be screwed next...
soon as the money rolls in....

I can't get no....satisfac tion....
I can't get no....satis faction....I can't get no....satisfaction....
I can't get no....satisfaction....
and I try, and I try , and I try~ a yai i i

  #25  
Old August 25th 07, 04:24 AM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,alt.support.cancer,misc.kids.health
lein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

On Aug 18, 10:31 am, MEG wrote:
On Aug 18, 7:11 am, wrote:



On Aug 18, 9:30 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:


~


News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 18, 2007


Big tobacco will spend big money trying to persuade Oregon voters to
reject a cigarette tax increase this fall that would insure more needy
children in what looms as one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns
in state history.


Cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed papers Friday with
the state Elections Division to form the "Oregonians Against the Blank
Check" committee opposing Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot. Philip Morris
USA, which makes Marlboro products, also registered its "Stop the
Measure 50 Tax Hike" campaign.


Last year, tobacco companies spent roughly $100 million to fight
cigarette tax increases and smoking bans on ballots in several states,
according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of
Southern California. They failed to defeat tax increases in South Dakota
and Arizona but succeeded in Missouri and California. Tobacco companies
spent $65 million in California alone, said Cathy Kaufmann, policy
director for the nonprofit Children First of Oregon, which is part of
the coalition backing the measure.


"They're going to bring a lot of money to the state, and they're going
to try to make this vote go their way," Kaufmann said, "but we're pretty
confident Oregonians aren't going to be fooled."


Measure 50 would amend the state constitution to increase cigarette
taxes by 84.5 cents a pack, raising an estimated $153 million for the
current two-year budget and $233 million for 2009-11, most of it to
provide health care for more than 100,000 Oregon children. Democrats who
control both arms of the Legislature couldn't muster the votes to pass a
straight-up cigarette tax increase, but they had enough Republican
support to put the issue before voters.


Opponents call the proposal unsustainable, unfair to smokers and
inappropriate to put into the constitution. They say the law gives
legislators flexibility to spend as much as $68 million on other health
services.


"Our contention is that it's not so much about insuring kids as it is
about providing blank checks for various interest groups," said J.L.
Wilson, a spokesman for the R.J. Reynolds campaign.


"When you see the money doesn't go to healthy kids, perhaps it's not
appropriate to be saying it's a healthy kids measure."


Wilson said he expects his campaign to spend $3 million. "Of course," he
added, "we reserve the right to spend more."


Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris, wouldn't comment on campaign
strategy or how much the company plans to spend in Oregon.


Last week, a group of supporters calling itself the "Healthy Kids
Oregon" coalition said it had raised $700,000 in cash and commitments
from hospitals, nurses, unions and health groups.


(Why Sure ! They want job protection guarantees.)
through taxation laws.


Spending by cigarette makers could rival or top that of Liberty
Northwest, the workers' insurance company that spent a record $5.6
million in 2004 on a ballot measure to get rid of rival Saif Corp. That
same year, doctors and others in the health care industry spent $5.2
million trying to limit medical malpractice awards.


Last fall, insurance companies ponied up $5 million to successfully
fight a ballot measure that would have banned the use of credit scores
in setting insurance rates.


~


Using credit scores to set rate's only make sense to idiots.
Check with your company's...If they do that cancel them.. period.


Your paying habits have no reflection on driving ability,
homeownership
or health. A poorer statistic to use is wheather you brush your teeth
/ or not.


As a good measure you should change insurance companies every other
year.
Let them know they have to earn your business./ or out they go!


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...25/buy_cigaret...


Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, July 25, 2007


Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a
great
idea:
Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you
get
beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion
of the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase
in the
federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.
As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor
person's
spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her
income
than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes
highly
regressive.


A smoker stubs out his cigarette in an ashtray outside an office in
Brussels
January 30, 2007. Four European Union countries, including Belgium,
have
already banned smoking in pubs and restaurants as European Health and
Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou unveils his Green
Paper on
tobacco. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir (BELGIUM)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Swedes Get a Nicotine Kick From 'Snus'
VIDEO: Stop Smoking with "Cues"
According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for
a
$35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from
39
cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no
other
federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The
foundation's
Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette
tax hike
on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier
than it
would be if the government raised the money with the federal income
tax."
Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should
bear a
disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a
disproportionate
share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as
Harvard
economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves
taxpayers
money.
Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not
consume as
much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as
nonsmokers
do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New
England
Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go
up,
not down, if everyone stopped smoking.
Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994
report
from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes
in
all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably
could be
attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state
and
federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an
increase of
more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price
hike
needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the
states.
Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people
paying
for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from
it. The
current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP,
currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent.
Some
legislators prefer a limit of 400 percent, which comes out to $82,600
for a
family of four.
A decade ago, SCHIP's supporters sold the program as a way of
providing
health coverage to children whose parents could not afford it but were
not
quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now they are proposing
changes
that would make SCHIP resemble a middle-class entitlement.
President Bush is not the most credible opponent of a new federal
health
care entitlement, given his support for the exorbitant Medicare
prescription
drug benefit. But he is right to oppose SCHIP expansion and the tax
hike
that comes with it -- a burden that nonsmokers eventually will find
themselves bearing as the percentage of the population that smokes
continues
to dwindle (an explicit goal of higher cigarette taxes).
SCHIP expansion is especially worrisome in light of research by
economists
David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, who found that making publicly
funded
health care more broadly available tends to crowd out private
coverage,
encouraging people to decline employer-provided insurance or drop
coverage
of dependents. According to a 2007 paper co-authored by Gruber, "the
number
of privately insured falls by about 60 percent as much as the number
of
publicly insured rises."
This research suggests that much, if not most, of the money spent on
SCHIP
expansion would pay to cover children who already have insurance. That
does
not seem like a smart use of taxpayers' money, even if the taxpayers
are an
unpopular minority.


So up the tax ante's and the unborn already have special interest
rights
because the medical industry hates smokers ~ probably their # 1 source
of income
and give entitlements to themselfs in the form of insurance for those
who
can and don't pay.


Total Asshole Policy


So BoYa


So, big tobacco is spending millions to stop the tax increase saying
it is unfair Fighting against a tax increase when already tobacco
costs US citizens 50 (B) Billion every year in medical bills (we are
in-effect, subsidizing big tobacco) not to mention that more people
die every day as a result of tobacco than the Iraq war times 10. The
mistake being made is not taxing enough. For tobacco to just break
even with the misery they cause it should be over $3 a pack tax.
Figure it out. Don't forget tobacco is a narcotic and people that
smoke are not just 'smokers' but are in fact ADDICTS! Phillip Morris
plans on spending 3 million to convince ...



And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by dying
earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.

  #26  
Old August 25th 07, 04:51 AM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,alt.support.cancer,misc.kids.health
Lobby Dosser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

lein wrote:


And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by dying
earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.


If a tax is needed for Kiddy Insurance, why not tax Happy Meals at McD's
and the equivalent at the rest of the suspects? Or maybe toys?
  #27  
Old August 25th 07, 05:01 AM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,alt.support.cancer,misc.kids.health
lein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

On Aug 24, 8:51 pm, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
lein wrote:

And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by dying
earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.


If a tax is needed for Kiddy Insurance, why not tax Happy Meals at McD's
and the equivalent at the rest of the suspects? Or maybe toys?


A sponge bob fair tax, I like it.

  #28  
Old August 25th 07, 06:28 AM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,alt.support.cancer,misc.kids.health
Bill Shatzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

lein wrote:

-snip-

And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by dying
earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.


You could pay for a ****load of years on social security for the costs
of treating one lung cancer case. Or one case of chronic emphysema.

Smokers may go earlier but they tend to go much more expensively. Any
savings on the social security side tend to get more than offset on the
Medicare side.

Peace and justice,


  #29  
Old August 25th 07, 07:54 AM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,alt.support.cancer,misc.kids.health
Lobby Dosser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

lein wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:51 pm, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
lein wrote:

And big tobacco/smokers are subsidizing your social security by
dying earlier and not collecting as much, if any, social security.


If a tax is needed for Kiddy Insurance, why not tax Happy Meals at
McD's and the equivalent at the rest of the suspects? Or maybe toys?


A sponge bob fair tax, I like it.



Hate to break this to you, but Sponge Bob and Square Pants are loaded
with toxins. Made in China you see. Folks won't be buying them for a
while
  #30  
Old August 25th 07, 05:11 PM posted to pdx.general,or.politics,alt.smokers,misc.kids.health
meg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Tobacco companies to fight tobacco tax increase measure

On Aug 24, 5:31 pm, wrote:
On Aug 23, 2:25 pm, JSM wrote:

On Aug 18, 5:17 pm, wrote:


On Aug 18, 4:34 pm, MEG wrote:


On Aug 18, 12:28 pm, wrote:


On Aug 18, 1:31 pm, MEG wrote:


On Aug 18, 7:11 am, wrote:


On Aug 18, 9:30 am, (Paul Berg) wrote:


~


News article from The (Portland) Oregonian - August 18, 2007


Big tobacco will spend big money trying to persuade Oregon voters to
reject a cigarette tax increase this fall that would insure more needy
children in what looms as one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns
in state history.


Cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed papers Friday with
the state Elections Division to form the "Oregonians Against the Blank
Check" committee opposing Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot. Philip Morris
USA, which makes Marlboro products, also registered its "Stop the
Measure 50 Tax Hike" campaign.


Last year, tobacco companies spent roughly $100 million to fight
cigarette tax increases and smoking bans on ballots in several states,
according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of
Southern California. They failed to defeat tax increases in South Dakota
and Arizona but succeeded in Missouri and California. Tobacco companies
spent $65 million in California alone, said Cathy Kaufmann, policy
director for the nonprofit Children First of Oregon, which is part of
the coalition backing the measure.


"They're going to bring a lot of money to the state, and they're going
to try to make this vote go their way," Kaufmann said, "but we're pretty
confident Oregonians aren't going to be fooled."


Measure 50 would amend the state constitution to increase cigarette
taxes by 84.5 cents a pack, raising an estimated $153 million for the
current two-year budget and $233 million for 2009-11, most of it to
provide health care for more than 100,000 Oregon children. Democrats who
control both arms of the Legislature couldn't muster the votes to pass a
straight-up cigarette tax increase, but they had enough Republican
support to put the issue before voters.


Opponents call the proposal unsustainable, unfair to smokers and
inappropriate to put into the constitution. They say the law gives
legislators flexibility to spend as much as $68 million on other health
services.


"Our contention is that it's not so much about insuring kids as it is
about providing blank checks for various interest groups," said J.L.
Wilson, a spokesman for the R.J. Reynolds campaign.


"When you see the money doesn't go to healthy kids, perhaps it's not
appropriate to be saying it's a healthy kids measure."


Wilson said he expects his campaign to spend $3 million. "Of course," he
added, "we reserve the right to spend more."


Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris, wouldn't comment on campaign
strategy or how much the company plans to spend in Oregon.


Last week, a group of supporters calling itself the "Healthy Kids
Oregon" coalition said it had raised $700,000 in cash and commitments
from hospitals, nurses, unions and health groups.


(Why Sure ! They want job protection guarantees.)
through taxation laws.


Spending by cigarette makers could rival or top that of Liberty
Northwest, the workers' insurance company that spent a record $5.6
million in 2004 on a ballot measure to get rid of rival Saif Corp. That
same year, doctors and others in the health care industry spent $5.2
million trying to limit medical malpractice awards.


Last fall, insurance companies ponied up $5 million to successfully
fight a ballot measure that would have banned the use of credit scores
in setting insurance rates.


~


Using credit scores to set rate's only make sense to idiots.
Check with your company's...If they do that cancel them.. period.


Your paying habits have no reflection on driving ability,
homeownership
or health. A poorer statistic to use is wheather you brush your teeth
/ or not.


As a good measure you should change insurance companies every other
year.
Let them know they have to earn your business./ or out they go!


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...25/buy_cigaret...


Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, July 25, 2007


Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a
great
idea:
Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you
get
beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion
of the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase
in the
federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.
As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor
person's
spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her
income
than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes
highly
regressive.


A smoker stubs out his cigarette in an ashtray outside an office in
Brussels
January 30, 2007. Four European Union countries, including Belgium,
have
already banned smoking in pubs and restaurants as European Health and
Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou unveils his Green
Paper on
tobacco. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir (BELGIUM)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Swedes Get a Nicotine Kick From 'Snus'
VIDEO: Stop Smoking with "Cues"
According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for
a
$35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from
39
cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no
other
federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The
foundation's
Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette
tax hike
on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier
than it
would be if the government raised the money with the federal income
tax."
Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should
bear a
disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a
disproportionate
share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as
Harvard
economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves
taxpayers
money.
Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not
consume as
much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as
nonsmokers
do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New
England
Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go
up,
not down, if everyone stopped smoking.
Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994
report
from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes
in
all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably
could be
attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state
and
federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an
increase of
more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price
hike
needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the
states.
Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people
paying
for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from
it. The
current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP,
currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent.
Some
legislators prefer a limit of 400 percent, which comes out to $82,600
for a
family of four.
A decade ago, SCHIP's supporters sold the program as a way of
providing
health coverage to children whose parents could not afford it but were
not
quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now they are proposing
changes
that would make SCHIP resemble a middle-class entitlement.
President Bush is not the most credible opponent of a new federal
health
care entitlement, given his support for the exorbitant Medicare
prescription
drug benefit. But he is right to oppose SCHIP expansion and the tax
hike
that comes with it -- a burden that nonsmokers eventually will find
themselves bearing as the percentage of the population that smokes
continues
to dwindle (an explicit goal of higher cigarette taxes).
SCHIP expansion is especially worrisome in light of research by
economists
David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, who found that making publicly
funded
health care more broadly available tends to crowd out private
coverage,
encouraging people to decline employer-provided insurance or drop
coverage
of dependents. According to a 2007 paper co-authored by Gruber, "the
number
of privately insured falls by about 60 percent as much as the number
of
publicly insured rises."
This research suggests that much, if not most, of the money spent on
SCHIP
expansion would pay to cover children who already have insurance. That
does
not seem like a smart use of taxpayers' money, even if the taxpayers
are an
unpopular minority.


So up the tax ante's and the unborn already have special interest
rights
because the medical industry hates smokers ~ probably their # 1 source
of income
and give entitlements to themselfs in the form of insurance for those
who
can and don't pay.


Total Asshole Policy


So BoYa


So, big tobacco is spending millions to stop the tax increase saying
it is unfair Fighting against a tax increase when already tobacco
costs US citizens 50 (B) Billion every year in medical


...


read more »


Hey ass-hole, nicotine is a narcotic and quite possibly the most
addictive drug there is. ADDICT!


So MEG the ignorant asshole is back!
Got the proof that tobacco is a narcotic....


No..then you lose...you own me ten bucks.
Obviously you want to take me up on my offer.


Come back with the proof asshole...
Smart talk and sassy replies are all you' ve got.


Back up your big Ignorant mouth with proof.
Give us a link to the narcotics like I gave you.


20 bucks next tiem through without the link.
Or just scram and run with your tail between
your legs lil darling.


Maybe you can find an easy group to passify
your need to bull****...


Come back to reality MEG your too far gone.
What a stupid ass....


Betten_Mann beat you loser.


Hey, butt f**k, check outwww.ash.org. They do have the low down on
tobacco.


So your back again, mouthfull of horse**** and a link.
Does your link show that cigarettes are narcotics as you have
posted?

No~ you're a loser again!

This group is about puffing on tobacco.. got it?
Not bull**** and the anti tobacco's goals here.
They have their own sites...Go there..
Stay at ash dot org.

alt.support.cancer has posted that they don't want
your type of traffic so it has been removed.

If any other groups so request it will also be honored.

Here's what I read first.

http://tinyurl.com/2g9w4n

Then I read **** like this

http://tinyurl.com/23n63h

and figger out yer an asshole.

One opinionated SOB that like to drop a load
of **** and lies on a group just to to see your fingers type.

Your down 30 bucks now as again you return to the group with
a mouthfull of horse**** and no link to show tobacco is
narcotics or any other drug what so ever.

Now if you come back again, this post will follow you to every
group you post to.

And you'll be seen as the sasshole you are for the next year.

Wanna bet more now?
Want your DNS hooked to see?

Be Gone Troll !

Betten Mann

Read from the top again, then look at this you misinformed idiot.http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0823/LOCAL/708...

Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, who wrote the legislation
providing the greater Hoosier Healthwise coverage,
said she was troubled by some analyses that show
Indiana generating as much as $300 million under the
tobacco tax increase but only getting $60 million back in new
SCHIP funds.

Quite benificial ain't it?
Oregon, will be screwed next...
soon as the money rolls in....

I can't get no....satisfac tion....
I can't get no....satis faction....I can't get no....satisfaction....
I can't get no....satisfaction....
and I try, and I try , and I try~ a yai i i


An extreme nicotine addict having a fit I see. You know you can boil
that stuff down and inject for a much bigger high. Of course than it
is illeagel but you are only after the narcotic effect anway, aren't
you.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY'S SECONDHAND SCIENCE Ilena Rose Kids Health 0 February 15th 06 06:44 PM
THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY'S SECONDHAND SCIENCE Ilena Rose Kids Health 1 February 15th 06 06:12 PM
How tobacco is worse than a mean teacher AA0II General 0 December 5th 05 05:01 AM
Pregnant smokers: Big Tobacco to help babies? Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 March 26th 04 10:12 PM
petition against tobacco Polaris2002 Kids Health 0 September 27th 03 09:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.