Lance Armstrong Endorses Healthy Kids Plan/Measure 50

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/09/lance-armstrong.html

also, here's the original piece in the Tribune...

http://portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=119093138628653200

Thanks, Lance! We really need help from people like you on this one!

Measure 50 is a bad idea...
"Its for the children!", no, it isnt, its for the health care industry on the backs of the dumbasses that smoke.
When 54 percent of every dollar collected under this tax is spent directly on administration, kinda tells you something.

Anything that makes Big Tobacco dip into its deep wallets to fight it out with Big Insurance is fine by me. If it ends up insuring 100000 kids who don't currently have health care, so much the better. The fact that the tobacco industry and their allies the mini-marts are paying so damn much just to avoid the tax indicates that they think it'll reduce demand enough to seriously cut in to the profits -- in other words, people will smoke less as a result. I'm looking forward to this one.

as that industry that stands to benefit the most from regressive taxes like measure 50.
Remember when the lottery was going to save our schools? This is nothing more than more of the same.
I have no dog in the fight, I could care less who smokes and who doesnt but I do not like the liars hiding behind "the children" once again.
Oregon has been over run with taxes, fee's and permits. Used to be California held the record but I think we are a close second at this point...soon, we will need a permit to shake a stick.
No where in your reply do you refute where the money is going.
I do not wonder why.
Portland will see the bulk of the largess, it not only has "the children" but has become a regional health center...
Communities such as mine will see very little if any of these "for the children" funds...

And btw, DU isnt the 3rd grade, ok "RJ"?

And no general practice docs and nurse practitioners outside of Portland?

Oh, and Oregon's tax burden is quite mild.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/335.html

Wake up.

> You may be in the health care industry
Nope, wish I were, cos my family might have decent insurance then.

> (the health care) industry that stands to benefit the most from regressive taxes like measure 50.
Classic anti-50 talking point, but apparently Oregonians aren't very concerned about regressivity in our tax code. We've supported regressive taxes and dedicated corporate loopholes for decades now, favoring various industries in turn. Personally, I'd prefer a more progressive income tax that would enable the state to drive health care subsidies from the general fund, but the last time we had a ballot measure to re-balance the income tax burden progressively, it went down in flames. :shrug: No problem, next time maybe we can do something progressive instead.

Meanwhile, looking at the primary sponsors of the very well-funded anti-50 campaign, increasing the tobacco tax has a good chance of significantly decreasing tobacco demand, which will in turn decrease the take for the health insurance industry in the long run.

> No where in your reply do you refute where the money is going.
Why should I bother to rebut an administrative cost figure that wasn't even sourced? Cite where you get your numbers, maybe you'll be able to make your point effectively enough for it to be refuted.

> Oregon has been over run with taxes, fee's and permits.
The more I read from you, the more I'm thinking you do have a "dog in the fight", enough so to engage in a hefty bit of dialog. Are you one of Sizemore's anti-tax goons? Don McIntyre himself, perhaps?

Oregon's revenue stream has been devastated by moronic ballot measures that limit the ability of the tax base to adjust with the needs of the state. You're right about one thing, though, we have more use fees and higher permit costs now, because charging at point of use makes up some of the revenue difference of what used to be balanced on property taxes. Anyway, this is an expansion of an existing body of tobacco tax that pretty much lines Oregon's tobacco tax up with Washington's; it's hardly an "over run" of taxation.

> soon, we will need a permit to shake a stick.
And if we ever have to vote on authorizing a stick-shaking permit, I'm confident it'll lose. The stick-shaking industry is a pretty tough opponent in these parts.

> Portland will see the bulk of the largess, it not only has "the children" but has become a regional health center...
How is this a reason to oppose? There's a lot of good that'll come of this when it passes, and the primary benefits aren't limited to the Portland metro area. Kids who had no insurance anywhere in the state will be able to get regular care. And, with a larger population base supporting more smokers, Portland will also provide a lopsided share of the revenue, as usual.

So your community doesn't get as big a share of this program as Portland? No prob, I'm sure there's plenty of other state-sponsored bennies where your community gets a higher per-cap, courtesy of Portland's tax base.

> And btw, DU isnt the 3rd grade, ok "RJ"?
So now you presume to tell me what DU isn't? Frankly I've seen 3rd grade classes that look pretty civilized compared to a lot of what goes on at DU, so again, no sale.

That "people will smoke less as a result" really worked well in 2002, din't it?

I and my smoker friends will keep doing what we did back then - buy our ciggs elsewhere.

Btw, where did all of the revenue for that tax go? It certainly din't make it to the south coast.


When I got an email from former Governor John Kitzhaber saying that although Measure 50 was a sucky bill, we should vote for it any way, I decided I was not going to vote for a sucky bill.

Think about it for a minute. If what you believe is true, that additional tariffs don't reduce demand for a common product, why would RJR and PM be spending tens of millions to oppose a bill that won't affect their bottom line?

The mechanism is quite clear, from what you yourself wrote. The people who are already dedicated heavy smokers are going to find a way to bypass the tax through planning. You won't buy your tobacco at that price, you'll go elsewhere, maybe CA or NV (not sure which one has the lower prices) or maybe some online store and presumably buy in bulk. So who isn't going to smoke as much? The light smokers, people who don't want 10 cartons of cigarettes to last through the next four months, but prefer to pop down to the nearest convenience store and grab a pack every couple days. The most obvious targets for use reduction are young people, probably under 25, who probably haven't been smoking more than 5 years and would rather use what disposable income they have in a variety of ways that don't include long-term tobacco investment.

Next you can tell me why having a financial disincentive to casual smoking by young people is a bad thing. :shrug:

The obvious problem with funding the children's health program is that the better a dedicated tobacco tax works at discouraging smoking, the less revenue it brings to fund the program. Eventually, the payouts will have to come at least partly from the general fund. Perhaps by that time people will have warmed up to the idea of a progressive income tax that includes corporations. Or the problems of accessible health care might be adequately addressed at the federal level -- it could happen.

that "light smokers" will fund children's health program? That doesn't make sense.

Btw, most online cigg sellers do not allow 10 cartons /purchase. (They do not want re-sellers.)

Whether M50 passes or not, the children's health program will be way under funded.

I see you bought the propaganda. No one in the health care industry is going to make jack on this. Get a clue.

"get a clue"..."you bought the propaganda"...

Im still waiting for one of you school kids to explain to all of us why 54 cents of every dollar collected....doesnt get to "the children".

And "the other states do it too" regarding our tax liabilities...do other states attach sin taxes to the Constitution?

And its obvious, this tax will not affect you so you could really care less, except for the children of course and the health care industry in Portland.

And when the day comes when a new boogeyman tax that does affect you, will you be the first to howl?
And if .8f cents a pack (for a total tax of 2.02 a pack) is good now, why not just make it a buck? Or three?...nothing like basing an entitlement on a tax base that the new tax is design to shrink. That way, when the higher tobacco tax leads to less smokers, we can find new taxes to replace them...somewhere. Very slippery slope.

Big tobacco wont feel this, the smokers may care enough to have a few of them quit. The kids will either start smoking or they wont but I do not think having Oregon becoming a nanny state is going to help. Especially through regressive taxes that are designed to hit the stupid in the first place.

We have OHP (state), we have CHIP (fed), we have three state sponsored "quit tobacco" programs now, we need more but this time, on the backs of the smokers?

Of course, OHP had all the money it needed until...
"... According to the Oregonian, most business and political leaders agree that the state's health care system is "ailing" and costs are becoming "unsustainable." Former Gov. John Kitzhaber (D), the Oregon Business Council and leaders of a Senate committee on health care have called for more comprehensive reforms..." ...it didnt.

And in two years, it will again be "ailing and unsustainable".
Then what? OOOH! OOOH! I know! More taxes! Because other states have higher taxes than we do! So its all good!
The health care industry is the problem, runaway costs are the problem.
Now, throwing money at the problem is the problem.
More taxes are not the answer unless you like being like other states (but in that case, I suggest you move).

I hear California is pretty nice this time of year.

You are offering nothing but generalizations, without an ounce of context or even numbers, for that matter. Every doc in this state who takes OHP kids takes a loss in income, and the same will be for the new plan. They don't even cover overhead. It's time to stop ranting and raving about nothing. This is a difficult solution to a difficult problem.

As I posted above, our taxes are quite low compared to most states. It's easy to expend adolescent energy whining about taxes, but adults actually look at the facts.

by "taking in ohp kids.."
WTF? Then why are you pushing for a regressive tax? Do you want to put these docs out of business?
Why, they cant even make their overhead! EEsshh! Poor docs, whatever will they do when there is even more children and more money thrown their way?

Want to talk numbers? Your posts show none, in fact, you have refuted nothing of what I posted, Nothing. Not one statement.
Facts are like that, very hard to deny the truth.

Welcome to ignore.

So you are incapable of discussion? And then you put people on ignore? That's funny.

You made the claims that the health industry was going to get rich on M50. I didn't. So let's see the numbers that prove your point.

Trillium just had to lay off 20 percent of its staff because it is underfunded. That is the norm for agencies serving the state. Yet, you seem to believe that they are getting rich. What gives you that idea?

Oh, and how about a response regarding your false assertion about Oregon's "high taxes"? Why so silent about that?

I'm getting the idea that 3rd grade was an especially difficult time for here_is_to_hope.

Cheers!