Given Matthew’s
crazy schedule as he builds his Health 2.0 empire, a brief note on the
resounding defeat of the Oregon initiative with tobacco tax money. What this means for the debate in Washington is uncertain. Pundits on the left and right seem to think that it will have little effect on the SCHIP debate—few, if any, democrats or republicans will likely
change course. But you cannot argue with this — from youtube:
6 Responses for “SCHIP: Care Enough to Smoke? by Eric Novack”
Leave a Reply
THCB ADS
FEATURED
The Supreme Court Challenge Will the Supreme Court overturn the Obama Administration's attempt to reshape the health care industry? THCB's experts address this question and many others around the political fight in Washington over the future of health care. |
Doctor Versus DoctorBy Jim deMaine I felt sad when I went to make rounds in the hospital. One of my patients, a colleague, had been readmitted in poor condition for recurrence of a primary lung sarcoma. I spent a few minutes examining Dennis and chatting. He then, with a quizzical look, said, “Jim, I’m going to have...
What if We Regulated Legal Services Like Health Care?By John R. Graham Well, the future of American health care is now controlled by lawyers. That may not be news – doctors, drug makers, and medical-device makers have long complained about the cost of lawsuits. But this different: The future of PPACA is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Hundreds of lawyers billed...
How Obama Botched and Bungled the Health Reform MessageBy Michael L. Millenson While it’s comforting to just blame the GOP for the unhappiness with health reform threatening the president’s re-election, the truth is that Barack Obama repeatedly botched, bungled and bobbled the health reform message. There were three big mistakes: The Passionless Play While Candidate Obama proclaimed a passionate moral commitment to fix...
TEDMED 2012 1,500 delegates from the worlds of technology, medicine and science gathered in Washington DC this month. Our coverage from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. |
FEATURED BLOGGERS
Washington Stuck Fighting Wrong Health-Care BattleBy Peter R. Orszag While Washington wonks continue to bicker over health policy, positive change is occurring outside the Beltway. Last week, the Altarum Institute, a research organization based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, reported that the moderation in the growth of health-care costs we have seen over the past few years is continuing: Total health...
Is the Fact that I Am a Woman Considered a Pre-Existing Condition?By Maggie Mahar The male body has long been considered the “standard” for health care coverage. Having a woman’s body is seen as an expensive anomaly, and women pay dearly for being different. When they buy their own health insurance in the individual market, women must lay out an extra $1 billion a year, simply...
Crossing the LineBy James Salwitz, MD Recently a patient with advanced lung cancer was admitted to a local hospital. Pain in his abdomen was diagnosed as a gallbladder infection. Because he had metastatic cancer, in addition to the new problem, the patient and family decided that if things deteriorated he should not be given CPR or put...
Is There a Republican Alternative to ObamaCare?“GOP to the Uninsured: (Feel Free to) Drop Dead.” So reads the title Michael Millenson post at the Health Care Blog yesterday. It gets worse: [N]o Republican presidential candidate has ever presented a serious plan to cover all the uninsured … The difference between Democrats and this generation of Republicans — unfortunately including even the...
A Safety Checklist for PatientsFar too many patients are harmed rather than helped from their interactions with the health care system. While reducing this harm has proven to be devilishly difficult, we have found that checklists help. Checklists help to reduce ambiguity about what to do, to prioritize what is most important, and to clarify the behaviors that are...
Digital DietIt’s been said that losing weight is much harder than kicking cigarettes or alcohol. After all, because one doesn’t need to smoke or drink, the offending substances can simply be kept out of sight (if not out of mind). Dieting, on the other hands, involves changing the way a person does something we all must...
@thcbstaff Twitter Feed
- A close look at the NFP: The Power of Nursing @nytopinion http://t.co/5DXgALNA
(about 1 hour ago) - Patients 'waiting up to nine years' for NICE to approve drugs...http://tgr.ph/JSR3l4 @telegraph
(about 1 hour ago) - We'll start featuring more great content like @Atul_Gawande's recent TED Talk on our FB, so check us out --->http://t.co/9w34GKoC
(about 1 hour ago) - Protect Those Most Vulnerable to Diabetes...great op-ed from the Houston Chronicle http://t.co/giFKqfUh @houstonchronicle
(about 18 hours ago) - Pills Still Matter http://t.co/W1B81mOM
(about 19 hours ago)
Oh, I can argue with it.
The function of a sin tax is not to have more sin, but less, and to use as a mechanism something which is a net gain rather than a net drain on state government.
If this ad were right, you could just as well say that a liquor tax means that the state needs people to drink more. That’s nonsense. If the tax is successful in bringing down drinking, the state can turn to another source of funding to make up any difference needed.
Here’s another way of seeing how silly this ad is: if taxing things that are bad for you is bad because it means the state (or your neighbors) will encourage you to do more of it, then taxing things that are good for you is a good idea, because the state will then encourage you to do more of it. So let’s raise taxes on fresh vegetables and walks in the park! That ought to increase, er, no.
Of course, the impact of the smoking tax will be modest in terms of reducing smoking, as all sin taxes are. A few tens of thousands may quit who wouldn’t otherwise. That’s good for them, but not enough to seriously undermine the tax as a source of revenue. You can also build these projections into your financial models to reduce the element of surprise.
Also, from the point of view of the overall economy, do we even know whether the net impact of taxing things like smoking and drinking is positive or negative? Maybe those quitters become more productive workers (presenteeism will go down when they don’t have to take so many smoke breaks), and thus contribute more to the economy. Maybe they even contribute more taxable income to the economy than is lost by no longer smoking.
Did the people who made that ad even bother to look into such things? I would guess not, because it seems that what motivates them is an anti-tax agenda, not an anti-smoking agenda or a desire to find a stable source of funding for S-CHIP.
This ad is 10% clever and 90% dishonest.
Wow Eric, aligning yourself with the Tobacco Industry to get out the truth – now that’s credible. We all know how honest and ethical big tobacco is and how concerned they are with truth and the health of Americans.
So Eric, how would you fund SCHIP? But wait, didn’t you say you’re not in favor of SCHIP no matter how it is funded.
So were Oregonians voting for cheap cigarettes, a broader funding of SCHIP or no to SCHIP?
Read this on SCHIP and see who’s distorting (at best) the facts:
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/OPINION01/710180413/1068/OPINION
I have to point out the beautiful irony of government pushing for people to stop smoking and then suggesting that the way to fund what may be a critical health care component is to tax smoking. This ad, regardless the bias of the producer, makes a spot on point.
Mike, I think the proposal to tax smoking and not look to more broad based funding shows more political spinelessness than irony. It’s more of, “lets don’t tax you and don’t tax me, lets tax that man behind that tree”. As I’ve said before, Americans really do like taxes, they just like other peoples taxes. I have no problem taxing smokers, but using smoking to fund SCHIP may mean, if successful, the funding source will be a diminishing one. Maybe we should tax bullets to fund SCHIP, that way the funding is an escalating one with no end in site. Can you hear the NRA’s ad, “Go out and kill someone, it’s for the kids.”
Taxing behaviors you want to reduce, and reducing taxes on behaviors you want to increase is a proven method to change behavior through policy. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. To suggest most Americans don’t grasp the concept of diminishing returns on such policies infantilizes your audience.
Eric and Mike, not to mention the makers of this video, need lessons in how to win friends and influence people.
“Eric and Mike, not to mention the makers of this video, need lessons in how to win friends and influence people.”
No, they don’t. They won.