Big Tobacco and the Vote for Oregon's Kids
By Chris Nicholson of Portland, Oregon. Chris is a Reed College student and the organizer of Oregon Healthcare for Kids - and is organizing a rally this Thursday at the capitol. (Details below.)
Karen Minnis is up to it again.
House Bill 3500, which would provide healthcare to the over 100,000 Oregon kids who are uninsured, is a bill Oregon legislators can't afford to vote against. It's a measure which, if it were put to the voters, would pass overwhelmingly because it does something most Oregonians agree is fundamentally right; HB 3500 provides healthcare for all of Oregon's kids.
But Speaker Minnis believes that just because something would pass, doesn't mean it should be voted on. In her view, if someone in power, her, for example, opposes a piece of legislation on the grounds that it's a tax increase, then hey, its perfectly fine to subvert the majority and prevent her colleagues from voting on it.
Never mind the fact that all she's really doing is preventing a vote by the people on the measure, as it would go to the people to be voted on were it ever considered and passed in the legislature. So no, Karen Minnis isn't just subverting the majority will of the Legislature, she's subverting the majority will of the people of Oregon. And all because Karen Minnis can't stomach letting the people vote on a tax increase.
Does anyone else think Minnis is just still stinging from Measure 30?
The fact is that this bill is very different from Measure 30; its a cigarette tax, and one which would go to paying for healthcare for kids. Cigarette taxes have been easier to pass in previous cases than normal tax increases, and children's healthcare is a very popular issue with the voters. Minnis knows this, and yet she's still not willing to let the bill be considered on the floor of the house.
Could it be that Karen Minnis has taken money from the tobacco industry in the last two election cycles for which data is available (2002 and 2000). Why, yes she has.
In the end, this issue isn't about Karen Minnis, or partisan squabbling, or contributions from tobacco companies. It's about the kid in fourth grade who can't read the board because he can't afford to get eye glasses. Or the pee-wee football player who always has to leave the game early because he can't afford the asthma inhaler he so badly needs. It's about the girl who always has the runny nose because her parents can't pay for the allergy medication or allergy shots which would make her feel better.
Finally, it's the four year old girl whose parents smoke cigarettes who will grow up with all kinds of health problems because of second hand smoke. These are kids who end up going to the emergency room and wasting taxpayer dollars because they can't get the preventative healthcare they need. And that's why this bill makes sense. Because it's cheaper to fix a small problem before it becomes a big one.
Chris Nicholson is a politically active Reed College student and the organizer of Oregon Healthcare for Kids, a group working to get a vote on House Bill 3500, which would provide healthcare for the over 100,000 Oregon kids who don't have it. Oregon Healthcare for Kids is holding a rally this Thursday on the capitol steps from 11 AM to 2 PM to protest Minnis' inaction. Speakers will be Senators Alan Bates and Vicki Walker, Representatives Jeff Merkley, Mitch Greenlick, and Billy Dalto, and Oregon College Republicans Chair John Swanson. Click here for more info and carpool information.
|
July 6, 2005 |
guest column
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Rorovitz | Jul 6, 2005 2:08:00 PM
Yeah, I think it's important to be clear about what the impacts of the legislation will be. That said I think it's a good idea to cover more kids, if not all, as it is a step forward.
Jon is correct that the insurance companies are ripping people off with no concern except the bottom line. But they aren't the only ones. Did you miss last week's post about Legacy Health System? A non-profit company that's making plenty of profit and paying it's CEO an obscene amount.
And they aren't even the worst one here in Oregon. Oh, and by the way, many of the companies screwing us are non-profit. That means we should be able to tell them what to do. These greedy bastards running these companies don't even have to pay taxes.
And people get pissed off at PGE?
Posted by: LG | Jul 6, 2005 3:07:20 PM
Actually John, you don't know what you're talking about. If you read HB 3500 , there is no cap on the children's program. Children in Oregon are covered by the Oregon Health Plan to 100% of the Federal Poverty Program. We have an expansion program called CHIP that extends coverage to 185% of FPL. This health plan sits on top of OHP and CHIP to extend coverage beyond that to all uninsured kids, regardless of income.
If you make below 185% of FPL, I encourage you to contact DHS to check your eligibility again. You may also be a candidate for the Family Health Insurance Access Program , which offers a subsidy for people who can't afford coverage.
Posted by: LT | Jul 6, 2005 3:18:49 PM
The House has gone home until Sunday and cynics think it is to miss major lobby days like this one and Stand for Children.
There is a quote in this SJ Update article from Billy Dalto being offended that anyone takes umbrage at per diem being paid while they are gone for 3 days.
http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050706/UPDATE/50706010
Which leads to the question: Is Dalto supporting HB 3500 because he truly believes in it, or like others he realized he had better disagree with House leadership on something?
And notice the Rep. Nolan remark at the bottom of the article. Wouldn't it be funny if the House members came back Sunday after time away from the Capitol and decided maybe they should buck the leadership because they heard the folks back home were not amused by all the stunts and partyline votes?
I am not predicting it will happen, just that it would be amusing if it did.
Posted by: LG | Jul 6, 2005 3:38:59 PM
Oops. Screwed up link to bill:
Read HB 3500 here
Posted by: LG | Jul 6, 2005 3:55:56 PM
The operative language comes in Section 2(4):
The department may require a child with an income greater than 100 percent of the federal poverty guidelines to pay a copayment or other similar cost-sharing based on the child's ability pay.>
Posted by: JTT | Jul 6, 2005 5:49:05 PM
As a smoker and a supporter of restoring the voter approved 10-cent tobacco tax, I have to ask one question. Why should we place the onus on one segment of society to pay for services and general social needs such as health care for children. We keep placing the tax burden on a smaller and more select segment of society. If health care for children is as important as people say it is (and as I believe it is), why just tax smokers? Why not tax all Oregonians?
Posted by: Christopher Nicholson | Jul 6, 2005 7:08:25 PM
As Senator Ben Westlund, who is speaking at the rally tomorrow, said in an article, "every pack smoked in Oregon comes with a hidden bill for more than $8 in lost productivity and unreimbursed medical costs resulting from tobacco use." So with taxes right now at $1.18 if i've got my figures right, raising the taxes by 60 cents would still leave us far short of where they would be economically fair.
Aside from that, my goal is simple. Healthcare for all kids. Its a fairly popular thing, but the problem has always been getting people to pay for it. And try as we might, every time someone has tried to get healthcare paid for out of the budget, it has failed. The reason this bill is important is that if it were voted on in the legislature, it would pass. If it were voted on in the senate, it would pass. If it were voted on by the voters, it would pass. So the reason i'm supporting this bill is simple; it gets the job done. And healthcare for kids now is much better than partisan fighting and no healthcare for the next two years, which, thanks to Karen Minnis, is what we'll have.
Posted by: Christopher Nicholson | Jul 6, 2005 7:10:42 PM
Just a correction to my earlier post. When I said legislature in the phrase " if it were voted on in the legislature, it would pass", I meant the house.
-Chris
Posted by: RUNuts | Jul 6, 2005 8:20:43 PM
Isn't there anybody who sees a problem with supporting schools with smoking? If not, why don't you propose supporting schools with alcohol funds?
Posted by: Jon | Jul 7, 2005 7:58:49 AM
RUNuts
Why not? Dont we already support education with gambling? Why shouldnt smoking and alcohol be next?
I know when I was at OIT in the 90s, they bragged about building the new Computer Sciences hall with lottery money.
Posted by: Good Ole' Shoe | Jul 8, 2005 12:25:26 PM
Would that be anything like the Governor's proposal to fund state police via (1) video poker receipts; (2) a car insurance premium tax?
Posted by: panchopdx | Jul 8, 2005 1:24:17 PM
maybe we could fund full day kindergarten classes with a tax on blog postings...
Posted by: Bruce Smith | Jul 12, 2005 10:04:34 AM
"every pack smoked in Oregon comes with a hidden bill for more than $8 in lost productivity and unreimbursed medical costs resulting from tobacco use."
This simply isn't true. Politicians pull these numbers out of thin air when it comes time to vote on a cigarette tax. Just a few months ago a Washington politician said a pack of cigarettes costs the government $12 in unreimbursed medical costs.
The "lost productivity" Westlund talks about is the smoker's problem, not the government's, so that brings it down to $4 per pack (that was Bill Westlund's figure for health costs). Beyond that, when other factors are accounted for, such as the shorter life span of a smoker, the net cost to the government is only about $0.30 (see the Manning study and a report for Congress by Jane Gravelle and Dennis Zimmerman). Almost 3 times that much is currently going into the OHP from cigarettes ($0.87 a pack).
When you talk about the 4-year old girl who's smoking parents are poisoning her with second hand smoke (a claim that is largely debatable), you're being hypocritical. You imply that mom and dad should quit smoking, but you don't really want that to happen. If everyone in Oregon quit smoking, the state would be left with a yearly $288 million shortfall-that means a lot of poor kids wouldn't be getting health care. Maybe that's why Oregon's tobacco prevention programs only recieve 16% of the funding they need (according to the CDC)
It is morally hazardous to fund healthcare, education, law enforcement, etc. with tobacco dollars. Now the state has a reason to keep smokers smoking.
If you want healthcare for Oregon's children, practice what you preach and start donating $430 (what a pack a day smoker pays in cigarette taxes) a year to the OHP.
-Bruce
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Posted by: Jon | Jul 6, 2005 12:32:37 PM
HB 3500 provides healthcare for all of Oregon's kids.
No, actually it doesnt. It only provides healthcare for those making no more than 100% of the federal poverty guideline. So families like mine, are not eligible.
I work on a contract basis, therefore I dont get heathcare benefits. For me or my family. And we dont qualify for the Oregon Health Plan because I make too much money. The cheapest monthly plan I can find on my own costs more than the rent on the 3-bedroom townhouse I live in.
So yes, if this passes it may help kids in need. But please dont mislead people by saying it "provides healthcare for all of Oregon's kids."
What this country really needs, is not to raise taxes and provide socialized healthcare, but to work to bring the real costs of healthcare down, and stop letting the insurance companies become richer on our backs. No matter what the current TV commercials say, the health insurance companies dont give a flying crap about you or me. They care about money.