Measure 50 Open Thread
It's 8 p.m. and the polls are closed. We're pulling together results county-by-county. More coming soon.
Measure 50, updated 12:55 p.m. Wed
| Yes | No | Yes % | |
| TOTAL | 390870 | 577059 | 40.3% |
| Benton | 14153 | 14626 | 49.1% |
| Clackamas | 39393 | 53020 | 42.6% |
| Deschutes | 13315 | 24730 | 34.9% |
| Jackson | 19516 | 35559 | 35.4% |
| Lane | 51828 | 63591 | 44.9% |
| Marion | 27021 | 48032 | 36% |
| Multnomah | 84923 | 64513 | 56.8% |
| Washington | 54029 | 61645 | 46.7% |
| Yamhill | 9123 | 16827 | 35.1% |
| Clatsop | 5433 | 7627 | 41.6% |
| Columbia | 4082 | 9381 | 30.3% |
| Coos | 5237 | 14116 | 27% |
| Douglas | 6062 | 20107 | 23.1% |
| Hood River | 2978 | 3551 | 45.6% |
| Lincoln | 6873 | 10072 | 40.5% |
| Linn | 7888 | 24400 | 24.4% |
| Polk | 8710 | 15246 | 36.3% |
| Tillamook | 2577 | 4607 | 35.8% |
| Union | 2027 | 5260 | 27.8% |
| Baker | 1549 | 5279 | 22.6% |
| Crook | 1533 | 5802 | 20.8% |
| Curry | 2582 | 5935 | 30.3% |
| Jefferson | 1408 | 4191 | 25.1% |
| Josephine | 7330 | 21093 | 25.7% |
| Klamath | 3697 | 15326 | 19.4% |
| Malheur | 974 | 2452 | 28.4% |
| Umatilla | 3646 | 8712 | 29.5% |
| Gilliam | |||
| Grant | 477 | 2200 | 17.8% |
| Harney | 495 | 2114 | 18.9% |
| Lake | 445 | 2073 | 17.6% |
| Morrow | 576 | 2059 | 21.8% |
| Sherman | 164 | 571 | 22.3% |
| Wallowa | 826 | 2342 | 26% |
| Wasco | |||
| Wheeler | |||
|
November 6, 2007 |
open discussion | Comments (109 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: James X. | Nov 6, 2007 8:21:03 PM
M49 passing, M50 failing. Not a prediction, just an update from The O.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Nov 6, 2007 8:22:18 PM
Looks like it's going to be a close one. So far it's winning in Multnomah by a 10 point margin. It'll need to do better than that, but we won't know for some time because of what looks to have been a huge jump in turnout today.
Posted by: James X. | Nov 6, 2007 8:31:00 PM
KATU: 53Y/47N, but these are old numbers -- the timestamp is updated automatically.
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 6, 2007 8:33:01 PM
Looks like the corporate drug pusher wins! Children lose. Everyone loses since we will all continue to pick up the tab for all those emergency room visits with sick children who should have been able to see a doctor sooner. But this is Oregon and Oregon voters are used to being negligent (not voting for important issues) or scammed by big corporate money.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 6, 2007 8:44:35 PM
Oops. For a few minutes, we had 49 results here on the 50 page.
We're a little behind the TV numbers for the moment, but we'll catch up - and keep updating into the wee hours after they're done.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Nov 6, 2007 9:09:41 PM
the Leg can, and will, do something for kids in 2008. it's up to us, the people, to force the Rs to put children before political ideology. not sure how that's done, but we need to start by shaming the likes of Minnis, Scott and their pathetic followers. of course, that assumes they have any shame, and i'm not sure of that.
M49 was, politically, more critical. this was going to be the only chance to do anything about M37. had 49 lost, Oregon would have been in deep long-term trouble. this election proves that M37 was an aberration, that Oregonians actually favor taking care of the land rather than just chopping it into tiny profitable bits. the Leg should feel confident about fixing other aspects of M37 now.
i hope the corporations who took tens of thousands of dollars from my mom during her lifetime, and who actively worked to kill her, are happy with the results they bought. this is the kind of thing that makes me wish there was a hell. these bastards should rot in such a place. and the idiots who once again had their vote purchased, sheesh. next time, just ask for cash and we can skip the commercials.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 6, 2007 9:26:42 PM
So, somehow the comments have been turned off on Measure 49. They're now turned back on.
Posted by: James X. | Nov 6, 2007 9:27:55 PM
The voters have sent us a clear message with Measure 50's defeat.
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 6, 2007 9:28:59 PM
I have sat with a dying man who was coughing up pieces of his lung gasping for the next breath. His dying wish was that he could tell children not to do what he had done. He was being cared for in a nursing home, his care paid for by you and me, not Philip Morris. You're right, Philip Morris and its corporate minions and stockholder do deserve hell for the misery they have wreaked on humankind. I say that as as one recovering nicotine addict. Making them and their victims pay for children's health care is not too much at all. I hope the legislature can come up with something in Feb. I had hoped for the Feds to increase S-Chip but Bush and his Repug cronies in Congress are also beholden to Philip Morris and their stockholders. Too bad the Mormon Repugs can't prevail upon their colleagues to have a change of heart, if they only had one.
Posted by: James X. | Nov 6, 2007 9:36:47 PM
I have to thank the smokers who told me when I was younger never to start, and thank my mother for quitting.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 6, 2007 9:37:21 PM
Michael Moore on "Countdown" on Measure 50.
"As much as I hope the Oregon thing passes tonight, ultimately that's not going to be the solution either, depending on people smoking to pay taxes so that kids can get health. What is wrong with us here? Let's just get to the business at hand, which is making sure every citizen is covered, when they get sick they can see a doctor and not have to worry about it."
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 6, 2007 9:38:07 PM
Meant to add the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9lkKU0elZA&NR=1
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 6, 2007 9:39:33 PM
Meant to add the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9lkKU0elZA&NR=1
Posted by: Jeanne | Nov 6, 2007 9:51:18 PM
T. A., what you share about your mom is very sad, but....
What about people who never saw the Big Tobacco commercials and other propaganda and voted against Measure 50 because it didn't make sense? Have they been bought by big corporations too? I don't watch TV. Don't read the conservative propaganda that comes in the mail. Was Measure 50 about tobacco or about kids, or about raising taxes for other reasons? I couldn't tell, and I only looked at the measure itself and the arguments of supporters.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 6, 2007 9:53:10 PM
Thanks, Wes. Those were backwards. It seems that Klamath is the only county that lists the NO vote on top.
Posted by: KAckermann | Nov 6, 2007 10:00:59 PM
I hate the tobacco companies. I smoke their addicting products but I didn't cause all those children to get sick.
They should have made it broad based by taxing gas. My pack of smokes weighs 3 ounces. A tank of gas weighs 200 pounds.
I'll stop burning my 3 ounces when you stop burning your 200 pounds.
Posted by: James Frye | Nov 6, 2007 10:32:38 PM
I'm very happy about the defeat of 50. I like the child's healthcare plan, but if everyone wants it everyone should pay the higher taxes for it. Stop being gutless and going after a minority to pay for kids who need healthcare.
Posted by: Zoe Walmer | Nov 6, 2007 10:44:43 PM
I was personally against M50 because I think that a cigarette tax is the wrong way to fund health care, not because I'm opposed to universal health care or taxes.
We need a single system to make sure everyone in Oregon has access to the health care they need, not 15 smaller individually-funded programs to pay for special segments of the population. It's a tough road to travel, but it's worth it for a healthy Oregon.
Progressives can't take this vote as a sign that Oregon doesn't want to fund health care, that we aren't willing to pay for it, or that Big Tobacco has officially taken over our home.
What we have to do now is make sure our representatives know that this is still important to us and that we're counting on them to make headway on the issue.
It's not that there isn't a way to make universal health care work in Oregon, it's just that we haven't thought of it yet. I expect innovation, inenuity, and expertise our of our legislators. We've got some great folks in Salem and I believe that they can make this happen.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 6, 2007 10:50:18 PM
Progressives can't take this vote as a sign that Oregon doesn't want to fund health care, that we aren't willing to pay for it...
Try as we might, that's how it's going to be perceived by Republicans and Democrats alike. If it had been 52-48 or something, there might have been a chance for another shot at it - with another tax base or something. But not 60-40.
If the campaign couldn't convince Zoe Walmer to vote for Measure 50, then it really was a miserable campaign.
Maybe Governor Kulongoski was right in 2004 when he said that we really have to wait for a national solution after George Bush is gone.
Posted by: James X. | Nov 6, 2007 11:07:39 PM
Kari, where in the advertising was it said that health care isn't worth funding? It was all "sacred document" this, "unsustainable" that, "potential for waste" the other. But it was never "health care is not worth funding." Polling on health care makes that clear.
Posted by: LT | Nov 6, 2007 11:10:30 PM
But the question is:
Did 50 fail because the tobacco companies poured in a ton of money? (I was up late last night and saw ads after midnight.)
Did it fail because of the anti-taxers who were mentioned in those ads?
Did it fail because there are some people so fed up with Constitutional Amendments (going back to at least when the kicker was put in the constitution if not farther) that they will only vote for statutes on the ballot, not const. amendments?
Or all of the above?
If it takes a court case, maybe now is the time to get a clear ruling about what it takes to put a tax measure on the ballot. Did I hear that the legislative counsel who made the ruling that the amendment could be put on the ballot by simple majority but a statute required the supermajority is no longer with the legislative counsel office?
Clarifying the answer to that question would seem to require only hard work and political will, not another public vote.
Also take what was learned in recent elections--incl. that no one can predict many months in advance "who does/ doesn't have a chance" or how much "seed money " they need, that idiotic "sorry your district has a lousy R to D ratio" nonsense wasn't proven true in the cases of Gilbertson, Peralta and others in 2006--and have a more open, localized process for the 2008 House races.
And then if there are 36 like minded state reps in the 2009 session, maybe we can modify if not end the supermajority nonsense. As I saw the results on TV, it looked to me like some sort of "modify/ end the supermajority" measure in Washington was 50-50. Not exactly "everyone hates taxes and loves the supermajority requirement to restrain taxes".
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Nov 6, 2007 11:24:38 PM
I called M50 one of the most egregious examples of political cynicism I'd ever seen and I stand by it. I will here and now promise to do everything in my power to help pass a dedicated general tax measure to provide health care to kids in need of it. I will not now or ever engage in that kind of opportunistic propagandized crap as policy.
The social cost argument was absolute nonsense laid next to alcohol. The tax was factually laid on the lower income strata. If the stated goal of reducing smoking was achieved a plan would exist with no support. And finally this is a straight state transfer of money from citizens to insurance companies.
Some how I'm supposed to buy that set of facts as something a progressive should support? When you talk about making 80% of the cost of any other socially costly product tax you'll have achieved equity with cigarettes.
Let's do something real for Oregonians and let's spread the load with some equity.
Posted by: pg | Nov 6, 2007 11:25:45 PM
I'm glad to see that this abomination to fair taxation failed. I have not had insurance on my children for the last 10 years, because I could not afford it through my employment, they pay for me but the premium for my children was more than I could afford. If they needed to go to the doctor, I paid for it out of pocket. The problem is not taxing one group for everyone, but making the insurance company's make it affordable for everyone. I do not see how any reasonable person could say taxing tobacco (where under law you cannot be a minor) should be taxed to go to underprivileged minors. Maybe we should tax mothers milk.
Posted by: Drug Industry Rules | Nov 6, 2007 11:25:56 PM
Measure 50 fails ...
This vote had nothing to do with attitudes about health care. Zip. Nada. This vote had everything to do with the desperate need to open the airwaves to all sides so that the Tobacco and drug industries - which make their billions off the addiction and pain of others - don't run our government by buying the media. Which they did for the past two months, for an amount which - to them - was nothing more than a good investment of pocket change.
So, stop all the bull-kaka palaver about what this election "means". All this election "means" is that in 2007 costs ONLY TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS (a tiny amount relative to the addiction-profits that were at risk) to buy a profitable outcome under Oregon election law. That's how the PR companies and political consultants are looking at it, I guarantee it, and those looking at it much otherwise are either fooling themselves, or trying to fool others (for a paycheck, or because they smoke).
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Nov 6, 2007 11:27:18 PM
As an addendum to my above post, most of my political cohorts and other friends opposed on the basis I cited and not because RJR or Phillips persuaded them. They are for the most part dedicated opponents to smoking, some with stories like TJ's.
Posted by: James X. | Nov 6, 2007 11:38:26 PM
To all those expressing their opposition to M50, here's something you can get behind.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Nov 6, 2007 11:38:32 PM
Well, there's always next year.
Posted by: Chad | Nov 6, 2007 11:47:22 PM
I don't understand. A tobacco tax increase passed in WA by a wide margin in 2002. I was pretty sure the same would happen here.
Posted by: Miles | Nov 6, 2007 11:55:48 PM
Kari writes: Try as we might, that's how it's going to be perceived by Republicans and Democrats alike. If it had been 52-48 or something, there might have been a chance for another shot at it - with another tax base or something. But not 60-40.
I think you're exactly right, Kari, the defeat of M50 will be seen by a lot of people as something broader than it probably was. Merkley was already quoted on KATU.com saying that he didn't think the 2008 special session was the right place to address this, as it was "too soon."
What I'd like to see is a little mea culpa from Merkley, Kate Brown, et al. that the gamble they took by placing this on the ballot as a constitutional amendment backfired. When Republicans wouldn't give them the votes they needed to do it as a statute, they had three choices:
1) stand firm (or be stubborn, depending on your viewpoint) and refer it as a constitutional amendment,
2) negotiate with Republicans to scale back the program (75,000 kids covered? 50,000 kids covered?) in order to get the additional vote needed, or
3) organize a grassroots effort to put it on the ballot as a statutory initiative in 2008 (possibly with a broader tax as well).
The Dem leadership chose option #1 and just got bitch-slapped by the voters. The all-or-nothing strategy was a gamble, and they lost. Knowing what we know now, compromising to get at least some of those kids covered would have been the better move. The real losers in this particular game of chicken are the kids who still won't have insurance next year.
Posted by: Miles | Nov 7, 2007 12:12:47 AM
By the way, here's a bold, progressive way to get a lot of those kids covered even with M50's defeat: Just start enrolling them.
As the tobacco companies pointed out, about 50% of the uninsured kids are ALREADY eligible for OHP, they just haven't been enrolled. That's because outreach to that population is difficult, and it hasn't been funded very well (because funding outreach means more enrollees means higher costs overall). The anti-50 ads used that as a reason to vote against M50 ("If they can't enroll people in the existing program, why create a new one?")
Starting tomorrow, Gov. K should cite that ad and declare that he's sending his staff out to enroll them. He's going to reassign 50 DHS staffers to find and enroll those 50,000 kids, and he's going to do it because he feels a moral obligation to get every child insured that can be insured. Obviously, this will create a funding problem at DHS. But federal law requires states to enroll all eligible individuals who apply for Medicaid (OHP). The legislature in 2008 will then have to either appropriate additional funding for those kids, or cut the number of people eligible. They'll do the former.
This isn't perfect. That money may have to come from some other government program (although with state revenues still booming it could come from the excess, meaning it will reduce any 2008 kicker). But personally, I think health care for kids is right up there with education as the absolute top priority for government, so I'm okay with sacrificing other worthy programs in order to insure those kids.
But all of this requires a governor who really wants to lead on this issue. Given Ted's notable absence during the M50 campaign, I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 7, 2007 12:47:10 AM
James X wrote: Kari, where in the advertising was it said that health care isn't worth funding?
Excellent point, James. Maybe I'm just feeling a bit despondent about all this.
I do like your idea, though. The Republicans say they want a tobacco tax done by statute and dedicated to smoking cessation - fine, you got it. The Republicans say they want health care for kids funded out of general funds - fine, you got it.
Dollars to donuts they won't vote for 'em though. Hypocritical assholes.
Posted by: Zoe Walmer | Nov 7, 2007 12:54:55 AM
Try as we might, that's how it's going to be perceived by Republicans and Democrats alike. If it had been 52-48 or something, there might have been a chance for another shot at it - with another tax base or something. But not 60-40.
Kari's right that the numbers on this vote are going to convince no one that Oregonians want to fund health care. That's why it's time for us, as Progressives, to get moving on convincing both the people and the powers that be that it is. I know there are a lot of people out there who voted No on this for reasons other than a distaste for state sponsored health care and their voices need to be heard.
It's tough to get up after taking a hit, but if we want lasting change we've got about 24 hours to wallow before we get moving again. Since when was establishing Universal Health Care easy?
Posted by: JTT | Nov 7, 2007 12:54:59 AM
First, please stop bloviating about how a cigarette tax is regressive...blah, blah...fair tax...blah, blah. It's crap and you know it. Cigarettes should be taxed at least $3.50/pack (indexed to inflation) to compensate the state and tax-payers for the uncompensated health care costs that smokers inflict on society...not to even mention the effects of secondhand smoke. If you want that cig tax money dedicated to smoking cessation programs, fine. But that tax should be raised through the roof. Cigarettes aren’t a product made for poor people, the tobacco companies just market them to the poor (and young, and ethnic minorities, and gays, etc.). I don't think it's fair for the state (i.e. taxpayers) to pick up the extra health care bills for smokers. If you want to smoke...that's fine, just pay for it (and the related health care costs) yourself.
Second, my personal f**k you to RJ Reynolds, Mark Nelson and crew was not just a Yes on M50 vote...but I quit. That's right...after almost 8 years of smoking I decided that I didn't want to contribute a dime more of my money to those lying, right-wing, sacks of shit (who also funnel money to Grover Norquist's misnamed "Americans for Tax Reform") and of course I wanted to be healthier :). So if Oregon children aren't going to get my tax money for health care...then the tobacco companies sure ain't gettin' it either. If you're a BO-reader and you smoke...please quit. Join me in sticking it to RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris. Let's tell them that we'll be keeping the next $12 million, thank you very much. And if you're a real goodie-two-shoes, then join me in donating what you would spend on cigarettes. I think I might make my donation to Doernbecher’s Children’s Hospital for added fulfillment and irony. Quitting has made me feel healthier, wealthier, and just a little happier every day, all thanks to (ironically) Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds. Thanks for playing your “defend the Constitution” fiddle out here in Oregon…just don’t mind the door as it hits you on the way back to N. Carolina/Virginia.
my 2 cents.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Nov 7, 2007 1:41:32 AM
Good for you JTT.
Agree with Kari on liking James X's approach.
Could the intersession leg refer a constitutional ballot measure to eliminate the supermajority requirement to refer a tax measure to the voters? That really is an appropriate constitutional issue. And as matters stand, the law says that not allowing people to vote on taxing themselves if they wish is more sacred than the sacred constitution.
Posted by: Jeanne | Nov 7, 2007 6:56:57 AM
Here's a question someone here may be able to help me with. Background: According to the DHS, about 20% of Oregon adults smoke. Overall, one in six Oregonians have no health coverage, according to a DAS Executive Summary from last year. (This report also mentions the 50,000 who are eligible for subsidized health coverage but have not been enrolled). Is there credible data regarding percentages of smokers with and without health coverage? Does it deviate from the overall population norm? A number of people have posited that smokers are on average from lower income brackets, which has led me to wonder about whether they might have lower access to health insurance themselves.
Part of my "no" vote was because of this issue. Somehow, my Googling never turned up the answer, but I was (and still am) concerned about taxing one potentially underinsured group to benefit another. Tax us all, I say!
Posted by: Eric Parker | Nov 7, 2007 7:21:23 AM
My hope is that since the people have spoken and have voted NO on this, we don't see it again for a few years. If we do see it (or any other tax like it) in the next election, it only shows how we tend to abuse the referendum/initiative system. When we say NO, we mean it.
We have said NO on this. We should not have to vote on it again. Please listen to the people for once and give us something else to consider.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 7, 2007 8:03:27 AM
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 6, 2007 8:33:01 PMLooks like the corporate drug pusher wins! Children lose. Everyone loses since we will all continue to pick up the tab for all those emergency room visits with sick children who should have been able to see a doctor sooner.
This, for me, is the crux of the issue. Bill and others like him don't want to have to actually pay anything towards funding healthcare for poor kids. That M50 relied upon a patently regressive funding scheme apparently didn't bother many alleged progressives as long as they didn't have to foot the bill.
I've listened to progressives complain loudly over many years about conservative's regressive tax schemes. For the longest time I actually believed that progressives didn't like regressive taxation on principle. Now I know better.
Reason 38130 why I'm not a Democrat or a Republican.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 7, 2007 8:07:54 AM
JamesX,
Since I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat I'm obviously not part of your target audience. If, however, you should desire the support of NAVs (about 25% of Oregon) I would happily give it. You suggestion is definitely one that I could get behind.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Nov 7, 2007 8:10:34 AM
Bad on all levels from the misleading ballot title to the fact that it was unsustainable and written into the Oregon Constitution, this train wreck of a measure deserved the thumping it got. Voters correctly rejected this poorly crafted, unfair tax.
Sometimes the voters get it right.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 7, 2007 8:12:52 AM
Jeane,
I don't believe that any studies or statistics isolate the socio-economic breakdown of smokers exactly as you've asked it. But I do believe that the info can be teased out, in a general way, from existing stats.
Try this as a launch point to stats which I believe to be relevant.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Nov 7, 2007 8:57:21 AM
Eric, could you specify which features of the tax you'd like not to see repeated, i.e. what "like this" means? Any tax at all for kids' health insurance? Any tax at all on tobacco? Taxes on part of the population (smokers, or drinkers or transfat-selling fast food joints?) to pay for a benefit to a different section of the population? Taxes in the constitution.
Is there any form of tax to raise needed new revenue to provide health insurance for the maximum possible proportion of uninsured kids that you would consider seriously? A good approach in principle?
Would you support a cigarette tax that dedicated its revenues and purpose to smoking prevention, cessation and reduction -- i.e. reinforce the deterrent economic effect of the tax itself and have the purpose to put itself out of business?
Posted by: Eric Parker | Nov 7, 2007 9:06:02 AM
It's the issue itself and the attempt to gut the constituion.
We have said NO. End of story. All bets are off. Issue resolved and dead. The people have made their decision and it has to be respected as such. Any re-occurrance of such in any short time period in any shape or form is insulting and disrespectful of the voters decision and is abusive of the system.
NO means NO - What part of NO do you not understand? The N or the O?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Nov 7, 2007 9:18:35 AM
Jeanne,
Listen to Kevin about information sources. I don't always agree with his analyses but he has demonstrated a ton of work and thinking about distributions of income, smoking and tax burden that always deserve respectful consideration in my view.
My more general take as a current public health grad student and a former historian of social inequality influenced by the social sciences would be something like this.
Smoking prevalence in general is inversely related to income (though modified by other factors like age, ethnicity, sex though less than before), i.e. if lower income people are more likely to smoke. I have a theory that I am pulling out of my thumb that if you could design the research, you'd find associations of higher smoking with certain occupations or job categories, and with specific workplaces and not others, especially among non-managerial workers. This comes from anecdotal observation that in many places smoking remains a social act for workers, in which both the nictotine effects and the social interaction serve as relief valves for work pressures.
Lack of insurance likewise is strongly associated with low wages and/or poverty. Sort of like the "Medicare doughnut" on drug coverage, "working poor" and lower middle class employed people often work for businesses that don't offer insurance benefits, or don't contribute to the costs, or only contribute to employee but not family coverage. Many of these people would not be eligible for OHP.
Smokers also in general will have to pay higher premiums for health insurance if they do have access. It is not clear to me if the difference is high enough to put insurance costs out of reach for many smokers, though for a guess I'd suppose the effect would be small (more thumb-sucking by me, though).
Taken together, it seems likely both that smokers are disporportionately uninsured and that the uninsured smoke disproportionately. An inflection of this is that children of smokers who do not yet smoke, and whose parents can't/don't provide them insurance particularly face the risks of second-hand smoke.
This is inferential, but I can't think of any plausible reason why low income people who smoke would be more highly insured and low income people who don't smoke would be less insured.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Nov 7, 2007 9:29:11 AM
Eric, I understand no just fine. I have no interest in proposing the same law again. If that's all you mean, no problem.
What I don't understand is what "issue" you see as dead.
Really, the No campaign identified a number of reasons to vote no, i.e. several issues, and no on one doesn't inherently mean no on others.
To me, the issue of a new tax to fund health insurance for kids is not dead, though an issue of a tobacco tax for that purpose is. Is that something you say I shouldn't work on?
To me, the issue of a tobacco tax dedicated to preventing smoking and encouraging and helping people quit is not dead. What do you think?
To me, the vote pretty strongly repudiates using constitutional amendment as a route to refer taxes to voters & I would not support it as a strategy to renewed efforts for kids' insurance or smoking prevention & cessation.
A simple response to those questions would help me. Thanks.
Posted by: Oregonian37 | Nov 7, 2007 9:39:12 AM
Hmm...people voted yes means yes on M37 too..they seemed to have wised up nicely on that one.
I agree with Miles about the governor needing to get out ahead on getting all those eligible enrolled. I think a more assertive presence by him during this campaign might have helped.
I'm a bit concerned about Merkley's "it's too soon" though. Are the uninsured going to agree with that?
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.
Post a comment
Posted by: David | Nov 6, 2007 8:14:12 PM
FYI, best results tracker: http://www.katu2.com/election/race1.htm for 49 and http://www.katu2.com/election/race2.htm for 50.