it must suck to be a smoker.

I’m all for expanding health care coverage and giving more kids health insurance, and believe me when I say I understand that gap between not qualifying for Medicaid and not having enough money for private coverage.

But I just read that the increase in funds required by the bill (just vetoed by Bush) would be covered by raising the tax on cigarettes to a $1 per pack. A whole fucking dollar! I’m not even a smoker and this outrages me.

It doesn’t seem fair to have cigarette smokers carry the burden. Shouldn’t health care coverage for our citizens be a shared responsibility? Are cigarette smokers somehow responsible for all our uninsured children? What insane logic is this?

What this says is that someone like me, who doesn’t smoke but has an uninsured child (this is a lie to make my point, because ry is covered under my ridiculously expensive insurance at work, but he could just as easily not be covered), isn’t responsible in helping pay for my boy’s health coverage. Yet the single guy next door who chainsmokes and has no kids is supposed to do it? Isn’t it kind of my job to pay for my own kid? I made him, he’s my bed, and now I’ve got to lie in him.

Hmm. I should watch my use of mixed metaphors.

Anyway. So while I support the purpose of the bill, I’m not a supporter of making the tarlungs pay for it.

How many dollars from the tobacco companies are sitting pretty in Bush’s pockets right now though, that’s what I want to know.

6 thoughts on “it must suck to be a smoker.

  1. Marianne

    It has gotten totally out of hand. A few months ago I heard our governor (I love her in most ways) say that some new children’s health initiatives in AZ are being paid for by a new tobacco tax (there were two or three new tobacco tax propositions on our last ballot, I voted against all of them, because I totally agree with you, enough already with making smokers pay for everything), but she doesn’t want to give the message that people should smoke more to pay for all the great stuff smoking taxes pay for. She said, and I quote, “so I guess the message is buy the cigarettes and then throw them away.” And everyone was all “hahaha” but I was just amazed at the idiocy.

    Plus, keep in mind that people who smoke are overwhelmingly poor, so when we tax the smokers, we are really taxing the poor more than the wealthy. Regressive taxation that’s called, remember when Ms. Cowan taught us about that?

  2. christa

    That’s crazy, your governor said that? Go buy cigarettes and then throw them out? Why not just make taxes higher somewhere else so that cigarettes aren’t even involved? what a dumb thing to say. you can’t say that and then laugh it off if you’re the effing GOVERNOR. sheesh. I trust your judgment on her, so if you love her in most ways then I probably would, too, but man. don’t they have people on their staff to keep them from saying shit like that?

    That’s interesting about regressive taxation, I totally don’t remember that, well okay NOW I do, but I didn’t before. Thanks Ms. Cowan. I always loved her. man, we were teachers pets, weren’t we?

    But you’re right. Although I guess in this case, the majority of people benefiting from the bill are low-income kids, and if their parents are the ones buying the cigarettes…

    still any way you look at it, it’s backwards logic and it shouldn’t be like that.

  3. Celly Belly

    Well here in Seattle they were proposing a latte tax a couple years back, now talk about B.S! making us poor coffee drinkers pay. Sheesh! of course, that one didnt pass. DUH! on a completely seperate note, fall is finally here and I couldnt be happier. Pulled out my pink fleece jacket and pink fuzzy scarf and pink faux fur Uggs. Yes, thats right, I still wear Uggs and if you got a problem with that, STICK IT! a girl can never have enough pink. I’m afraid if you looked in my closet, Christa, you might puke. Even my bathroom is painted pink. Its just such a happy color. The leaves are falling, theres a crispness in the air, Starbucks has their pumpkin spice lattes again, life is good…

  4. Michelle

    I think its ridiculous that i have to pay upwards of 30 dollars for birth control, and people on government assistance get it for 5 dollars or free. Obviously they don’t use it either!!!! Just keep having more kids on welfare so you can keep getting more assistance. Its sickening. The healthcare system needs to be reformed big time!

  5. Celly Belly

    Yeah, but you get shit birth control on goverment assistance, having been on it myself before. You cant get any of the new stuff, that works better and has less side effects. So theres a drawback to your paying 5 bucks for it and besides, wouldnt we rather make birth control affordable to those without money? all we need is them having more kids.

  6. Celly Belly

    Oh and government assistance, atleast years ago, when I was on it, didnt cover the patch or shots or IUD’s or the pills you could take only every few months, so it only covered the ones you had to remember to take everyday. You would think they would want to give people on welfare something that would prevent pregnancy on a longterm basis, but our government doesnt do anything that makes sense. I dont have health insurance at the job i’m at now, so I pay out of pocket, but its not too expensive if you get it at Planned Parenthood. Besides, $30.00 is really, really affordable, compared to what most meds cost. Even regular insurance doesnt cover alot of kinds of birth control, which is ridiculous! womens health in this country definitely doesnt take priority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *