Excuse me, but are smokers now the lepers of the 21st century? Minnesota did a study a few years ago and found that most of the people who are still smoking do so for medicinal purposes - self-medicating. I know this for a fact, because I didn't smoke before being seriously injured - the choice of relief was between alcohol and cigarettes since other options were unavailable at the time. Now I take morphine - but still need the cigarettes to cope with physical problems. (I've been told that marijuana might relieve spasms and pain, but you know the drill on that subject.)

Punishing the few people who still depend on cigarettes for medical purposes is ghastly - especially considering the healthcare system in this country. Have you no shame? Do you really think most people smoke cigarettes for fun? (Outside of teens, of course.) Isn't it bad enough that suffering people must choose now between cigarettes and food - do you want to put them out on the street as well? What is WRONG with you people???

Do we really need all those high-tech new bombers and 'smart bombs' - is that more important than healthcare? And why are insurance companies skimming off a the top like gangsters? Isn't that extortion? What will they skim next - food? This is criminal! We could afford healthcare before the insurance industry got into the picture - to recoup their losses in Third World investments. Insurance companies are a scam - they shouldn't be legal. Forcing people to buy insurance is WRONG. Let the market handle the problem - get the corruption out of the system and it will work just fine - just as it did before insurance companies took over. Kids could have healthcare if a few corporations didn't have a monopoly on it - that's how it worked when I was a kid.

"So geeze, to say you're for a program as long as you don't have to pay for it, is really not much different than what the many of the rich elite do."

Truer words were never spoken and it's pretty well what I'm saying about your willingness to have me pay for SCHIP while you pat the kids on the head like you're the one doing something.

I'm not only in favor of SCHIP, I think there should be socialized medicine and eliminate the greedhead middlemen. But paying for it should be me and thee, brother, not just me.

Point well taken unionguy, and this is the difficulty we run into in the US: everybody wants programs, but no one wants to pay. The rich already having everything they can ever want are not satisfied and want more, while those who are barely hanging on are paying out the nose for war toys. I wonder if the attitude toward ponying up would be different if the most of the money were to go to taking care of the majority's needs, like it is in say Sweden or Switzerland?

If we consider ourselves "progressive," though, we must be willing to lead, meaning we may have to pay a higher percentage than those who have more but are too Scrooge-like to care, but so what? And we're just paying lip service if we're not willing to set the example. Let's look at the bigger picture here. The rich elite are already taken care of for life. Heck, they have the funds to easily move somewhere else if things get too hairy here. Most of us common folk, however, do not have so many options; we will depend on healthy well-adjusted adults who are the children of today to take over the reigns and who will be, by the way, paying for our Medicare and social security tomorrow. So geeze, to say you're for a program as long as you don't have to pay for it, is really not much different than what the many of the rich elite do. They say: give me a tax break, borrow the money, and let the commoners pay it back later. And we do. Cigarette taxes and every other kind of tax goes up ANYWAY and the "commoners" continue to get screwed, getting nothing but rhetoric from those who they elect to steal from them. Here is an opportunity to do something different, and as unionguy points out, if they get us fighting about who pays what, they've won again through polarization; they still get their war toys, but we get zilch. But hey we'll pay a little more now or a lot more later.

Puffin: to me it's clear you do not really care about SCHIP one way or the other, but are only blabbing about how persecuted you feel as a smoker, and how everyone self-righteously attacks you and other smokers. Personally, I wish there was a way to let you have your cheap cigarettes and exclude you from anything the taxes pay for; make it voluntary on your income tax form or something.

I would not object to the program being paid for by a higher federal gasoline tax. Sure it would be a strain on my budget, but at least I'd know the money was going to something other than war and war toys. Anyone else with me on this? Thanks again, unionguy for help bringing the focus of this debate back where it belongs.

PROGRESSIVES don't fund program with a sales tax, which the SCHIP funding plan amounts to.

PROGRESSIVES pay for programs with income taxes.

REPUBLICANS l o v e sales taxes. The only thing they like better is moralizing about other people's lives.

How's this for a plan: quit funding the war; use the money to fund SCHIP; and end all tobacco and alcohol taxes because neither your enjoyments nor mine should be subject to moralizing taxation.

Geez, we could end the deficit if we could just tax freakin' self-rightousness.

This discussion is as asinine as Bush's veto of health care for kids!!

The point right now, here in reality world, is that a line has been drawn in the sand. Its either health care or war funding. If Bush's veto is overriden, it is a tremendous victory! Period!!

That victory can help put some backbone into that handfull of so-called moderate Dems, that keep voting with Bush rather than the vast majority of Dems and the American people. Also, it will be a message to those Republicans in congress that are beginning to realize that sticking with Bush is a death sentence in next yrs' election.

No, the SCHIP bill isn't perfect! However, they is no such thing as a 'perfect' bill. This vote is about health care and the war. If we don't win it, its a setback. If we do, we can look forward to many more, and bigger ones!

If we are "progressives," then we all need to be banging on our cong reps, demanding that they vote to override!

If that occurs, it is the biggest step that can be taken is direction of helping get a working majority for the next vote on war funding.

Hey, aren't tobacco products being taxed anyway? So what are the revenues presently going to? Anyone know? For the smokers in here: do you think that these taxes should be repealed? For my part, I think that national health care is way to go, and that tobacco should be a big part of the funding picture. In case we ever do ever get a national health plan (not holding my breath here), I also think everyone should contribute. Most probably wouldn't mind paying a little extra tax for that, including many of the big corps, though I might be mistaken here. Also, I propose that they raise the tax on alcohol as well; I'd probably enjoy my occasional drink a lot more knowing I was helping a worthy cause.

To WmC:

who said "I believe the price of ALL products should reflect the social costs they impose on society and the costs required to mitigate their negative impacts ..."

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. I had two problems with the earlier posts.

1 - The actual problem is that children will lose health insurance regardless of the source of the funding. In view of the amount of money that has been handed over to the wealthiest in the country, I object to the poor and middle class losing more.

2 - Yes, smoking causes health problems. To make it sound like it is the only dangerous habit is wrong. If you include the numerous other life-destroying things, then I have no problem.

I think all of you New Age abolitionists are missing the point. Your support for "progressivism", and comments here could be considered harmful to the health, will, and purpose of America, so maybe we should tax every syllable of dissent? After all, as the great decider has ordained, you'r either with us or against us.

Here's the point: for the last twenty-five years(?) politicians have campaigned on the promise of not raising taxes and have made good on those promises to the great glee of all those forces that despise the empowering and uplifting aspects of the common good, more regularly referred to as progressive governance. Now that we have a completely predatory economic and governmental regimen let's corn-hole this group over here or that bunch over there and ignore the fact that we should all pay for something that should benefit all of us.

To return to an earlier point: this was an intentional poison pill possibly to milk some more money from the tobacco lobby, to not make any progress under this Administration or this term of Congress, and in fact just represents the spineless conniving rampant in our corrupt political environment.

I agree with all of those who think any substance with health risks should be taxed. Excessive sugar and fats that contribute to obesity, tobacco, and alcohol are all nonessential products. Anyone who believes that everyone who drinks, smokes, or eats junk food will stop doing so because of high taxes is delusional. People find the money to feed their habits, and taxing these products would provide the money needed for children's health care. Great idea, even if it was proposed satirically.

WMC: I second your motion! I would add a "harm tax" based on probabilities, too, given that the genetic modification of food is YET to reveal impacts, and these will likely prove considerable.

Sorry, I cut myself off. . .

I believe the price of ALL products should reflect the social costs they impose on society and the costs required to mitigate their negative impacts: tobacco, alcohol, saturated fats, fast food, factory farms, gambling, inorganic fertilizers, motorcycles and guns--to name a few.

This is not a revolutionary notion, by the way, it is central to the effective operation of the free market according to every theorist of capitalism, from Adam Smith on down.

I don't know if your questions are addressed to me, Ruth, but as far as I'm concerned, the answer to all of them is "yes". I believe the price of

This is the same administration that claims that it is wrong to have a federal estate tax for estates over 2 million dollars. How to they figure that? It is the same administration that gave massive tax cuts to the rich.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines06/0405-12.htm

This is about health insurance. It is not about smoking. As far as addiction and health risks are concerned, obesity is now considered as great a health risk as smoking. Are you advocating a tax on soft drinks or candy in order to pay for the health damages contributed by these foods? What about alcohol? The damage and violence caused by alcohol is yet another health risk.

Why stop there? Another article currently on Common Dreams talks about the cancer risk in insulation used by many Americans. Do you think that the companies that made (or make) these products will be taxed because of the health risks they have caused?

Though I disagree completely with the reasons why Bush vetoed this bill I agree with puffin that it should have been vetoed. The funding vehicle for this bill represents the gutless spinelss nature of our politicians. Whenever there is a shortfall in the Fed or in our State governments the first place they look is to alchahol and tobacco sales.

I do believe those who crafted this bill purposely put this poison pill in this bill.

OK Mr. White so what happens if everyone somehow miraculously becomes tobacco-free and a tee-totaler? Then what? Which minority that we regard their behaviour morally reprehensible will we tax into oblivion so we don't all have to face our responsibilities to the commons?

Gutless, spinelss, stinking cowards.

To puffin : Ièm guessing from your name that you are among those who smoke . If the SCHIP bill does manage to pass then I can think of no faster way to kill it with its proposed funding source than for you and the other 60 million smoking Americans to quit smoking . You say my body , my right. If you and 60 million smokers are too lazy , stupid and stubborn to take the Surgeon-Generalès advice given forty years ago for your own collective benefits then you certainly too lazy , stupid and stubborn to understand and apply the strategy to cut off the funding for SCHIP.

If I were a CEO for Kaiser Permanente or Aetna I would relentless seek out the 60 million semi-literate smokers like yourself and sell them health insurance with no questions about smoker-non-smoker status but with the tiniest of tiny fine print nullifying coverage to a smoker . As your widow or widower sold the house to pay off hospital bills , my adjudicator would magnify those tiniest of tiny lines for her or him to read.

Not only do smokers stink but they canèt smell as the rest of us generally. Wake up and smell the roses. There,have I been blunt enoughÉ Your 60 million colleagues are dwindling , pun intended , donèt be a stalwart hold-out

SCHIP is a great program but the funding plan for it is lousy and it deserved to be vetoed for that reason alone.

The tax on cigarettes amounts to a sales tax on only one population group -- the twenty percent of people who smoke. Now, tell me, who loves a sales tax more than the Republicans?

All Americans should contribute to SCHIP and it should be funded from general revenue...if I may dare to dream, perhaps by cutting war funding to pay for SCHIP?

THAT's the way REAL DEMOCRATS would have done it!!!

I posted this on another thread:

I agree everyone should chip in, Nanoo, but smokers should definitely chip in more. The CDC has estimated the healthcare costs alone of cigarettes is $7.00 per pack. Once you add in other externalities of tobacco use, you come up with a total of over $40 per pack. Much–but not all–of this cost is borne by the smoker. We live in a country " . . .where 5.5 million years of potential life and $92 billion of productivity are lost every year to smoking and where smoking-related health costs amount to $75.5 billion, according to the CDC."

Charging smokers more for their addiction should not be seen as a tax: it is, in fact, removing a subsidy.

Title should have read as, Congress v Smokers. Another article that Fails to mention how the program is to be funded. Good comments Puffin and Vince Lawrence.

Some of us have defended the Democrats for not brashly de-funding the war from the House of Representatives, and others have called them spineless for not doing so.

SCHIP is where the Democrats must draw the line and stand firm, precisely because national security is not at risk. If the Democrats cannot muster the needed Republican votes later this month to override Bush's veto of the present SCHIP bill, then they must not otherwise compromise to Bush's position, and they must make him pay dearly with non-cooperation on other issues, namely spending bills, until the SCHIP issue is revisited and passed. If the Democrats can't or don't do this, then indeed there is a "spine" problem, and they will be putting the 2008 election at risk by appearing as milquetoast--when they needn't appear that way at all.

SCHIP is indeed a matter of principle, and Bush must not be permitted to win it.

The world's leading child molester is George W. Bush, who has slain hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, displaced millions and driven them into poverty and disease, and is now denying millions of American kids decent health care. Why is a dirty old man who fondles a little girl's behind sent to prison for decades and considered immoral, but Bush is adored by the Christian community as a modern-day saint? If they, and the servile media, can't see through the neocons and fundamentalists by now, there is little hope for our country.

Here is a link to Friends Committee on National Legislation. Issue information page. One can sign up for e-mail alerts on voting in House and Senate:
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/alpha_index.php

There was a Sept 24 alert for HR976. Nothing more recent is posted.

HR676's non-profit single payer program will give healthcare to all children throughout their entire lives; let us support that, and not the insurance companies.

I got it, his new title... the Excremental president!

How actions speak louder than words! Here then is the proof positive that any and every idea or policy uttered in alleged support of the "compassionate conservative" context is a crock of unholy shit! This administration has gone to bed with the military industrial complex and its unholy marriage has produced a virtual hole in the nation's budget where everything pours into the forces of destruction, and very little is left for anything constructive or life-affirming. Brings up that other pesky adage, about "right to life," for whom, and under what circumstances? When weapons are the undisputed choice of where a nation lays its treasure, in what it places its long-term investment, then children, art, music, healthcare, EPA standards, those measures that would go towards supporting pulbic well being, i.e. the greater good, might as well be flushed down a toilet. Bush may not remember the Watergate plumbers, but he seems adept as quite a different sort of plumber.

Considering the infested, demonic womb this cretin spewed forth from, who could be surprised?