Comments on: SCHIP Money: Taxing the Poor to Cover the Middle Class http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/02/schip-money-taxing-the-poor-to-cover-the-middle-class/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:38:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/02/schip-money-taxing-the-poor-to-cover-the-middle-class/#comment-6568 Catron Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:14:41 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/02/schip-money-taxing-the-poor-to-cover-the-middle-class/#comment-6568 I would be far less critical of the "baccy tax" concept if connected to cessation programs. Such a tax might even do some good. But, of course, this particular tax proposal is just a gimmick. Sadly, the people who now run Congress have no intention of being "forthright," which is presumably why they are even <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/21/gallup-congress-hits-rock-bottom/" rel="nofollow">less popular</a> with the public than their predecessors. I would be far less critical of the “baccy tax” concept if connected to cessation programs. Such a tax might even do some good. But, of course, this particular tax proposal is just a gimmick.

Sadly, the people who now run Congress have no intention of being “forthright,” which is presumably why they are even less popular with the public than their predecessors.

]]> By: David Harlow http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/02/schip-money-taxing-the-poor-to-cover-the-middle-class/#comment-6557 David Harlow Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:08:05 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/02/schip-money-taxing-the-poor-to-cover-the-middle-class/#comment-6557 The problem with using a tobacco tax to fund health care (or any other vice tax to find any social program) has several dimensions: If the tax reduces consumption (as it is intended to), then the program ends up underfunded. If the tax is collected in full, then we're funding one program on the backs of citizens who will require more health care services, increasing system costs. If some portion of the tax were earmarked for smoking cessation programs, that would be a good thing. Massachusetts had some great successes in using the tobacco tax for big-budget anti-smoking ads (in the early days of the increased tobacco tax), and some of those ads have now been picked up in other markets. Eventually, though, the Commonwealth was unable to keep all that money in the tobacco control program, and it seeped into other programs more or less connected to tobacco control or the health issues related to tobacco use. Bottom line: The law of unintended consequences is clearly in effect here, and in an ideal world legislators should be more forthright in assessing the costs of current and proposed social programs, and in assigning responsibility for assuming those costs. The problem with using a tobacco tax to fund health care (or any other vice tax to find any social program) has several dimensions:

If the tax reduces consumption (as it is intended to), then the program ends up underfunded. If the tax is collected in full, then we’re funding one program on the backs of citizens who will require more health care services, increasing system costs.

If some portion of the tax were earmarked for smoking cessation programs, that would be a good thing. Massachusetts had some great successes in using the tobacco tax for big-budget anti-smoking ads (in the early days of the increased tobacco tax), and some of those ads have now been picked up in other markets. Eventually, though, the Commonwealth was unable to keep all that money in the tobacco control program, and it seeped into other programs more or less connected to tobacco control or the health issues related to tobacco use.

Bottom line: The law of unintended consequences is clearly in effect here, and in an ideal world legislators should be more forthright in assessing the costs of current and proposed social programs, and in assigning responsibility for assuming those costs.

]]>