Passing children's health insurance - Great

Making its funding depend on the country's greatest menace to its collective health - Not so great

Senate repugs NEVER filibuster.

They pretend to threaten to filibuster, and Harry Reid caves.

Real filibustering involves forcing your members to stand on their feet and talk nonstop with no break and no drinks or food for hours and days.

Mitchie-poo would last about an hour and a half.

Next time he tries another fake, somebody needs to call his bluff.

I concur with scott_m. Passing legislation to provide healthcare to 4 million more children is good, but paying for it with cigarette taxes is dubious. Sure, it probably will fund the program for a while, but we all know cigarettes pose one of the biggest health threats we face in this country. And what happens if we manage to significantly cut the number of smokers over the coming years?

The power behind the threat of a filibuster is the ability to successfully kill a bill with it. Senate Republicans had that power once.

Maybe Bright and Marshall will start receiving emails from outraged constituents based on the Obama campaign's enormous mailing list. That would be way cool.

How about we fund the thing with a windfall profits tax on everyone who held a job in the White House between 2000 and 2008? That would be even cooler...not to mention funnier.

And what happens if we manage to significantly cut the number of smokers over the coming years?

This would be an AWESOME problem to have.

Golly gee, if we had millions more people living healthier, more productive lives, how would we ever figure out how to pay for a little program to insure children?

Seriously, I think we'd muddle through somehow.

Various studies put the U.S. health care spending due to smoking alone in the $90-$100 billion range. Seems to me that significantly reducing smoking will free up a bit of health care funding anyways. Of course, then you'll have an increase in geriatric health care costs as well because fewer people die due to lung cancer and whatnot, but anyways, I wouldn't worry all that much about where the funding comes from if smoking plummets disasterously.

And what happens if we manage to significantly cut the number of smokers over the coming years?

We have a big celebration of that major acheivement and, either:
(1) S-CHIP is already rendered obsolete by a comprehensive national healthcare plan that makes myriad specific programs for specific populations unnecessary, or
(2) We find a new funding source to support S-CHIP.

I agree with all the points made about my comment, but it is not always so easy to change funding sources. Circumstances change. None of use knows who will be in power in 10 or 15 years. I agree that it would be something to celebrate if we significantly reduced the number of smokers and the related health issues. I'm just pointing out that relying on a revenue stream that ideally we want to eliminate is at best problematic and at worst a conflict of interest.

The bill [...] would increase federal taxes on cigarettes by 61 cents to a dollar a pack to pay the $32.3 billion cost -- news at yahoo

The producers have anticipated the passage of SCHIP; my carton of (cheapest available) cigs was a dollar more yesterday than it had been 5 days ago, after holding steady for more than a year (about the only thing that didn't go up, despite the "transportation costs" fluctuations). I think they're planning to raise the prices gradually, a bit at a time, *before* the law actually kicks in so that, by then, we'll be used to it (kind-a like the frog and boiling water).

I'm one of those who'll have to contemplate kicking the dirty habit after all those years (43+), once the prices are firmly set at the peak. But, in the meantime, perhaps I'll move to 4 packs a day (instead of 2), while the going is still good :)

Seriously, though... I'm very happy about the bill's passage and its no-veto prospects. Long overdue and, hopefully, a crack in the door towards universal, single-payer, not for profit healthcare for *all* Americans, irrespective of age.

The roll call is online here, but I'd note two groups of people of particular interest. There were six House Republicans -- Rodney Frelinghuysen (N.J.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Mike Rogers (Ala.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), and Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) -- who voted for the bill, after having opposed it in the last Congress. Elana Schor asks, "What happened, guys? Was it Obama's post-partisan outreach that did it for you?"
What happened to the Floridians was Annette Taddeo, Raul Martinez, and Joe Garcia--they had actual competition for the first time in forever and spent the year getting attacked again and again over S-CHIP, and jumped on the chance to nip that in the bud just in case. I might guess that something like that happened with the others. This is why democracy is good!

What if... The Republicans, instead of delaying the bill in the Senate pushed it through and forced it to the president's desk BEFORE 1/20?? Bush could veto it once more as a parting gift.

well, it's all very high-minded to speak of unreliable revenue streams and the like, but i object to it on crass personal grounds: why the hell should i and other smokers foot the bill for expansion of children's health insurance? if it's such a jolly good idea, why not make everyone pay for it?

your pal,
blake

They tried funding healthcare through cigarette taxes and what happened? Funding dried up as more people quit. Now they try and pass propositions to raise taxes on cigarettes even more so that they can backfill the funding the last time they did it.

Leave it to the federal gov't to do the same dumb thing.

as an addendum to my post, I am glad S-chip will be funded I just believe the method was dumb.

blake, @18:51

I'd sooner fund children's health care than the lawyers in all those mass... er... class action suits. Face it... We're gonna get reamed one way or another, 'cause nobody likes us no more.

PS I just heard that, on top of the $0.61-1.00 *federal* tax, I'll be paying $0.31 of *state* tax as well. Just announced by Gov. Tim Kaine (VA), in his state address tonight, my husband told me with glee (reformed smokers are the pits).

While I'm not crazy about the idea of paying $6.10 more per carton of cigarettes, I'm glad to see this bill finally becoming law.

As far as the funding source drying up as a result of people quitting due to the increased price, I have never known of anyone who quit smoking simply because the price went up. Sad to say the addiction is way stronger than that. I can sadly testify to that from personal experience, unfortunately.

Aw, it isn't that we don't like you, exlibra; we've just gotten used to public places not being smoky, and we can't go back.

You guys have all my sympathy. Quitting smoking was the hardest thing I ever did. And I've done some hard things.

RECORD OPPORTUNITY
In the past it’s been difficult for the uninsured, especially children, to receive quality ongoing and follow-up healthcare because there was no previous record of their condition or treatments. Valuable time was wasted gathering basic information, and in some cases essential health histories have been lost. The lack of continuity in treating the uninsured is one of the big problems facing our health system. The proposed SCHIP extension will potentially insure 4 million children, making portable electronic health records more important than ever.
More discussion: www.healthcaretownhall.com