Oregon to Vote on Children's Health Care

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Oregon to vote on children's health care
By JULIA SILVERMAN, Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND, Ore. - When Oregon residents weigh in Tuesday on whether to raise the state's cigarette tax to pay for an expansion of children's health care, their votes could resonate 3,000 miles away on Capitol Hill. Congress and the Bush administration have been wrangling over the same concept in their showdown over federal spending on the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"If Oregon votes in the affirmative for this, it will be a shot in the arm," said U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Portland. "It will be harder for some people to ignore what the public sentiment is. Maybe they can ignore the polls, but this would be a signal victory."

On the flip side, if the measure fails in Oregon, widely viewed as a liberal-leaning state, it will be a serious setback for children's health advocates and a notch in the belt of tobacco companies.

"It's the symbolism," said Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who vigorously campaigned in support of the measure, even donating $200,000 from his own political action committee. "If you can defeat it here in Oregon, you send a chilling message to the rest of the country."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_re_us/children_s_health_insurance

[Vinca]

1. I hope very much this passes, but - like every other children's bill -

I wonder who will take care of them when they're orphans. Adults need healthcare, too.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. The only part of this bill that I don't like is that it makes it a Constitutional Amendment

I'm NOT liking that. :(

[Parche]

3. Ballot

And I forgot to male my ballot in...........:hi:

[Pastiche423]

4. Neither am I

That's why I voted no.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

5. A silly reason

You have been fooled by Tobacco Mutant RJ Reynolds.

The Oregon Constitution is one of the most amended in the nation, for the number of years it has existed (since 1857). It was built to easily accommodate amendments. To suggest that it exists as a permanent document, unchanging and inflexible, is ludicrous. Might be that way in other states, but hey, they ain't Oregon!

The thing about this measure that had me concerned was the fact that so called "sin taxes" are never consistent sources of revenue. Having read the fine print on this measure, however, it becomes apparent that a gradual decrease in smoking (and thus, a decrease in tax-generated revenues from this measure) has already been anticipated.

And if it doesn't work, we can amend it again!

[hayu_lol]

6. If you read the fine print in this 'health' issue,

you find that only about 30% of the money collected(from smokers only)will find it's way to the kids...the other 70% will go to the usual culprits: Big Pharma, for profit hospitals and HMOs and the like. Lets not also forget the general fund that always is hungry for revenue.

Tobacco taxes have already been raised above anything reasonable. This new tax will be about 84 cents a pack...on top of what is there now.

Today, this is the smoker's ox being gored...tomorrow, perhaps we could dream up a bill that would tax Baptists--we have an almost inexhaustable supply of them and they would end up doing what their religion tells them to do in the first place.

One angry smoker who just hates being singled out for something that everyone should be participating in. Maybe smokers should wear indian suits and go dump tobacco into the Columbia and Rogue Rivers.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. we've never amended it to put in a product tax

it's already been amended many times, yes. Does that make it ok to amend it again? and for something like this?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a smoker, and I wasn't thrilled with this idea in the beginning, but I decided it was worth it for the greater good.

Then I found out it would be stuck in the Constitution, which struck a raw nerve. Then I read the damn thing. It's a mess, and not even half of the money will go to kids. I voted no

[depakid]

9. Fell for the propaganda, eh?

The state Constitution isn't like the Federal Constitution (despite the tremendous amount of money spent to make people think so).

It lacks "doctrinal integrity." It's in essense no more than a statute and can be changed by a simple majority vote.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. hey you!

long time, no see. How ya doin? :hug:

I didn't fall for nothing. After I made that comment, I went and read the text again, and checked out the backers of the bill, and the details of the Healthy kids plan.
On top of the unfairness of taxing just smokers (of which hopefully by the end of Dec. I will no longer be), putting a specific product tax in the constitution, the problems with the fore-casted revenue, and the absolute absence of details for the way the money will be spent, the insurance industry is backing it.
I just couldn't bring myself to vote yes. :(

[depakid]

14. I'm just irrritated about the whole deal

That was the worst barrage of deceitful corporate propaganda- to the exclusion of any other view points, that I have ever seen. For two months, you couldn't turn on the TV with seeing those disgustingly slick ads on just about every single channel. Worse even than the campaign to defeat the rational expansion of the bottle bill.

All to the great economic benefit of the owners of the TV and radio stations.

It well beyond any specific issue- though my thoughts are get the kids health care first- then tweak the program- which would have happened. Instead, kids and families suffer- and the point's been proven yet again that, barring media divestment and re-regulation, real reform is nearly impossible in the US.

Also: :hi:

Be nice to do another meet-up.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

15. check the OR forum before Saturday

we postponed from last weekend. :)

[Quantess]

12. Haven't there been several constitutional amendments already?

That's what The Oregonian said in an editorial piece. They said that the bit about changing the constitution was overblown because the constitution has already been amended so many times.

It did not pass, BTW.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. oh, yea. and I admit that the OR Const. is a little different than the US Const.

There's even a small chance that my disgust and contempt for what is going on in DC is clouding my vision... :shrug: but, fundamentally, I do not believe that things like product taxes have any place in a Constitution. I don't care how many times something similar has been done.

I saw that it didn't pass, and frankly, I'm torn about how I feel. My kids might have actually benefited from it. I say might have, because I've been on the receiving end of some of the current state program's 'problems'. I'm not at all confident in the proposed program. :(

[depakid]

8. Considering that out of state interests (primarily tobacco) out spent proponents

by something close to 9-1 -and literally MONOPOLIZED the airwaves with deception, distortion and misinformation- I wouldn't read too much into a defeat, other than that the corporate media REQUIRES regulations that ensure a fair and accurate debate- where EACH SIDE GETS HEARD.

When ordinary people only get to hear ONE SIDE -and that side is able to lie with impunity- that's about the biggest threat to democracy (and rationality) that a Western nation could face.

Yet another a source of shame and embarrassment me (and to you) when we travel abroad.

[0rganism]

11. running the program off a tobacco tax was a mistake

First, as others have noted, M50 proposed a product tax in the state constitution. Anytime the revenue needs for the program increased, we'd need to amend the constitution again to account for it, and/or pull in supplemental funding. And it's unclear what would have happened in the odd case of excess revenues. That's all a nuisance, but not necessarily fatal in itself.

The most obvious mistake was going up against Big Tobacco, which poured so much money into the No campaign it wasn't even funny. They bought a total media saturation bombardment on a large scale, and the proponents never got anywhere near the needed airtime to correct the bullshit. The flaws inherent in the way the funding was established made bashing M50 easy.

And it lost in every county except Multnomah.

Unfortunately, this is cannot be viewed as an isolated scenario. Big Tobacco was NOT exploring new territory here, they were following a well-worn path. Anytime something is proposed that goes up against the Power Players, expect this situation to happen. (KarlMarxian voice: "Eet vahs eenEhvituhble!") Frankly, it's a miracle when something DOES pass that limits the abilities of wealthy capitalists to profit from the misfortunes of others.

We ought to have nationwide health care for everyone, but it won't happen at the expense of Big Tobacco -- or Big Insurance, for that matter.