OPINION & EDITORIAL
Increasing taxes to fund Medicaid
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Julie Isen:
- Cystic Fibrosis in need of cure (May 2, 2005)
- Russ Feingold in 2008? (September 1, 2005)
- Inequality looms over Wisconsin (September 16, 2005)
- Waging war on women's health (September 20, 2005)
- Wisconsin deserves FEMA relief funds (September 29, 2005)
Related Stories:
- A Kool compromise (October 19, 2007)
- Prognosis poor on hospital tax (November 5, 2007)
- More wealth for better health (January 30, 2007)
- Doyle wrongly hikes taxes (May 3, 2007)
- Doyle's cigarette tax best solution (February 1, 2007)
by Julie Isen
Friday, March 11, 2005
Taxes on cigarettes generate over $293 million a year in the state of Wisconsin alone. The cigarette tax in Wisconsin is now 77 cents per pack, which is in the middle range for all 50 states. However, state legislators on the Assembly committee studying Medicaid, specifically Republican Rep. J.A. Hines of Oxford, want to raise that tax to help pay for the Medicaid bill. If the recently proposed tax increase is implemented, raising the tax per pack to $1.77, revenue generated from cigarette taxes will, possibly, go up between $250 and $340 million.
Rep. Hines and fellow Republican Rep. Curt Gielow of Mequon, chair of the committee studying Medicaid, are working together on this bill. Both are so worried, as Republicans, about appearing to be in favor of a tax increase, they are calling the increase a “user fee.” However, since I’m not afraid of them actually taking a stance, I’ll be calling it what it clearly is, which is a tax increase.
Now, an increase in the cigarette tax would most likely deter many younger people from smoking. And of course, attempting to dissuade the impressionable youth targeted by the tobacco company ads is a noble idea. The fewer people who partake in smoking this highly addictive and dangerous — though legal — drug, the better off and healthier we are as a society. After all, one in five deaths in America is smoking-related. That means that more than 400,000 people die from smoking every year. Preventing just a few of those deaths is worth a $1 tax increase.
The state of Montana recently raised its cigarette tax by a dollar as well and has just seen a major drop in cigarette sales. Kudos to Montana!
Unfortunately, that’s not the purpose of this tax increase. In fact, if people start smoking less in Wisconsin, the whole point of the increase would be defeated since the point is to make more money to pay for Medicaid.
Wisconsin, along with other states, is facing a Medicaid crisis. This year there was a $123.7 million gap in federal funding for the program and legislators are attempting to reform Medicaid in order to keep it. Even after all this and the ever-rising health care costs, the Bush Administration has recently proposed a $40 billion cut in the Medicaid program in an effort to reduce the deficit. Taking money from the program that provides lower-income people with health care probably isn’t the best place to start, but as surprised as I know you all are, that’s what President Bush is attempting to do.
The Wisconsin Assembly has decided that in order to not be forced to reduce eligibility or cut services provided by Medicaid, they will try out this extra tax on cigarettes. Gov. Doyle is opposed to the tax increase because he does not want to put the fate of Medicaid in the hopes that people will continue, and others start up, bad habits.
As good of an idea as this tax may be, forcing Wisconsinites who are addicted to cigarettes to pay for Medicaid isn’t a fair policy.
Maybe now is a good time to reconsider legalizing marijuana, which studies conclusively show is physically non-addictive as opposed to cigarettes. When comparing the 400,000 deaths cigarettes cause a year and the zero deaths that have been directly caused by marijuana in this country, it’s a more sensible plan that can create even more revenue than the cigarette tax increase.
So here is my proposal: legalize marijuana, a less dangerous drug than tobacco, in order to tax it to raise funds for Medicaid and raise the cigarette tax in order to dissuade people from smoking.
And hopefully whatever the state Assembly, and separately the Bush Administration, proposes will be a comromise at least moderately acceptable to everyone.
Julie Isen (jbisen@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 3:03am):
Oh boy, can't wait to see the comments on this one...
-- Grandpa Albert
P.S. Did you forget to bring Kringle to the assisted living center?
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 6:11am):
It may be less detrimental to your body, but there's no way in hell I would legalize weed knowing how many people would start smoking and driving. It would be a terrible situation.
I do agree with an increase in the cost per pack, and I do think that most people would still buy cigarettes. As for Bush cutting funding to Medicaid...why don't I as someone who pays more taxes than someone on the lower end get all these freebies and handouts when in all likelyhood, I work harder, longer, and produce more than the person on the lower end? I guess that's the conservative in me talking, but I still agree with an increase in the price of cigarettes...but please, no marijuana legalization.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 7:29am):
why do you think that legalizing marijuana would mean people getting in cars and driving? should alcohol be illegal because of the sheer number of drunk drivers every day? i mean, yes, some people may drive while stoned because sometimes people make bad choices, but i dont think that it would be really any more than already do through the illegality...
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 8:45am):
"Now, an increase in the cigarette tax would most likely deter many younger people from smoking."
I don't know about that. It would have to be a pretty big increase.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 8:48am):
You managed to bash bush one more time in this article. I just wanted to remind you of something...YOU LOST, The american people have spoken and they gave a higher percentage of the popular vote to Bush than any democrat for the last 25 years. That is right, your beloved clinton never got 50% of the popular vote, but bush did. Eat it hippy.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 9:04am):
Just because it happens with alcohol doesn't mean it should be allowed to occur with weed. That's just a dumb argument...We do need to create better laws for DD currently, we do need to create a bigger deterence for it. Just because alcohol people abuse alcohol and drive doesn't mean we should allow others to smoke and drive.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 10:03am):
"As for Bush cutting funding to Medicaid...why don't I as someone who pays more taxes than someone on the lower end get all these freebies and handouts when in all likelyhood, I work harder, longer, and produce more than the person on the lower end?"
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY!
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 10:15am):
Health care costs are way out of whack. At what point did we decide to pay for everyone's health care? You know, if we kept raising the eligibility level for Medicare, that would be the back door entry into socialized medicine. I think that we need to keep a close eye on this. Again, the real goal is to have consumers rationally paying for their own healthcare.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 10:32am):
In a perfect world, we would dismantle Medicaid and demand that all citizens take responsibility for their own healthcare.
But since this isn't going to happen, and the lower income people that are covered by Medicaid are more likely to be smokers, the cigerette tax is an effective way of making them pay for their choices.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 10:50am):
What's rational about having to pay 100,000 because you don't have health care and get in a car accident, or have to have your appendix removed and have complications? Anyone? You folks don't take responsibility for your health care in such situations--you pray to God you have catastrophic health insurance. I'm all about giving lower premiums and lower taxes to people who make smart choices (even though this hurts people with less education--yes, you weren't born superior), but catastrophic costs need to be better managed, even if that means, gasp, some socialized medicine. A slavish devotion to the market is equally as stupid as an infantile hatred of it.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 1:19pm):
This column has two of the most basic elements of modern liberal "thought":
1. Above all, President Bush is evil.
2. Something that is not taxed is an opportunity for future taxation.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 2:11pm):
I can understand the occasional catastrophic case. However, we need to recognize that if every single person had $10 million of health care costs, we could not pay for that.
Luckily, that is not the case. The 99% of folks who don't suffer those kinds of injuries should pay for their own health care out of pocket instead of using insurance, HMOs, etc. We need more of the market in health care, not less.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 2:34pm):
We need less of the market in health care, not more. I think that most people who work in hospital or HMO/PPO administration would agree with that (if they are able to control their greed, which many are not, which explains our current prediciment).
The fact is, the health care industry is pricing itself out of business. "Free-market" competition has led to an MRI machine in every clinic and a specialist for every disorder. If you can't provide that service, then patients/customers will go elsewhere. Most rational health care professionals see that socializing medicine is the only way to save a business that is destroying itself because of unrestrained American or "hyper-" capitalism.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 2:45pm):
Supporting Bush = stupidity
There is not a single intelligent Bush supporter in the world. Not a single one.
Any of you Bush backers ever wonder why every other country in the world wanted Kerry to win over Bush? Or does your arrogance know no bounds? Perhaps these other countries are receiving information that we aren't? Or is it that the whole world has been brainwashed and only Bushies know the truth. The precentages nationally might not be on our side now, but the truth will always win out eventaully. I just wonder how many thousands more Americans and hundred thousands more people of color will have to die before you sick bastards realize that you were wrong and always have been wrong.
Get you heads out of your asses stupid fucks.
Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 6:42pm):
I guess if I was high maybe I'd do her.
Anonymous (March 12, 2005 @ 6:13am):
Still crying about Kerry losing? Sorry...you lost...again. Should we recount in Florida again for you? Got any more cocnspiracy theories as to how the election was stolen? Complaining about winning will never help anyone anyways, just suck it up for 4 years and let's do something for the country besides complain.
Anonymous (March 12, 2005 @ 11:47am):
"There is not a single intelligent Bush supporter in the world. Not a single one."
..and I thought Liberals were supposed to be the ones with open minds.
Anonymous (March 12, 2005 @ 11:57am):
"the truth will always win out eventaully"
No, the truth doesn't always win out eventually. In fact, it usually doesn't. If it did, you wouldn't be bitching so much, now would you?
Anonymous (March 12, 2005 @ 12:18pm):
"There is not a single intelligent Bush supporter in the world. Not a single one."
WOW. How hypocritical can you get? You make a statement like this then proceed to talk about arrogance! That may be the most arrogant statement I have ever heard! I personally voted against Bush, but even I am disgusted by that statement. It only shows your ignorance and intolerance and pushes the middle further to the right.
Anonymous (March 12, 2005 @ 5:52pm):
"No, the truth doesn't always win out eventually. In fact, it usually doesn't. If it did, you wouldn't be bitching so much, now would you?"
^^^^^Makes absolutely no sense
Anonymous (March 13, 2005 @ 1:31pm):
"... no way in hell I would legalize weed knowing how many people would start smoking and driving."
Yeah, all those paranoid, over-cautious drivers going at least 5 MPH slower than the posted limit would really clog up the roads.
Anonymous (March 13, 2005 @ 1:41pm):
"Any of you Bush backers ever wonder why every other country in the world wanted Kerry to win over Bush?"
Every other country? Not really, only those looking for weak sister at the helm of the only hyper-power in the world? I'm sure that the French and Germans only have the best interests of the USA in mind.
***
"...hundred thousands more people of color will have to die..."
Much better to leave it up the UN, they're doing such a great job in Sudan and had such wonderful results in Ruwanda. The French were just mowing the POP down on their way out of the Ivory coast - but they're the lefties heros?
***
"Get you (sic) heads out of your asses stupid fucks."
It' apparent who is suffering from cranial-rectal impaction. (hint - look in the mirror)
Anonymous (March 13, 2005 @ 9:15pm):
This article assumed it is the government's responsibility to provide health care?
