BOSTON - Two years after the state's landmark health law was signed, the cracks are starting to show.


Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's subsidized insurance plans.

Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new cigarette tax expected to generate about $154 million a year.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_re_us/mass_he...CxUJSbFEN6AktbCs0NUE

"They said it would get us universal coverage and reduce costs and it's done neither," Tanner said."

If this is so G-D important to these POS politicians, why are they only going after smokers?

My brother was paid a visit from the Secret Service once for an alleged death threat made on the president (can't remember which president). A co-worker of his had notified them.

When my brother explained the story to them he said they laughed their heads off and bid him a good day.

Does anyone know how far you can go with saying you wish death on state politicians before you're arrested? Would it be safer just wishing they all get leprosy?

Why in the f#ck are smokers supposed to be the ones footing the bill for an anti- freedom hater idea?????

I'm so sick of these worthless bastards. I can hardly stand to read this stuff anymore, it sends my blood pressure through the f@#$%^g roof.

BTW, OheilO confiscated almost all the MSA smoker "health care" money, and put it in the general fund.

Everyone of these worthless politicians needs to GO NOW.

I was out the other night and people were talking about this tax and got real interested in MYO, when in the past they never paid much attention to MYO.[Loose tobacco is going up too but not as much]

Also, people are planning to take an [under 1hr] trip to New Hampshire for their cigs. I would bet at least 80% of the MA population is within an hour of the NH border.

quote:

BOSTON - Two years after the state's landmark health law was signed, the cracks are starting to show.

Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's subsidized insurance plans.

Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new cigarette tax expected to generate about $154 million a year.

-------------------

FAT CHANCE!!!!
Gary K.

Fuming Over Cigarette Tax. Should smokes cost $6 a pack?

It’s over-taxation, and the legislators are killing the goose that’s laying the golden egg," said Thomas Briant, executive director of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO).

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4685

"States are constantly seeking new sources of revenue, and cigarette tax always comes up as one that is politically more palatable," noted Jim Calvin, president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS).

"There is always the political cover that it is designed to deter smoking, which would be true if the smoking population were a captive audience. Unfortunately, they are not, so any increase in the cigarette tax is only going to cost us more business and cost them more tax revenue. And it’s not going to compel anybody to stop smoking, so it’s a lose–lose–lose proposition."

There is "an enormous problem here in New York with cigarette tax evasion," Calvin continued. "More than half of cigarettes consumed by New Yorkers are purchased without payment of any New York State tax

That has caused extreme hardship for licensed tax collecting c-store operators, and an enormous loss of tax revenue for the state."

Flawed Logic
The ironic part is that, in many cases, states may actually be losing money by raising taxes.

For instance, the number of packs of cigarettes being sold in New Jersey, which has the highest tobacco excise tax in the nation at $2.57 per pack, has been steadily dropping, while neighboring Delaware’s has almost doubled.

Where are the dollars going? The winners are nearby states with lower taxes, bootleggers, Native American reservations and the Internet.

At best, tax increases are an imprecise tool. Case in point: all 50 states have excise taxes on cigarettes.

But of the 40 that increased them between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, only eight met or exceeded revenue projections. Of the 32 that fell short, New Jersey missed by the largest margin, 67%, followed by Wyoming at 59% and Connecticut at 43%.

Next door in New York City, which imposes its own cigarette tax on top of the state’s, a Department of Health study last year found that 57% of smokers had purchased their cigarettes at least once from low-tax or no-tax sources and that more than one-third (37%) of smokers were purchasing low-tax or untaxed cigarettes regularly.

So the other day, I was in the local mom & pop card store where I USED to buy my cigs. The new owner was going on about New York's recent decision to raise cigarette taxes again.

"I don't know what I'm going to do!" he exclaimed. "I've got a wife and kids to support and this new tax is going to kill me. I won't be able to make the rent on the shop."

I sympathized with him until he said the following: "They should crack down on those Indians. They're taking all my business."

Now follow me here, folks. This guy owns a store just outside the NYC limits. In fact, he has a prominently-displayed sign on his window saying DON'T PAY NYC TAXES! And yet, he wants to "crack down" on the Indians for doing EXACTLY what he's doing, to wit, taking advantage of the situation caused not by the store owners, not by the Indians, but by THEIR OWN NYS GOVERNMENT.

I told him he was barking up the wrong tree and asked him why in the world he was mad at the Indians. After all, it was the politicians who raised the taxes and the Convenience Store Owners Association who helped by allowing it to happen without protest. (And no, writing angry letters to your legislators does not count as "protest," for a large organization -- they should have done MUCH more.)

He didn't seem convinced, though, and still maintained that it was those Dastardly Injuns who done him wrong.

I hope he at least thinks about what I said...maybe mentions it at some Convenience Store Assn. meeting. As for me, I probably won't be shopping at his place anymore for gum and greeting cards.

Regards,
Jenny

As states raise taxes on tobacco they are playing into the hands of the drug companies because their primary interest is replacing smoking with their products costing multiples of the cost of tobacco and are financed by health care dollars.

Many of the prescription drugs former smokers are taking begin at ten dollars a day and soar above that depending on actual need.

I suggest anyone on any prescription drug have their urine tested to determine how much of this medicine is actually being used by their bodies. Perhaps tremendous savings could be made if you determined that 50 to 75% of the dosage was not being consumed by your body.

This would also reduce the amount in our water systems.

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer Wiegand:
I sympathized with him until he said the following: "They should crack down on those Indians. They're taking all my business."

He must be one of the guys Obama was talking about; the gun and religion-grabbing, anti-immigrant, when bitter, people.

He's also a damn hypocrite.

As much as it grieves me to say it, that's why that (Dear GOD, I hate to use this term!) "Level Playing Field" horseshit works. The bastards are clever. It worked here in OheilO-the private clubs would have been exempt, like the original ban language said-after the private clubs went to court (The law was actually written after it was passed, and suddenly private clubs couldn't allow smoking either, so they went to court)-BUT-the tavern association filed a joint lawsuit (with the ACS!!)claiming it would give private clubs an 'unfair advantage' to pull in smoking customers.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/

Win #1: Fewer Kids Smoking

Studies, and experience in state after state, show that higher cigarette taxes are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking among both youth and adults. Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce youth smoking by about seven percent and overall cigarette consumption by about four percent.

Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce youth smoking by about seven percent.

(Note: This works out to a 44% decrease in smoking rate for every 100% increase in price per pack.)

Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce overall cigarette consumption by about four percent.

( NOTE: This works out to be a 25% rate decrease for every 100% price per pack increase.)

Here in Illinois in 1997 cigarettes cost about $1.00 per pack, 23% of adults smoked and let's say 20% of kids smoked.

In 2008 cigarettes cost over $5.00 per pack.

According to the cftfk, only about 6% of the kids now smoke and only about 14% of the adults now smoke.

This 6% and 14% is so out of touch with reality as to be RIDICULOUS!!

In Illinois about 20% of kids still smoke and about 21% of adults still smoke.

But look at the money being spent to solve the problem, what a boon for the economy!

How do they determine how many of us are smoking?

How do they determine how much we are smoking?

Hardly any of the predicted revenues from these tax increases are ever realized.

I have read articles about bootleg tobacco lately and counterfeit tax stamps, how many times have you been stopped and had someone examine the product you are using? If this became common how long before smokers reverted to silver cigarette cases again?

Just like the studies on passive smoking, these studies are based on questions and recording answers. NO one is actually watching the video and counting.

Every number is based on estimates, based on what?

How many former smokers are now on a prescription drug to treat a problem that did not exist before they gave up the habit? At what cost to health care?

Yahoo! News
Back to Story - Help
5 percent of Mass. taxpayers uninsured, some fined

By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 38 minutes ago

Nearly 100,000 Massachusetts taxpayers have been fined for failing to obtain health insurance, even as a major survey concludes the effort to create near-universal coverage in the state is meeting key goals.

Five percent of taxpayers failed to obtain health coverage last year, and more than half of those — about 97,000 — were forced to forfeit their personal exemption — worth $219 — after it was determined they could have afforded health care.

Two percent of taxpayers — about 62,000 — were found not to earn enough for health care, avoiding fines. Under the landmark law, taxpayers must show they are insured or face penalties. The numbers were based on a review of 86 percent of expected tax filers for 2007.

The state's first-in-the-nation universal health insurance law required everyone in the state to be insured by July 2007, except for those who secured a waiver proving they couldn't afford insurance.

Gov. Deval Patrick said the fact that 95 percent of filers were insured shows the 2006 law is making progress.

"We continue to put one foot in front of the other," Patrick said Monday.

A total of $9.7 million in fines was deposited into a trust fund to help cover the cost of the law. Monthly penalties for those who can afford health care but refuse will jump and could total as much as $912 for individuals by December.

On Tuesday, researchers released the first major survey of the health care law.

The uninsurance rate for Massachusetts adults dropped by more than half and residents were paying less in out-of-pocket health expenses, according to the report in the journal Health Affairs, which also found that low-income adults were more likely to have regular checkups and dental visits since the law took effect.

Researchers from the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank, interviewed 3,000 Massachusetts residents in the fall of 2006, just before the law took effect, and conducted a second round of interviews a year later.

Among the key findings in the report was the drop in the uninsurance rate among working-age adults from 13 percent to 7 percent. The biggest drop was among poorer residents.

Even among higher-earning residents, there was a smaller but significant decline in the uninsured.

"It's a very positive first year," said economist Sharon Long, the report's author.

Nearly 350,000 residents have been added to the ranks of the insured in Massachusetts under the law, which created a subsidized health care program for those earning less than three times the federal poverty level. It also created the Health Care Connector to help higher wage earners sign up for lower-cost, non-subsidized insurance plans.

The survey also found that people are paying less for health care-related expenses.

The share of adults reporting out-of-pocket expenses of more than $500 dropped by 4 percent, while the number of low-income adults reporting out-of-pocket expenses of more than $3,000 fell 8 percent.

Low-income adults were more likely to have a place to go when they were sick and were more likely to visit a doctor for preventive care.

Despite the increase in the ranks of the insured, the study found little effect on the use of emergency rooms for non-emergency care. And the fear that employers would begin dropping health coverage as the new law took effect hasn't happened.

Long said the study also included good news for policy makers: 71 percent of working-age adults expressed support for the law.

That will come in handy as lawmakers struggle to find ways to cover the soaring costs of the law.

"The continued challenge of health reform requires the continued support of the population and we find support for health care reform among adults in Massachusetts remains high," Long said.

In 2006, a legislative committee estimated the law would cost about $725 million in the fiscal year starting in July. In his budget, Patrick set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher.

Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new dollar-per-pack cigarette tax.

"Our success has created a very big challenge for us," Senate President Therese Murray said.

The report was paid for by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth Fund and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

___

On the Net:

Health Affairs: http://www.healthaffairs.org

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy

How long before this state starts jailing people for missing their annual checkup or worse not following the advice they are offered.

"The report was paid for by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth Fund and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation."

I don't know who/what the Commonwealth Fund is, but I sure don't trust its partners.

"The survey also found that people are paying less for health care-related expenses."

Well I would hope so if more people are now insured. Or do they mean those who had been already covered? I'm not sure because of the following statement:

"The share of adults reporting out-of-pocket expenses of more than $500 dropped by 4 percent, while the number of low-income adults reporting out-of-pocket expenses of more than $3,000 fell 8 percent."

It sounds like they're picking and choosing a couple of odd numbers to highlight. And yet the drops don't seem that outstanding.

"Low-income adults were more likely to have a place to go when they were sick and were more likely to visit a doctor for preventive care."

If you have insurance I hope to God you're more likely to have a place to go when you're sick. In fact, I'd think there wouldn't be any doubt.

"Despite the increase in the ranks of the insured, the study found little effect on the use of emergency rooms for non-emergency care."

Old habits die hard?

"And the fear that employers would begin dropping health coverage as the new law took effect hasn't happened."

Aren't they required to have health insurance for employees? Usually employers are the first group to get ordered about by pols.

"Long said the study also included good news for policy makers: 71 percent of working-age adults expressed support for the law."

The good old 70% approve survey. Is there any other kind?

"Lawmakers are hoping to close the gap in part with a new dollar-per-pack cigarette tax."

Which I'm sure 71% of the population approves. Really.

"Our success has created a very big challenge for us," Senate President Therese Murray said."

If that makes sense to anybody let me know.

Btw, if you're traveling through Mass., don't have health insurance, and need to see a doctor, will they treat you for free?

doesn't it drive you sometimes how the human powers that be can totally give it to the rest of us. from smoking to health care costs, it's all a total bunch of balony. it just suprises me that they focus on things like smokers and not automobiles or industy.
Willamina ... cpr classes