OK, for a start, this was a thread where anti-smokers seemed to quickly disappear.

Earlier in the thread, Bill Godshall hypothesized that, "by reducing smoking sharply, states save money they would have otherwise spent on Medicaid and other state funded and subsidized healthcare services attributable to smoking diseases."

When I posted that since the MSA was signed, Medicaid eligibles in NY increased over 40% by 2002, nary a peep came out of the anti-smoker side.

The big jump in Medicaid eligibles actually started in 2002. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 undoubtedly contributed to the effect. However in that year, NYS also raised the state excise tax on cigarettes in April of 2002 to become the highest in nation at that time. Then Bloomberg approved raising NY City's tax from $0.08 to $1.50 per pack in June. So the combined "take" by NYS and NYC was $3.00 in excise taxes, $0.40 in MSA payments passed on by the tobacco companies, and approximately $0.31 per pack in state and city sales taxes added in for good measure.

Now maybe they didn't see it, or maybe they didn't have any comment. But something caused the huge increase in Medicaid eligibles, and it sure wasn't all tied to the 9/11 attacks. I believe it was more closely tied to anti-smoking policies enacted in NY. You be the judge.

You are assuming that the city and state are actually using revenue from tobacco sales to pay for medicade - none of them are. Most states are putting the money in their general funds and paying for everything with it.

It is like the anti saying don't pee in my pool. Soon after it arrives it is mixed with all the other proceeds deposited by the state.

What has been the problem for most states is they know how much they receive and can divide that by their supposed tax to determine itwm counts. When they propose a increase tax they then apply the increase times the number of items to determine what the increase revenue will be. Neither New York State of the City of New York are actually living up to their dreams of revenue.

They say out of one side of their mouths they are increasing the tax to reduce the number of items purchased, while out of the other side of their mouths they are looking for a windfall of increased revenue.

Individual smokers are not as stupid as these officials think they are. If a smoker purchases a pack of cigarettes each day and know they state's earning $ 3.00 on each then they know they have $ 3.00 times 30 packs or $ 90.00 a month to play with. Over a year that is $ 1,080.00. With that much money in the smoker has a lot of incentive to consider other suppliers of product.

As a result, the Attorney General is trying to cut off the money transfers by eliminating credit card sales and transport thru shippers like Fedex, UPS, and others. The legislature is trying to keep the smoker away from the Indian Tribes who are not subject to state laws. And with that much money available they are trying to keep smugglers at bay.

I do not feel medicade has anything to do with the justification for state or city taxes. Tobacco is a golden goose laying platinum eggs for the governments of states. They do nothing to earn the money, they provide no benefits to the smoker in return for the money, why should the smoker feel obligated to pay them for smoking.

World Trade is great for smokers.

Bruce, didn't assume anything about what government spends money on. I simply posted an observation that since the "beneficial" and "kindly" government powers added to the cost of cigarettes through the MSA and tax increases, many more families in the state now qualify for Medicaid.

Medicaid is simply a program for low income families. There are obviously many more now meeting income and resource eligibility requirements in NY. There are apparently a lot more poorer people living there now even with the booming economy and low jobless rates.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Koza:

Medicaid is simply a program for low income families. There are obviously many more now meeting income and resource eligibility requirements in NY. There are apparently a lot more poorer people living there now even with the booming economy and low jobless rates.

So actually the question raised should be why are so many more eligible for medicaid?<P>
One thing for certain, no matter which way they slice it they can not come up with a legitimate basis on which to blame tobacco and/or smoking.

Correct, Gabz.

Of course, more eligibles doesn't necessary equate to more government expenditures. Quite frankly, the government justifies its "usefulness" and thus its "raison d'etre" by the number eligibles, but increases in eligibles doesn't necessarily equate to more tax dollars spent. Figures lie, and liars figure.

Regardless of who qualifies for Medicade, most people in that situation have less than an ideal diet. Diet and nutrician are a primary factor in maintaining good health, along with some excercise. Food stamps can not be used to buy cigarettes. Vouchers can not be used to buy cigarettes. If the poor are solely on government support how can they afford cigarettes? Medicade pays for health care survices that the individual can not pay, which is true of most citizens without insurance. If 40% of the population does not have health insurance it only stands to reason they devote their meager incomes to more basic needs than supporting the health care and insurance industries.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
Food stamps can not be used to buy cigarettes. Vouchers can not be used to buy cigarettes. If the poor are solely on government support how can they afford cigarettes?

They sell food stamps for cash to buy cigarettes (beer and other stuff they can't buy with food stamps).

Food stamps are no longer used. Debit cards are used instead to stop recipients selling the paper currency. Funds are added to the card's balance on a regular basis. If a card is lost, stolen, or sold, the recipient will not get any more deposits. They may be able to do it once, but there will be a lot of splaining to do before they get a new card.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
Food stamps are no longer used. Debit cards are used instead to stop recipients selling the paper currency. Funds are added to the card's balance on a regular basis. If a card is lost, stolen, or sold, the recipient will not get any more deposits. They may be able to do it once, but there will be a lot of splaining to do before they get a new card.

Abusing the system was recently discussed on a Yahoo group I'm on. With the debit card, they buy meat, resell it for less than store value, and use the cash for whatever. They always find a way to beat the system.

Rules are made to be broken.

Americans are ingenius at getting what they want.

Smoking inspires a genius mentality.