New cigarette tax increase considered / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, May 3, 2007

May 3, 2007

Topeka — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday that she may push again for a state cigarette tax increase to expand health care to the uninsured.

"I still think it's a strategy that we may put back on the table next year," Sebelius said during a news conference at the conclusion of the 2007 legislative session.

She said approval this session of health policy reforms puts her and the Legislature on the path toward providing comprehensive coverage for all Kansans. About 290,000 Kansans don't have health insurance.

The question will be how to pay for expanding coverage, she said.

She said the state must look at more efficient ways to draw down federal dollars, and possibly increase the cigarette tax because the costs of smoking directly affect health care costs. And an increase in the tax will prevent some from picking up the habit she said.

In 2004, Sebelius, a former state insurance commissioner, proposed increasing the state cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack to $1.29. But the proposal went nowhere in the Legislature.

The difference between then and now, Sebelius said, is lawmakers are more interested in health care reform, and Kansas' rank among states on the cigarette tax has fallen since more than a dozen other states have recently increased their rates.

But Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia, who was the lead sponsor of health care legislation in the Senate, said an increase in the cigarette tax wasn't a good idea.

He said increases in cigarette taxes generally lead to reductions in revenue from the product because smokers seek other avenues of buying cigarettes.

"It isn't a reliable source of income to pay for health care," said Barnett, who is a physician.

He said policymakers will have to exercise fiscal discipline to free up dollars for health care.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

3 May 2007
at 4:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

I thought cigarettes were bad for us? We have implemeneted smoking bans (which I believe the one in Lawrence will be thrown out by the KS Supremes and re-written to allow for some flexibility) and made every attempt to discourage use. I guess this is another way? I say outlaw cigarettes, if they are so bad for us, and they are. Ops! Kansas would loose out on tax revenue. I guess the State doesn't want people to quit after all? Which is it, Kansas? Same thing applies to the gas tax. If we all car pooled and cut our driving in half, what would Kansas do without those road taxes?
3 May 2007
at 6:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pogo (Anonymous) says…

An increase in the cigarette tax is a good thing. It's pretty much a “no brainer” in our view. Same thing with alcohol. The sky is the limit as far as we're concerned. My health insurance costs are higher in part due to the amount of money which is having to be devoted to the by-products of the personal choice thousands of Kansasans are making to use tobacco and alcohol.

It's always been somewhat amusing to hear the “poor” cry about their poverty status with a cig dangling from their mouth or the stench of the stuff all about them We cannot proclaim a raise in the cigarette tax unfairly affects the lower socio-economic groups of the state. Using that stuff is a choice. Period.

While we're at it, legalize reefer and tax the tar out of that stuff too. Dealers nationwide privately prefer the illegality of the stuff because it creates a market place for them…..and one which is not taxed in any way, shape, or form. Hippie culture died a long time ago, so letting big business run the reefer business doesn't concern us.

Yup, increase these “sin taxes” and lower my income, property, and perhaps gasoline taxes. We can also begin to bring in meaningful health insurance for all. It's high time Kansas joined civilization and got it's rear out of the early 20th century mind set it's been stuck in for a long, long time. Brown vs. The Board of Education came from Kansas afterall, and it wasn't because we're such a “progressive” state. It was because we're really Mississippi West.
3 May 2007
at 6:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

Pogo, if you think your property taxes and health insurance costs are going to go down if eveyone quits using alcohol and tobacco, you are smoking something! Health insurance costs are high, in part, due to malpractice costs, etc. You think it is high now, just wait until the Govt. controls it. Your taxes are really going to go up because someone has to pay for it. It ain't gonna be free. Use of tobacco and alcohol are most assuredly choices. So is stuffing your mouth full of food and getting fat. Are you ready for a “twinkie tax”?
3 May 2007
at 8:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MacHeath (Anonymous) says…

I think that is a great idea KS. Twinkies are just as bad for some folks as cigarettes. They have no food value, so tax em!
Actually there is a significant rise in teenage diabetes because of all this crap we let our kids eat. I bet if one did a study, you would find out this is going to be another hudge draw on our medical system for some years to come. I really don't see a difference.
3 May 2007
at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

I'm going to apply my babelfish translator on Pogo's post from “rhetoric” to “english”

(Tax cigarettes and booze. I don't smoke or drink, so it won't effect me. Since it doesn't effect me, then it's great. Other people don't concern me. )

I concede it is possible that it was satire, too. I hope so.
3 May 2007
at 9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lynnmariea (Anonymous) says…

YES! Brilliant idea!!!!! I would love to see a huge cigarette tax increase!
11 September 2008
at 6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ty1963 (Anonymous) says…

I bet this would include giving illegal “immigrants” insurance also. Wouldn't that be great?