terratogen wrote:
I don't have more sympathy for a sick kid than for someone with lung cancer.

And I do, because the one of the two got their lung cancer by conscious choice.

And as for your other comments, I agree that there's no philosophical difference between taxing cigarettes because they're unhealthy and taxing, say, junk food, because it's unhealthy. In general the right to abuse yourself only extends so far as it doesn't affect other people. Smoking (and obesity and alcoholism) have social impacts that do affect everyone. Therefore it's sensible to have those who are causing these negative effects pay a slightly higher share to offset them. In general, these issues should all be handled by the insurance system, because the premiums for a self abuser (of any sort) will be higher than for someone who treats themselves well. Unfortunately, the insurance system is all fucked up in this country, and a lot of people aren't paying into the system, thus reducing the pool of available funds, so we have to find that money elsewhere.

Are you anti insurance? It only works because a vast number of healthy people are paying for the small number of sick people. There isn't any other way it can work. So, am I, a generally healthy young person, being robbed by all the old sickies? It's a point of view I've heard. It's a cost I'm willing to pay however, because the system doesn't function otherwise. The alternative is everyone pays for their own health care directly, with no cost sharing. This of course means that people who've had some bad luck, die. Period. One may certainly argue in favor of such a system, so long as they don't shy away from the facts of how it works.

As I've said, I do think there's a difference between a 50 year old lifetime smoker with lung cancer, and a kid who needs annual checkups and can't get them because his mom works at Wal-mart. I'm not talking, in general, about kids with leukemia here... I'm talking about regular poor kids getting basic preventative care. I absolutely don't think a cigarette tax is the best way to make that happen, but in an imperfect world, I'm willing to take what I can get.

Of course it's moot since, as you indicated at the start of all this, Bush is going to veto it.

RE: Senate Panel Approves Huge Tobacco Tax To Fund Child Healthcare