terratogen wrote:
Working parents can be taxed for their decision to have sickly, reckless children who are a burden to society.

Or, as you've indicated, working parents can be taxed for other people's decisions to have "sickly, reckless children." I've already indicated that this isn't about the special cases, but about basic preventative care, which you've chosen to ignore. I've also indicated that insurance only works because you can spread the cost. In other words, receiving the direct proportional benefit of your contribution is already not the way the system can work. So right now, I'm paying the cost for smokers' health care, and they're paying fuck all for my every-two-years physical. This is how the system works, and I'm fine with it. The fact that they may pay a trifle more *does not* offset the extra burden they cause. The fact that I and people like me are paying and not making use of the system *does*.

Feel free to come right out and say that you'd prefer everyone to pay for their own health care 100%. As I've said, you can have that opinion, as long as the consequences are understood and acceptable to you.

Having kids and not being able to cover the financial burden also affects other people, and in a myriad more important ways than smoking affects other people.

Oh, I agree, but I'm not about to throw those kids to the wolves to prove my point.

You mentioned the child tax credit at some point, and I think that's an interesting issue, and one I've thought a great deal about. For example, I've considered that perhaps the credit should halve for each child. That is, you have one, fine, full credit. Two, you get 1.5, three, 1.75, etc. I've considered this as a mechanism to add revenue, while theoretically diminishing the tax incentive to breed.

It's worth discussing. I'm currently on the fence since I think the people who most need to stop having kids are the least likely to know about and account for this change. They're already making poor choices and I doubt this would turn that around. On the other, for those (few) well-to-do folks that have lots of kids, the extra tax they pay might be able to help offset the burden caused by the reckless ones.

Is this unfair? Yes. Without somehow implementing strict regulations on breeding, which is something I seriously doubt would be a career making political stance, there's no way to fix the problem of people having kids and not taking care of them. Thus, money has to be found to do so. How that money gets apportioned (e.g. to run orphanages for kids we take away from stupid parents, health care, healthy food subsidy, etc) is certainly a valid discussion, but the need for that money is not subject to question I don't think. And where it comes from is going to be "unfair" to those paying. They can embrace the alternative, which is to let kids of reckless parents die in squalor.

The cost of YOUR insurance or your children's insurance should probably not come from smokers.

As I said, it doesn't, because they're more likely to use the system then I am. If I someday contract tuberculosis, a lot of people who never have, and never will, get TB, may be paying for a portion of my treatment. Someday one of them might lose his legs in a car accident and all the rest of us non paraplegics will be paying for his treatment. The money to treat disease or condition X cannot possibly come only from people who have or have had disease or condition X; that breaks the system. The money comes from everyone, and, sometimes, from other sources.

Why not tax video games... That's a bit closer. There's enough of a bullshit case to be made that they harm society... and video games are more likely to influence kids than smokers are.

If you're genuinely equating adults playing video games with smoking, you've seriously lost your credibility. There are certain things kids shouldn't do. Smoking and playing violent video games are among them and parents should enforce that. But to argue that for me, an adult, to play video games has an effect similar to me, an adult, smoking, is completely outside the realm of rational argument.

...I for one am glad that this is getting vetoed (and so is Vile).

Of that last parenthetical, I have no doubt. I can only assume that by bringing him into this, you're making your best effort to discourage me from continuing this discussion, given my history of pointless argument with his inane opinions. If so, I concede. You "win" and can feel free to have the last word.

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