
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, March 22, 1994                   TAG: 9403220167
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

BLOWING SMOKE

A HEFTY cigarette tax certainly is a good way to finance a large chunk of the cost of health-care reform. Cigarette sales are costing a good chunk of health-care bills.

Cigarettes cause nearly one-third of all cancer deaths each year in the United States.

So it is disgusting to hear Rep. Charles Rose, of the tobacco state of North Carolina, huff and puff about how "grossly unfair" it would be to "pick out the tobacco industry to bear all the burden of health-care revenues."

No one expects the industry to bear all of that burden. Health-insurance providers, mainly companies that pay for or subsidize insurance for their employees, have noticed that they pick up a wee bit of this tab - and it's a wee bit bigger than it might be if their employees didn't smoke.

Taxpayers, who pay for public health-insurance plans, have noticed they're paying just a wee bit, too.

And it is perplexing to hear Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, who has proposed a $2 tobacco tax as part of his own Canadian-style health-reform bill, fume that tobacco tax monies aren't a reliable source of revenue for funding reform. The government might actually encourage people to smoke more, he suggests, so it can collect taxes targeted for particular projects. In this case, McDermott was talking about a rival health-reform package that would have used revenue from a $2-a-pack tax to subsidize health insurance for small businesses, and to support academic medical centers and public health initiatives.

Considering the exorbitant expense of caring for people made ill by smoking, it's doubtful any government agency would be tempted to join Joe Camel in hawking cigarettes. More ludicrous still is the thought that consumers would feel compelled to light up more - in the public interest.

Imagine it. "Excuse me, but do you mind if I smoke? I want to be sure there's enough tax money to pay for the fine work being done in academic medical centers, so I'm trying to go through at least a pack a day. ... "

Rose was at least being honest when he worried that a heavy tax would cut into sales - an outcome that would hurt his constituents, but would be good for the health of Americans and their health-care system.

This rather entertaining debate last week surely will be just one of many on cigarette taxes as various health-reform proposals blow around the halls of Congress. Given the huge campaign contributions the tobacco industry makes to congressional races, it's doubtful a $2 tax will survive no matter what legislation eventually emerges.

President Clinton's plan would raise the current 24-cent tax to 75 cents. That should be the minimum. If any such thing passes, now, nonsmokers don't need to go off and get yourselves hooked in hopes of helping to improve the national health. They're already helping.

by CNB