Poll: Beer tax for health care?
By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 02:42 p.m., February 19, 2008
Updated 03:27 p.m., February 19, 2008
Would you vote to raise the tax on alcohol sales 2 percent to cover all of Colorado's 180,000 uninsured children? (That amounts to about 11 cents on a $5.49 six-pack of Budweiser.)
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
While the governor and lawmakers said what they would and wouldn't do for health care this year, nobody mentioned Rep. Jerry Frangas.
But the Denver Democrat very quietly drafted a bill introduced this week that would raise alcohol taxes 2 percent to cover all of Colorado's 180,000 uninsured children.
The tax of 11 cents, for example, on a $5.49 six-pack of Budweiser, would raise about $57 million for the state children's health care program. When paired with federal matching funds, Frangas said it would provide up to $150 million.
Gov. Bill Ritter, leading Democratic lawmakers and various interest groups have been publicly debating how and whether to ask voters to raise taxes to address a number of needs - including health care.
Recently, talk has shifted away from a health care tax in favor of a possible severance tax hike on the booming oil and gas industry to put more money into higher education, transportation, the environment, or some combination of those.
Asked about Frangas' bill, Ritter's spokesman Evan Dreyer said he hadn't heard about it but noted the governor said last week "that he was not inclined to see a health care measure go to the ballot in November."
Frangas said he has spoken with Senate President Peter Groff about getting a Senate sponsor for HB 1341, but that Groff was noncommittal. Frangas said he also spoke with House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who got him up to speed on the larger debate over what if any tax increase to refer to voters next year.
Romanoff told the Rocky Tuesday that he and other lawmakers are working with Ritter on what he called "an organic conversation" about what question will wind up on the ballot.
Children's health care remains a top priority that lawmakers are struggling to figure out a way to pay for with the state's limited resources, Romanoff said. "I'm glad that Rep. Frangas has put an idea on the table," he added.
Frangas said he knows he's venturing out on his own with his bill. But he said he's doing it because his constituents have told him it's a good idea. Plus, he said, the idea polls well.
Colorado has a lower alcohol tax than most other states, according to an analysis prepared for Sen. Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, this month by an economist with the state's Legislative Council. A 2 percent tax hike would bring Colorado's alcohol tax up to 4.9 percent.
Hagedorn, who co-chairs the joint Health & Human Services Committee, said he considered introducing a bill similar to Frangas' this year, but shelved that idea in favor of a bill he plans to introduce in late March that would put the legislature on a three-step path toward putting a health care tax question on the 2010 ballot.
"Any money that can go into health care for Coloradans who do not have access to health care I think is a good idea," Hagedorn said. "But my caution would be: make sure there is a good effort to get it passed. You're going up against a billion-dollar industry."
bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059
Comments
Posted by smith on February 19, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend
All liberals know how to do is tax and spend.
Posted by EZBakeOven on February 19, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Boo! Thish ish a terrble idear!
Posted by Geta_clue on February 19, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Any money that can go into health care for Coloradans who do not have access to health care I think is a good idea," Hagedorn said.
Mr. Hagedorn, "Any" spending on health care is not necassarily a good thing. Many of us do not want the Colorado welfare system expanded. We cannot afford it when the state has so many other needs. Please, leave us beer lovers alone. Procuring health insurance for kids is the parents responsibility only.
Posted by Kslayer on February 19, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I vote yes on this tax! I think it's a great idea!! We need to start taking care of our children. 2% tax hike isn't going to stop the drunks of the world from buying alcohol.
Posted by mark79trans on February 19, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How much of this is for children of illegals(?)...I do not support in any way funding the children of illegals.
Posted by Tbone on February 19, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd gladly pay an extra 20 cents for my 12 pack of michelob ultra.
"all liberals know how to do is tax and spend"
As opposed to the borrow and spend republics? Would you rather pay now, or pay later? Jeez. You'd think the republics were the model of fiscal conservativism over the last 8 years with this attitude.
Posted by Mike1969 on February 19, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why tax beer drinkers?
We should stop providing free Emergency Room visits and other healthcare, and welfare, to ILLEGAL ALIENS and take care of Colorado children, and adults, instead?
Posted by strebman on February 19, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More taxes so I can pay for more illegals to abuse the health care system some more. GREAT!!!!!
Posted by infidel91 on February 19, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'd gladly pay an extra 20 cents for my 12 pack of michelob ultra"
Why don't you do that, then, and leave the rest of us alone? You have your priorities for your money; I've got mine.
Posted by Diff on February 19, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As for me I think this is a worth while cause - not so sure about the details of how health care for children will be administered but as for me - I'll gladly drop and extra .02 -.03 a beer to help fund health care for children!
IS there any issue or subject that someone does not turn into an issue about or blame "illegals" over! They are here and are an active and important part of the economy in the US. Better to get used to it because this country will be getting more latino over the next 10-50 years! (I do not mean that in any negative or racist way, it is just a fact)I am fairly abivilent about it, I know some "mexicans" both legal and some I am not sure of that are Darn fine people who I am proud to call freinds. I know there are some that re bums, but the same is true for whitey - NO?
I am really tired of hearing that on almost every post thread!
And of course the town crier (read whiners...) about the tax and spend liberals (or Democrats or Governor etc)
Just because Owens could not or would not try and do anything that might need a tax increase in his bowing to the Repubs and the special interests on that side, (read his buddies in big business) now Ritter and the current legislature is taking the heat for having to catch up..
STOP WHINING republican neo-cons - the pendulum is swing the other way! (as it is LONG over due... )(
Posted by Darwin on February 19, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why stop with the kids? Friends had insurance with a 20% co-pay. Son had brain aneurysm, cost in excess of $1,000,000 at Children's Hospital. Their liability, $200,000. Result, 1) after a year of trying to pay their share, bankruptcy, 2) partial welfare and food stamps. If we insure uninsured kids, parents currently paying insurance on their own kids will stop and eventually we will let the nanny state take care of all our needs. There are comments that the tax increase is "only nn% more". It doesn't take long for these "nn%" increases here and there to add up to more than ONLY. One day the IRS form will be 1/2 page with the question, "How much did you make - send it in".
Posted by Tbone on February 19, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
darwin-
So you'd rather have people declare bankruptcy (which we ALL pay for), be on welfare and food stamps, and be pretty much destitute, than give them help? Unbelievable.
Is that what jesus would do?
I'd be willing to bet that your friends NOT having health care was a bigger burden on society than giving them health care.
Posted by RickyLee on February 19, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, yeah, "do it for the children". Anyone suprised this is a Democrat?
JUST ONCE, I'd like to hear, "We need money for ________ social
program, and instead of asking the taxpayers for it, we're going to tighten up our belts here at the Capitol, and renovate spending top to bottom, eliminating waste anywhere it occurs".
I'm not holding my breath.
"Colorado has a lower tax on alchohol than most other states..."
You can say the same with the severance taxes and related loopholes there, so what's the point?
The only saving grace is the leeches have to get approval from their bosses (THE PEOPLE) under TABOR.
LONG LIVE TABOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something else missing is some guarantee that this tax money will go ONE HUNDRED PERCENT where these leeches say it will. Not holding my breath there either.
Posted by RickyLee on February 19, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jesus has been dead two thousand years, so what's the point there?
I'm supposed to like YET ANOTHER fee/surcharge/tax because of someones fantasy about "what whoud jesus do"? Spare me.
Posted by Fresh on February 19, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to know if this will go to illegals children. if even one penny goes to the children of illegals I will not support it
Posted by ImYourHuckleberry on February 19, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Darwin,
In the first part of your comment you give an anecdote about your friends who had a difficult time paying their insurance costs. In the second part you say we should not let the "nanny state take care of all our needs." Are you saying that your friends should not be on partial welfare and food stamps despite their situation?
Parents who can afford to pay insurance for their children should do so. Those children whose parents cannot pay for insurance are benefited by the fact that many (not Darwin) in our society believe a child should not be punished (by being denied access to health care) just because they have parents who can't afford it. We can haggle over where to draw the line with regard to how poor parents have to be to qualify. We can also post guards outside the hospital to check citizenship status of kids coming into the emergency room (if you are into that kind of thing). The point is however, if a parent can pay they should have to, if they can't, the kid should not be punished.
Posted by ollie on February 19, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AM I LIVING BACK IN UTAH AGAIN???
Posted by Pagen on February 19, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First of all they don't care if you support it, they will do it anyway. second they have to make up for the money they are losing with the smoking bans. 30 mil alone for the bars just wait on the casinos. They don't care how they get their money and believe me they are lying that it will go to health care. Wonder what happened to all the tobacco settlement money? Don't be ignorant they want that money for other things. And I am sure it will be illegals too. Write you legislature and tell them "NO"!
Posted by Art on February 19, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is there any guarantee that this money would actually go to children's health care? Remember what we were promised with Ref C. That money apparently has not gone where we were promised it would go. Is this just another attempt to get more money and then decide that it will go somewhere other than what was promised? Think about this if it gets on the ballot this fall.
Posted by davies on February 19, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Go ahead and do it. I'll pay the extra 2%. But I guarantee it won't be enough. Then what?
Also, I have a little math issue: if a 2% increase on the State's booze tax is supposed to bring in $57 million a year, then the current tax brings in $2.85 BILLION? Can that be right?
I feel a little like the 'Pigpen' character on Charlie Brown: "Sort of makes you want to treat us drinkers with a little more respect, huh?" Where would good old Colorado be without our $2.85 billion every year?
Posted by ollie on February 19, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's make it fair. How about a tax on diapers, redbull and botteled water also?
Posted by Earl on February 19, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OH YES FOR ONCE A TAX FOR 'THE CHILDREN' THAT ISNT ON TOBACCO!!!!!
now all of the nanny staters who like beer will have to pay extra to have their insurance for the kiddies.
I say lets put a dollar fee on all fast food items, for the children, and find out how fast all the liberals start to scream.
wow only bud would bring in 57 million and how about the others? oh dont want to tell all the folks like leftside and og and charlene b the amount they will fund for kiddies now.
lets go after the food that causes health problems in kiddies like fast food that mommy and daddy think is so good for them.
here you go all of the wonderful liberal left progressives will now have to spend their own money to pay for their social programs.. please dont put out any anti words against this one as you will now have to pay for your free lunch as it was.
way to go and show your as* denver liberal progressive left socialist dems.. tax everyone to death to pay for your social programs. sure glad I live close to New Mexico as they dont have these stupid taxes and I can go there and burn fossile fuel and get beer for less.
Yep I got mine and now you get taxed to get yours. want a great end to a wonderful day.
tbone why dont you just toss a few thousand extra to the department of revenue since this doesnt bother you at all? they take checks and money orders.
Posted by RickyLee on February 19, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of our gnashing of teeth here is quite indicative of how the TAX INCREASE will fare on a ballot.
There are some supporters here, but it seems like about 75-25 percent against.
Posted by RickyLee on February 19, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...and yes, where is the 2.85 BILLION already being collected
going?
Certainly not the roads, Critter wants yet more tax increases for that.
Posted by clyde on February 19, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Smokers all tapped out? Beer drinkers were warned that this would happen. Soft drinks, fast food and red meat are next. You have been warned. Wait 'til you have to fill out a report on every activity during the day so the gummint can decide your tax liability. Say "Hello" to slavery. And so many of you are asking for the chains. Pity.
Posted by PajamaPulitzer on February 19, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Message to all who are too lazy to insure their own kids:
"Remain in your reclined position. The Guvment will send the bill to those who are already up and working. And remember to vote Democrat. The Party who will give you the shirt off of someone else's back."
Posted by sls on February 19, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey pajama man, I work two jobs and am a single mother. I still cant afford health care for both of my boys. I think this would be good idea if it went to Colordo kids instead of the illegal kids of our state
Posted by medina88 on February 19, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Listen to you people. These are children, illegal or not, they are only babies and toddlers and teens. It's not their fault their parents are here illegally. They deserve a right for health care as much as any American child. What if...for example...you went on vacation overseas and your child got hurt, but you couldn't get any kind of help because your child is American. Shame on you all for being so selfish toward a child.
I'm all for the higher taxes, let the drinkers give some support.
Posted by benn on February 19, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait... someone posted that we should cut off emergency room visits to illegals?
And do what? Let them suffer? Let them die? I'm sorry, you can be pissed about the effects of illegal immigration on our country, but THEY ARE STILL PEOPLE!
Jesus Mike, start having a little respect for human dignity and life.
Posted by gethoht on February 19, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about we tax the ridiculous amount of money being made by the energy barons on the western slope? If we taxed those companies at the amount that wyoming or new mexico does, we could afford health care for uninsured children and probably eliminate the state income tax.
As for the idiotic comments about tax and spend liberals, it's better to tax and spend then to borrow and spend as the current crop of washington republicans have done. The only difference currently between the republicans and the democrats is that the republican spending benefits the rich, while the democrat spending benefits everyone else.
As a young taxpayer I give a hearty thanks to all the borrow-and-spend republicans in office that have foisted upon the american public an unjust war that you can't pay for. So guess who has to pay for it?... Me and my children. Thanks a whole lot.
Posted by kathyM on February 19, 2008 at 11:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My sister is a single mom with two boys. Her first-born was a Medicaid "drive-through delivery." No pain meds, manual dilation, discharged less than 24 hours after admission (NOT birth), no postpartum education. The local Medicaid/Free clinic was a joke; her children rarely saw an actual doctor, and never the same person twice. After those nightmares, she got proactive. She scraped together enough money to buy very basic (what used to be called "hospitalization" or "catastrophic") health insurance for her children. She found a wonderful doctor with a great bedside manner, who often gave prescriptions (not just samples) for free. He referred her to other docs the boys needed and made sure those docs would also go easy on her financially. With effort, my sister obtained excellent health care for her kids. It can be done.
Posted by Gene on February 20, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't the liberals tax heallth care for heallth care.
Posted by Chal on February 20, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem is, who will make sure any tax money actually goes to the children? If I could be SURE it was being administered properly, I might not mind the extra tax.
BUT, there's no oversight and the money winds up where the politicians (not voters) want it. Until I see accountability, no deal.
Posted by Grim_Reefer on February 20, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Legalize weed. Regulate and tax it. Use the money for health care.
Posted by RickyLee on February 20, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NO TAX without a rock solid binding guarantee that the money will go where it's meant to.
Posted by FloydHill on March 16, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another annoying tax increase that will probably pass. Stupid Colorado voters keep saying yes to tax increases - as if things weren't expensive enough already!
It seems that Ritter spends his days looking for ways to increase taxes, and doing little else.
I also don't like the fact that the money would only go to kids (including illegals). Why not everyone who has no health insurance?
Why should I have to pay for the irresponsibility of others?
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.