Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Whoa, Nellllie !!! This is getting series...
1 posted on 12/13/2002 7:27:45 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
A Field Poll earlier this year showed that 70 percent of Californians would support higher liquor or cigarette taxes as an alternative to health care cuts.

Romero's bill would need only a simple majority vote in the Legislature, based on a court case that found that a fee imposed to cover government costs related to a product does not have to be approved by the two-thirds majority needed for tax measures. Republican lawmakers, whose votes are needed for two-thirds majorities, have said they will oppose taxes and fees to cover the budget deficit. Democratic Gov. Gray Davis said he had no position on the bill.

2 posted on 12/13/2002 7:30:10 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
Costliest patients in the ER are the psych patients. The others become most expensive after they leave the ER for the OR. How about enforcing immigration laws? That would be a very cheap way to take a lot of stress off the ERs.
3 posted on 12/13/2002 7:30:20 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
Booze, smokes, fatty foods...just trying to imagine what other public revenue gravy trains will be cooked up in the future.
5 posted on 12/13/2002 7:32:54 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
The makers of wine, beer and spirits should pay a fee to bolster California's sagging emergency care system and help bridge the state's massive budget gap, according to a state senator who introduced a bill Thursday to impose a 5-cents-a-drink fee.

Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, and hospital advocates say the fee would offset financial losses and budget cuts at emergency rooms, whose patients have often been injured in alcohol-related accidents and violence.

Which is it, Gloria?

It's unknown how much of that extra charge would be passed on to consumers.

It's UNKNOWN? BS, all of it would be passed on.

"At the end of the year, if there were no alcohol injuries, these dollars would be returned to the alcohol distributors

BWAHAHAHA

6 posted on 12/13/2002 7:38:27 AM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
It would raise $500 million a year....... the full amount would be dedicated to treating alcohol-related injuries.

Hey, that's a good joke! They said the same things about tobacco settlements and tobacco taxes. Never happened. All of the money goes into the general fund.

"At the end of the year, if there were no alcohol injuries, these dollars would be returned to the alcohol distributors," she said.

Absurd. No money will ever be refunded by government.

They must think people are stuped. Of course, it is California, where the average voter does appear to vote from their emotions rather than their minds.

7 posted on 12/13/2002 7:38:27 AM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
California is on its way to taxing itself into prosperity.

I'm glad I got out of California 11 years ago.
8 posted on 12/13/2002 7:39:36 AM PST by Badger1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
I drink and I'll support this tax ONLY if some other tax is reduced.

I don't like the social engineering aspect of taxes. However, it's a reality and so let's apply the tax where it can do so good. In this case the reduction of alcohol consumption.

The KEY to this is that some other tax needs to be reduced. That'll never happen so they can shove it!

9 posted on 12/13/2002 7:41:53 AM PST by Drango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
This is not a fee they are talking about, it is a tax.

A fee is a given for service, such as obtaining permission from the state to drive on public roads, or permission for private entities to sell booze to the public.

When money is confiscated from the producer of a product for no reason other than that they are the producer, then it is a tax.

California will probably soon have a booze tax based on some hypothetical "drink", as well as the standard sales tax and the zillion business taxes.

When will the state start taxing house window screens? How about television antennas? These things are taxed right now in UK. Why not in California?
10 posted on 12/13/2002 7:45:09 AM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
"The people we are asking to pay the bulk of the tax are the people who can least afford to pay it," Becker said. "The vast majority are not alcohol abusers."

I'm sorry, but if you can't afford the booze, don't buy it! This is not an essential item like food or clothing. I am not in favor of increasing taxes, but if they are going to increase taxes, this is a good way to do it. Everyone has a choice whether or not to pay this tax. I enjoy a good beer (Sam Adams is my current favorite), or a glass of wine. If they pass hte tax it might affect my buying, or it might not, but at least I have the choice. That is not the case with income taxes, etc..

11 posted on 12/13/2002 8:00:17 AM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; ...
~Whoa!!!!!! Bled the smokers dry already, did we? Now we are starting on LIQUOR! Oh yea! We tried to tell everyone.........YOUR NEXT!
13 posted on 12/13/2002 8:05:41 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
This nothing but an attempt at cost shifting. With the federal government involved in Medicare and the state government involved in Medicaid, reimbursement has been ratcheted down over the years to the point where taking care of these patients is a money losing proposition (to say nothing of the illegals). Historically, healthcare facilities have shifted this cost by raising fees to the private insurance carriers. This is virtually impossible to do now in heavily penetrated managed care markets like California so the next attempt will be maneuvers such as this. It would be interesting to see who the good senator's campaign donors might be. Think hospital associations, etc.
17 posted on 12/13/2002 8:27:28 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
This is getting series...

Vary!

I guess that the NRA drove them to drink during the last session over Perata's bullet-tax-to-fund-trauma-care bill; time to pick on the drinkers instead of the shooters

19 posted on 12/13/2002 8:32:35 AM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
Let's tax politicians to pay for the cost of bad government.
20 posted on 12/13/2002 8:56:35 AM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
The reason all ER's in Kali have been losing money for 10 years is simple.

The illegal aliens flock to the ER's for all types of treatment from minor finger injuries and sore throats to serious injuries due to their alcoholism and drug use.

If they are on MediCal the hospital can get some reimbursement. Of course MediCal is funded by the taxes of the legal citizens.

If the illegal alien patients in the ER are not on MediCal, they will have no insurance. They will still be treated. If not treated, the ER docs, rns and hospital will be sued.

Of course we, who have health insurance make up the costs of these uninsured illegal aliens.

Gloria Romero knows these facts. However, she would not be in the legislature if not for the illegal votes of the illegal aliens she represents (not the legal taxpaying citizens) in her district!

22 posted on 12/13/2002 9:16:11 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
The democraps are out of control! LOL!!!!!
23 posted on 12/13/2002 9:18:12 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
People can just make their own booze for personal consumption. Who needs the middle, not to mention the tax, man?
24 posted on 12/13/2002 9:21:31 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
i did hear on the radio saying "five cents could save a life"...this rats are good for scams
25 posted on 12/13/2002 9:31:31 AM PST by green team 1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
save the drunks,the gang members,the children,the hospitals profit, the planet!(sarcasm off)
26 posted on 12/13/2002 9:34:45 AM PST by green team 1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
At first this looked like one of the smoker threads.

Thanks for the PING.......

Those nasty Boozers are finally going to pay their fair share. Next we'll tax those noise polluteing lawn-mowers! Let's just follow the Dems. lead on this and soom the Repubs with common sense will be back in power.

28 posted on 12/13/2002 9:47:20 AM PST by jdontom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NormsRevenge
Five cents tax on every order of french fries. Now there's some real dough.
31 posted on 12/13/2002 12:44:13 PM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson