Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Simple solutions are usually neither

Posted in:

Illinois

In his latest round of spending reforms, Gov. Bruce Rauner announced on June 12 that funding for Illinois’ Tobacco Quitline will be suspended, effective July 1. The program, a hotline for smokers operated by the Illinois Department of Public Health, was funded through a $3.1 million grant from the state.

Around 18 percent of Illinois adults smoke, and helping people quit is an admirable and important goal. In fact, it’s a goal the American Cancer Society is already helping to achieve – without Illinois taxpayers footing the bill.

The “Quit for Life” program is a free service that offers support resources to smokers who are interested in quitting. The program includes resources such as phone counseling with a “quit coach,” online education, web-based planning tools and even text-message plans to help people quit smoking.

With such a robust program being run through one of the leading cancer-prevention and awareness organizations in the country, Illinois taxpayers do not need to be paying for a separate program to accomplish the same goal.

* Since their program is at issue here, I asked the American Cancer Society to comment. The following is from Heather Eagleton, Illinois government relations director for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network…

“In April, Illinois unfortunately made history by becoming the only state in the country without a tobacco quitline. While this funding was eventually restored, the Quitline is once again at risk of being eliminated under the governor’s proposed July 1 budget cuts.

“There is a misconception among some that the American Cancer Society’s Quit for Life tobacco cessation program will easily replace the Quitline’s services. However, Quit for Life is a resource that contracts with employers, health plans and state departments of health to help clients’ employees and enrollees quit smoking. Illinois residents are only able to enroll in Quit for Life if their employer or insurance provider offers the service.

“Therefore, if Governor Rauner chooses to cut the state’s tobacco quitline, thousands of Illinoisans will still be without a lifeline to break their tobacco addiction.

“Last year, the Quitline answered 90,000 phone calls and led 43 percent of its callers to quit smoking.

“It should be noted that the Quitline is funded not through taxpayer dollars, but rather through the Tobacco Master Settlement, which gave Illinois $265 million this fiscal year specifically to support programs like the Quitline. With the elimination of this resource, taxpayers risk seeing an increase in tobacco-related Medicaid costs, which already total $1 billion a year.

“We understand Illinois continues to face tough financial choices, but fighting cancer should always be a top policy priority. We urge the governor and lawmakers to come to a budget decision that will not jeopardize the health of Illinoisans.”

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:03 pm

Comments

Somethings gotta be cut. Better this than home healthcare or children’s services. I honestly don’t believe this is something my tax money should be paying for anyway.

Comment by Nony Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:08 pm
This program can easily be eliminated. Many programs have to be cut, and just being a good program is not enough.

Comment by Formerpol Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:11 pm
In other news, Philip Morris begins evaluating ways to contribute to Rauner’s PAC.

Comment by Name Withheld Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:14 pm
===I honestly don’t believe this is something my tax money should be paying for===

Another commenter with a reading disability.

“It should be noted that the Quitline is funded not through taxpayer dollars, but rather through the Tobacco Master Settlement, which gave Illinois $265 million this fiscal year specifically to support programs like the Quitline. “

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:15 pm
Nony, the whole idea is that maintaining a Quitline ultimately saves more money than waiting until they’re in the Medicaid system needing medical treatment for a tobacco-related condition. I’d like to see if there’s any data on how much money the program may have saved taxpayers.

Comment by Tournaround Agenda Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:15 pm
The real cost is in healthcare down the road for the smoker who didn’t quit, but needs care as a result. Not everything is fixed by addressing the “minute”. Double entendre intended.

Comment by Not the A Team Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:19 pm
Formerpol: can we agree we should focus on cutting programs the state actually pays for?

Comment by walker Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:19 pm
Rich…I was thinking the same thing. First comment and they completely missed that. I think people are just thinking what they want no matter what someone says. Kind of sounds like Rauner!

Comment by Finally Out (and now very glad to be) Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:21 pm
If IPI says it can be cut, then we know the opposite is true.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:21 pm
Does anybody have a copy/link to the Tobacco Master Settlement? I smell smoke!

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:27 pm
I find it interesting that programs are being cut that are not funded through state funds. Examples are this program (lawsuit money), LIHEAP (federal and tax on utilities), child care (federal block grant). How does this help the budget since as said before many of these funds cannot be used elsewhere without legislation. Once again a phony solution is being offered, similar to the budget that had savings counted from illegal pension reform. Until a real plan is on the table all this is show and what is scary some of the public is buying the show being sold.

Comment by illinifan Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:27 pm
Somethings gotta be cut.

Why do you believe that? Because you’ve been repeatedly told that? You believe that Illinois cannot figure out how to come up with a few million dollars without forcing Illinoisans into jumping off skyscrapers or into the Mississippi River?

Fact is, you don’t see the value of this program. It doesn’t directly effect you, so you don’t see the value of it. You are thinking like a consumer, a cart pusher at Wal-Mart, not as a citizen. You believe you should consider this program like you do a can of peas, or a lawn chair.

When we think like consumers, we put more worth into what something costs. When we think like citizens, we see the value of defending our country, helping our neighbors, and paying taxes for things we cannot see.

For too long, we’ve been made to think like consumers by a political party obsessed with market values as a solution to our daily challenges. Do you think our grandparents thought they could just buy their way out of every problem? Of course they didn’t. This is why they valued citizenship, over that can of peas, or that lawn chair.

Citizenship lets us keep our society on a moral path, even when that path gets expensive. When we have narrow-minded and unimaginative politicians telling us that we “can’t afford” something, or that we have to “cut something”, or that we have to live “within our own budget like folks at home do”, they are telling us to stop building our future.

Our “fiscal crisis” is temporary, but the damage done to our future isn’t. Don’t let people like Bruce Rauner tell you to stop building Illinois because he lacks the imagination to be a governor.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:27 pm
=== If IPI says it can be cut, then we know the opposite is true. ===

To be fair, IPI isn’t always wrong, just usually. Like in this case.

Comment by thunderspirit Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:29 pm
Wow, Vman. Right to the heart. I love it!

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:30 pm
Funded by court settlement = illegal, at least in California. See http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Judge-Brown-and-Legislature-illegally-raided-6329098.php

Comment by SilverStreak Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:30 pm
If that money is used for the Quitline instead of X, then tax dollars must be used to fund X, right?

Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:31 pm
All of which may wind up being less than the increased Medicaid expenses relating to tobacco use.

Like the heading says ==Simple solutions are usually neither==.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:33 pm
===Funded by court settlement = illegal, at least in California===

Read the link. It was a legislative raid on a special fund which was ruled illegal - not that funding programs with a special fund is illegal.

In either case, fund raids are legal here. But your link ain’t what you think it is.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:38 pm
From COGFA: “The Tobacco settlement money has been used to fund programs for the elderly, tobacco prevention control, medical research, venture-tech, and Medicaid drug programs. The funds also have been used to fund the earned-income tax credit.” http://cgfa.ilga.gov/Upload/IllinoisCigaretteTax.pdf

Comment by Liberty Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:41 pm
Statistics are hard, cold and not always factual . But when cuts are made cost/benefit thinking must be employed to some degree. If 5,000 people quit smoking due to this program($600 a head), you could argue its worth if you chose to do so - But there is no way to verify any of the relevant factors noted, soooo…..any program that can’t show results, much less positive results should indeed be potential casualties

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:42 pm
Vanillaman said it, let me pile on.

When Governor Ryan shifted money from the Tobacco Settlement Fund to balance the state budget, he was excoriated by every editorialist in the state, including Pulitzer Prize Winner Cornelia Grumman.

O Sister, Where Art Thou?

As for the IPI, kudos for showing your true colors and joining the Heartland Institute in siding with the tobacco industry.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:43 pm
Here’s a statistic: Lung cancer care accounts for 20% of Medicare’s total expenditures for cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150743/

How many new cases of lung cancer do we have to avoid before we’re in the black? (And yes, I know that Medicare is not a state program, but I’m guessing there are a couple of lung cancer cases in the Medicaid population…)

Comment by Soccermom Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:44 pm
Just quit smoking, you’ll look better, you’ll feel a LOT better and if you smoke a pack a day, you’ll save more than $200 a month.

I would like to eat horseshoes and doughnuts every day and drink milk shakes—I don’t because……

Comment by anon Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:46 pm
Formerly Known As got it right. If the money is being used for the Quitline, other taxpayer money must be used to fund other programs. And Illinois has raided the tobacco settlement money before — $280 million in one pop in 35 ILCS 5/208.1.

Comment by Anon. Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:46 pm
===In his latest round of spending reforms, Gov. Bruce Rauner announced on June 12…===

LOL.

They’re not the “Rauner Cuts”, they’re “spending reforms”…

You can try to call it different things, not “own” it, even call it a “reform”;

It’s a governor, deciding, to cut.

Plain and simple.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:47 pm
Tournaround:

It’s a known fact that smokers die earlier in life than nonsmokers, doesn’t that save money on care “down the road”?

I dont believe this is a program our government should help pay for because I dont think we should be looking to the government to solve our problems. That’s how we get this bloated mass of corruption and waste that we have today.

Illinifan- LIHEAP federal funds will continue. The state just wont add on its own money to those funds. A number of states also do not supplement LIHEAP.

Comment by Nony Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:52 pm
It’s funny to see Rauner abuse the word reform, just like the Democrats did when they were cutting pensions unconstitutionally. This is now a running joke among people I know. Now we reform the lawn when it gets to tall, and reform our hair when it gets too long.

Comment by AC Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 12:53 pm
==I dont believe this is a program our government should help pay for because I dont think we should be looking to the government to solve our problems.==

That’s why we form governments, to do things collectively for the common good.

Comment by OldSmoky2 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:02 pm
Amen V-man! Brucie seems real good at trying to cut things that are not funded by taxes and blathering about turn arounds and shake ups that are meaningless rhetoric.

Comment by D.P.Gumby Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:05 pm
Nony, smokers and even former smokers GREATLY increase all kinds of healthcare costs, from the extra asthma in their kids, to increased pneumonia and bronchitis, and then eventually to increases in heart attacks, limb amputations, strokes, and of course, cancer. Most of these result in chronic conditions which increase disability and spending over many years. For the smokers and those who live with them.

Comment by Groundhog Day Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:07 pm
==I dont believe this is a program our government should help pay for because I dont think we should be looking to the government to solve our problems. That’s how we get this bloated mass of corruption and waste that we have today.==

Right. On.

Comment by Rat Race? What's that?? Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:07 pm
Anon. 12:46 - thanks. It seems clear, but that is why I asked.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:09 pm
Appropriate article from yesterday’s LA Times: Death toll from smoking goes way beyond lung cancer

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cancer-deaths-attributed-to-smoking-20150615-story.html
The article doesn’t take into account the heart disease/attacks/strokes/respiratory diseases/SIDS, etc caused by smoking.

Comment by Way south of I-80 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:10 pm
Vanilla Man: You captured very early last year why folks were getting so tired of Quinn, in ways that many didn’t then see. Now you’re schooling us on the fundamental flaws in Rauner’s agenda.

You’ve got the gut my friend.

Now if only you would honor us with some more outstanding lyrics.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:11 pm
Oldsmokey2- Of course, we create the government to solve collective action problems like infrastructure which helps entire communities. Not individual problems like a smoking habit.

Comment by Nony Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:12 pm
Atta Boy VMan!!

Comment by Just an Old Guy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:13 pm
It sure is expensive to “help” people when government gets involved.

Comment by Steve Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:14 pm
On the bright side, maybe the state will save some money if some of its pensioners keep smoking, die earlier than expected, and reduce the state’s actuarial funding liability. /s

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:17 pm
That was very well said V Man. The words “citizen” and “citizenship” should be engrained in every young person’s psyche by all the elders in their lives.

/snark alert….I guess we need to explore the closing of IDPH, IDOT, etc, using the notion presented by Nony@12:52. > You just need to get yourself across that darn prairie because we are not responsible for making it easy on you to go from one town to the next. Build your own road. And by the way if you need to get some water, or food along the way, you are on your own buddy to figure out what is safe to eat or drink. It is not the rest of our problem to keep you on the road and fed safely.

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:18 pm
==Of course, we create the government to solve collective action problems like infrastructure which helps entire communities. Not individual problems like a smoking habit.==

Smoking is a problem for everyone, as we all pay for a lot of the healthcare costs associated with it.

==It sure is expensive to “help” people when government gets involved.==

$3.1 million out of a $265-million settlement payment from tobacco companies is hardly “expensive.”

Comment by OldSmoky2 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:22 pm
===ultimately saves more money than waiting until they’re in the Medicaid system needing medical treatment for a tobacco-related condition. ===

C’mon boys, this isn’t rocket science. We all know tobacco is related to lung cancer, emphesyma, chronic bronchitis etc. Smokers make the choice to smoke. They know the risks. Everybody knows the risks. Cut the program and tell smokers there is no coverage in Medicaid for tobacco related conditions if you’re a smoker. Simple. It’s called personal responsibility. You want to light up a cigarette? Then you take the risks. If you take the risks, that’s your choice and you pay for the consequences of your choice.

Comment by LaughingJane Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:25 pm
This reminds me of when they used to raid the road fund for things other then roads, requiring the statute to be ammended to limit those raids.

We get money from tobacco companies to pay for this. It shoukd not be raided or tedirected. The healthcare costs alone make this a penny wise poind foolish moment.

Lets look at why we arenon trouble. For decades before madigan was born the state took retirment contribution and redirected in the short term to pay for other stuff, leaving it to other in the future to address the problem. This is the same thing, if we cut programs that reduce future costs and burdens we are just making a short term fix that will create more financial troublemdown the road. Many of yhese programs were approved becuae they save money over costs incurred in the future in their absence. We need to stop the behaviour of spending money short sitedly and creating larger future financial problems just toncover today. We need long term solutions that dont create larger financial problems layer on… Been there done thats

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:26 pm
That’s how we get this bloated mass of corruption and waste that we have today.

Nonsense. Bloated masses of corruption and waste were tapped out a decade ago. Anyone thinking there are secret caches of filthy lucre just waiting for an honest person to discover and help solve our fiscal problems - Rauner would have had one of his plucky superstars discovering it 24 hours after Inauguration Day.

Simple Solutions Are Usually Neither.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:27 pm
- OldSmoky2-

Smoking is a problem for everyone, as we all pay for a lot of the healthcare costs associated with it.

There’s nothing inevitable about paying the healthcare costs of smokers , nothing. Before 1965, there wasn’t Medicare and Medicaid. It’s a choice.

Comment by Steve Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:27 pm
I think people are missing the point. The IPI got this article wrong and is spreading false information. The purpose of this article is not to inform, but rather to be used as propaganda to stir up debate. The Illinois Tobacco Quitline is not funded with tax payer dollars at all, rather it is funded through the Tobacco Settlement Fund, a self sustaining fund. I am not sure why the Governor keeps repeatedly targeting these small lines, when the majority of the state’s problems are GRF spending. The tobacco Quitline is a mere $3.1 million. Small potatoes when you consider the $2.2 billion or $4 billion hole we are looking at. Is this the best the Governor’s Office and Donna Arduin can do?

Comment by Xavier Woods Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:28 pm
The quit line isn’t a needed service for Illinois. Private companies such as the ACA or insurance companies should be able to to replace…not the tax payer. Honestly, I have been 2 years smoke free and I never needed the quitline.

Comment by Shanks Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:37 pm
Real heavy lift there from IPI.

Now maybe they can help the boss out with that $3 billion hole in his proposed budget that’s been on the shelf since February.

No hurry. It’s only June 16.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:38 pm
“There’s nothing inevitable about paying the healthcare costs of smokers , nothing. Before 1965, there wasn’t Medicare and Medicaid. It’s a choice.”

Your radical individualism ignores the public health risks of smoking. There are costs no matter what. Dismantling public infrastructure that helps minimize those cost only makes it cost more.

Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:39 pm
Laughing Jane, do you own stock in a tobacco company?

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:41 pm
==not the tax payer==

Are some of you people illiterate? It’s not taxpayer money. It’s paid for with proceeds from the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement. The government isn’t saving squat in terms of fixing the budget by eliminating funding for this program.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:44 pm
==Cut the program and tell smokers there is no coverage in Medicaid for tobacco related conditions if you’re a smoker. Simple. It’s called personal responsibility. You want to light up a cigarette? Then you take the risks.==

And kick them off Medicare and out of VA hospitals? Heartwarming. And please remember this sentiment the next time you get a burger and fries or drink a soda instead of choosing salad and water. After all, you know the risks, right?

==There’s nothing inevitable about paying the healthcare costs of smokers , nothing. Before 1965, there wasn’t Medicare and Medicaid. It’s a choice.==

So, yes, let’s just tell seniors, the poor, and veterans for that matter that they’re on their own when they get sick. After all, we should really aspire to be more like a Third World country.

Comment by OldSmoky2 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:50 pm
It’s all just side shows and red herrings to attract the public’s attention. They are there so peopla will choose sides to blame others for the State’s ills.

Meanwhile Rauner and his one percenters are savings millions in reduced taxes and will continue to do so until this gets resolved.

The longer it takes the better for Rauner and his cronies.

None of the turn around agenda items make any sense, short term or long term.

Comment by Chicago 20 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:52 pm
Approximately 2.6 million people die in the US every year. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 480,000 people die each year from smoking related illnesses. That means that nearly 1 in 5 people in this country die of smoking related illnesses. If the life expectancy in this country is 79 years old, then how many of the 480,000 that died of smoking related illnesses last year were over 80 years old? Lots of them I suspect.

I smoked cigarettes for 35 years and was able to quit 5 years ago because I got sick. Sick of paying. I got sick of paying the altruistic politicians, with the support of large non profit corporations, who demanded that I pay more excise taxes “for my own good.” I got sick of paying the lawyers who sued the tobacco companies “for my benefit” because I was lied to. I got sick of paying for the Master tobacco settlement as the tobacco companies just “pass through” the costs to smokers. We don’t need a Quitline. We need to start growing our own.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:00 pm
Don’t cut it cold turkey. Try a patch first.
I know it’s not funny. The quit line surely helps some folks. This is another peripheral battlefield that just fogs up the real issues.
Smokers and mirrors.

Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:03 pm
all the settlement money goes into the general fund
then it gets lost somewhere we do not need this service……

Comment by bullet Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:04 pm
@Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:00 pm:
Yes, the support from the for profit companies who want to make more money by crowding out non-profits. People come together to form communities thereby giving up certain rights in exchange for those in agreement. I got sick of those politicians who were free market, who believed that no rules applied to them and just because they had millions of dollars they could call the show instead of the common person. I realized I had the power to vote and where paying other people off was unethical. That’s what helped me quit smoking.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:09 pm
if everyone quit tomorrow, where would they get the
money to plug the tax hole it would leave,the state
depends on smokers,drinkers and next pot smokers.
lets just cut the state gov. in half, get rid of townships..make some real cuts…..

Comment by bullet Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:10 pm
Why don’t we get the pension funding levels up to 75% first and then have this debate? To the average guy on the street, it just seems like more of the same spending that put us into our bad debt situation in the first place…it’s nice to have but not really essential.

Comment by Bedbug Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:18 pm
the money from that settlement was gone the day the state got it. if all money was put where it was meant to go we would not have any problems ex.
pension payments, prop. tax to schools etc. that is the problem. spend-spend - spend to get reelected……

Comment by bullet Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:26 pm
I think a course on state budgeting should be required given the lack of understanding of it being displayed by several comments here today. Anybody that thinks this solves any problems with the budget (and I mean any) doesn’t have a clue.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:30 pm
@Demo- Amen

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:32 pm
““It should be noted that the Quitline is funded not through taxpayer dollars, but rather through the Tobacco Master Settlement…”

It is increasingly apparent that Rauner has no concept of the fact that different programs often are funded from different funding sources, and not from income tax revenue. Fees and fines pay for a myriad of programs. Excise taxes too (like tobacco taxes).

It’s like his insane insistence on tying a property tax freeze to the budget. Property taxes fund local taxing districts (school districts mostly, but also things like library districts, water districts, rural fire protection districts, park districts, and so on); they have nothing to do with the state budget.

That Rauner may be clueless is one thing. But is there not even one superstar on his staff who can educate him on this?

Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:45 pm
Who needs a hotline? It’s easy to quit smoking. I’ve done it thousands of times.

Comment by JCRR Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:48 pm
I believe the spin put on the settlement was that this huge amount was awarded to make up for the past, current and future expenses for cancer treatment incurred by the state in its state funded medical programs. Care of cancer patients in state programs would be reimbursed from this fund, as well as research and prevention.

I believe the “taxpayer” impact here is more than a semantic one, much like the lottery being for “education’.

The cancer treatment services would’ve been incurred by the state through tax dollars without the settlement, and the settlement replaces some of these tax dollars for this purpose. That reduces taxpayer obligation here, and costs could be shifted to other health care costs if this quitline funding was discontinued, costs that currently are funded by taxpayers.

What made me suspicious of the ACS statement is that it seems they’re intentionally playing with numbers to mislead. They state that they get 90,000 calls, then say that 43% of “callers” quit, making some assume that’s 38,700 quitters. What they don’t say is that many of those 90,000 calls are repeats from the same people. Perhaps only a few thousand people (or hundreds) actually quit. Why did they use the 43% number? My guess is to bloat the program success spin.

It’s a matter of priorities for the dollars for health care. The ACS is a not for profit. It would be interesting to see how effectively that money is spent, and how much less it would cost if government dollars weren’t involved.

Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 2:55 pm
Can any government expenditure not be said to be for a good or necessary cause?

Comment by Keyser Soze Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:14 pm
Maybe the point needs to be reiterated - for the 1000th time - that this action does absolutely, positively nothing to help solve the budget problem. Not even $1 worth of solution. These sorts of cuts are for dramatic effect. It’s meant to get a reaction from people. They are succeeding. But please don’t think that this solves anything because it doesn’t help AT ALL.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:17 pm
Maybe the Governor is suggesting we talk to our doctor instead of the Quitline to help us end our addition to tobacco. We all have medical insurance now through expanded Medicaid and the Healthcare Marketplace. The Quitline seems a little redundant at this point in time.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:31 pm
Hey Jane, what if your health condition might be the result of 2nd hand smoke? Should those people have chosen non-smokers are parents?

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:33 pm
Addiction. Not addition.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:34 pm
“Something has to be cut” is the most dangerous ignorant attitude. One product of the Blago years was the Democratic legislatures distrust of him and a refusal to give him more revenue. Under Blago state government was cut and reduced significantly in terms of head count and program spending.

I give that credit to the legislature not Blago.

This dangerous cut something at any cost attitude is bad for people and our state. You want term limits? You will only invite more press release short sighted politics. I am sad for our state that it feels better to “cut something” than to actually help people. What are we as a community?

Comment by siriusly Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:37 pm
=== Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:17 pm:

Maybe the point needs to be reiterated - for the 1000th time===

I’m your witness Demo. You’ve tried. oy.

Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:38 pm
==for the 1000th time==

And for the 1000th time: we have to start somewhere. 600 of these little things do make a difference.

Comment by Rat Race? What's that?? Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:38 pm
@ Demoralized

I absolutely agree. None of Rauner’s turn around agenda does anything to solve the budget deficit.

What Rauner is doing is turning people against each other while he enjoys an income tax decrease.

Rauner is proposing new taxes on services not income.

Since Rauner makes much more than he can spend these proposed service taxes will have little effect on Rauner.

Illinois needs a progressive income tax just like Wisconsin.

Comment by Chicago 20 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:38 pm
=600 of these little things do make a difference.=

Not these.

=we have to start somewhere.=

You and the Governor sacrifice first, since we are sharing. I hear the tough talk about sacrifice, leaders lead what is your sacrifice, what is his? Then…..I’ll follow.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 3:43 pm
Cheryl go back and read my comment. Maybe it will become more clear. My statement was to smokers. And Smoky. You bet. I think the same thing for those who choose not to take care if their health. Again, personal RESPONSIBILITY. There is a complete void of that concept these days.

Comment by LaughingJane Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 4:05 pm
The Governor can’t know or be involved in everything. Bringing in all this high priced talent hasn’t yielded top advisors capable to frame policy and talk track apparently. Behavior in hearings by a few supports that conclusion too. Might be time to regroup Bruce and listen to people able to help. If they’re not there, better hire them soon.

Comment by Not the A Team Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 4:12 pm
==And for the 1000th time: we have to start somewhere. 600 of these little things do make a difference.==

*sigh*

I’ll move on before I’m scolded to do so. But I’ll get my dig in one more time.

Yes, it’s a cut. No, it’s not a cut that helps. You can make 6,000 of these types of cuts and guess what you gain - that’s right. Nothing. Go learn about the state budget. Please.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 4:17 pm
Either IPI is too lazy to check their facts, or they really don’t care. Either way, they’re dangerous.

Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 4:33 pm
IPI doesn’t report the truth.

Rauner’s turn around agenda won’t fix anything.

With a little digging you will see that none of it makes sense.

It’s all an exercise for those outside of government to make uninformed choices based on propaganda and nonsense.

We can all stay busy in Rauner’s exercise of futility or take a step back and see how we are being manipulated to turn against each other for the benefit of the 1%.

Illnois needs a progressive income tax.

Comment by Chicago 20 Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 5:55 pm
My only guess is that he wants to raid the federal lawsuit settlement money in the quitline fund after he shuts it down.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 6:14 pm
This is not a “necessity” program. I am an ex-smoker, quit over a year ago. I knew nothing about this program. This program being let go will not cause a child to go hungry, a parent to have to quit their job to stay home with their child etc. This is the kind of solutions we need. What is life necessity vs “luxury” necessity and I am using “luxury” very loosely..

Comment by Kelly Speaks Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 7:06 pm
Dear - Kelly Speaks -,

While your enthusiasm these last couple hours is admirable, please, read the Post;

This program is NOT paid for with taxpayers monies.

While your exuberance is great, please, keep up.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 7:12 pm
The simple facts are that this state has been run by the same party, people and principles for a very long time. The results are in and the experiment failed. The utopia didn’t materialize - and it will not materialize. The talk was all empty - for many years. The joke was on all of us. Deflections and sighs don’t matter any more. You either want to continue to go down the same path and then try to place blame…or, we do something different. I understand complaining and griping and critiquing but at what point do rational people tell themselves to knock that off and get behind something other than the status quo - which is a proven failure in this state?

Comment by Rat Race? What's that?? Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 7:49 pm
I honestly hope you feel better - Rat Race -.

I don’t know what you said. But you said it.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 7:52 pm
Rat Race, I think you might have missed a couple of meaningless generalities there.

Apply your enthusiasm to the governor’s proposed FY16 budget and see if you can get real and specific on fixing that $3 billion hole.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 7:54 pm
I understand this program is part of a settlement with the tobacco companies. From 1999 to 2025 Illinois will receive over 9 billion dollars to use however it wants to stop smoking and take care of smokers. Granted, this is not tax money, but it is 3 million available to use on something more important than a quit smoking phone line.

Comment by Southwest Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 8:34 pm
===Granted, this is not tax money, but it is 3 million available to use on something more important than a quit smoking phone line.===

So…

It’s really important to focus on a $3 million sweep of a non-taxpayer program on June 16th as making headway… when over $3 billion is needed to fill the budgetary hole, no matter what budget you speak.

Pennies on the dollar avoiding the dollars needed to run state government.

“Let’s cut a funded program by sweeping their non-taxpayer monies so, optically, it looks like hard choices are being made.”

Yikes.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 8:43 pm
Oswego, I’m not sure who you are quoting, but yes, every 3 million or 1 million or even 1 dollar is important to filling our budget hole. The 3 million funding for a smoking cessation phone line can be used to help kids with asthma/lung disease or a variety of other important programs. Use the money in these special funds in a way that truly helps people who need it.

Comment by Southwest Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 9:49 pm
It was $3 million in the discussion, so I took that number.

I think you chose $3 million.

- Southwest -, the program is funded with the settlement. Your suggesting to take the monies that ate designated to similar programs and fund those programs that usually use tax dollars and fund them with the tobacco money.

I can read. I also can do math. There’s not $3 billion in cuts to make either “sham” budget work.

Again, my point is exactly the same; both budgets need revenue. We’re quibbling over moving million dollar pots, with billion dollar holes.

What am I missing?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 10:02 pm
@ Southwest and Oswego,

What you are both missing is that this is not going to be a situation where the support line is going to be abolished.. The report is it will be suspended.. Meaning when the budget is more liquid, it can be restarted.

Oh and it is still tax payer money even if it comes from the company settlement. Stop looking as if money comes from trees. Everything that pays out money came from money paid out by someone else and in this case, it came from tax payers who paid for the product and became hooked under false information. Having been a 30+ year smoker, I know how much I paid out for those cigarettes both to the tobacco companies, county AND state…

Comment by Kelly Speaks Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 11:21 pm
===Oh and it is still tax payer money even if it comes from the company settlement.===

Maybe you need to understand the settlement.

===Meaning when the budget is more liquid, it can be restarted.===

So Rauner is holding it hostage…

- Kelly Speaks -,

You really need to understand the budget, how revenues work in the budget, why there is a tobacco settkement, and what those monies mean in a $3 billion dollar hole.

Your rationale is lacking in fundamentals.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 11:28 pm
And the continued comments prove that there are a lot of people who need a tutorial on the state budget because some of y’all are completely clueless. I’d be happy to help you understand it.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jun 17, 15 @ 7:42 am
IPI motto: Still nonpartisan! Honest!

Comment by The Equalizer Wednesday, Jun 17, 15 @ 8:28 am
Demoralized, like kids believing in Santa Claus they don’t want to informed.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jun 17, 15 @ 8:57 am
Has anyone seen or read the settlement agreement? (It may be sealed). It’s quite likely that the agreement does not allow settlement funds to be used for purposes other than what is spelled out in the agreement. In which case this is all an exercise in futility.

I wonder if the rauner team does in fact realize this isnt going to save anyone any money. Maybe this is just a PR ploy to look like they are trying to be reasonable about the budget?

Comment by Ferris wheel Wednesday, Jun 17, 15 @ 9:21 am
The Quitline provides valuable services to Illinois residents without using taxpayer money. Smoking cessation saves money and saves lives.

Comment by ChiefM Wednesday, Jun 17, 15 @ 9:29 am
http://www.idph.state.il.us/TobaccoWebSite/msa.htm

Comment by Southwest Wednesday, Jun 17, 15 @ 9:30 am
Even though it seems logical to use the tobacco master settlement funds to decrease smoking (and the long term costs to the state from it), the master settlement agreement the state AGs negotiated provide lots of flexibility in how those funds are used. As a result, Illinois has historically dedicated very little of it to tobacco education / cessation efforts. I don’t remember exactly; but it seems like it was among the lowest of all the states.

Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, Jun 17, 15 @ 9:34 am