The state of California is considering an alcohol tax known as
“five for life” that would tax every alcoholic drink
sold by five cents over the wholesale price and use the money to
reimburse emergency rooms and trauma centers for alcohol-related
incidents. While it is logical for the state to seek funds for
incidents in trauma centers from people who caused those incidents,
the tax is complicated because of contentious issues that arise
with specific taxation.
One problem is that the tax singles out a specific group of
people ““ those who make the legal choice to drink alcohol
““ to aid the state’s insufficiently funded medical
facilities. Through taxation, legislators send the message that
alcohol drinkers are a unique segment of the population that can be
financially punished for their alleged indiscretion. Politicians
know they can get away with the tax and even bolster their
political image because alcoholism has attached a stigma to alcohol
use in general. Californians who drink responsibly would be
punished for citizens who drink irresponsibly. And even though the
tax is small, the principle of taxing an activity partly because it
is perceived as wrong, gives legislators a precedent they may
eventually abuse.
Furthermore, alcohol abuse is already punished by law. Those who
cause harm to others while under the influence face strict
punishment. A tax on alcohol would be a second
“punishment” for a legal activity many enjoy
safely.
Immersed in the discussion surrounding the alcohol tax is the
greater problem: the insufficient funding for vital medical
facilities in California. Emergency rooms and trauma centers are
among the most important state-funded institutions in California.
Good health sits in lofty company with food and shelter as basic
human necessities. But in California, maintaining basic medical
facilities is too low on the state’s list of priorities.
Sixty California emergency rooms have closed since 1990. Fifteen
trauma centers have closed since 1980. Since the 1990s, hospital
emergency rooms have been losing money by the hundreds of millions
each year. It is deplorable that the most populous state in the
world’s most prosperous nation cannot provide adequate,
nearby medical facilities for its citizens.
The culprit for California’s inadequacies is a lack of
long-term planning and an abundance of short-term solutions, such
as the proposed alcohol tax. Even if the tax were morally flawless,
politically just, and supported by the entire population, it would
still set a bad precedent about how the state should address
emergency care. What legislators should do instead of arguing over
the tax is make a long term commitment to the viability of state
medical facilities by allocating a greater percentage of budget
money to emergency rooms and trauma centers. If this means raising
taxes across the board, they must do so.
Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) argues for the alcohol tax on
the basis that 60 percent of trauma patients test positive for
alcohol. Her logic appears to conclude that those who create a
necessity for trauma centers should be those paying for them.
Romero’s argument carries some merit, but it misses the point
when contextualized. Everyone uses hospitals, and they should
always be funded. It is plainly unacceptable that hospitals or
trauma centers are facing financial arrears. A proposition raising
property taxes to prevent further trauma center closures this year
that passed in last November’s election exemplifies the
situation’s extremity. Non-drinkers have no way of predicting
when they will need a trauma center because accidents are sporadic.
Why rest one’s health on several small taxes rather than just
demand that the state be required to fund hospitals and trauma
centers all the time, even if it means cutting from other desirable
areas?
Hospitals and other emergency care sites should not be scrimping
for an operational budget; the state needs to make sure the
availability of emergency care is never a question. Raising taxes
across the board to do so is the best way to ensure this, rather
than targeting specific habits.