Healthcare has always been a hotly-debated topic.

For decades politicians have been hammering out a way to make healthcare practical and more affordable to households of all incomes.

With the upcoming 2008 presidential election, already politicians like Barack Obama have been calling for a change in the way our healthcare system is run.

Recently Gov. Ed Rendell announced his controversial new plan to implement a tax not just on cigarettes, but on all other tobacco products too, as a way to help pay for more healthcare in Pennsylvania.

For cigar and cigarette smokers and tobacco chewers alike, this is bad news.

For the majority of people who don't smoke, the basic principle of Rendell's plan makes sense. It only seems fair to tax all tobacco products because each kind has similar, harmful effects and chances are users will end up with serious health issues.

For that reason, the fact that this plan will ultimately force smokers to pay for the healthcare of others seems legitimate.

But a question remains: Should anyone have to pay for the healthcare of anyone other than themselves?

Smokers affect not only their own health but also the health of others because of secondhand smoke. Countless lives of non-smokers have been affected by people who smoke

Looking at it this way, Rendell's tax seems like a reasonable solution.

On the other hand, the basis for Rendell's tax depends on people who use tobacco products to continue using them in order to generate more funding for healthcare.

It may not be the best strategy for the government to rely on its constituents' continued use of tobacco products.

This is obviously a conflict of interest when considering the fact that the ultimate goal is to improve everyone's health and decrease tobacco use in the state.

While the principle thinking behind this tax makes sense, the plan's shortcomings make it more ineffective than worthwhile.

Where will the government turn if everyone kicks their tobacco habit?

The chances of a smoke-free Pennsylvania population may be slim, but even the chance that it could happen is enough to dismiss this tax as the best option for improving our state's healthcare system.