Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Gary, would you support the idea of every man, woman and child has adequate health care regardless of income....as long as it's not federally operated?

yes

i think my brother gary and also, brother marc..have no issue with the need for universal health care..but the institution that will fund it and control/manage it,...

By god I think your on to somethig Dean!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, would you support the idea of every man, woman and child has adequate health care regardless of income....as long as it's not federally operated?

yes

Hallelujiah! I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

Congratulation!!

Thanks, sis! Can I have a piece of pie? :D

[almaty 19]

Gary, would you support the idea of every man, woman and child has adequate health care regardless of income....as long as it's not federally operated?

yes

Hallelujiah! I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

I guess I need to repeat for the nth time. I don't trust the federal government to run our health care. That is what I have always said. I have also said that I would listen to a proposal to reform the insurance industry. I am also willing to listen to a proposal for a state run system. I just don't trust the federal government.

Getting back to the OP. It really proves my point. They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that? But because Bush vetoed it he is now cast as some sort of a monster. That is one of the reasons why I don't trust the federal government to run this thing!!!!

I have a problem with funding from another cigarette tax also. It seems like a band-aid idea rather than a legitimate solution.

i also agree..plus that time of tax has a short duration, usually until after the next election..make it fair..afterall, the kids are not all smoker children..they are america's kids..

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Gary, would you support the idea of every man, woman and child has adequate health care regardless of income....as long as it's not federally operated?

yes

Hallelujiah! I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

I guess I need to repeat for the nth time. I don't trust the federal government to run our health care. That is what I have always said. I have also said that I would listen to a proposal to reform the insurance industry. I am also willing to listen to a proposal for a state run system. I just don't trust the federal government.

Getting back to the OP. It really proves my point. They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that? But because Bush vetoed it he is now cast as some sort of a monster. That is one of the reasons why I don't trust the federal government to run this thing!!!!

I have a problem with funding from another cigarette tax also. It seems like a band-aid idea rather than a legitimate solution.

i also agree..plus that time of tax has a short duration, usually until after the next election..make it fair..afterall, the kids are not all smoker children..they are america's kids..

What we gonna do when all the smokers are dead? Are people that eat at Mcdonalds next?

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Gary, would you support the idea of every man, woman and child has adequate health care regardless of income....as long as it's not federally operated?

yes

Hallelujiah! I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

I guess I need to repeat for the nth time. I don't trust the federal government to run our health care. That is what I have always said. I have also said that I would listen to a proposal to reform the insurance industry. I am also willing to listen to a proposal for a state run system. I just don't trust the federal government.

Getting back to the OP. It really proves my point. They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that? But because Bush vetoed it he is now cast as some sort of a monster. That is one of the reasons why I don't trust the federal government to run this thing!!!!

i'm with you there gary. look at social security. how many promises were made about that, what it would do, how much would be contributed, if taxed, and so on. and now look at it. the government keeps moving the bar and robbing from the kitty with an expected empty vault in what, 3-4 decades? i cannot regard such a program being run by the government as being "good" for americans given how the federal government can screw up a two piece puzzle, much less run a nationwide health care plan!

[Widge 0]

Gary, would you support the idea of every man, woman and child has adequate health care regardless of income....as long as it's not federally operated?

yes

Hallelujiah! I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

I guess I need to repeat for the nth time. I don't trust the federal government to run our health care. That is what I have always said. I have also said that I would listen to a proposal to reform the insurance industry. I am also willing to listen to a proposal for a state run system. I just don't trust the federal government.

Getting back to the OP. It really proves my point. They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that? But because Bush vetoed it he is now cast as some sort of a monster. That is one of the reasons why I don't trust the federal government to run this thing!!!!

If you (and your like thinkers) put as much effort into fighting the corruption of the federal government as you do into opposing federal govt running the health system I am sure both might be better. There is nothing to say states wouldn't equally mis-manage and I re-iterate my previious comment on other thread that why should state A get better service than state B a uniform "good" sytem (with no corruption) would be best for ALL.

and despite your comments here and in the other thread I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with an increased tax on cigarettes (the UK has been doing it for years) and I am a smoker repeat I am a smoker and it is your very argument that you find laughable "That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?" seems to me laudable that something that may harm health should actually fund health care!!

I am most appalled though at your "I'm alright Jack" attitude, I too have good health insurance but I am also too aware that should some catastrophic event befall my family that coverage/our ability to earn may be affected adversely, I pray this never befalls you or yours. But even whilst we are ably covered I will not stop caring for those who through no fault of their own are unable to pay for themselves and if that makes me a damn liberal or ooooooooh a socialist then I will happily wear that badge with pride because it strikes me as a tad less selfish than the attitude you show throughout every health related thread ( and until we have an overriding consensus of those who HAVE LIVED in a UHC country saying this system here is better - I can't think of anyone yet - wouldn't it perhaps be sensible to quote those who have experienced who can answer your queries rather than news articles whose personal bias we have no knowledge of?)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm still waiting for an answer to Reinhard's question a few pages back.

You better pull up a chair. I've asked that question many times - not just in this threat - and it is consistently being ignored. It's simply an inconvenient fact that the supporters of the excessively expensive and inefficient profit oriented system don't like to deal with.

I think I did answer it. I have zero faith in the US Federal Government to run a national health care program. What we will end up with will be bloated inefficient and in the end bankrupt the USA. Just look to any other government program for your proof.

As to the other countries with UHC. I see story after story about people waiting for treatment until death, the government rationing services and people coming to the USA to get treatment. Those plans may have started out OK but they are falling apart.

The US has government run health care programs that are more efficiently run than the private system we all suffer and subsidize. The UHC's may get more expensive year after year. But so does the privately run system here - at rates that haven't been in single digits in I don't know how long. It's the private system here that is falling apart. The only thing it does reasonably well is generate additional profits for the financial stakeholders. What it should do - provide health care to the US population - it doesn't do well at all.

The stories you see, Gary, are stories that the profiteers of the status quo want you to see. I've personally seen and lived under socialized care systems. And I will tell you that they beat what I have seen and experienced here - and I have always been fortunate enough to have excellent coverage - by leaps and bounds. I still have family that enjoys socialized care. My parents, for example, are very well taken care of in Germany despite their difficult overall economic circumstances. They'd drown here in the US, that's for sure.

Again, the fact is that US sports the most expensive system (per capita) in the world granting adequate access to health care services to the least portion of the population. That is what the private industry has "accomplished". Any government, anywhere in the world is performing better and more efficient. No government has created a system that is as bloated and messy and inefficient as that which the private industry has created here. Yet you don't "trust" the government to do better. It's really not a question of trust, Gary. It's a matter of accepting the simple and verifiable fact that the government - any government - is doing better in this field.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

If you (and your like thinkers) put as much effort into fighting the corruption of the federal government as you do into opposing federal govt running the health system I am sure both might be better. There is nothing to say states wouldn't equally mis-manage and I re-iterate my previious comment on other thread that why should state A get better service than state B a uniform "good" sytem (with no corruption) would be best for ALL.

and despite your comments here and in the other thread I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with an increased tax on cigarettes (the UK has been doing it for years) and I am a smoker repeat I am a smoker and it is your very argument that you find laughable "That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?" seems to me laudable that something that may harm health should actually fund health care!!

I am most appalled though at your "I'm alright Jack" attitude, I too have good health insurance but I am also too aware that should some catastrophic event befall my family that coverage/our ability to earn may be affected adversely, I pray this never befalls you or yours. But even whilst we are ably covered I will not stop caring for those who through no fault of their own are unable to pay for themselves and if that makes me a damn liberal or ooooooooh a socialist then I will happily wear that badge with pride because it strikes me as a tad less selfish than the attitude you show throughout every health related thread ( and until we have an overriding consensus of those who HAVE LIVED in a UHC country saying this system here is better - I can't think of anyone yet - wouldn't it perhaps be sensible to quote those who have experienced who can answer your queries rather than news articles whose personal bias we have no knowledge of?)

This statement seems a little selfish dont you think? There are plenty of people out there that disagree with what your saying. To push this on them is well,selfish!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?

That's actually very basic bean-counting. Insurance companies (private insurance companies - gasp) do this every day. You cover the potential cost of an additional risk by putting a levy on that particular risk. Which is essentially why a smoker pays higher premiums for life insurance coverage and why employers start to provide health care premium incentives to lead employees towards a non-smoking lifestyle. It's simple risk assessment, Gary. Not so stupid when you talk to an insurance expert.

ETA: To tie this back to the government health plan issue, do you really think that what is levied on tobacco today covers the cost that the taxpayer picks up for the treatment of tobacco related illnesses? Not even close.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?

That's actually very basic bean-counting. Insurance companies (private insurance companies - gasp) do this every day. You cover the potential cost of an additional risk by putting a levy on that particular risk. Which is essentially why a smoker pays higher premiums for life insurance coverage and why employers start to provide health care premium incentives to lead employees towards a non-smoking lifestyle. It's simple risk assessment, Gary. Not so stupid when you talk to an insurance expert.

what's next - dna testing for genetic markers showing a predisposition towards certain diseases like cancer?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?

That's actually very basic bean-counting. Insurance companies (private insurance companies - gasp) do this every day. You cover the potential cost of an additional risk by putting a levy on that particular risk. Which is essentially why a smoker pays higher premiums for life insurance coverage and why employers start to provide health care premium incentives to lead employees towards a non-smoking lifestyle. It's simple risk assessment, Gary. Not so stupid when you talk to an insurance expert.

what's next - dna testing for genetic markers showing a predisposition towards certain diseases like cancer?

Genetic defects are out of your control. Picking up that cigarette isn't. Get my drift? I mean y'all being big on personal responsibility and all.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?

That's actually very basic bean-counting. Insurance companies (private insurance companies - gasp) do this every day. You cover the potential cost of an additional risk by putting a levy on that particular risk. Which is essentially why a smoker pays higher premiums for life insurance coverage and why employers start to provide health care premium incentives to lead employees towards a non-smoking lifestyle. It's simple risk assessment, Gary. Not so stupid when you talk to an insurance expert.

what's next - dna testing for genetic markers showing a predisposition towards certain diseases like cancer?

Genetic defects are out of your control. Picking up that cigarette isn't. Get my drift? I mean y'all being big on personal responsibility and all.

should the health care plan come to pass, time will tell.

[GaryC 7]

They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?

That's actually very basic bean-counting. Insurance companies (private insurance companies - gasp) do this every day. You cover the potential cost of an additional risk by putting a levy on that particular risk. Which is essentially why a smoker pays higher premiums for life insurance coverage and why employers start to provide health care premium incentives to lead employees towards a non-smoking lifestyle. It's simple risk assessment, Gary. Not so stupid when you talk to an insurance expert.

ETA: To tie this back to the government health plan issue, do you really think that what is levied on tobacco today covers the cost that the taxpayer picks up for the treatment of tobacco related illnesses? Not even close.

But to fund a program that people will come to depend on by taxing something that the same government is trying to eliminate is dumb!! What happens when enough people quit that they no longer can support the program? If they want it then come out and ask for the money. Don't play on peoples emotions by the "sticking it to the smokers" mentality. Be up front and ask for the money if that is what they want. This all ties back to my distrust of anything the government does. They are rairly honest about what they do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?

That's actually very basic bean-counting. Insurance companies (private insurance companies - gasp) do this every day. You cover the potential cost of an additional risk by putting a levy on that particular risk. Which is essentially why a smoker pays higher premiums for life insurance coverage and why employers start to provide health care premium incentives to lead employees towards a non-smoking lifestyle. It's simple risk assessment, Gary. Not so stupid when you talk to an insurance expert.

what's next - dna testing for genetic markers showing a predisposition towards certain diseases like cancer?

Genetic defects are out of your control. Picking up that cigarette isn't. Get my drift? I mean y'all being big on personal responsibility and all.

should the health care plan come to pass, time will tell.

The devil always lies in the details. I would like to see incentives for healthy lifestyles and such. But that isn't the point at this stage. The point is that the private industry has failed the American people on health care, has been outperformed in efficiency by any and all governments and we should be honest enough to recognize that and start conceptualizing solutions to the mess that don't build on what has not worked since it's inception but rather build on what is working around the globe. We can fine-tune, supplement, Americanize, whathaveyou. But the profit focus needs to taken out of the equation and replaced with a focus on delivering what the system is supposedly there for: health care.

But to fund a program that people will come to depend on by taxing something that the same government is trying to eliminate is dumb!! What happens when enough people quit that they no longer can support the program? If they want it then come out and ask for the money. Don't play on peoples emotions by the "sticking it to the smokers" mentality. Be up front and ask for the money if that is what they want. This all ties back to my distrust of anything the government does. They are rairly honest about what they do.

I answered that in the other threat:

"I kicked the habit after 20 or so years myself. There's a long term benefit to that. Not just to my health but to the taxpayer. The taxes the government collected on my smokes didn't really ever cover the additional risk. Therefore, the long term savings outweigh the revenue loss. That's how this type of financing becomes sustainable. "

Edited October 5, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

They want to fund a health care plan with a cigarette tax!!!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from!! The very thing that is running up our health care costs is now funding a health care plan!! Does anyone else see the stupidity in that?

That's actually very basic bean-counting. Insurance companies (private insurance companies - gasp) do this every day. You cover the potential cost of an additional risk by putting a levy on that particular risk. Which is essentially why a smoker pays higher premiums for life insurance coverage and why employers start to provide health care premium incentives to lead employees towards a non-smoking lifestyle. It's simple risk assessment, Gary. Not so stupid when you talk to an insurance expert.

what's next - dna testing for genetic markers showing a predisposition towards certain diseases like cancer?

Genetic defects are out of your control. Picking up that cigarette isn't. Get my drift? I mean y'all being big on personal responsibility and all.

should the health care plan come to pass, time will tell.

The devil always lies in the details. I would like to see incentives for healthy lifestyles and such. But that isn't the point at this stage. The point is that the private industry has failed the American people on health care, has been outperformed in efficiency by any and all governments and we should be honest enough to recognize that and start conceptualizing solutions to the mess that don't build on what has not worked since it's inception but rather build on what is working around the globe. We can fine-tune, supplement, Americanize, whathaveyou. But the profit focus needs to taken out of the equation and replaced with a focus on delivering what the system is supposedly there for: health care.

But to fund a program that people will come to depend on by taxing something that the same government is trying to eliminate is dumb!! What happens when enough people quit that they no longer can support the program? If they want it then come out and ask for the money. Don't play on peoples emotions by the "sticking it to the smokers" mentality. Be up front and ask for the money if that is what they want. This all ties back to my distrust of anything the government does. They are rairly honest about what they do.

I answered that in the other threat:

"I kicked the habit after 20 or so years myself. There's a long term benefit to that. Not just to my health but to the taxpayer. The taxes the government collected on my smokes didn't really ever cover the additional risk. Therefore, the long term savings outweigh the revenue loss. That's how this type of financing becomes sustainable. "

But this is for a kids health care program. Healthier adults will not help covering sick kids.