Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program

[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. "

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

Yes they will. In the balance, it all comes out of the same box.

[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 rarely 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.

Yes they will. In the balance, it all comes out of the same box.

Umm, they are saying it will be paid for by a increase in cigarette taxes. Not the general funds. That means that they collect X number of dollars from the cigarette tax and give it to the program. If they do what you are saying then they are two separate things altogether. But even at that, when people stop smoking the tax revenue will drop and a tax increase will be needed to cover it. Same thing any way you look at it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Yes they will. In the balance, it all comes out of the same box.

Umm, they are saying it will be paid for by a increase in cigarette taxes. Not the general funds. That means that they collect X number of dollars from the cigarette tax and give it to the program. If they do what you are saying then they are two separate things altogether. But even at that, when people stop smoking the tax revenue will drop and a tax increase will be needed to cover it. Same thing any way you look at it.

Gary, Bush's tax cuts were financed from the projected surplus. When that surplus didn't materialize, I don't recall Bush repealing the tax cuts (or raising taxes). I seem to recall him just borrowing instead saying that the tax cuts will generate the payoff down the road. You support that stance, don't you? Same principle here.

[GaryC 7]

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

Yes they will. In the balance, it all comes out of the same box.

Umm, they are saying it will be paid for by a increase in cigarette taxes. Not the general funds. That means that they collect X number of dollars from the cigarette tax and give it to the program. If they do what you are saying then they are two separate things altogether. But even at that, when people stop smoking the tax revenue will drop and a tax increase will be needed to cover it. Same thing any way you look at it.

Gary, Bush's tax cuts were financed from the projected surplus. When that surplus didn't materialize, I don't recall Bush repealing the tax cuts (or raising taxes). I seem to recall him just borrowing instead saying that the tax cuts will generate the payoff down the road. You support that stance, don't you? Same principle here.

So why the song and dance about paying for it with a cigarette tax? Just increase the taxes, fund the project and be done with it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Yes they will. In the balance, it all comes out of the same box.

Umm, they are saying it will be paid for by a increase in cigarette taxes. Not the general funds. That means that they collect X number of dollars from the cigarette tax and give it to the program. If they do what you are saying then they are two separate things altogether. But even at that, when people stop smoking the tax revenue will drop and a tax increase will be needed to cover it. Same thing any way you look at it.

Gary, Bush's tax cuts were financed from the projected surplus. When that surplus didn't materialize, I don't recall Bush repealing the tax cuts (or raising taxes). I seem to recall him just borrowing instead saying that the tax cuts will generate the payoff down the road. You support that stance, don't you? Same principle here.

So why the song and dance about paying for it with a cigarette tax? Just increase the taxes, fund the project and be done with it.

So, why the song and dance about future payoffs? Why not just repeal the tax cuts?

[GaryC 7]

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

Yes they will. In the balance, it all comes out of the same box.

Umm, they are saying it will be paid for by a increase in cigarette taxes. Not the general funds. That means that they collect X number of dollars from the cigarette tax and give it to the program. If they do what you are saying then they are two separate things altogether. But even at that, when people stop smoking the tax revenue will drop and a tax increase will be needed to cover it. Same thing any way you look at it.

Gary, Bush's tax cuts were financed from the projected surplus. When that surplus didn't materialize, I don't recall Bush repealing the tax cuts (or raising taxes). I seem to recall him just borrowing instead saying that the tax cuts will generate the payoff down the road. You support that stance, don't you? Same principle here.

So why the song and dance about paying for it with a cigarette tax? Just increase the taxes, fund the project and be done with it.

So, why the song and dance about future payoffs? Why not just repeal the tax cuts?

Because taxes are to high as it is. I want lower taxes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Yes they will. In the balance, it all comes out of the same box.

Umm, they are saying it will be paid for by a increase in cigarette taxes. Not the general funds. That means that they collect X number of dollars from the cigarette tax and give it to the program. If they do what you are saying then they are two separate things altogether. But even at that, when people stop smoking the tax revenue will drop and a tax increase will be needed to cover it. Same thing any way you look at it.

Gary, Bush's tax cuts were financed from the projected surplus. When that surplus didn't materialize, I don't recall Bush repealing the tax cuts (or raising taxes). I seem to recall him just borrowing instead saying that the tax cuts will generate the payoff down the road. You support that stance, don't you? Same principle here.

So why the song and dance about paying for it with a cigarette tax? Just increase the taxes, fund the project and be done with it.

So, why the song and dance about future payoffs? Why not just repeal the tax cuts?

Because taxes are to high as it is. I want lower taxes.

Again, it's the same principle. In the long run, this is better financed by promoting healthier lifestyles. Makes it as much a win-win in my eyes as Bush's tax cuts in yours.

[no name 1]

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.

Please see post #252.

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?)

Well said Widge!!!

PS: Gary will continue to argue against UHC for no other reason than he can. He will not listen to those who have used UHC or even entertain the idea, as evidenced throughout this thread. A thick brick wall comes to mind...

[no name 1]

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.

Sources?

Once again, you have NEVER used it, so how can you be so vehemently against it?

I think there are plenty of ####### stories about the US Healthcare too. Gimme a break.

Edited October 5, 2007 by devilette

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Fast forward twenty years. This plan sucks! My granpa died because he had to wait! Votin for shite you havent even seen yet is foolishness. Remember, whats promised is gonna be 50% less than your gonna get.

[no name 1]

questions that need answers....

I know, and I disagree with they way it's done. The childless shouldn't have to pay for educating other peoples children.

So you think education isn't a right? And you believe everyone should pay or not have kids? Could you pay for 5 educations AND healthcare?

Gary, I understand your opinion - personal responsibility. I don't think anyone's endorsing the idea of not making people responsible. The question is how do measure or quantify personal responsibility? When can differentiate personal responsibility with events that effect someone's health to the point of needing medical care?

[Sinergy 3]

And as we argue about it and health care continues to be too expensive my friends child is a day closer to dieing, sounds fair to me

hes on a waiting list for a kidney, but guess what, the kids with the insurance get the kidneys first. how fair is that???

gary dont worry ill keep you update and you will be the first to know if he dies. im sure your passion for "living hard earning good" will still stay the same, but atleast ill give a rats ####### about ppl who are not as fortunate as you are.

im sorry to be bitter, but you hit me in a sore spot.

[GaryC 7]

And as we argue about it and health care continues to be too expensive my friends child is a day closer to dieing, sounds fair to me

hes on a waiting list for a kidney, but guess what, the kids with the insurance get the kidneys first. how fair is that???

gary dont worry ill keep you update and you will be the first to know if he dies. im sure your passion for "living hard earning good" will still stay the same, but atleast ill give a rats ####### about ppl who are not as fortunate as you are.

im sorry to be bitter, but you hit me in a sore spot.

Thats a low blow. Just because I don't want the federal government taking over the national health care you lay that on me. Ok, in your eyes I am a heartless monster. So be it.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

And as we argue about it and health care continues to be too expensive my friends child is a day closer to dieing, sounds fair to me

hes on a waiting list for a kidney, but guess what, the kids with the insurance get the kidneys first. how fair is that???

gary dont worry ill keep you update and you will be the first to know if he dies. im sure your passion for "living hard earning good" will still stay the same, but atleast ill give a rats ####### about ppl who are not as fortunate as you are.

im sorry to be bitter, but you hit me in a sore spot.

I love the guilt routine ! what about people all over the world dieing? Is that our fault too? Trying to take care of everybody is just totally insane. Our first and foremost responsibilty is to our families,we will never ever prevent the deaths of all peoples.We need to stay in reality here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And as we argue about it and health care continues to be too expensive my friends child is a day closer to dieing, sounds fair to me blink.gif

hes on a waiting list for a kidney, but guess what, the kids with the insurance get the kidneys first. how fair is that???

gary dont worry ill keep you update and you will be the first to know if he dies. im sure your passion for "living hard earning good" will still stay the same, but atleast ill give a rats ####### about ppl who are not as fortunate as you are.

im sorry to be bitter, but you hit me in a sore spot.

Thats a low blow. Just because I don't want the federal government taking over the national health care you lay that on me. Ok, in your eyes I am a heartless monster.

I agree with Gary here: That was out of line.

Even though we disagree on this issue and a number of others, I think Gary is one hell of a great guy!