Socialized Medicine

[Widge 0]

* Edited to ask "how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" pooooh the powers of veto!

17 pages of it - http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=90477

*blushing* how did I miss that !?!?!?!

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

and your point is.....?

We all got one leg in the proverbial barrel of communism.

[Widge 0]

"how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" pooooh the powers of veto!

Funded by a cigarette tax. How stupid is that?

once again laziness dictates I paste from my reply to the other thread:

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!!

[Cassie 8]

and your point is.....?

We all got one leg in the proverbial barrel of communism.

apparently!

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

"how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" pooooh the powers of veto!

Funded by a cigarette tax. How stupid is that?

once again laziness dictates I paste from my reply to the other thread:

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!!

so what's the plan when everyone quits smoking? we gonna tax fast food? what someone wiser than us peons decides is unhealthy food? will motorcycle drivers get hit with increased premiums due to the risky nature of their choice in transportation?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

and your point is.....?

and your point is.....?

We all got one leg in the proverbial barrel of communism.

Denial? Intervention might be needed here.

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

It's unfortunate that we don't have the willingness on those in Congress to do something very unelectable - raise taxes. Dubbya spends our money like a drunken sailor while giving tax cuts to the very rich. Somebody needs to finally balance the check book and it's not going to be pretty.

[Fuzzness 2]

I'm not going to quote the original article, and i'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it or not but.... Canadians do not get free drugs unless their private insurance covers it 100% (and some do)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dubbya spends our money like a drunken sailor while giving tax cuts to the very rich. Somebody needs to finally balance the check book and it's not going to be pretty.

You cannot expect Dubbya to do that. He's quite obviously slept though Math.

[GaryC 7]

"how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" poooooh the powers of veto!

Funded by a cigarette tax. How stupid is that?

once again laziness dictates I paste from my reply to the other thread:

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!!

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

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.

[Widge 0]

"how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" pooooh the powers of veto!

Funded by a cigarette tax. How stupid is that?

once again laziness dictates I paste from my reply to the other thread:

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!!

so what's the plan when everyone quits smoking? we gonna tax fast food? what someone wiser than us peons decides is unhealthy food? will motorcycle drivers get hit with increased premiums due to the risky nature of their choice in transportation?

Well one might assume if everyone were to quit smoking health might improve but that isn't your point as I see it. what you are saying is that even when a set of circumstances increases a risk the person contibuting to that risk shouldn't pay an increased premium to fund the risk. I disagree! (Car premiums are set on the basis of the vehicle you drive/liable risks in driving) Taxes should be raised to fund health care across the board but if additional revenue can be raised by taxing proven risks (make em downright illegal for all I care, definitely fairer than banning me from doing a legal act in 9out of 10 places as in Ohio!) then no that doesn't seem crazy to me. Taxing gas for raising revenue for road building seems pretty reasonable to me too. But when it comes to health care and education from cradle to grave seems fair to tax every worker to pay for it (And the argument that I have no kids so shouldn't pay is ####### as we were all educated once and hopefully will all work too)

[GaryC 7]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

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.

This was for health care for kids. Kids don't usually show smoking related illnesses. But I ask again, if this is a program they want to do what happens when enough people stop smoking that they no longer collect enough money to pay for it? Drop the program? No, they will raise taxes. So if that is the final outcome anyway why not just ask to raise taxes to begin with? I will tell you why, because they know that it will doom the program. So they have to do a back door approach to get the program started and then later spring a tax increase on us. It's dishonest.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

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.

This was for health care for kids. Kids don't usually show smoking related illnesses. But I ask again, if this is a program they want to do what happens when enough people stop smoking that they no longer collect enough money to pay for it? Drop the program? No, they will raise taxes. So if that is the final outcome anyway why not just ask to raise taxes to begin with? I will tell you why, because they know that it will doom the program. So they have to do a back door approach to get the program started and then later spring a tax increase on us. It's dishonest.

Not really. The tax coffer is the tax coffer. If you want to get into what monies are used for what purposes, we better start a new threat. I mean, Bush financed tax cuts essentially by borrowing the funds from foreign governments. Someone will have to pay for that at some point. We're maxed out again in a few days and Congress will need to up the debt limit yet again. Where's the honesty in that?

[GaryC 7]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

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.

This was for health care for kids. Kids don't usually show smoking related illnesses. But I ask again, if this is a program they want to do what happens when enough people stop smoking that they no longer collect enough money to pay for it? Drop the program? No, they will raise taxes. So if that is the final outcome anyway why not just ask to raise taxes to begin with? I will tell you why, because they know that it will doom the program. So they have to do a back door approach to get the program started and then later spring a tax increase on us. It's dishonest.

Not really. The tax coffer is the tax coffer. If you want to get into what monies are used for what purposes, we better start a new threat. I mean, Bush financed tax cuts essentially by borrowing the funds from foreign governments. Someone will have to pay for that at some point. We're maxed out again in a few days and Congress will need to up the debt limit yet again. Where's the honesty in that?

So these are the people you want to run a national health care program? I think you swerved into my point.