Comments on: Bush Ready To Fight Kids Insurance Bill

President Promises To Veto SCHIP Legislation, Democrat Says White House Skews Truth

[abbe91]

"Try incompetence in those fields, and double billing, and over charging doesn''t help either,...i e, aspirin that costs $5 per tablet, at the hospital. The list can go on forever, those are the real problems that we face as consumers. Also I agree, Why does private industry need Gov''t subsidies?"
Posted by slim1h2o at 10:27 AM : Sep 21, 2007

We agree that there other sources of funding that tobacco taxes. Overcharging by hospitals is typical. When they know the insurance company will pay ...
But I don''t buy the argument "If all smokers quit smoking". Of course, that doesn''t work that way, it''s progressive and allows adaptation. I heard the same argument for justifying tobacco commercials on sport events (like car racing): in Europe, they would disappear without the money from the tobacco industry. Guess what ? they survived. France even banned commercials for alcohol in sports ...

[realpatriot1]

slim1h2o,

The massive layoffs in the tobacco industry have already taken place. When I moved to rural North Carolina 10 years ago, tobacco fields were everywhere; you hardly see any these days. The quota holders all took the buyouts and the stuff being smoked today is mostly imported.

As far as the manufacturing is concerned, that''s mostly closed down and moved abroad as well.

[eggy1620]

%u201Cif people stop smoking, you spend less in health care%u201D - Posted by abbe91.
In a perfect market, yes. But the health care industry has a remarkable talent for turning ordinary variation of people%u2019s health into %u201Cdiseases%u201D that must be expensively treated and paid for thru 3rd party reimbursement. Health care is enormously expensive because of , not in spite of, health insurance. We are ignorant consumers who completely cede our purchasing analysis and decisions to insurance companies. How many of us would undergo an unnecessary CT scan if we were shown up front how much it would cost us?

[abbe91]

"This is a step towards federally run health care, and if you''''re for that, fine, that''''s your choice.
Posted by s1ckd09 at 09:23 AM : Sep 21, 2007"

What is really the difference between federally run health care and a private insurance, but subsidized by the government with taxpayer money ? Just a few people ''s wallets in between.

[slim1h2o]

Should say,,," taxes they receive"

[slim1h2o]

If people stop smoking (1) goes down but you can win on (2) because private insurers need less subsidies.
BTW, funny that private insurers need subsidies.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by abbe91 at 10:01 AM : Sep 21, 2007

If all smokers quit smoking, the Gov''t could say goodbye to all those they currently receive, massive layoffs in the tobacco industries, and related fields.
And not to mention the fact that smokers are not the boogie man of the medical and insurance industry! Try incompetence in those fields, and double billing, and over charging doesn''t help either,...i e, aspirin that costs $5 per tablet, at the hospital. The list can go on forever, those are the real problems that we face as consumers. Also I agree, Why does private industry need Gov''t subsidies?

[abbe91]

"Sorry, but this doesn''''t fly. The "C" in SCHIP stands for "children".
Posted by s1ckd09 at 09:13 AM : Sep 21, 2007"

Read better.

..."that would have been funded by an increase in tobacco taxes and lowering subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare health benefits"

2 sources: (1) tobacco taxes (2) lowering subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare health benefits.
The "C" in "MEDICARE" doesn''t stand for children.

If people stop smoking (1) goes down but you can win on (2) because private insurers need less subsidies.
BTW, funny that private insurers need subsidies.

[s1ckd09]

THINK people before jumping all over someone. Try reading the bill. Try understanding the history of a program. Try looking at the original intention and the people it is targeted for, and the real problems it''s facing, not the problems it''s facing that are ourside the scope of the program. Try looking at the effects of expansion and the true costs of it.
This is a step towards federally run health care, and if you''re for that, fine, that''s your choice. I have never seen the government take over anything and improve on it, though. And you people hate Bush, yet you would want him in charge of your health care? And do I want Ted Kennedy controlling my health care? No thank you.

[s1ckd09]

It still kills and costs a lot in health care. It''''s a win-win: if people stop smoking, you spend less in health care, if they don''''t, you collect the taxes.

Posted by abbe91 at 09:02 AM : Sep 21, 2007

Sorry, but this doesn''t fly. The "C" in SCHIP stands for "children". As far as I know, there aren''t a lot of of kids suffering from lung cancer or other tobacco related ailments caused by smoking. So the funding needed by SCHIP is not affected by the number of smokers in the country. This alone should be enough to question the funding. But if you want to find direct blame, all you have to do is look at the states who have expanded the SCHIP to cover adults. Again, the "C" stands for children, and it is supposed to cover children only.

Think.

[abbe91]

"Does anyone else see the stupidity of federally funding a program with an activity that is becoming banned in more and more places?
Posted by s1ckd09 at 08:53 AM : Sep 21, 2007"

It still kills and costs a lot in health care. It''s a win-win: if people stop smoking, you spend less in health care, if they don''t, you collect the taxes.