Comments on: Congress OKs Expansion Of Kids' Insurance

Lawmakers Add 4 Million Children To Health Program; President Bush Vows Veto

[abbe91]

"OK, so say we don''''t pass this bill. Where would you like to see this money go? If they don''''t spend it on health care programs for middle class Americans...which other pocket would you like to see it land in?

Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 01:07 AM : Sep 28, 2007"

Part of the answer is known already: subsidize ***private*** healthcare companies with taxpayer money. They are against using more taxpayer money for SCHIP but it''s OK to make a few CEO''s richer.

[abbe91]

In statement after the Senate vote, the White House said Bush %u201Cwill veto this bill because it directs scarce funding to higher incomes at the expense of poor families.%u201D

... with a straight face ?
Better hear that than to be deaf, I guess.
Of course, this administration would never direct funding to high incomes at the expense of poor families ... high incomes ? like corporations ?

[homespunlady]

Posted by figuy30 at 01:22 AM : Sep 28, 2007

Don''t know where you live but in THIS state my mom who''s over 65 gets ALL of her home property taxes REFUNDED for being low income elderly.

She''s on Medicare/Medicaid AND the NEW prescription drug program although she does have other "senior benefits" as well.

As for me, I pay a pretty hefty amounts to cover my SUPPOSED "FREE" military medical. There''s TRICARE PREMIUMS, DELTA PREMIUMS, a CIVILIAN eye-care program as once I retired they refused to do eye-care, COPAYS for every trip outside the system, eyeglasses which ironically are not covered - just exams. Orthodontics for my 17 year-old daughter which she tries to help pay from her part-time after school jobs since we''re just "getting by" etc, etc. etc.
After that there''s also life insurance, car insurance, house insurance, and on and on. The IRONY is NONE of that is money that''s GOVERNMENT just the same fleecing but by CORPORATIONS that PROMISE and find LOOPHOLES to NOT deliver.

The government parts seem to be working VERY WELL for mom.
The CORPORATE PROFITEERS seem to be working VERY WELL for THEMSELVES to fleece me.

[socrates392]

Posted by Larrs08 at 01:38 AM : Sep 28, 2007

If you want to impersonate Lars successfully, you need to include way more ranting about "Nazi Terror Islam"! A little cut n paste wouldn''t hurt either! LOL! ;-)

[larrs08]

You libs make me sick! Here we are borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia to pay for Iraq and you want health care for the children of the working poor? Where are your values!! Where are your priorities!! This is why we need to get back to a Republican controlled Congress before the Dems ruin this country.

[larrs08]

This money should be spent in Iraq. Do you libs even know how much a smart bomb costs? Guess not. Or you wouldn''t think of wasting on these free loader children. Let them go out and get jobs if they want healthcare.

[s1ckd09]

OK, so say we don''''t pass this bill. Where would you like to see this money go? If they don''''t spend it on health care programs for middle class Americans...which other pocket would you like to see it land in?

So, say some hard working adults get some insurance coverage? Maybe a 25 year old living at home with parents struggling to put them thru school got some insurance? So what if ANY individual benefits from this pool of "insurance money". Why is that such a terrible thing?
Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 01:07 AM : Sep 28, 2007

Your post shows the problem with perception in this country. First, nobody thinks this is a terribly bad program, and almost everybody wants it to continue. The issue is the unneeded "expansion", but it is spun as being "against child care".
Second, the original purpose of this bill was to help children in families whose income was too high for Medicare but too low for other insurance. And that''s where it needs to stay.

So, I would like to see this program funded, but funded responsibly. Blame Congress for thinking that if they waited until the last minute to work on this bill, that the President would sign it no matter what because of the political fallout of not signing a bill to "help the children". Well, it didn''t work.

[larrs08]

You libs make me sick. Don''t you see we''ve got a war to pay for? If these kids want healthcare let them go out and get jobs like everyone else!

[rowdytexan2]

I don''t see why any of this money should be going to some HMO insurance company to provide health care for Americans. Create some National Health Clinics and put the money directly in their hands to cover anybody that walks in the door making less than a certain amount of money, and feeding kids. Then if they have to go to hospital, send them, and pay the bill.

I don''t see why it should have anything to do with private insurance companies at all. Those who can can afford private insurance, more power to ya! Go for it, buy insurance from an HMO whose job it is to provide you with LESS health care and make sure there is an increase shareholder dollars. They need more trips to Europe and fur coats for their wives. Yehaw, support your local shareholder!

[figuy30]

Everytime I think it would be humanly impossible for our government to put more burden on the taxpayer I find we still have men in office with no concern for the people who elected them. Don''t we already have enough people on welfare programs? Don''t we still give earned income tax credits to people who don''t even pay taxes? Elderly homeowners are still forced to pay school taxes even though they have no children in school and they can''t even afford health insurance for themselves. Where is the fairness in our tax system? And, where will it end? With our elected officials who have our best interests at heart?

[rowdytexan2]

s1ckd09

OK, so say we don''t pass this bill. Where would you like to see this money go? If they don''t spend it on health care programs for middle class Americans...which other pocket would you like to see it land in?

So, say some hard working adults get some insurance coverage? Maybe a 25 year old living at home with parents struggling to put them thru school got some insurance? So what if ANY individual benefits from this pool of "insurance money". Why is that such a terrible thing?

[homespunlady]

Posted by s1ckd09 at 12:01 AM : Sep 28, 2007

Read up on Cato.org They "appear" to be a very Libertarian lobbying group.

I have NO love for cigarettes OR cigars but hey while we''re at it and you''re advocating Libertarian ideas how about LEGALIZING Marijuana and TAXING the heck out of that!

I suspect the usage would be low since you claim the TOBACCO ADDICTS would simply quit and I''d expect no less from marijuana smokers. They can even sit outside or wherever and freeze too.

I NEVER smoked but had to suffer in poorly ventilated smoke filled rooms breathing HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, CHEAP cigarettes (even when pregnant back then) that the REST of my fellow military member partook of.

The result is that my lungs are pretty bad and they blame ME since SECOND-HAND smoke still damages like tobacco use.

As for the health-care issue I simply pointed out that the CORPORATIONS that are busily taking advantage of the current "pro-business" regime should be the LAST to gripe against this. It would SAVE them BENEFIT COSTS.

As far as "lower quality" health care in Europe - the poor are probably grateful just to have some which their US counterparts often DON''T have and the wealthy there seem to actually have a social conscience which their US counterparts ALSO often lack.

[s1ckd09]

Hey Kansas1946, did you call your Congressman and ask why this amendment didn''t go through?

"To prohibit a State from using SCHIP funds to provide coverage for nonpregnant adults until the State first demonstrates that it has adequately covered targeted low-income children who reside in the State.
Proposed: Jul 31, 2007. Rejected: Aug 2, 2007."

That is all you need to see to know that this bill isn''t about the "kids". It was rejected because it REQUIRES kids to be covered first! This is a sham!

[s1ckd09]

My point is that this expansion is being funded by the very people that are being told to change there habits. Why not a 2700% tax increase on fast food? Do you really think that won''t happen? Besides, young kids'' health problems aren''t being caused by their smoking habits, but how many are obese because of fast food? When the tobacco funding dries up, guess what they''ll use next as the great big evil to fund these things?

[s1ckd09]

I wonder if you''''re a smoker? You must be to oppose this bill . . .

Posted by socrates392 at 12:35 AM : Sep 28, 2007

I am definitely not a smoker, but I do enjoy cigars occasionally. But I am definitely against this bill. This program should NOT be expanded. Funded? Yes. Expanded? No. And anyone who thinks that being opposed to this bill means that you "hate" children is just stupid.

[s1ckd09]

Since tobacco is the great evil that everyone couldn''t care less about the increased taxes on, (unless you''re a smoker, and then, well... who cares?) nobody will say much about this. But a 2700% tax increase is ridiculous. It is enough to get people to cut back on their tobacco use, which would mean that the funding for the program gets cut. And THEN guess who they''ll come after for more taxes?

[socrates392]

I wonder why more people don''''t hear of this?

http://www.rangelmd.com/2005/06
/failing-socialized-health-insurance.htm
l

Posted by s1ckd09 at 12:25 AM : Sep 28, 2007

I wonder if you''re a smoker? You must be to oppose this bill . . .

[s1ckd09]

# -Increases the tax on cigars from $1.828 per thousand to $50.00 per thousand for cigars weighing less than 3 pounds per thousand, and increases the tax from 20.719 percent of the retail price to 53.13 percent of the retail price for cigars weighing more than three pounds per thousand, with a cap of $3.00 per cigar [Title VII (Sec. 701 [a])].
# -Increases the tax from $19.50 per thousand to $50.00 per thousand for cigarettes weighing less than 3 pounds per thousand, and increases the tax from $40.95 per thousand to $104.9999 per thousand for cigarettes weighing more than 3 pounds per thousand [Title VII (Sec. 701 [b])].
# -Increases the taxes on cigarette paper from $0.122 to $0.313 per fifty papers and on cigarette tubes from $0.244 to $0.626 per fifty tubes [Title VII (Sec. 701 [c-d])].
# -Increases the taxes on snuff from $0.585 to $1.50 per pound and on chewing tobacco from $0.195 to $0.50 per pound [Title VII (Sec. 701 [e])].
# -Increases the taxes on pipe tobacco from $1.0969 to $2.8126 per pound and on roll-your-own-tobacco from $1.0969 to $8.8889 per pound [Title VII (Sec. 701 [f-g])].

[s1ckd09]

I suggest everyone contact their congressional representative, find out how they are going to vote, and if they are voting against this that they smell to high heaven and won''''t be receiving your vote next election. That Bush would veto this is deplorable, but I don''''t expect anything different from him. He is deplorable. The house needs to get off their a** and vote so they can override a veto.

Posted by kansas1946 at 12:17 AM : Sep 28, 2007

Why is this deplorable? Do you really think that 25 year olds should be covered under SCHIP as a child?

[s1ckd09]

I wonder why more people don''t hear of this?

http://www.rangelmd.com/2005/06/failing-socialized-health-insurance.html