I honestly don't get this man (ie Bush). He is vowing to veto a children's health care bill because it is too costly ($30+ billion), but he has no problem whatsoever is spending hundreds of billions in Iraq. I wonder ... if his administration had financial interests in health care as much as it does military contract companies would he still be vetoing? Oh didn I mention that the extra cost would not be borne by the tax payer, but rather by a tax on cigarettes? Kind of seems like a good idea to me.

Bush vows to veto bipartisan kids' health care bill - CNN.com

it could be regarded as encouraging people not to be responsible for themselves and their families, and may well be seen as the thin edge of the wedge.

At best Bush is vetoing this because it won't help the hypocritical, greedy bastard win another election (given that he isn't running), or at worst he is vetoing it because he feels money spent on things other than maiming and killing is money poorly spent.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and seems like a move toward completely federalized health care.
He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.


Sounds to me like he wants to adress the real issue rather then some haphazard back door socialized federal expansion towards socialized health care for all. he said continue the current program as is.. not take it away until we have a solution ...

i dont want my taxes raised ... i like my money

it sounds like this bill is an EXPANSION giving to familes that can afford it also.

Guess im just evil selfish capitalist that doesnt want a super expansion and a huge tax on my pay check.

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

If you read the Bill correctly, the total cost is paid for through raising taxes on cigarettes only. There is no personal income tax increase. It seems to me that people who smoke, and who use the health system arguably more than those who don't should pay for additional health services to children.

The headline for this thread could have been:
Congress refuses to extend health coverage for poor children

And it would have been equally accurate.

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be handling healthcare. As such, here is a way to get it done: You and others who believe in these unconstitutional social programs need to start a federal Higher Optional Tax that lets working people who think like you voluntarily pay extra taxes from their paycheck each week to fund and/or bolster these unconstitutional federal social programs.

There are already 3 states that have a higher optional tax so it could be done on the federal level.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

If the health care is so cheap, why can't people buy it for their children themselves?

__________________
-Eric

"For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought." -Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart

Self-composed.com

I don't understand people's support of Bush on this action? He is quite prepared to spend hundreds of billions of tax dollars (and throw the economy into deficit) on Iraq, yet he is not prepared to support a package designed to assist children in lower-income families ... a measure which will not increase anyone's taxes ... unless you smoke. In other words, if you don't smoke then this package will not cost you once cent! Yet people on this Board are against that? As is the president? Maybe all poor children should form a children's army and invade Venezuela. That would guarantee that Bush would fund them then.

It doesn't matter what is being spent on Iraq. Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is an entirely separate issue.

Secondly, you are not seeing the forest through the trees. Raising taxes on cigarettes doesn't just affect smokers. It also affects the people producing them. Tobacco farming is a big industry where I live and raising tobacco taxes can cut down on the purchase of tobacco products and somewhat hurt the industry. I am not a smoker nor am I tobacco farmer, so you are right. It won't cost me a cent more, or would it? It could have a damaging affect on the economy of my state and that could very well end up affecting me down the road.

Furthermore, why do smokers have to pay for the health insurance of other peoples' children? Show me where it says that in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers of this country founded this nation to be several sovereign states under the umbrella of a very limited central government. The less government, the more liberty an individual has. Socialism does not promote limited government nor does it promote liberty and therefore it does not promote the ideals this country was founded on, but rather goes against them. Nothing is stopping individual states from having their own children's health insurance plans if they want them. Washington has no business here.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!

Furthermore, if everyone quit smoking, the entire program would be completely fucked...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Why? The more logical thing to do seems to charge smokers (or obese people, or what have you) higher premiums. That seems fair to me and it isn't some sort of wealth redistribution masquerading as a benefit for society at large. Smokers tend to be poor, demographically speaking. Why gouge the poor?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Politicians sure wouldn't want that. I get a kick out of politicians who propose "sin taxes" on addictive items under the guise that the taxes will discourage use. Raising the price of smokes by a quarter isn't going to stop anyone from smoking - it's just de facto, politically expedient extortion.

Why not introduce a golf tax? I mean, anyone who has money to play golf is too rich for his own good and ought to be paying for the insurance of any children I decide to have... right? Something like that? lol

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps people in the tabacco industry would lose jobs but that would be compensated by an increase in jobs in healthcare.

For the same reason that tax-paying citizens who don't drive have to pay for roads; for tax-payers who don't drink or take drugs having to pay for a criminal justice system that is predominantly occupied by people (via their consequenting actions) who do. Isn't the proposal just an extension of a "user pays" system? Why shouldn't smokers (and for that matter other people who make a conscious choice to engage in knowingly unhealthy activity) be charged more for the additional burden they create on the health care system ... and if that income is used to assist others, surely that is a positive?

I take your point about other areas possibly being affected by the tax, but I'm not sure how, as all that is being proposed is a $1 increase in the price of a cigarette packet, with the total amount of that $1 going towards the fund. From where I see it, no changes should be incurred to any other avenues involved in the production. Mind you, if the end result was fewer people smoking, isn't that also a good thing?