Originally posted by 667joeWhy not try the truth... President Bush and others think the SCHIP in the form the Democrats proposed is not right because it the program was meant for poor kids. The Democratic version would give aid to some families with incomes twice the poverty level, that is families with incomes of 80,000 (USD) per year. This effort by the liberals is just another attempt at at establishing socialised healthcare.
Bush thinks it's wrong to provide health insurance to kids because it's too expensive. He thinks it's OK to have the children pay for the Iraq war, however.
BTW, voters in the state of Oregon voted on a similiar program for kids in their state in the elections just last week. The proposal was going to be paid for by a 80 cent increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes. Oregon is hardly a conservative or 'red state' The proposal was soundly defeated. Does that tell you something?
Originally posted by SMSBear716Yes, Oregon doesn't want smokers to give money to kids.
BTW, voters in the state of Oregon voted on a similiar program for kids in their state in the elections just last week. The proposal was going to be paid for by a 80 cent increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes. Oregon is hardly a conservative or 'red state' The proposal was soundly defeated. Does that tell you something?
Originally posted by uzlessThe reality is that Oregonians don't want higher taxes:
Yes, Oregon doesn't want smokers to give money to kids.
oThe cigarette tax increase is highly regressive; only about 20 percent of Oregonians smoke and most of those are lower income.
oTobacco taxes reduce smoking, meaning they will soon not yield enough revenue to pay for ever-growing health costs.
oAn analysis by William Conerly, a member of Oregon Gov. Kulongoski's Council of Economic Advisors, found that a straight S-CHIP expansion funded by a tobacco tax was unsustainable, with costs exceeding revenues by $115 million by 2017.
oCounting "crowd out" -- the migration to public from private insurance -- Conerly predicted a $638 million deficit within the decade.
Also, there's the sad irony that had this passed, Oregon's poor smokers would have been paying for the health insurance for the children of the state's middle class.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterA family with two earners getting only 80,000 dollars counts as middle class? Quick conversion puts that at only 54000€, that's not middle class? is it? Assuming two kids with two earners, that's verging on subsistance! I earned close to 20000€ as a god damn waiter for a year before tips and after taxes.
The reality is that Oregonians don't want higher taxes:
oThe cigarette tax increase is highly regressive; only about 20 percent of Oregonians smoke and most of those are lower income.
oTobacco taxes reduce smoking, meaning they will soon not yield enough revenue to pay for ever-growing health costs.
oAn analysis by William Conerly, a mem ...[text shortened]... d have been paying for the health insurance for the children of the state's middle class.
Also, your economic expert seems to misunderstand the nature of tax systems. punitave taxes are put in place to discourage socially unhealthy practices like excessive drinking and smoking, but no tax system in the world literally earmarks a particular tax for a particular purpose. The reduced amount of smokers would also relieve stresses on the health system in the long-term, saving money ratehr than costing more as your post suggests.
Originally posted by agrysonHell, then they should tax all the fat arses out there eating Mcy D's and not exercising. Because lord knows all the health problems they will cause. Or lets triple tax all the fat smokers thats it. And then we can look into higher taxes on motorcycles or skydiving gear, on chocolate, what else can we tax the sh&t out of.
A family with two earners getting only 80,000 dollars counts as middle class? Quick conversion puts that at only 54000€, that's not middle class? is it? Assuming two kids with two earners, that's verging on subsistance! I earned close to 20000€ as a god damn waiter for a year before tips and after taxes.
Also, your economic expert seems to misunderstand the ...[text shortened]... e health system in the long-term, saving money ratehr than costing more as your post suggests.
Originally posted by torch71I say we take the $35 million collected by Hillary for her campaign and take that and buy health care for the kids.... it be money put to better use (sarcastic mode off)
Hell, then they should tax all the fat arses out there eating Mcy D's and not exercising. Because lord knows all the health problems they will cause. Or lets triple tax all the fat smokers thats it. And then we can look into higher taxes on motorcycles or skydiving gear, on chocolate, what else can we tax the sh&t out of.
You all missed the point.Bush won't insure kids, but, he is having the kids pay for the Iraq fiasco by borrowing money (from China) which these very kids will have to repay. Bush is screwing the kids now by not providing for their health, and he's screwing these same kids later by strapping them with debt which they will have to pay.