Bush to veto Child Health Insurance Bill if its passed.

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Children’s health insurance bill set to be vetoed
Legislation calls for hike in federal cigarette tax to subsidize coverage


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Saturday that senior advisers would recommend the president veto Senate legislation that would substantially increase funds for children’s health insurance.

The legislation calls for a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. The revenue would be used to subsidize health insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford insurance on their own. Members of the Senate Finance Committee brokered a bipartisan agreement Friday that would add $35 billion to the program over the next five years. The Bush administration had instead recommend $5 billion.

The Senate legislation expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program beyond the original intent of the program, said White House Spokesman Tony Fratto.

Tax hikes not 'necessary'
“It’s clear that it will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage — purchased either through their employer or with their own resources — to go on the government-subsidized program,” Fratto said. “Tax increases are neither necessary nor advisable to appropriately fund SCHIP.”

Congress is considering renewing the program before it expires Sept. 30. When Congress approved the program in 1997, it provided $40 billion over 10 years. States use the money, along with their own dollars, to subsidize the cost of health insurance. The federal government covers about 70 percent of the cost.

“Congress needs to deliver a bill the president can sign or they need to send him an extension so that people don’t worry about losing their current coverage,” Fratto said. “It’s important that Congress understands the serious consequences of delaying this or sending the president legislation that he clearly cannot sign.”

Fratto also called on the Senate Finance Committee to consider the president’s recommendation to tax employees on the health insurance premiums paid by their employers. The president would offset the increased taxes by giving taxpayers a deduction or credit. The result would be a tax cut for most families, but not for those with the highest-priced insurance plans.

“We believe that these proposals would mean that as many as 20 million others who have no health insurance would purchase basic coverage,” Fratto said.

Calls on president to step back
Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, had called on the president Thursday to step back from veto threats of legislation that had not been finalized yet.

Grassley and Hatch said they would like to consider the president’s proposals to change how tax law treats health insurance. Such changes could make insurance more affordable for many families, but now is not the time, they said.


“Not taking that (tax proposal) on is a missed opportunity, but it’s not realistic given the lack of bipartisan support,” the senators said.

Grassley and Hatch were among the lawmakers that backed the agreement reached late Friday with key Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee’s chairman, said the proposal would lead to more than 3 million uninsured children obtaining health coverage. But others said that estimate is high because they believe some families that would sign up for the program would have already been getting their coverage through the private sector.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19767894/


its like he's trying to be the worst president in history, add this to measly 58 species he's added to endangered species list, 54 by litigation, compared to his father's 231 in 4 years, and it really paints a picture of who he cares about.
 
I don't really feel that it's fair to tax smokers just to allow for health care - even if it's for children. I pay a ton of money for my own health care - I do smoke casually (the irony is killing me, I know) but why should I have to pay for someone elses health care too? I mean, of course, I'm already am paying for health care with my tax dollars - do you want me to subsidize your whole damn life? You can give me the "second hand smoke" argument, but I don't ever smoke around anyone who isn't smoking (eg. in a line, or public place.) I'm only hurting me.

Don't get me wrong here - I just feel like, well, why not tax the fat guy that kills himself with bacon cheeseburgers at MacDo or the old guy with the bent back at the bar? If you're going to justify bad habits being taxed just to support people who can't figure out how to support their family with health care (a whole separate issue -- don't have five kids if you're broke-ass), where are you going to draw the line.


PS: I am not a Bush supporter in any way. I'm actually quite liberal but I think this bill is flawed.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']
its like he's trying to be the worst president in history, add this to measly 58 species he's added to endangered species list, 54 by litigation, compared to his father's 231 in 4 years, and it really paints a picture of who he cares about.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to grasp what children and animals have in common, except vulnerability?

fucking rediculous this is getting vetoed. Cocksucker.
 
This entire thread was basically set up to make Bush look like he hates kids, and doesn't want them to have health insurance. In reality, there is a perfectly fine reason why he would veto this, being that it forces a singled out group of people and consumers to pay for something they might not want anything to do with. Oh, but they are CHILDREN, so we should tax anything and everything we have to make sure the CHILDREN are taken care of, and that YOU look good for saying you care about the CHILDREN. If I was a smoker, this tax would piss me off to no end, as smokers are basically being told "Ok, you can't smoke anywhere but your house, in the basement, and while we're at it, we're gonna add another tax to your cigarettes too, so Tina Legspreader and her 9 kids can get some health insurance, so they can spend their money on more bottles of Boons Farm and KY lube."

Not to mention the effect this tax would have on some states, whose economies make a lot of money based on the fact that they have cheaper cigarettes (Wisconsin, etc.)
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']This entire thread was basically set up to make Bush look like he hates kids, and doesn't want them to have health insurance. In reality, there is a perfectly fine reason why he would veto this, being that it forces a singled out group of people and consumers to pay for something they might not want anything to do with. Oh, but they are CHILDREN, so we should tax anything and everything we have to make sure the CHILDREN are taken care of, and that YOU look good for saying you care about the CHILDREN. If I was a smoker, this tax would piss me off to no end, as smokers are basically being told "Ok, you can't smoke anywhere but your house, in the basement, and while we're at it, we're gonna add another tax to your cigarettes too, so Tina Legspreader and her 9 kids can get some health insurance, so they can spend their money on more bottles of Boons Farm and KY lube."

Not to mention the effect this tax would have on some states, whose economies make a lot of money based on the fact that they have cheaper cigarettes (Wisconsin, etc.)[/QUOTE]



except people are addicted to cigarettes so they will buy them if the tax is increased
 
A child health insurance act is good, but making one sect of consumers who have nothing to do with it pay for it is not good at all.

make families pay for it somehow. they're the ones who have kids...
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Not to mention the effect this tax would have on some states, whose economies make a lot of money based on the fact that they have cheaper cigarettes (Wisconsin, etc.)[/QUOTE]
lol @ the idea that this would significantly decrease cigarette purchases.

double lol @ the idea that that would be a bad thing.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Tina Legspreader and her 9 kids can get some health insurance, so they can spend their money on more bottles of Boons Farm and KY lube."
[/quote]


You're missing the point. This bill doesn't have anything to do with 'Tina Legspreader'. It's her 9 children. You're saying that these children, because they were born to a stupid whore, should go without health insurance. It's ridiculous to blame the children because it's not their choice to be, but they're here and we should take care of them. Now we can argue all day long about how we get the money to do that, but my point is we should help them.
 
[quote name='dragonreborn23']You're missing the point. This bill doesn't have anything to do with 'Tina Legspreader'. It's her 9 children. You're saying that these children, because they were born to a stupid whore, should go without health insurance. It's ridiculous to blame the children because it's not their choice to be, but they're here and we should take care of them. Now we can argue all day long about how we get the money to do that, but my point is we should help them.[/quote]Funny, if Bush were to veto a bill that would generate this money by taxing used video games, you CAG's would be patting him on the back.
 
[quote name='dragonreborn23']You're missing the point. This bill doesn't have anything to do with 'Tina Legspreader'. It's her 9 children. You're saying that these children, because they were born to a stupid whore, should go without health insurance. It's ridiculous to blame the children because it's not their choice to be, but they're here and we should take care of them. Now we can argue all day long about how we get the money to do that, but my point is we should help them.[/quote]

You're operating from the assumption that it is not only our duty to provide them health insurance, but also that we must do it involuntarily through taxation. Those two assumptions are the toughest sale of your argument.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']You're operating from the assumption that it is not only our duty to provide them health insurance, but also that we must do it involuntarily through taxation. Those two assumptions are the toughest sale of your argument.[/QUOTE]

For someone who claims not to be a Libertarian you certainly crib a lot from their playbook.

Ayn Rand much?
 
bread's done
Back
Top