“I won’t be bullied on SCHIP.”
Good for you, Rep. Tim Walberg:
Right now if you listen to a popular country radio station in south-central Michigan, you can hear advertisements spreading lies about my position on S-CHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program).
The station selection for this ad seems appropriate for House Democrats, whose blatant twisting of the truth is fit for a remake of Garth Brooks’s classic song “Friends in Low Places.”
House Democrats continue to mischaracterize Republican support of the S-CHIP program, and would like you to believe that Republicans do not care about poor, needy kids.
Democrats are using this smear campaign against Republicans to gain support for their tax-and-spend economic policies. Sadly, they are taking the focus away from where this debate should be: meeting the needs of children of low-income families.
I support renewing S-CHIP to provide health care to children in low-income families, but I also believe we need to ensure that the children’s health program is available for children who need it, and not for adults, people who enter the country illegally, or families who already have private insurance.
The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants, while moving millions of children from private health insurance to government programs.
In 2006, 118,501 children and 101,919 adults in Michigan received health care from the S-CHIP program. Incredibly, this means that 46 percent of Michigan’s funding allotment intended to give poor children health insurance actually went to cover adults.
The Wall Street Journal further described this problem in its August 9 editorial: “The bill goes so far as to offer increasing ‘bonus payments’ to states as they enroll more people in their SCHIP programs. To grease the way, the bill re-labels children’ as anyone under 25, and ‘low income’ as up to… $82,600 for a family of four.”
It is unfathomable to think that Democrats want to expand a program that currently does not meet the full objective of covering poor children, and expand it to try to insure single adults. I’m not sure what part of “children’s health care” liberals in Congress do not understand.
And to pay for their huge expansion, House Democrats need 22 million new smokers to begin lighting up over the next ten years. Over two million kids will move from private health care to Washington-based, government run health care under the House leadership’s plan.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama Chief of Staff: No More Compromise on Contraceptive Mandate
February 12, 2012 04:26 PM by Doug Powers
84 Comments
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
245 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
194 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Your Friday IRS regulation dump: Obamacare’s job-killing medical device tax
February 3, 2012 04:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Categories: Health care
Babalu Blog
» Greece is BurningPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsNice Deb
» Former DEA Chief Tells Fox News: 3 Other Federal Agencies Knew About Operation ‘Fast and Furious’Gateway Pundit
» Notre Dame Tells Obama: HHS Mandate Is a ‘Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’AmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
A wolf in sheep’s clothing…
Little Red Riding Hood comes to mind as well.
The $83,000 figure is a lie, pure and simple. The bill says three times the poverty level. $83,000 is four times. I will take Rep. Walberg’s views into consideration once he takes the time to actually read and understand the legislation.
The $83,000 lie stems from New York asking the federal government to fund S- CHIP in their state for people living at four times the property level (presumably because living expenses in the city are so insanely high). The administration, reasonably, refused. But now that number is being thrown out by people talking about this legislation.
Lies.
Here it is, Section 110.
I look at it this way: the Constitution does not give the US federal government the power to run a national health care scheme. However, it would be cruel to cut those currently receiving benefits, so until they can be moved to a state (or local) plan, the feds may continue the program. (States have different powers, and may run such schemes if their constitutions so allow.) I do not mind the continuation of the program, with perhaps some technical adjustments so that illegals do not get benefits, but there should be no expansion.
Thanks Rep. Walberg, I’m glad I voted for you!
The State Senator for this district is Mark Shower(D) and he plans to challenge Tim Walberg for his seat. This is nothing more than the begining of Mark Shower’s campaign. Tim Walberg beat an incumbent RINO by the name of Joe Schwartz in a primary here because this is a pretty solid Republican district, Shower will be out on term limits soon so he needs another office to run for.
Good for Representative Walberg. If only more Republicans would go on the offensive like him instead of letting the liberal MSM control the debate.
He states what I’ve suspected: Much, if not most, of the funding for SCHIP will be to insure illegal immigrants–more incentive for them to come here illegally.
Maybe Republicans can start running ads telling the American people this fact.
Also, I’m also going to write my Senator John Warner and Representative Tom Davis (both “moderate,” i.e. wimpy, Republicans) to ask them why they would vote to insure illegal immigrants instead of fighting a bad bill.
Rusty – I’ll concede a 3X versus a 4X as it is a moot point when compared to the bigger picture. Will you not concede that this program already is beyond it’s intended scope (reference the numbers of adults covered versus children) and another attempt to cover more and more of the populace with yet another government program? Programs like this continue to “teach” people that they don’t have to take personal responsibility. “Government will take care of you because you can’t take care of yourself” mentality has greatly damaged this country.
Rusty..its not a pure and simple lie. Nothing in these bills ever is. That figured is being thrown about because it is possible that figure can be used because of a “grandfather clause”. Corzine has already jumped on it.
The biggest problem with the bills as I see it is exactly that nothing is ever pure and simple. That leaves alot of wiggle room.
I am obviously supportive of the legislation, but as in any debate (except for probably gay marriage), I understand both sides of the issue. There are plenty of bad things about the S-CHIP expansion that I’m willing to swallow to insure four million more children (and young adults too).
As I said in the earlier S-CHIP thread, there is no such thing as perfect legislation. But I think this will do a lot more good than harm.
Rusty:
While your point may be true, regarding the income limitation – it is still high, and your response focuses on that minor point.
You did not address the fact of adults being included in this program, nor did you mention anything about illegal aliens taking advantage of it either.
At age 18, people become adults. They can work, serve in the Military and vote. But yet we’re supposed to offer them free health care as well until they’re 25?
How does that promote self-sufficiency?
You’re quibbling with numbers and ignoring the meat-and-potatoes facts, including this one:
By weeding out those adults who were covered by this plan in Michigan, that would have allowed another 100,000 children to be covered, if needed.
Isn’t this all about the children?
Rusty
Way to deflect man! Take one number out of an otherwise fine argument, ignore the issue and attack the messenger.
Again, awesome job.
Don’t let Rusty change the focus of the debate. SCHIP is not about insuring children–it is about taking your tax dollars to insure millions of illegals up to age 25.
The Democrats: The pro-illegal alien party.
The dems are like magicians…
They distract you with one hand only to pocket the egg (YOUR NEST EGG) with the other!
Thank god for conservative bloggers like MM and others for holding their feet to the fire of public indignation!
The under 25 provision just allows many employers that already pay at least part of the premium for it’s workers to stop paying anything for thier employees under 25.
My employer currently pays $600 per month for a single person under age 50 in addition to $3500 of a $5000 deductible. Currently our work force of around 50 employees consists of 32 employees under 25, that’s a pretty good savings.
So, although I (and my boss) am against this bill for all the reasons cited, if it passes, we’ll try to get at least some of our employees qualified. It would pay us to give these guys a raise and split the savings with them.
And we don’t even hire illegals. Mostly because we can’t understand what they are saying, and they can’t understand us.
The problem there is with Michigan. Remember, S-CHIP is a state run program. If Michigan legislators have set up the program that way, blame them, not the federal funding.
And the 25-year-old limit is clearly set up to protect college students who aren’t making any money until they’re older. It’s unreasonable to take someone’s health care away on their 18th birthday when they won’t be making any money for at least another four years.
As for the illegals thing, I know that’s a big deal on this site. I really don’t have an opinion either way. I am concerned with American children getting health insurance. If some illegals get it too, that’s really no skin off of my back. And it’s not like the states can’t change their S-CHIP program to protect themselves from that.
Rusty – three or four times the poverty level is still TOO much to justify giving families socialized medicine.
jrl’s post is spot-on.
If this was supposed to be about the American children, why are adults, illegals and everyone BUT children qualifying and covered?
Answer: It’s backdoor socialized medicine.
Here in Wisconsin, we have the Women’s, Infants’, Children (WIC) program. It provides health care and food for children. The catch is – the food you can buy is ONLY food that’s WIC approved. There are labels on shelves in grocery stores, as well as a list of stuff that’s been government approved.
Which is the same thing that will happen if the government runs all health care. THEY – not you, not your doctor – will decide what procedures you can have and when.
And – in this prime example from the UK – if your care costs too much, the government will cut you off…whether or not it kills you.
Are you ready to have some government bean-couter decide when YOUR life is over? Or what you can eat? How often you should exercise? What you can/cannot feed your children? What sexual behaviors you engage in? All those things, if paid for by the government, are – by rights – the government’s decision to make. For you.
Rusty,
Your point shows an ignorance of how the poverty level is calculated. A family of six with four children under the age of 18, such as the Frosts, would be considered in poverty if they made less than $26,938. Under the current plan that Tim Walberg wants to renew, this family would be eligible for free healthcare if they make less than $53,876 (2X poverty level). Under the plan proposed by Pelosi they would be eligible if they made less than $80,814 (3X the poverty amount).
Keep in mind, someone making $80k with six kids living in Baltimore can get a health plan for about $500 per month ($6k per year). However, because you can deduct 7.5% of medical expenses and health insurance costs are included, they would be able to deduct that $6k from their income. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a family making $80k per year to take care of their own health insurance.
The figure you are using is the poverty level for a family of four, which under the current plan would mean anything less that $40,888 and under the new plan proposal would be $61,332.
As you can see from the Michigan statistics, the current plan is adequate not only to insure children, but also to ensure adults, which it was not intended for in the first place.
Once again, the facts get in the way of a good story.
Sidenote: An increase in the number of people insured by government plans decreases the number of people in private plans. Insurance is based on risk and the more people in a plan, the less risk there is, the lower the price of premiums. By pulling millions of people out of the private health insurance market, firms would be forced to increase costs, which would put enormous strains on small and medium sized businesses, the largest provider of private health insurance for individuals in the US.
The new S-CHIPS legistlation is another step towards government run programs.
Bottom line this as so many other gov programs are clear violations of the constitution and congresses enumerated powers. The framers made it VERY clear that the gov was not to give charity to the citizens…….If it looks and quacks like a duck it must be a……….
Okay, these guys just never fail to amaze me. They vilify smokers, pass tons of laws to make it almost impossible to smoke anywhere outside of a personal bubble yet they base the cost offsets to increased cigarette taxes? I can see it now, smokers may pay for some (those who don’t finally quit to not being able to smoke anywhere or afford to anymore)But you can rest assured the non-smoking tax payers pocket books will be pilfered over this one.
A Boneheaded Dem.
1. I’m surprised you’re not OK with WIC. When I was a cashier at a grocery store, WIC was used to buy dairy, baby formula, protein, stuff like that. I had people using their food stamps to buy lobster. So I much prefer WIC.
2. You’re making a fundamental error. S-CHIP isn’t government run. The health care is, in almost every state, run through private health care providers. The government picks up the tab but stays out of any medical decisions.
Ok, well, yes. But the family of four is the usual measuring stick since that’s the “average” American family. I’m sure the poverty level for that family in Arkansas with 18 kids is considerably higher than $62,000 since there are more mouths feed and more kids to insure.
Rusty said:
I can understand your point there and I might even be willing to somewhat yield to you the “student” aspect of it if that were true … but I don’t see any caveat in the bill that says continued elegibility from 18-25 is limited to those continuing their education …
I had to get insurance forma completed by the colleges and notarized every semester for each of my 5 kids to continue to be covered on my insurance while they were in college … and they had to be considered “full-time” based on their class hours as well …
This is a backdoor attempt to start socialized health care on a national level without calling it what it is … cover the poverty level kids … no problem … cover adults and illegals … no way
One other thing … I believe the Presidents version only called for 2x the poverty level … not 3 or 4 … another reason for the veto …
Let’s also not forget, for those of us who live in Michigan, we just got a whole slate of BRAND NEW taxes on services that didn’t exist before 10/1 and an increase to our income tax……we can really afford to insure adults…….Of course during her first term Gov. Granholm blamed the previous Governor, now it’s George Bush’s fault……
Correct me if I’m wrong but most private health insurance takes that into account if they (students) can be claimed as dependants up to a certain age (specifically to cover traditional students)
Okay so you’re saying that if the .gov is picking up the tab (in essence the .gov has no money other then OUR tax dollars) that they won’t tell the Doctors how much they will pay and for what procedures? Yeah I’m not buying what you’re selling here Rusty.
Another non-starter example, Rusty. The famliy you refer to – the Duggars – are completely self-sufficient and operate their household with ZERO…yes, ZERO…debt.
They have no credit cards. They have no mortgage on their large house (which they built pretty much by themselves). They pay cash for everything.
So don’t use them as an example, because they are only an example of how a family can function with fiscal responsibility…
First, isn’t the state a government body? I think so – so even if the state runs the program, or it’s through private insurance providers – but paid for by either the state or federal government, it’s still a GOVERNMENT program.
So Rusty, if you give your friend $100 to buy groceries, but instead he goes out and spends it on clothing, aren’t you going to feel as if your money was misspent?
Aren’t you going to expect that money you give him to go to it’s primary purpose (food), rather than clothing? And if he goes to the store with your $100, but spends $150, are you somehow obligated to give him that extra $50?
No. If you’re giving him the money, you have a say in what they do with it and every right to expect the money goes to what it was designated for.
Likewise, the government would have every right to limit, restrict, or deny access to health care procedures that were too expensive, etc. They do it in Canada and Britain (as my link above points out). They have every right to tell you you can no longer eat fatty foods, no longer smoke, no longer drink, and demand you exercise an hour a day or face the consequences.
You are either ignorant to how the government works, or naive enough to think the government won’t want a bigger say in what health care you can/cannot receive and what lifestyle choices you should/should not make if they’re paying for it.
Nothing is free. Especially not “free” health care.
You’re telling us that their parents can afford college but they can’t afford insurance for their children in college and need the government to pay for it? Even if it is “to protect college students,” this expansion of SCHIP will be used to insure anyone under 25, including illegals and those who do not need assistance.
We need to get back to self-reliance.
If a state doesn’t have enough actual poor people to participate, then why don’t they GIVE THE MONEY BACK?
Just a thought.
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian, he was widely known in his time and was professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University in the late 18th century.
The quotation is from the 1801 collection of his lectures:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage.”
Um, scholarships? Student loans? Or are scholarships just another example of Big Government meddling? If government provides money, they’re going to decide what we can and can’t learn!
Englishqueen, I use the Duggars as an example not because they aren’t self-reliant. I know they are. I’m just saying that the poverty level of a 20 person household would be obviously more than $62,000. Just like a household of six would have a higher poverty level. But $62,000 is the accepted number based on the typical measuring stick of a typical family.
True. But the entire point of the program is that the government*, state or federal, gets no say in the care people receive. It’s public funding of a private program. That’s one of the reasons S-CHIP was passed by a GOP led House and Senate in the late-1990s. You don’t really think the GOP would support socialized health care, do you?
*In most cases. It’s state-by-state, I am sure there are exceptions.
Typical liberal mentality! Why do you think that college tuition increases have outpaced inflation to such a large degree? Because they know few people can afford to spend 40,000 dollars a year on tuition and housing. They need federal scholarships and federal aid. And who pays the bill? It is a way to shift spending to the government and have all of us pay for it. If the government is going to pay for it, why stop tuition increases?
If the government is going to pay for your insurance if you are under 25 with the new expansion of SCHIP, why pay for insurance yourself?
It should be clear to anyone on this board that I’m pro-life, but even I do not support people having children they cannot afford to house, feed, clothe and insure.
You want to have six children? You’d better budget to support them – even if you fall on hard times. If that means taking a job a night waiting tables or scrubbing toilets so be it. Otherwise, have two children, or one, or none. But don’t create life if you aren’t ready for the responsibility of caring for it. Self-reliance is important to a society that wants to last.
You completely avoided my second question.
Does the government have a right to dictate how health care dollars are spent when they’re footing the bill?
I want a direct answer. Because they do. The only other answer would be to raise taxes to exorbitant amounts to cover expenses. And that would kill the economy.
Which is your solution, Rusty? You cannot live your pie-in-the-sky belief that the government would throw money to healthcare blindly unless they tax us to death.
If you can’t afford insurance because you’re in college, working 40 hours a week to pay for school with 20 hours of classes and countless hours of homework on top, then I guess you’re screwed? Is that the way you would have it? Health insurance is an important investment in this country’s future. Grad school and college shouldn’t be only for those who can afford it.
That’s because you have probably never actually paid any taxes. My tax bills impact where my kids can go to college, what neighborhood I can live in, and how much health care I can afford for my family. Trust me, Rusty. Those of us who are responsible for the lives of others and see the government take half or more of our income, it’s skin off our backs, and off of our childrens backs.
They do. The government has every right to pull or not fund schools that don’t teach or engage in practices it finds objectionable. No one is entitled to government funds without expecting – at some point – the government will exact stricter control over said funds.
Under S-CHIP, no, they don’t. Simple as that.
What you think S-CHIP is would be socialized medicine. Do you really think the GOP would pass socialized medicine in two different chambers?
$35B seems like a lot, but it’s a drop in the bucket. An extra 61 cents for every pack of cigarettes adds up fast. And there are plenty of other places to cut spending.
Which is why I’m not a Catholic. Hurray for birth control! In the wise words of Marge Simpson, “three children is enough, thank you.”
Ok, I pay less than most (student loans are deductible), but I still get a good piece of the pie taken away. If my money goes to children;s health insurance, I’m ok with it.
Still no answer to my question, Rusty. So clearly there is no debating with you.
If you have no problem paying extra taxes, then I’ll remember to send you my bill…since it’s “no skin off your back.”
Rusty said:
I guess by your definition I was screwed … the only help I got was what they called a GI Bill after Viet Nam … which didn’t even cover the tuition and books for one class … I worked 3 part-time jobs, supported a wife and 2 pre-school kids, carried 14-16 credit hours every semester, went to school year round and graduated in under 3 years … we still managed to get basic health insurance despite a very limited budget …
I guess my point is that if someone really wants something they can make it happen … regardless of the obstacles … you just have to be willing to sacrifice some of the luxuries to cover the necessities while you work to get there
I love the way liberals say that increasing the cigarette tax to fund this health care, will help them make a decision to quit. Huh?
Yeah I mentioned that the tax was designed to discourage smoking, yet it’s supposed to go to health care. Right. That doesn’t make sense to anyone with logic, which apparently explains why it makes sense to liberals.
graysonret
typical lib double-speak … so they expect many to quit smoking because they raise cigarette taxes … while at the same time they are going to pay for all this new health insurance with the increased revenue from the same cigarette tax … HUH??? …
englishqueen01 … look like we were on the same page on that one …
I got married when I was 21 and my wife was 19. We were removed from our parents health insurance at that time since we were no longer considered dependents. We were both full time students working part time and yet we still managed to get health care coverage. We bought the policy that the school offered to students. It was not overly expensive but it was not cheap either for two college students. My parents paid for my tuition and her parents paid for hers, that was the only thing we let them do for us. The reason being they were going to pay our tuition whether we were married or not. We paid for the health insurance ourselves.
Six months after we got married my wife had to go in for surgery, this was in the days before routine same day surgery so she went in on a Sunday and had the operation on Monday. This meant we paid for a nights hospital stay. We of course had to pay for anything the insurance did not pay for.
We never thought about going to our parents to ask for help and we would never have dreamed of asking for government help. Our parents would have helped if we had asked but we were a family now, we were adults and we were responsible for ourselves. We had made a decision to get married while in school even knowing it would be difficult finacially so we felt we had no right to ask anyone to help us out.
We set up a payment plan with the doctors and hospital and we paid it off while working part time and paying for things like groceries, rent, heat, etc. No whining about how unfair is was, because it wasn’t unfair is was life and we dealt with it.
If a family making 2 or 3 times the poverty rate cannot find a way to purchase health insurance then they are making lousy lifestyle choices.
Theoretically it’s a two-fer. Getting people to cut down on smoking will save the country a ton of money in the long run. In the meantime, for the millions who will continue to smoke, we can help children by implementing a luxury tax on a habit that drains buckets of money from our budget. It makes sense to me.
I am confused. Did I answer the wrong question?
Rusty, I believe the esteemed Rep. said the following:
He didn’t say “ALL”. He didn’t even say “MOST”. He said “SOME”.
Then you had the gall to say:
Really? Seems like your “understanding” is usually limited to the liberal point of view.
The difference between us is that while I make no bones about being a conservative, you will go out of your way to insist that you aren’t liberal – that you always see “both sides” – when the reality of your posts clearly suggests otherwise.
But I digress, and move dangerously close to being off-topic.
SCHIP, in the form that the President vetoed, was quite simply bad legislation. SCHIP was never intended to cover adults, illegals, families well over poverty limits, etc. And while I can’t say that I was overly thrilled when it first came into being, I was even less thrilled when the Democrats got ahold of it and wanted to expand it out to the “limits” being proposed.
You also said this:
No. My fiance works 40 hours a week, goes to school full time (with a GPA of 3.8+), raises 2 kids full time and 1 part time, puts food on the table, a roof over their heads and insurance all the way around (health, life, home, auto) – oh yeah, all of this on an income in the mid $20K range.
Don’t tell me it can’t be done. It can. She’s living proof that if you have a little pride in yourself and refuse to play “victim” you can do pretty much whatever you want to do.
Three cheers for the President for finding his veto pen on this one.
I work in a Medical lab and see everyday what a detrimental impact socialized medicine has on peoples health. Medicare and Medicaid are in essence socialized medicine. If you have a common condition you are usually fine, but if it is a rare or complex issue it is very difficult to get the medications and care you need. This is not the direction that we want to go down if we want our expectation of quality care to continue.
Rusty,
In response to your “You don’t really think the GOP would support socialized health care, do you?” question, yes, I would. The current Republicans have been spending like drunken democrats.
The Republicans and Democrats in government (and in the party headquarters) all seem to want larger government programs. The difference is which programs get the added money, and the style of the fig leaf for larger government.
Then donate YOUR money to a charity that provides healthcare to kids. I support St. Judes Hospital, my money is already where my mouth is. I paid for my own healthcare in college, I paid my own way through. Spare me the “more fortunate than others” bromide, because we haven’t been fortunate or lucky, we’ve been responsible and hard-working.
My family has sacrificed vacations, new cars, expensive private schools, and lots of little things so that we can save, invest, pay for health care, and support the causes that are important to us. Why should we be asked to sacrifice even more for people who are unwilling to make similar sacrifices for their OWN CHILDREN?
You didn’t. My question wasn’t about SCHIP. It was about the government, and here it is again:
Does the government have a right to dictate how health care dollars are spent when they’re footing the bill?
Here’s a hint: it’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
Proof that logic is lacking in liberal thinking.
Taxes, coupled with smoking bans, are designed to get EVERYONE to quit smoking. Which means that no smoking = no taxes = no revenue to cover health care.
Theoretically, communism was a good idea, too, Rusty.
The smoking tax and the lie that it’s for health care make no sense whatsoever.
And as governmentdrone said, you can do alot when you don’t play the victim.
But apparently, it’s much easier to be a whiny, government-dependent lackey.
Rusty,
While it is no skin of your back, it is dollars out of my wallet. One of the many problems with libs is their generosity with other peoples money.
Oh, I make no bones about being liberal. I understand both sides of the debate, I just find the liberal argument to be stronger most of the time. Especially here.
According to this legislation, the federal government has very little say in how their (our) money is spent. Congress decides the minimum of who gets covered and that’s it. State government can do what they want with it assuming it meets Congress’s bare bones requirements. In most situations that means paying for private insurance. Private insurance companies (not doctors) are the ones who decide what treatment a person can receive. I find this to be obnoxious, but it’s a compromise worth making.
Well the dirty little secret is that some people will smoke like chimneys no matter what. Since it’s a luxury that costs everyone tons of cash, I don’t mind hitting them up for more money. And if people do quit, then the government will be saving enough to cut a considerable chunk out of that $35B. So, win-win.
So if smoking is a luxury, Rusty, then aren’t big homes, vacations, private school, buying property for a business, etc. etc. also luxuries?
If they are, they why can’t we expect these people to pay for their own insurance?
Or are you a proponent of punishing behavior you disagree with via taxes?
If so, I disagree with risky sexual behavior and propose a tax on birth control and condoms to curb sexual behavior and the taxes can be used to offset school abstinence programs.
OMG you HAVE to be kidding me! Why should I have to help foot this plan in which I DO NOT SUPPORT because I smoke? A luxury tax? Oh wow that’s a new one to me. How about your access to be able to type on this site? How about we tax that more as a “luxury” tax. You say MY habit drains buckets of money from the national budget? You tell me WHEN I ever asked for anyone to pay for my insurance premiums. Not once, and you want to punish me because I smoke? Please give me one good reason why I should be unduly taxed to support this Socialist-CHIP plan. And I hate to tell you this, but if you cut back on the smokers that are funding this plan, the money will eventually have to come from other places. I can’t understand why the .gov thinks “Big Tobacco” is some bottomless cash cow. IIRC the money we were taxed on previous to this was supposed to go to the states to help offset medical costs to begin with, funny thing, most of it never even went to that program, it went to everything BUT health care. Yeah I’m afraid I still don’t trust .gov with my money. I think you also had mentioned earlier that there are lots of other places that funding could be cut back… keep dreaming. Our .gov is hemorrhaging money as it is and yet they still find ways to add to the inevitable death of the dollar. *ahem* $5,000 dollars to all newborn babies *ahem*
Once again…
This smoking tax for expanded S-CHIP takes money away from the poorest and least educated in Amercia to provide health insurance for the middle class.
Hmm. Studies show that the vast majority of smokers are people without college educations and are also lower income.
So how does your liberal mind-set feel about the fact that you are willing to put the lion’s share of the burden of paying for this outrageous program squarely on the back of the people who can least afford to pay for it?
Doesn’t sound very compassionate to me, Rusty.
ROFL. Beat me to it 29Victor.
And I had a link too
So Rusty, what else do you not mind taxing? There is plenty of high risk behavior in this world that is a drag on society. How are we to decide which ones to tax? Perhaps you would support a tax on unprotected, gay sex as that has been proven to be a high risk activity that is extremely expensive for society as a whole.
If you can afford those things you’re probably making more than three times poverty level. And if you’re invoking the Frosts, it’s been established that Maryland doesn’t count assets, only salary. And the kids are on scholarship.
And if smokers are the poorest, then the extra money they pay ends up going back to them anyways in the form of S-CHIP, Medicare, etc. Someone has to pay for their lung cancer.
The difference between taxing condoms and taxing cigarettes is that condoms actually save this country money. Cigarettes do the opposite.
And you’re right, it’s not super-compassionate. I am making the choice to support uninsured children over supporting someone with a stupid habit (that I admit I occasionally partake in, sorry, Mom!) that drains tax dollars.
How are we to decide which ones to tax? Perhaps you would support a tax on unprotected, gay sex as that has been proven to be a high risk activity that is extremely expensive for society as a wholeAll unprotected sex is costly and expensive. Which is why DC gives out free condoms. Don’t know about the policies everywhere else though.
Curses! Didn’t mean to strike.
more of the vicitmization template of the liberal mind …
I have been married twice to women that smoked like those chimneys you mention and grew up in a household of smokers of not just cigarettes but cigar and pipe-smokers as well …
I don’t smoke … and I have absolutely no respiratory problems at age 61 … so much for the 2nd hand victimization argument …
But I do not feel it is up to me to tell others they cannot smoke, where they can smoke, nor when they can smoke … that is why I vote against anything on the ballot that infringes on freedom of choice on anything … even the things I don’t personally take part in … such as smoking …
Anything libs don’t like they try to over-tax it out of existence … and then tell all of us what we can or can’t do … based on the lib determination that it is bad for us …
I am tired of it … freedom of choice is my right … to do or not to do … to stay or to leave … to listen or turn the radio or tv off or to another station …
Liberals only want to allow freedom of anything when it is the freedom to do what they believe in … period … exclamation point … end of discussion
See the more I think about this, I have 2 children, an excellent job, a nice home, 3 vehicles and go on a nice vacation every year. Yet I still make less then the cut off amount for this new /gov handout plan says and even until the age 25 too?!?! WOW What am I thinking this plan would free money up so I can get that new Harley I’ve been eying. Hey thanks Rusty for opening my eyes to this. Seems like I can still smoke AND get others to pay for my kids What a two-fer!
/facepalm
But you know what, I certainly like the fact that I’m NOT DEPENDANT on the .gov to provide tax payer funded health care plans for my children A LOT more then I need a new toy There’s this self gratifying feeling I get knowing I EARNED everything I have, not a bad thing to teach my children to boot.
All
I wasn’t aware of that. It must be why DC is winning the war on poverty.
And with that comment I have decided that you are just hopeless. You’re either a troll, being intentionally obtuse, or completely ignorant of how government programs actually work.
S-CHIP already covered the poor. The expansion is to cover the middle class, with poor people paying for it. The “extra money” won’t be going “back to them.” A percentage of it will be going to the federal government and a percentage will be going to the state government and the rest will be spread across the spectrum from the poorest (who were already covered) on up to the numbers we have been discussing above.
JSR, zing!
jsr
Hey! Stop citing results! We’re not about results here (apparenly) we are all about compassion and protecting people. Passing out free condoms is a great idea, whether it works or not is irrelevant.
Anyway, why aren’t we taxing those poor people when they have babies? We could use the money to pay for scholarships for middle class families. Kids are a luxary the poor will get their money back through my program.
OW! Crap. Be careful when you try to think like a liberal. I think, I like, blew a fuse in my head thinking thingy up here in my head part.
HEALTHCARE NOT WARFARE!!!
Yep, something’s definately broken. I hope Rush is still on.
Politically, a cigarette tax will go over way better than a tax on the top 1%. And some people will stop smoking, which will save the federal government and the individual a ton of money.
As for DC not getting results, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Access to condoms has shown a decrease in STD and pregnancy rates. So who’s to say it isn’t working? This is a big-picture program.
The colleges I’m familiar with have dirt cheap health insurance available for students. Even if you are in school, at 25 you are an adult, making your own choices. Why would I want to help a 25 year-old pay for health insurance? (Actually, my two favorite charities are in the health care arena, but that’s my choice.)
Just remember everyone …
The government giveth and the government taketh away …
They can change the eligibility for anything and everything on a whim and leave many suddenly over the canyon without a safety net any longer …
Really?
Even the sex that I have with my fiance/wife? In a totally committed relationship? Where we are both free of STD’s? And where we have no chance at all of bringing another child into the world?
Hmm. Not costly. Not expensive. Not even “risky”.
And don’t say you didn’t say it Rusty. That’s what the word “ALL” means.
Now go ahead and Clinton your way out of that one. You’re getting pretty good at that.
This is interesting as my family income is exactly $83,000. I have decent health coverage, probably better than most. And I have two children with serious medical conditions. I am tens of thousands of dollars in debt as a a result. Please don’t say that all kids are getting enough health care coverage at this income level.
Typical liberal response when confronted with the reality of the failure of their programs. Cite the need for more time, obscure studies and refer to the big picture (i.e. root causes) Acountability and visible, concrete results are not important. After all, who’s to say what works?
eaglehaslanded,
I empathize with you. I worked at a
children’s hospital. I know what these
insurance companies do to families even
with coverage. Insurance companies are one of the biggest frauds in this country. They are no different than big
corporations that “have” to show a certain profit. And no, I am not socialist. Just hate dishonesty.
Can someone clear up something for me? I was told that the adults the program covers are pregnant women. Is that true or is it just anyone who happens to be under 25? Thanks.
BS. It’s only unreasonable because you don’t believe in personal accountability. What is unreasonable is expecting me to pay for someone else’s health care coverage while they are in college. It’s because folks have to pay for so damn many other people that they struggle at times to take care of themselves.
Using your scenario, families have 18 years to come up with a solution for paying for the health insurance of their adult college age children. Adults in this age range can get insurance policies for $70 a month or less. That’s $2.30 a day. Don’t tell me people in college can’t swing that. They can, they just don’t want to. And, because of clueless people like you who believe you have more rights to my money than I do, they don’t feel they should have to pay for it.
xblade
I agree … every kid in college blows off more than enough money every day to pay for basic insurance …
LOL – PROOF?
The studies from Planned Parenthood might back you up but would be considered skewed to say the least. All reputable studies have shown since the introduction of condoms into high schools, teen pregnancies skyrocketed and so did STD’s. We basically told the youth – have sex, as much as you want but use a condom. Like they were going to take time to stop by school and get a condom before sex on a Friday night.
Just another liberal talking point.
Oh, and SCHIP IS socialized medacine.
jsr
You beat me to it. But, as I’ve said, I’ve given up anyway.
cthelight
If the government really wanted to help they would be making sure that the insurance companies were playing by the rules, they would stop frivolous lawsuits and cap “pain and suffering” damages. It kind of makes one wonder why they don’t.
They could also reform Medicare to cost doctors less and allow them more freedom when billing their non-Medicare patients.
We’re veering way off-topic, but:
I did a bunch of papers and debate work and you are so gone. Condoms cut the STD rates. Pregnancy rates slowly decreased (admittingly this is the case for all teenagers, not just teenagers in schools with condom programs). And teenage sex rates stayed the same. There is really no excuse for public high schools not to be offering condoms. If you don’t like it, and I’m sure MM would agree with this, home school your kids or send em to a private school.
My source is that old liberal rag, The American Journal of Public Health.
Here’s a NYT story on the study.
People cheat. But if you think you got a +1 on me, I’ll concede the point.
And I take the term “to Clinton” as a major compliment.
Clearly Rusty only cares about the poor when they suit his political agenda, and when they don’t – tax them!
How dispicable. I despise smoking, but I would never dream of using a punishment tax and simultaneously claim it’s supposed to discourage smoking whilst also providing funds for health care to…cover poor people who smoke.
If unprotected sex is risky and expensive, why not a tax on it, Rusty?
Rusty,
You need to get out of DC before it’s too late.
This is surprising how? You always do this when you realize your liberal talking points are getting holes shot through them.
Really? I seem to remember having that debate with you some time back. As I recall, you were the one who was “so gone”. Once your talking points were shown to be defective, you were “so gone” to the point of abandoning the thread.
Get your facts straight before you declare yourself the winner.
Unlike you, I wasn’t talking about the whole world there. Just my little corner of the world. My choice of words was carefully thought out and very clear. How like a liberal for you to immediately state “People cheat.” Get a clue Rusty – not everybody thinks and acts like liberals. And just so you know, in my little corner of the world the implication that you threw out there that either myself or my better half is cheating constitutes “fighting words”.
And the fact that you take the term “to Clinton” as a major compliment speaks volumes about your character and integrity – or lack thereof.
Only when morals are relative, Rusty. I can unequivocally state that my husband and I will never cheat. Our marriage is built on faith, which gives us a clear directive regarding right and wrong.
How rude of you to make that assertion of governmentdrone’s (or anyone’s) relationship.
In the same vein, I could say “People smoke.” Since you clearly have no qualms about punishing them via taxes for their behavior, how about some consistency.
Because your assertion that unprotected sex is risky and dangerous can easily be offset by saying the only way to keep sex safe is not to have it at all. In otherwords, ALL sex is risky…so I ask you again, why do you choose to tax some risky behaviors (smoking) but not others (sex)?
So, all you smokers…go from 1 pack to 2, or 2 to 3 packs. That way people who earn up to $82K can ditch their health insurance, and get free coverage from Hillary & Reid. If anyone complains about your smoking, tell them, “It’s for the children.”
Whew! I’ve read through the whole thread and I am ticked off! You guys are keeping me from work and it’s mainly Rusty’s fault. If Rusty wouldn’t be throwing out bombs that kept me reading this just to see if he would get it thrown back at him, I would have accomplished a lot more today. So Rusty, you owe me about 2 hours of pay because it’s all your fault!
BTW. As I understand SCHIP, it is a State run, socialized med. program funded by the government that the Republicans are willing to increase funding for but the Democrats want to expand and really, really increase fundingfor. Right!
Rusty, I am sending you a bill for today. It’s never my fault!
I wondered why you linked to the article but not to the study cited in the article(warning PDF), but then I read both.
Neither the study nor the article had anything to do with a decrease in pregnancy. The study was attempting to discover whether or not including condoms in sex ed led to increased sexual activity in kids. What it found was that it doesn’t and that some at risk kids used condoms a bit more. But it said absolutely nothing about pregnancy rates. Lies.
But, in fact, as the article itself says:
I understood why you linked to one and not the other when I read in the article that
while the study says:
The study proved that there is a modest relationship among certain students and it was looking into the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, not pregnancy.
Lessseee, what else?
Oh, yeah.
It’s ironic that you began this little adventure today excoriating Rep. Walberg for making his mistatements and here you are making your own. To paraphrase you:
I will take [Rusty's] views into consideration once he takes the time to actually read and understand the [study].
Even I think I’m getting a little “trolly” so I didn’t want to keep adding to the thread.
I just want to make clear that I’m not making an “assertion” to anyone cheating on anyone else. I’m just saying it happens. But no matter how strong your convictions, people cheat.
29Victor, I only linked to the NYT because I’m at work and have spent far too much time on this thread.
First, more condom use = less pregnancy and HIV for reasons that should be obvious. So the fact that condom use increased while sex rates remained the same means that the claim that
is 100% untrue. In fact, I bet this guy can’t find one study that says that. In fact, the teen pregnancy rate is the lowest its been since WWII. (It’s flatlined since. Some blame “abstinence only” sex ed. I figure that no matter what you’re going to have sexually reckless teenagers.)
I was responding to something that was wrong and I did a quick and dirty Google search to find the Public Health study. I figured that stationary sex rates with more condom use implied that HIV and pregnancy were down. (Which, although not mentioned in that study, is 100% true.)
It’s a comment thread. Please excuse me if not all of my data is the best. It’s not like I have Lexis-Nexis or JSTOR at my disposal here.
You know, I’m starting to think Rusty is realy Michelle M. in disguise and is just egging us on to increase participation. After all she is so evil (in a really clever way.)
No matter what figures are thrown out, if the government takes the helm, you can figure a multiple of at least…3.
That is pure and simple.
The SCHIP might be a great idea, if it is ONLY for children – 18 and under – still at home with poor, US citizen parents. So much room for fraud, and we really need an overseer who will make the system toe the line, or we are just “STUCK ON STUPID”
Why should any legal American kid over 18 be covered by this program? Idaho State University requires all students to provide proof of private health care insurance or pay for it as part another bill on your tuition fees.
The increase to 4 times the national poverty average is also beyond me. Nothing like the Federal Government stepping to break a program the State Governments appear to run somewhat competently. I realize there are folks out there like yesterdays poster children abusing the system, but the real families in need are helped.
I still keep looking through my copy of the US Constitution and haven’t found anything on providing citizens with healthcare, welfare, or a free education. Glad to see some of our elected officials feel the same way and are standing firm on irresponsible spending.
Liberal versus Conservative
distilled down it’s another case of Governement funded (taxes) everything for everyone versus personal responsibility.
This would be the Cheney/Bush/Halliburton/Blackwater/TheyFooledUsAgainEvenThoughTheyAreStupid/NeoCon/VastRightWing/LoudPeopleConspiracy at work.
Ahhhh. So you extrapolated that from the study. I see. You managed to extrapolate something from it that neither the authors nor the NYT managed to extrapolate from it and that you have no numbers to back up.
You took some numbers that you liked, added your own opinion and came up with a “fact” that proved what you already believed to be true. I’m willing to bet that you do that a lot.
I, on the other hand, with my limited intellect was not able to make that same logical jump. In fact, here is what I came up with.
1) If, while you were doing your “papers and debate work,” you had found a study that actually backed up your premise, you would have posted it here instead of using the one that you did.
2) You called BS on soap-box for not being able to find a study that backs up his point but…uh….see #1.
3) I figure that if a promiscuous teenager is simply using condoms “more often” it is in no way going to cut down on teen pregenancy. Not unless that kid is using a condom 100% of the time, which, according to the study, they were not. If girls keep having unprotected sex (which they were), they will still get just as pregnant, because 99% of all boys that they are having sex with are capabale of impregnating them. They just may have delayed it for a few days. On the other hand, they could have unprotected sex every day and never get HIV, as long as they didn’t have sex with an infected boy.
4) The Times article said (as I posted above)
So you just cherry picked the study that agreed with what you want to believe because, at least according to the Times, there is other research that contradicts this study (and yet you still called BS on soap-box even tho your own article agreed with him).
You see, Rusty, you took a study that was supposed to prove that giving away condoms in school didn’t increase kid’s sexual activity and used it to prove that handing out condoms in DC cut down on pregnancy rates.
But this isn’t about condoms or teen pregnacy, it’s about how you choose to form your opinions and how you choose to debate with others…on things like S-CHIP.
S-chip is NOT about children, children are only used for marketing puroses.
S-chip is all about socialism and federalism.
Rusty: You state the figure 4 million more insured. What is magic about that number? If 4 million more people are not responsible for themselves, why not 40 million? Why don’t we buy every body a new car? Maybe a new house? I mean, it’s for the children. I propose – how about parents being responsible for their children. Don’t ask me to be responsible for them. Not one of the present recipients of the SCHIP program has ever sent me a thank you letter. It’s nice of you to think so highly of yourself that you have to tell me how to allocate my charity. I resent that.