Bush Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Bill

[CatfishJones]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

discuss.

[guitrguy]

We all knew he was going to do it. Saying you will veto something is typically a dead give away.

[DBoons Ghost]

The bill was a sham in what it would cost taxpayers.

Even if we weren't stretched thin with the billions spent in Iraq, it would have been a bad idea in my opinion. Sure it's kids, but they wanted it to cover all kids, even illegals.

Some might view it as harsh, but I'm not a fan of paying for some illegal's sick kids.

You should really find the bill and link it so people can properly read it and form opinions. It was outlandish to say the least though.

[Reaganista]

Some might view it as harsh, but I'm not a fan of paying for some illegal's sick kids.
actually some would call it really really stupid

[DBoons Ghost]

actually some would call it really really stupid

Stupid doesn't apply when your hard earned money not only goes to your family's health care plan, but some strange kids.

If you want to call it stupid, tell me what you pay in taxes, what you personally pay for health care, and what you would be willing to give up to pay for not only yours and your families, but some illegals.

If you wanna be a dick with your quirky one liners, then at least have the courtesy to answer. I'm sure your mom pays for your health care. Why not ask her.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Good for Bush.

[Brewing Up With]

I'm not a taxpayer yet, but I think that bill would have been at least a step forward to start making health care more universal.

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm not a taxpayer yet, but I think that bill would have been at least a step forward to start making health care more universal.

At what cost?

Where do you think the money would come from?

It wasn't going to replace what we already pay for our kids' health care.. it was an added cost to pay for kids that have none, plus what it costs to pay for every single illegal brought into the country.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110R0FHOb:e87392:

The bill states that the coverage is optional for LEGAL immagrants thus it stands to reason that illegal immagrants will not be able to partake in such a plan.

[Reaganista]

Stupid doesn't apply when your hard earned money not only goes to your family's health care plan, but some strange kids.
yeah it does

If you want to call it stupid, tell me what you pay in taxes,
as close to nothing as is possible
what you personally pay for health care, 0
and what you would be willing to give up to pay for not only yours and your families, but some illegals.
here's the thing
when you don't let them die from easily treatable diseases
kids grow up
If you wanna be a dick with your quirky one liners, then at least have the courtesy to answer. I'm sure your mom pays for your health care. Why not ask her.
idk my mom's rich but she still votes democrat stop trying to pass your ridiculous shortsightedness off as some sort of reasoned selfishness

[guitrguy]

I'm not a taxpayer yet, but I think that bill would have been at least a step forward to start making health care more universal.

Which is not necessarily a good thing. Especially since we have atrocious immigration laws. Not paying taxes makes it easier to support something like that.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110R0FHOb:e87392:

The bill states that the coverage is optional for LEGAL immagrants thus it stands to reason that illegal immagrants will not be able to partake in such a plan.

you do realize many states cover up whether or not an immigrant is legal or not. Illegals that live in states the give IDs and DLs to illegals won't have a problem signing up for the legislation.

[DBoons Ghost]

idk my mom's rich but she still votes democrat stop trying to pass your ridiculous shortsightedness off as some sort of reasoned selfishness

Yeah I'm not rich. Every penny matters to me in what is an already inflated health care system that does nothing but rip us off. I'm not being shortsighted in the least, but I am being selfish.

I'm all for a solution, but one that works for everyone, not just the poor and downtrodden.

Do it once, and make it count. Not in drips and drabs, and not at the cost of kicking the middle class down yet another notch.

[Reaganista]

except the cost of letting an uninsured kid is greater than the cost of insuring them

[DBoons Ghost]

except the cost of letting an uninsured kid is greater than the cost of insuring them

Not really. Have you read the bill?

Or you just assuming it was the be all end all to fix all health care woes?

[guitrguy]

except the cost of letting an uninsured kid is greater than the cost of insuring them
You act kids in America are dropping left and right. Bill was just to allocate more funds, not cover more kids.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

you do realize many states cover up whether or not an immigrant is legal or not. Illegals that live in states the give IDs and DLs to illegals won't have a problem signing up for the legislation.

I'm pretty sure that states don't "cover" up stuff. I'm fairly certain that is referred to as paranoia and for me to take this comment seriously I'd need some kind of evidence to back up such a statement...

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm pretty sure that states don't "cover" up stuff. I'm fairly certain that is referred to as paranoia and for me to take this comment seriously I'd need some kind of evidence to back up such a statement...

The language of the bill was easy enough to exploit so it would work not only in poorer kids favor, but also for the middle class to provide a secondary means of care to supplement what your employer might provide, thusly removing the funding for poorer kids who really might need it. It was too limited in how many kids it would cover, and it was not a formal solution. It was a band-aid plain and simple.

And every state in the union exploits consensus numbers to get federal funding because they have to. Schools would be overcrowded and underfunded even more then they already are if they didn't lie or make up numbers to cover the illegals who refuse to fill out a census form for fear of being deported.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Not really. Have you read the bill?

Or you just assuming it was the be all end all to fix all health care woes?


I'm not trying to be disrespectful toward your ideas at all but you keep stating "Have you read the bill" but you don't point out any specifics that you find wrong with the bill other than you claimed you'd be covering illegals under this bill as well as other children which I pointed out to be false.

If you could point out specific parts of the bill that you disagree with I can be more inclined to see the issue from your point of view.

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful toward your ideas at all but you keep stating "Have you read the bill" but you don't point out any specifics that you find wrong with the bill other than you claimed you'd be covering illegals under this bill as well as other children which I pointed out to be false.

If you could point out specific parts of the bill that you disagree with I can be more inclined to see the issue from your point of view.

Go read it yourself. I'm not going to summarize anything.

I could care less what anyone thinks. I'm just glad I won't have to pay for it. It's over and done with. What's the point of discussing it?

We gonna submit the thread to congress as a petition?

[guitrguy]

I'm pretty sure that states don't "cover" up stuff. I'm fairly certain that is referred to as paranoia and for me to take this comment seriously I'd need some kind of evidence to back up such a statement...

Do you even pay attention to the news? many states are creating laws, ie. Michigan, to prevent employers from using a national database that would enable said employers to check on the legality of their employees. Those same states prevent police from asking about immigration status.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Do you even pay attention to the news? many states are creating laws, ie. Michigan, to prevent employers from using a national database that would enable said employers to check on the legality of their employees. Those same states prevent police from asking about immigration status.

Yes but then you have to keep in mind that those most likely won't pass. Just because somebody thinks of a law that they would like to see on a ballot doesn't mean that it's automatically a law and all should obey it starting immediately. I am also fairly sure that is only the case in less than 10 states.

[guitrguy]

Yes but then you have to keep in mind that those most likely won't pass. Just because somebody thinks of a law that they would like to see on a ballot doesn't mean that it's automatically a law and all should obey it starting immediately. I am also fairly sure that is only the case in less than 10 states.
Most of these are already law. I know the federal attorney is suing Michigan. California is one and they have a massive illegal population, and the illegals can get state IDs and Driver licenses.

[DBoons Ghost]

Most of these are already law. I know the federal attorney is suing Michigan. California is one and they have a massive illegal population, and the illegals can get state IDs and Driver licenses.

This was recently passed in NY as well. Just for the sake of keeping track of them, and holding them liable for parking tickets and all that.

[Reaganista]

Not really.
yes really

Have you read the bill?

no nothing could be more pointless than reading congressional bills

Or you just assuming it was the be all end all to fix all health care woes?
insurance costs less than dead kids

[guitrguy]

This was recently passed in NY as well. Just for the sake of keeping track of them, and holding them liable for parking tickets and all that.
I'm not saying they don't have "good" intentions. Once you have a DL or state ID you can easily pass yourself off as a legal resident. I honestly think (though it will never happen) that they should receive a different license stating they are illegal.

Is there an illegal alien thread floating around here? I think we have gone a little too far off topic.

Edit: House Democrats are planning on starting a veto override campaign. They need 15-20 more votes to override the veto.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

I must agree we are a little off topic. My point of view is this:

70,000 children in Arizona alone are on the S Chips program right now. Children need this to be passed so more may be covered. We're not talking about the grievences of having to pay extra taxes for other things but we're talking about paying taxes for the children who really need health care. All I see is Bush finding ways to get money for Iraq and Oil (which also comes out of our pocket in taxes) but when a bill that is really worth looking at comes around he vetos it.

And that's all I'm going to say about this topic.

[guitrguy]

I must agree we are a little off topic. My point of view is this:

70,000 children in Arizona alone are on the S Chips program right now. Children need this to be passed so more may be covered. We're not talking about the grievences of having to pay extra taxes for other things but we're talking about paying taxes for the children who really need health care. All I see is Bush finding ways to get money for Iraq and Oil (which also comes out of our pocket in taxes) but when a bill that is really worth looking at comes around he vetos it.

And that's all I'm going to say about this topic.

I agree with government insurance for children who have parents that can't afford to cover them. I just thinking the bill needs to be restructured. The bill is allocating #35 billion that seep into the middle class rather focusing on the children who truly are in need of the insurance. The federal government really has no idea who is illegal or not, and states really don't help that much in identifying the illegals from the legals.

I forgot that the bill is supposed to be payed buy an increase in cigarette taxes. I have no problem with paying more for a pack of cigs if its helping kids out.

[Danish]

Stupid doesn't apply when your hard earned money not only goes to your family's health care plan, but some strange kids.

If you want to call it stupid, tell me what you pay in taxes, what you personally pay for health care, and what you would be willing to give up to pay for not only yours and your families, but some illegals.

If you wanna be a dick with your quirky one liners, then at least have the courtesy to answer. I'm sure your mom pays for your health care. Why not ask her.

Yo man, don't be racist. Do you understand why people immigrate to the US illegally? First, their countries have been impoverished by neoliberal economic policies imposed on them by the US. They are absolutely desperate. They are economic refugees. Second, our immigration policies are designed to leave those at the bottom out.

Health care is a human right.

[Smokey D]

Actually, their country was impoverished long before neoliberalism.

[Iskandar]

It's not exactly helping, though.

[Smokey D]

GDP has gone up since 1994.

I think there's a few problems with it becoming more unequal, though.

[bleep_bloop]

ugh bush is such a faggot

[Iskandar]

GDP has gone up since 1994.

I think there's a few problems with it becoming more unequal, though.I had thought inequality was rampant in Mexico.

[Hababi]

The bill was a sham in what it would cost taxpayers.


I agree, to an extent. While it was billed (teehee) as a provision for poor families, it provided for children of families making up to $82,000. So it was more of a middle class entitlement.

[griftadan]

a rare moment of fiscal responsibility, but welcomed all the same.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Yo man, don't be racist. Do you understand why people immigrate to the US illegally? First, their countries have been impoverished by neoliberal economic policies imposed on them by the US. They are absolutely desperate. They are economic refugees. Second, our immigration policies are designed to leave those at the bottom out.

Health care is a human right.

Calling an illegal immigrant "illegal" isn't racist. It's calling things what they are. This is why I rant and scream about PC.

As for the bill, it's stupid of Bush to knock it back, from a PR perspective. "George Bush doesn't care about black people" is nothing compared to "George Bush doesn't care about sick babies", it will be a nightmare. Mind you, he ain't exactly popular anyway, and he's not up for re-election.

[Akira]

That's the thing, he's not up for reelection. He doesn't have to worry about PR.

[DBoons Ghost]

Yo man, don't be racist. Do you understand why people immigrate to the US illegally? First, their countries have been impoverished by neoliberal economic policies imposed on them by the US. They are absolutely desperate. They are economic refugees. Second, our immigration policies are designed to leave those at the bottom out.

Health care is a human right.

Dude, I'm not being racist. I was an immigrant too once. I was poor. It's not the same to compare all, but I've been there and back and for me, it's from a solely fiscal perspective.

The problem with health care would not be remotely solved by that band-aid bill. I'm all for a permanent solution, even one that socializes our entire health care system, but one that works for everyone. As to the rest, we've argued Uncle Sam's policies in other threads, and I'm not going to defend America's desire to further the cause of America at any cost.

The bill was a sham. This country's healthcare woes will not be solved by throwing money at, nor simply allowing certain tax brackets access to aid they didn't have before. Children are not dying at anymore of an alarming rate then they did 20 years ago. Are we sicker? Sure! But that's not a healthcare issue.

Hilary's brilliant plan throws drugs at the problem. All of the candidates are throwing drugs at the healthcare problem in this country, and until we release the dependency on Pfizer and the other publicly traded drug companies which drive this economy in a psychotic cycle of madness, we're never going to lift this burden.

I'm not going to support them throwing my money into yet another social system ripe for exploitation.

[PerpetualBurn]

Are we sicker? Sure! But that's not a healthcare issue.

..?

[DBoons Ghost]

..?

Ask yourself how many drugs are available to cure ailments that barely existed 20 years ago.

if those drugs weren't need then.. why now?

Ask yourself how often you go out and do something active versus sit your *** in front of the Xbox, PC, etc etc..

Our youth is being destroyed by doing nothing. No sports, no excersize.. too much reliance on the internet, video games.. not enough going out and playing until you're so tired you fall asleep..

McDonalds on every corner, parents no longer cook solid dinners. Everything is frozen, take out, fast food..

It's not a healthcare issue in that no one can solve these developments in our society.

All our potential candidates want you to take more drugs, and have a healthcare plan.

Not a single one mention a decent diet or excersize.

That's a sin, and no it's not a healthcare issue.

[PerpetualBurn]

Ask yourself how many drugs are available to cure ailments that barely existed 20 years ago.

if those drugs weren't need then.. why now?

Well I'm not entirely sure how many new ailments there are. But the ****ing obvious answer would be that we didn't need drugs for ailments that barely existed.

It's not a healthcare issue in that no one can solve these developments in our society.

No. Public health is by definition a healthcare issue.

All our potential candidates want you to take more drugs, and have a healthcare plan.

Not a single one mention a decent diet or excersize.

That's a sin, and no it's not a healthcare issue.

No health is still a healthcare issue.

[DBoons Ghost]

I disagree.

Maybe I should have clarified this and stated clearly that it's not the government's responsiblity to teach parenting skills.

You lay it all on the feet of Uncle Sam, but we as a society have to take responsibility for ourselves.

I wonder if the average MXer is out of shape, and how many of your generation (15-21) suffer from some kind of disorder.

Y'all sure as hell didn't grow up like me, that's for sure.

The government is giving us the short end of the stick by drugging us and making us think we need all these drugs, that's for sure. However, kids need to get out and play rather then sit in their homes and be slaves to the media.

[PerpetualBurn]

I wish I could squeeze as many references to personal hardships into my posts.

Then maybe I could talk bollocks and people might think it's okay because I'm so worldly and experienced.

Public health is a healthcare issue. Allowing public health to decline has a massively detrimental effect on society.

[DBoons Ghost]

I don't refer to personal hardships in my post, as a ploy for pity, and I fail to see how you can somehow tie that into your post for lack of any other arguement.

It's as much your responsibity to get off your fat ****ing *** and do something with yourself rather then do nothing and blame everyone else, especially the government.

Kids are sicker because parents suck. Kids are dumber because of the internet.

I don't really care. As long as I don't have to pay for anyone's ignorance, I'm happy.

[PerpetualBurn]

I just grow weary of "Well I've had a tough life and I'm well travelled so I would know".

The point is if public health declines it will cost you a lot more.

[DBoons Ghost]

I just grow weary of "Well I've had a tough life and I'm well travelled so I would know".

The point is if public health declines it will cost you a lot more.

You know man, I didn't say that at all, nor did I even intend it. I didn't use those words, and it's obvious bias which makes you think I am saying that in so many words. I won't argue it, because in a way I can understand why you or anyone else wouldn't want to be accountable for your own issues in this mess.

It would seem me saying the internet generation is just as much at fault as the industrialists who've added to it, is not going to get this discussion anywhere.

People take more prescribed drugs than ever before, and we are just now becoming aware of the repercussions. Public health declines because people are consumerist lazy bastards who want to sit back and blame McDonalds for making them fat. It's the same old arguement.

[CameoRole]

People take more prescribed drugs than ever before, and we are just now becoming aware of the repercussions. Public health declines because people are consumerist lazy bastards who want to sit back and blame McDonalds for making them fat. It's the same old arguement.

Regardless of why people are getting sick, I still think it's for health care to take care of. I'll be up front and say I don't know nothing about this bill, etc, but I feel that any step towards a natl health insurance or what have you is a positive step. I mean, I just don't think it's for the government to look at you, say you got sick by your own volition, and then decide to not treat you. It's the same argument as the government not helping poor kids from inner-cities get grants to go to universities (that they should be able to do well enough on their own). I don't think that the government providing a helping hand is too much intervention in one's private life. Would it be better if everyone got up and played some soccer or baseball? Yeah, of course. Wouldn't it be awesome if people had salad and fruits and solid dinners instead of microwaving pounds of salt to eat? Naturally. But I don't think that doing the other should exclude them from governmental help. But like I said, I dunno, I'm talking based on my ethical and moral compass. I think it's atrocious that we can spend so much on war and so little on health care or education. If the Democrats had any balls (and overriding a veto doesn't take balls), they would move to reappropriate government funding.

I know someone's gonna rebuke everything I said with numbers etc etc and that's cool, but I don't think that it's idealistic to believe that our government can look out for us in a way that a lot of people could really use them to. And if funding was reappropriated, you wouldn't even feel it in yr wallet.

[ringworm]

Do it once, and make it count. Not in drips and drabs, and not at the cost of kicking the middle class down yet another notch.
this
Have you read the bill?
lol, obviously no, or they would see that the veto was a good decision

but we all know (hopefully), this was merely political move and early campaign strategy anyway by the Dem's, they wanted him to veto it

[DBoons Ghost]

I think it's atrocious that we can spend so much on war and so little on health care or education. If the Democrats had any balls (and overriding a veto doesn't take balls), they would move to reappropriate government funding.

I know someone's gonna rebuke everything I said with numbers etc etc and that's cool, but I don't think that it's idealistic to believe that our government can look out for us in a way that a lot of people could really use them to. And if funding was reappropriated, you wouldn't even feel it in yr wallet.

Nah Cameo I totally agree. Though, The Dems who are all running and one of which is almost guarenteed to win is not going to fix our healthcare problems. They are going to throw money at it and support their special interest groups like Pfizer and Merck to keep making drugs to fix problems that were once solved bu a normal society that looked after each other.

Read any of their plans. Hilary's especially. All they do is smatter the word drugs all over the place. We're dying. We're taking drug after drug after drug, and our kids are more autistic then ever, and diabetes is now common in infants. You think this is the result of... bad government spending?

All a socialized healthcare plan will do is make Merck and Pfizer more money, and keep the sick sicker and sicker with no solution in sight but drugs.

Our government is out to keep the cycle of money flowing. They want you to buy moer drugs to fix ailments that wouldn't exist if we didn't take them in the first place.

[Otherside]

The Dems who are all running and one of which is almost guarenteed to win is not going to fix our healthcare problems. They are going to throw money at it and support their special interest groups like Pfizer and Merck to keep making drugs to fix problems that were once solved bu a normal society that looked after each other.

Read Edward's plan; it has an entire section devoted to preventive health care options based on physical activity in children and making it safer for them.

[CameoRole]

Read Edward's plan; it has an entire section devoted to preventive health care options based on physical activity in children and making it safer for them.

This. It's like, the one good thing Edwards has going for him besides charisma.


But yeah, I agree with you wholeheartedly Boon; there's gotta be a deemphasis on Merck and prescription drugs. But for that, I don't know a solution. If people are convinced that they are broken and the answer lies in a pill, they're gonna go for the pill. Doctors will keep prescribing what makes them money and I don't see how the government can stop that. Is Hillary making drugs cheaper for the poor? Because while on the one hand this is bad and all it's doing is feeding a bunch of politicians stocks, but on the other, I'm sure there are poor kids who do need their Ritalin or Zoloft. And why should they suffer because other people either abuse the drug system or more likely, aren't aware that they may not have an affliction at all and don't need the meds?

Anyway, I gotta bounce to class and such but I'll be back later.

[PerpetualBurn]

You know man, I didn't say that at all, nor did I even intend it. I didn't use those words, and it's obvious bias which makes you think I am saying that in so many words. I won't argue it, because in a way I can understand why you or anyone else wouldn't want to be accountable for your own issues in this mess.

As a 20 year old Englishman I'm not accountable for very much when it comes to US healthcare.


People take more prescribed drugs than ever before, and we are just now becoming aware of the repercussions. Public health declines because people are consumerist lazy bastards who want to sit back and blame McDonalds for making them fat. It's the same old arguement.

And yet you're against making official action to counter these problems.

Interesting.

[DBoons Ghost]

Sometimes I think we just argue for the sake of doing so eh?

I'm not against offical action to counter the problems dude, I'm against stupid bills that slaughter the middle class so the Dems can win votes on matters of public opinion, when in the end the result is the same.

[lfantwister]

Read Edward's plan; it has an entire section devoted to preventive health care options based on physical activity in children and making it safer for them.
i dont think mandated physical activity should be within the role of the government. that is a parent's role and no legislative body should define it for them

[PerpetualBurn]

Sometimes I think we just argue for the sake of doing so eh?

That's what this forum's for.

I'm not against offical action to counter the problems dude, I'm against stupid bills that slaughter the middle class so the Dems can win votes on matters of public opinion, when in the end the result is the same.

Well this doesn't slaughter the middle class at all.

[DBoons Ghost]

Well this doesn't slaughter the middle class at all.

Slaughter was an overstatement, but it fixes nothing at all. Even in the short term.


Argue that. Why whine about a bill for the sake of public opinion? Oh look, we're democrats trying to save this country and provide health care for kids and big mean Bush vetoed the bill. Another reason to vote for us in the election. Like any of them really care that this bill was vetoed. It was a PR campaign anyway. Even most Dems knew it was a bad plan.

[PerpetualBurn]

You haven't offered good reason to suppose it's a PR stunt.

[ringworm]

it should be obvious

[DBoons Ghost]

You haven't offered good reason to suppose it's a PR stunt.

C'mon man.

If you knew the bill was a bad band-aid, why make a stink about it being vetoed.

It's politics 101.

There are two things here worth discussing.

One would be the specifics about the bill and if they would have been beneficial in the short or long term to anyone really.

The other would be the politicking that follows with what they had to know was a veto. Not because of Reps vs Dems, but sense vs nonsense.

Why even try for this bill now when the upcoming campaign is half based on the healthcare issue?

Don't you think the Dems will use this veto as a means to an end to get votes?

[PerpetualBurn]

Everything every party does is to ensure its future hold on power. That should be so obvious as to not be worth stating.

[DBoons Ghost]

So can I assume you're now just purposely being a dick right?

[PerpetualBurn]

No.

[guitrguy]

Dboon, I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but the money that was supposed to be given to SCHIP was going to come from a cigarette tax hike, not income.

[DBoons Ghost]

Dboon, I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but the money that was supposed to be given to SCHIP was going to come from a cigarette tax hike, not income.

Really? 35 billion dollars from cigarette taxes?

Well, I take back what I said about my pockets suffering, but that's not really even the real issue.

Leave SCHIP alone. This expansion would not have worked.

[guitrguy]

Really? 35 billion dollars from cigarette taxes?
Yep, its something like a $.60 increase per pack.

[DBoons Ghost]

Yep, its something like a $.60 increase per pack.

Do you really believe that though?

That they could raise 5 to 7 billion dollars a year by adding 60 cents a pack?

[guitrguy]

Do you really believe that though?

That they could raise 5 to 7 billion dollars a year by adding 60 cents a pack?

I really have no idea how much they could raise. I know they would be getting a lot of money from me.

Everything I have heard read so far keeps saying that its a cigarette tax hike that is going to pay for extra money in the bill.

[DBoons Ghost]

I really have no idea how much they could raise. I know they would be getting a lot of money from me.

Everything I have heard read so far keeps saying that its a cigarette tax hike that is going to pay for extra money in the bill.

What happens when the means for said federal funding is not met on said criteria?

Like.. if from now until 2012 5 million people quit smoking.

You know.. It happens all the time. The same thing that was supposed to pay for the war in Iraq now has cost us our fluidity in the real estate market. As a result, China owns us and our fate is in their hands, but truly that's another thread.

I refuse to believe they would allow such a ridiculous means for funding such an "important and historic" bill.. Oh wait..

[Knifeboy]

Do you really believe that though?

That they could raise 5 to 7 billion dollars a year by adding 60 cents a pack?

Hmm.. It'd take 27 million people smoking a pack a day... About 30 % of americans smoke.. That's 90 million americans...
So I guess it seems fairly plausable?

[guitrguy]

What happens when the means for said federal funding is not met on said criteria?

Like.. if from now until 2012 5 million people quit smoking.

You know.. It happens all the time. The same thing that was supposed to pay for the war in Iraq now has cost us our fluidity in the real estate market. As a result, China owns us and our fate is in their hands, but truly that's another thread.

I refuse to believe they would allow such a ridiculous means for funding such an "important and historic" bill.. Oh wait..

Supposedly there is war bill in the works would increase our income taxes by 2% and the upper class by 12-15% to fund the war if Bush pulls out troops by Jan. 2009 and converts efforts to counter-terrorism and Iraqi security training.

[DBoons Ghost]

Hmm.. It'd take 27 million people smoking a pack a day... About 30 % of americans smoke.. That's 90 million americans...
So I guess it seems fairly plausable?

Yea actually that does work on the surface. Nice job on doing that math either way.

[ringworm]

considering cig taxes bring in billions less each year, i would count on it to pay for any health care, the feds only brought in 7.7 billion last year, down from 8.3 and with less people smoking each day and more bans on public smoking, its only going to reduce further

[guitrguy]

considering cig taxes bring in billions less each year, i would count on it to pay for any health care, the feds only brought in 7.7 billion last year, down from 8.3 and with less people smoking each day and more bans on public smoking, its only going to reduce further

Yeah its starting to lead me to believe that the Dems knew the bill would be vetoed, and just pushed it through for PR purposes.

[Reaganista]

a rare moment of fiscal responsibility
except it's not

[Akira]

Yeah its starting to lead me to believe that the Dems knew the bill would be vetoed, and just pushed it through for PR purposes.

Duh. You just summed up the whole current Democratic strategy.