Obama Expected To Sign Children's Health Bill

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100223714&ft=1&f=1001 Is this the one that is going run up the price of our stogies...??

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dude Love

Sure is. The only good way to look at it is it only brings the tax per stick to $0.40, instead of $3. Biiiig difference, especially when you're looking at box prices.

PuroFreak

This whole Bill is such a load of crap! People can say all they want that smokers cost more money in medical care than non-smokers, but so do fat people! If you are going to do that then you might as well start taxing people by the pound!

Uncle Sam says: "Ok lard a$$, you broke the 350 mark this year... Get your check book out!"

Dude Love

Haha, that'd be nice. But of course, now they're trying to prove that it's linked to genetics and blah, blah, blah. Basically so people don't have to shoulder any responsibility when they can't get off of their couch.

PuroFreak

I'm gonna start selling a diet tape! Not video tape or audio tape, but freakin DUCT TAPE! So the cheeseburgers can't slide down your throats ya fat bastards!!! lol The only 100% effective diet tape!

Stoogee

You have to love how Democrats constantly want to keep raising your taxes and spending your money yet some of the top politicians in their own party dont pay their own taxes.

rwheelwright

PuroFreak:
This whole Bill is such a load of crap! People can say all they want that smokers cost more money in medical care than non-smokers, but so do fat people! If you are going to do that then you might as well start taxing people by the pound!

Uncle Sam says: "Ok lard a$$, you broke the 350 mark this year... Get your check book out!"

Hey, I resemble that remark! :-)

bass8844

Dude Love:
Haha, that'd be nice. But of course, now they're trying to prove that it's linked to genetics and blah, blah, blah. Basically so people don't have to shoulder any responsibility when they can't get off of their couch.

Ok, I accept the fact that some people are genetically inclined to be obese, but genetics don't make you go to mickey d's and order a triple cheese supersized (now what is it called, "go large")

Heart disease is a big expense too...raise the taxes on deep fried foods while you're at it!

gmill880

PuroFreak:
This whole Bill is such a load of crap! People can say all they want that smokers cost more money in medical care than non-smokers, but so do fat people! If you are going to do that then you might as well start taxing people by the pound!

Uncle Sam says: "Ok lard a$$, you broke the 350 mark this year... Get your check book out!"

Of course , playing devils advocate, IF everyone was healthy and not overweight and smokers didn't have to go to the doctor, (insert everything that causes people to go to the doctor here) and blah blah blah then the medical profession with their tens of thousands of employees nationwide are setting on THEIR FAT ASS_ES with a highly reduced income, nothing to do , highly reduced need for their services ,etc etc etc. Maybe the politicians better look at where their biggest individual contributors work/who they are. If everyone was healthy like the doctors are continusly bitc_hing about they would have smaller homes,chevys instead of mercedes and a good 'ol fishin' boat instead of a yatch. for every action there is a re-action, eventually someone pays one way or another. just my two cents ....

dutyje

gmill880:
PuroFreak:
This whole Bill is such a load of crap! People can say all they want that smokers cost more money in medical care than non-smokers, but so do fat people! If you are going to do that then you might as well start taxing people by the pound!

Uncle Sam says: "Ok lard a$$, you broke the 350 mark this year... Get your check book out!"

Of course , playing devils advocate, IF everyone was healthy and not overweight and smokers didn't have to go to the doctor, (insert everything that causes people to go to the doctor here) and blah blah blah then the medical profession with their tens of thousands of employees nationwide are setting on THEIR FAT ASS_ES with a highly reduced income, nothing to do , highly reduced need for their services ,etc etc etc. Maybe the politicians better look at where their biggest individual contributors work/who they are. If everyone was healthy like the doctors are continusly bitc_hing about they would have smaller homes,chevys instead of mercedes and a good 'ol fishin' boat instead of a yatch. for every action there is a re-action, eventually someone pays one way or another. just my two cents ....

They'll get over it.

This reminds me of the oil companies compliaing about how high the cost of oil was per barrel, and that their hands were tied and they were forced to pass those costs on to the customer (at the requisite margin/markup and blah blah blah blah).. meanwhile they were churning record profits every quarter. I have no sympathy for this.

gmill880

dutyje:
gmill880:

PuroFreak:
This whole Bill is such a load of crap! People can say all they want that smokers cost more money in medical care than non-smokers, but so do fat people! If you are going to do that then you might as well start taxing people by the pound!

Uncle Sam says: "Ok lard a$$, you broke the 350 mark this year... Get your check book out!"

Of course , playing devils advocate, IF everyone was healthy and not overweight and smokers didn't have to go to the doctor, (insert everything that causes people to go to the doctor here) and blah blah blah then the medical profession with their tens of thousands of employees nationwide are setting on THEIR FAT ASS_ES with a highly reduced income, nothing to do , highly reduced need for their services ,etc etc etc. Maybe the politicians better look at where their biggest individual contributors work/who they are. If everyone was healthy like the doctors are continusly bitc_hing about they would have smaller homes,chevys instead of mercedes and a good 'ol fishin' boat instead of a yatch. for every action there is a re-action, eventually someone pays one way or another. just my two cents ....

They'll get over it.

This reminds me of the oil companies compliaing about how high the cost of oil was per barrel, and that their hands were tied and they were forced to pass those costs on to the customer (at the requisite margin/markup and blah blah blah blah).. meanwhile they were churning record profits every quarter. I have no sympathy for this.

Yea duty thats my point exactly , I certainly have no sympathy for any of them at all, didn't mean for my post to sound like I did . I just like to look for the irony sometimes in what people are asking for....your views and mine are very similar.

phobicsquirrel

Stoogee:
You have to love how Democrats constantly want to keep raising your taxes and spending your money yet some of the top politicians in their own party dont pay their own taxes.

Well actually that isn't really true. Raising taxes on higher incomes is a good idea and spending money on things that will actually benefit the country is a good thing. Spending money on foreign interests and corporations is not. So the last 8 years isn't proof enough?? That being said, raising taxes for higher incomes say above 200+ or even a little higher. I don't believe that people under that are getting higher taxes...

phobicsquirrel

bass8844:
Dude Love:
Haha, that'd be nice. But of course, now they're trying to prove that it's linked to genetics and blah, blah, blah. Basically so people don't have to shoulder any responsibility when they can't get off of their couch.
Ok, I accept the fact that some people are genetically inclined to be obese, but genetics don't make you go to mickey d's and order a triple cheese supersized (now what is it called, "go large")

Heart disease is a big expense too...raise the taxes on deep fried foods while you're at it!

Puro's got a good idea, you know though why tax cigars? I mean cigs are the one's that F people up so much but beyond that if anything causes health problems it's fast food, for God sakes tax the freakin' fast food chains and give that money to the crappy childrens fund. That makes so much sense.

PuroFreak

phobicsquirrel:
bass8844:
Dude Love:
Haha, that'd be nice. But of course, now they're trying to prove that it's linked to genetics and blah, blah, blah. Basically so people don't have to shoulder any responsibility when they can't get off of their couch.
Ok, I accept the fact that some people are genetically inclined to be obese, but genetics don't make you go to mickey d's and order a triple cheese supersized (now what is it called, "go large")

Heart disease is a big expense too...raise the taxes on deep fried foods while you're at it!
Puro's got a good idea, you know though why tax cigars? I mean cigs are the one's that F people up so much but beyond that if anything causes health problems it's fast food, for God sakes tax the freakin' fast food chains and give that money to the crappy childrens fund. That makes so much sense.

I was being sarcastic though. Honestly I don't think fast food, or fat people or cigars, or anything else should be taxed more. DAMN sure not the corporations in this country. Name one time in the past 8 years there has been money given to big corporations besides the bailout of the banks and auto industry. And no don't say tax cuts, because that isn't giving them money, it's taking less of the money that was already theirs.

madurofan

phobicsquirrel:
Stoogee:
You have to love how Democrats constantly want to keep raising your taxes and spending your money yet some of the top politicians in their own party dont pay their own taxes.
Raising taxes on higher incomes is a good idea

Why is this a good idea? By raising taxes on the people who are capable of spending money you curb their ability to do so. In a down economy in which everyone acknowledges that, at least in part, the solution is for consumer spending to rise why would you take money out of the hands of the people most willing to do so. The wealthiest of people aren't going to be affected by taxes anyway they always find a way to divert money. Loopholes for doing so are intentionally built into tax laws by both parties.

However, the slightly wealthy, for example those making 300k- 1 million a year, would gladly spend any extra money that uncle sam leaves in their pockets. If you tax these people more they will divert that money into tax deferred retirement accounts, trusts, etc. This is a lose-lose situation not only is that less money being pumped back into the economy but its also no additional money being brought in as tax revenue. All you're accomplishing is people hording money in tax shelters.

aaron

Tax tobacco to pay for SCHIP. But put $75 million in the stimulus for smoking cessation. Putting aside the fact that smoking cessation won't stimulate the economy, the dems are giving with one hand and taking with the other, and they will eventually have to tax something else more in order to pay for SCHIP when their crusade against tobacco is successful. Besides, if we are committed to deficit spending on things that will not stimulate the economy, why not take the 75 mil against tobacco in the stimulus and put it towards SCHIP?

phobicsquirrel

madurofan:
phobicsquirrel:
Stoogee:
You have to love how Democrats constantly want to keep raising your taxes and spending your money yet some of the top politicians in their own party dont pay their own taxes.
Raising taxes on higher incomes is a good idea
Why is this a good idea? By raising taxes on the people who are capable of spending money you curb their ability to do so. In a down economy in which everyone acknowledges that, at least in part, the solution is for consumer spending to rise why would you take money out of the hands of the people most willing to do so. The wealthiest of people aren't going to be affected by taxes anyway they always find a way to divert money. Loopholes for doing so are intentionally built into tax laws by both parties.

However, the slightly wealthy, for example those making 300k- 1 million a year, would gladly spend any extra money that uncle sam leaves in their pockets. If you tax these people more they will divert that money into tax deferred retirement accounts, trusts, etc. This is a lose-lose situation not only is that less money being pumped back into the economy but its also no additional money being brought in as tax revenue. All you're accomplishing is people hording money in tax shelters.

yeah it's a hairy slope. That's why we need to bring more money into the country. why the hell "we" thought dumbing down our manufacturing and exports was a good idea....

rwheelwright

phobicsquirrel:
madurofan:
phobicsquirrel:
Stoogee:
You have to love how Democrats constantly want to keep raising your taxes and spending your money yet some of the top politicians in their own party dont pay their own taxes.
Raising taxes on higher incomes is a good idea
Why is this a good idea? By raising taxes on the people who are capable of spending money you curb their ability to do so. In a down economy in which everyone acknowledges that, at least in part, the solution is for consumer spending to rise why would you take money out of the hands of the people most willing to do so. The wealthiest of people aren't going to be affected by taxes anyway they always find a way to divert money. Loopholes for doing so are intentionally built into tax laws by both parties.

However, the slightly wealthy, for example those making 300k- 1 million a year, would gladly spend any extra money that uncle sam leaves in their pockets. If you tax these people more they will divert that money into tax deferred retirement accounts, trusts, etc. This is a lose-lose situation not only is that less money being pumped back into the economy but its also no additional money being brought in as tax revenue. All you're accomplishing is people hording money in tax shelters.
yeah it's a hairy slope. That's why we need to bring more money into the country. why the hell "we" thought dumbing down our manufacturing and exports was a good idea....

How about collecting some of that money that we have given in aide to other countries? Isn't it time for them to start paying us back? To many time, we help others and others do not help us. They *** on us. It's about time the rest of the world starts pulling their end to help themselves.

madurofan

Hold your breath wheelz.

mustluvcigars

so has anyone seen the terms other than the the 40 cents? when does this start, is floor tax still in there?

rwheelwright

madurofan:
Hold your breath wheelz.

Holding! :-)

mustluvcigars

i think we should herf on the white house lawn till they change their mind

madurofan

I'm there as long as kuzi brings some food.

phobicsquirrel

rwheelwright:
phobicsquirrel:
madurofan:
phobicsquirrel:
Stoogee:
You have to love how Democrats constantly want to keep raising your taxes and spending your money yet some of the top politicians in their own party dont pay their own taxes.
Raising taxes on higher incomes is a good idea
Why is this a good idea? By raising taxes on the people who are capable of spending money you curb their ability to do so. In a down economy in which everyone acknowledges that, at least in part, the solution is for consumer spending to rise why would you take money out of the hands of the people most willing to do so. The wealthiest of people aren't going to be affected by taxes anyway they always find a way to divert money. Loopholes for doing so are intentionally built into tax laws by both parties.

However, the slightly wealthy, for example those making 300k- 1 million a year, would gladly spend any extra money that uncle sam leaves in their pockets. If you tax these people more they will divert that money into tax deferred retirement accounts, trusts, etc. This is a lose-lose situation not only is that less money being pumped back into the economy but its also no additional money being brought in as tax revenue. All you're accomplishing is people hording money in tax shelters.
yeah it's a hairy slope. That's why we need to bring more money into the country. why the hell "we" thought dumbing down our manufacturing and exports was a good idea....
How about collecting some of that money that we have given in aide to other countries? Isn't it time for them to start paying us back? To many time, we help others and others do not help us. They *** on us. It's about time the rest of the world starts pulling their end to help themselves.

I agree, if anything Iraq should be paying us for being there, they've got enough.. Same with saudia arabia, they owe us for the 1st gulf war...

dutyje

rwheelwright:
madurofan:
Hold your breath wheelz.
Holding! :-)

Hey wheel.. before you die, please ship me your stash.

dutyje

phobicsquirrel:
rwheelwright:
phobicsquirrel:
madurofan:
phobicsquirrel:
Stoogee:
You have to love how Democrats constantly want to keep raising your taxes and spending your money yet some of the top politicians in their own party dont pay their own taxes.
Raising taxes on higher incomes is a good idea
Why is this a good idea? By raising taxes on the people who are capable of spending money you curb their ability to do so. In a down economy in which everyone acknowledges that, at least in part, the solution is for consumer spending to rise why would you take money out of the hands of the people most willing to do so. The wealthiest of people aren't going to be affected by taxes anyway they always find a way to divert money. Loopholes for doing so are intentionally built into tax laws by both parties.

However, the slightly wealthy, for example those making 300k- 1 million a year, would gladly spend any extra money that uncle sam leaves in their pockets. If you tax these people more they will divert that money into tax deferred retirement accounts, trusts, etc. This is a lose-lose situation not only is that less money being pumped back into the economy but its also no additional money being brought in as tax revenue. All you're accomplishing is people hording money in tax shelters.
yeah it's a hairy slope. That's why we need to bring more money into the country. why the hell "we" thought dumbing down our manufacturing and exports was a good idea....
How about collecting some of that money that we have given in aide to other countries? Isn't it time for them to start paying us back? To many time, we help others and others do not help us. They *** on us. It's about time the rest of the world starts pulling their end to help themselves.
I agree, if anything Iraq should be paying us for being there, they've got enough.. Same with saudia arabia, they owe us for the 1st gulf war...

There you go... fund the military budget by renting it out. I'm down with that. We've been giving away these services long enough. Include terms in the contract that we can pull out at any time for a simple fee, in order to defend ourselves elsewhere.

alienmisprint

phobicsquirrel:
I agree, if anything Iraq should be paying us for being there, they've got enough.. Same with saudia arabia, they owe us for the 1st gulf war...

I normally don't discuss politics or military issues, but alot of people don't know this. After Deser Shield/ Desert Storm, the Kuwaiti government wanted to pay each American serviceman involved $5,000 each. Our government wouldn't let them because they didn't want our military to be looked at as a mercenary force. I'm not saying either side was right or wrong, just putting the information out there.

PuroFreak

phobicsquirrel:
rwheelwright:
phobicsquirrel:
madurofan:
phobicsquirrel:
Stoogee:
You have to love how Democrats constantly want to keep raising your taxes and spending your money yet some of the top politicians in their own party dont pay their own taxes.
Raising taxes on higher incomes is a good idea
Why is this a good idea? By raising taxes on the people who are capable of spending money you curb their ability to do so. In a down economy in which everyone acknowledges that, at least in part, the solution is for consumer spending to rise why would you take money out of the hands of the people most willing to do so. The wealthiest of people aren't going to be affected by taxes anyway they always find a way to divert money. Loopholes for doing so are intentionally built into tax laws by both parties.

However, the slightly wealthy, for example those making 300k- 1 million a year, would gladly spend any extra money that uncle sam leaves in their pockets. If you tax these people more they will divert that money into tax deferred retirement accounts, trusts, etc. This is a lose-lose situation not only is that less money being pumped back into the economy but its also no additional money being brought in as tax revenue. All you're accomplishing is people hording money in tax shelters.
yeah it's a hairy slope. That's why we need to bring more money into the country. why the hell "we" thought dumbing down our manufacturing and exports was a good idea....
How about collecting some of that money that we have given in aide to other countries? Isn't it time for them to start paying us back? To many time, we help others and others do not help us. They *** on us. It's about time the rest of the world starts pulling their end to help themselves.
I agree, if anything Iraq should be paying us for being there, they've got enough.. Same with saudia arabia, they owe us for the 1st gulf war...

Actually, Kuwait owes us from the first Gulf War more than Saudi. Although it will never happen. How about France? How many times have we saved their asses? It isn't anything new and it will never end under any president. If we help we are looked at like we are imposing our will on the world, and if we don't help we are looked at as the selfish super power. The "greedy rich man" that has no compasion. We lose no matter what.

dutyje

alienmisprint:
phobicsquirrel:
I agree, if anything Iraq should be paying us for being there, they've got enough.. Same with saudia arabia, they owe us for the 1st gulf war...
I normally don't discuss politics or military issues, but alot of people don't know this. After Deser Shield/ Desert Storm, the Kuwaiti government wanted to pay each American serviceman involved $5,000 each. Our government wouldn't let them because they didn't want our military to be looked at as a mercenary force. I'm not saying either side was right or wrong, just putting the information out there.

We are a mercenary force. Why else would we have such strong ties with Israel? Why are we so heavily engaged in the Gulf? We just don't want it to be so blatantly obvious, I guess. I think we should examine our opportunities for increased revenue. We can always say "no" to someone who asks to rent out our services. I just think that if we're going to try to be the police force for the globe, they should have to pay for that protection. Or just get our hands out of it and let them fend for themselves. I'm fine with either decision, although right now our economy could sure use the boost. We manufacture and sell our equipment overseas, and we don't sell these services to countries which don't have our approval. Now we're just bundling in the services.

dutyje

Also, what incentive do these other countries have to purchase our weapons when they can get it all for free, and not put their own lives at risk to defend themselves?

phobicsquirrel

WASHINGTON — The House overwhelmingly approved a bill extending health coverage to 4 million uninsured children, giving President Barack Obama a much-needed win on health care and taking a first step toward his promise of universal coverage. The Democratic-controlled House passed the bill 290-135 on Wednesday, with 40 Republicans backing it. Obama planned to sign it into law later in the day. The bill calls for spending an additional $32.8 billion on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Lawmakers generated that revenue by raising the federal tobacco tax. "President Obama and Congress are demonstrating that change has come to Washington, and we are moving forward to improve the quality of life for American families struggling during these hard times," said Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Republicans criticized the cost of the legislation. They also said it will mean an estimated 2.4 million children who otherwise would have access to private insurance will join the State Children's Health Insurance Program instead. "The Democrats continue to push their government-run health care agenda — universal coverage as they call it," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. An estimated 7 million children are now enrolled in SCHIP. To cover the increase in spending, the bill would boost the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack. The bill's passages has long been a top priority of Democratic lawmakers. In late 2007, former President George W. Bush twice vetoed similar bills. The Senate passed the same bill last week. Obama made it a top priority in his first 100 days and one step in his push for universal coverage by the end of his first term. House passage came one day after Obama's choice for health secretary, Tom Daschle, withdrew his nomination, citing the distraction of his delinquent tax payments. SCHIP was created more than a decade ago to help children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford private coverage. Federal money for the program was set to expire March 31, barring action by Congress. Republicans said that they supported SCHIP and providing additional money for the program. However, they argued that Democrats were taking the program beyond its original intent and encouraging states to cover middle-class families who otherwise could get private insurance. "This debate is about, do we want a children's health insurance program that covers every child in America with state and federal dollars regardless of their ability to pay?" said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "Do we want to freeze out the private sector for health insurance?" Opponents of the bill also complained that the tobacco tax increase hits the poor the hardest, because they are more likely to smoke than wealthier people. Many also took exception to expanding the program and Medicaid to children of newly arrived legal immigrants. But supporters said that ensuring children had access to adequate health care was a matter of priorities. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said an estimated 4 million people have lost employer-sponsored insurance in the past year. "Do they keep their families' health insurance or do they put food on the table at night? During this economic recession, these kinds of decisions are unfortunately becoming more common," Pallone said. The National Alliance for Hispanic Health estimated that more than one-third of the children added to the program will be Hispanics who currently have no health insurance. Health officials project that there are about 9 million uninsured children in the U.S. Scores of interest groups threw their support behind expanding SCHIP, including those representing insurers, hospitals and doctors. The American Cancer Society predicted that the tax increase would reduce youth smoking by about 7 percent and overall cigarette consumption by 4 percent. "The expansion of the SCHIP program will provide millions of uninsured children with critical health care coverage and carry the added health benefit of encouraging millions of people to give up their deadly smoking habit," said John R. Seffrin, national chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society.

All I can say is CRAP