The poor all smoke? The not-poor don’t smoke?

No to both, but the majority of smokers are on the poorer end of the scale. And they’re not all that free to give up cigarettes because of addiction, and they tend to be less educated about the health benefits of quitting and have less access to support for quitting.

Personally I hope that if the tax is raised (and BTW, the proposed increase is 5 X what you used in your example), that many people do cut back or quit. However that then poses a different problem: where will the funding shortfall come from then? And what about the effects on state revenues from cigarette taxes, and the health fund tax that the tobacco companies pay into? If smoking declines, all of those decline too- which IMO would still be a net positive thing, but you still have to consider whether the state will have to pursue other forms of taxation to make up for this.

“Somehow it seems a bit odd to use a tax that takes far more from the poor to expand govt funded healthcare for the middle class.”

The poor all smoke? The not-poor don’t smoke?

Suddenly the poor are no longer to practice personal responsibility? Instead, their right to incur more healh care costs by smoking is to be preserved? What happened to fiscal responsibility and the need to lower health care costs?

Let’s say there is a 10ct tax on a pack, and a poor person smokes a pack a day. That’s 70cts a week.
Where I live, cigarettes are close to $7 a pack, or 35cts per cigarette. By giving up two cigarettes a week, he’d make up for the burden of the tax . What a crushing blow that would be.!

No, a better talking point than this will have to dug up.

Wait. I know. Jay Leno made this up. Right?

One of the issues not being discussed, is the primary reason for wanting the expansion of SCHIP.

There are still too many children not covered by the program, and the new funds were meant to reach out and draw them in. Cur the amount of the expansion, and you cut the number of shildren covered.

This is about health coverage, and about the importance of providing it.
From where I stand, the end goal in all of this is to improve health care for the not-rich, because we need a healthy citizenry to be contributors to the national economiy/good.

SCHIP is just a tiny step in that derection.
Seeing how this is going, mkes my heart ache and my stomach churn.

PS. I didn’t have time to read PWT. but DLS usually provides a lot of one-sided, although sometimes useful, information sandwiched between so much extraneous stuff, that I often lose paitence.;
I’ll get back to all this tomorrow, maybe.

At the moment, I’m so tired from deflecting the (to me) false issues raised by attacking the messenger instead of the message, that I’m more tempted to just cover my head in ashcloth and declare the end of possibilities in the US.

Picking this bill apart out of its context

False. I am addressing details of the bill that are defective.

is like deciding the health of a person according to the contition of his navel

False analogy.

Peristently and conveniently, the cost of NOT heving programs like SCHIP is ignored.

Nobody is trying to cancel the program, only constrain its growth beyond reasonable bounds and call for reform or removal of defects in the current bill.

If you and others were sincere in discussin the “issues’, you wouldn’t be just repeating your narrowly focused mantras

Please stop your nonsense. You consistently choose to be illogical and post one piece of fiction after another, accompanied by occasional gratuitous insults that are wholly unmerited.

Peristently and conveniently, the cost of NOT heving programs like SCHIP is ignored.

To whatever degree that this is happening, perhaps it’s due to the fact that NO ONE (including Bush) is arguing for SCHIP to be dismantled?

If you and others were sincere in discussin the “issues’, you wouldn’t be just repeating your narrowly focused mantras, You would include the truly broad cost and benefit implications pro and con.

Which DLS and Pennywit have done in other comment threads, and DLS and I have discussed how we think the eligibility requirements could be better handled (with states picking up cost for families above 200% poverty level if they feel it’s necessary, which would allow the fed money to be used strictly for the initial intent of helping families in the 100-200% range before even considering fed aid to families of higher income)

As it is, I can give no credence to arguments that portray a coin by describing one side of it only and blatantly ignoring attempts to draw attention to the other side.

Agreed, but I’m sure we disagree on who is doing this. I’ve just pointed out the ‘attempts to draw attention’ to what is actually at issue in the bill, which you’ve ignored repeatedly.

It is a deceit to destribe this as a crazy liberal vs
unpstanding GPRsers issue.

Who has done this?

This bill had bi-partisan support.
If you’re going to go bad person hunting, go after some of th GOP supporters as well.

Yes on the bipartisan support- is it impossible to imagine that some Republicans disagree with some other Republicans? And I’m not interested in hunting “bad people”; I’d just like to have a policy discussion.

Part of ‘discussing’ is listening. Try it, and I’ll redonsicer my opinion of how ’serious’ about tssues your arguments are.

Likewise, as I’ve yet to see you acknowledge the reasons we’ve put forth for why we oppose the bill, and why you disagree with them. Or see your reasoning for supporting passage of this bill over the status quo (it works both ways, not just one side having to compare his/her proposal with the status quo).

Let me see.
It was shameful for the Dems to use a child for political purposes.
Bush’s sonwflake use was in the “I didn;t approve’ calll, BUT, they existied.

This boy doesnt’t exist?
I don’t know what’s worse, just going after the Dems via this family like rabid animals, or pretending not ot,, and dong it anyway.

I don’t know what to say. WTF comes to mind.
Can you show me where you think I said this boy doesn’t exist??

Let me see.
It was shameful for the Dems to use a child for political purposes.
Bush’s sonwflake use was in the “I didn;t approve’ calll, BUT, they existied.

This boy doesnt’t exist?
I don’t know what’s worse, just going after the Dems via this family like rabid animals, or pretending not ot,, and dong it anyway.

The family’s finances are available for anyone to see, There is no excuse for further doubt, unless
one is fond of conspiracy theories.
—————————–

DLS et al=
Picking this bill apart out of its context is like deciding the health of a person according to the contition of his navel

Peristently and conveniently, the cost of NOT heving programs like SCHIP is ignored.

If you and others were sincere in discussin the “issues’, you wouldn’t be just repeating your narrowly focused mantras, You would include the truly broad cost and benefit implications pro and con.

As it is, I can give no credence to arguments that portray a coin by describing one side of it only and blatantly ignoring attempts to draw attention to the other side.

It is a deceit to destribe this as a crazy liberal vs
unpstanding GPRsers issue.
This bill had bi-partisan support.
If you’re going to go bad person hunting, go after some of th GOP supporters as well.

Part of ‘discussing’ is listening. Try it, and I’ll redonsicer my opinion of how ‘serious’ about tssues your arguments are.

If some states feel it is necessary to cover families above that level, why not ask those state governments to pick up the tab for that? Then the federal money could continue to be focused on the poorest families.

That’s exactly what should be done. The federal assistance should involve a uniform income limit. And, it should be reasonably low. Bush’s people issued rules recently (fought in court by greedy state governments, who want all the federal funds they can lay their paws upon) placing the limit at 250 per cent of the poverty line, which is reasonable. A lower limit of 200 per cent is perfectly reasonable; what should be examined here is the situation with other programs that offer assistance above the poverty line, with an eye toward using the same percentage for S-CHIP. States should not get federal “matching” funds for coverage of households above the new limit. This new limit should also be in any revised bill that comes out of Congress if Bush’s veto cannot be overridden. A veto that is sustained points to the need (among the intelligent and rational) among the Democrats to compromise, to dimunition in the scope and ambition of the bill. (Bush originally wanted only 5 billion increase, and the bill is a 35 billion bill. Not only should the total go down, but the two new options in the bill, for pregnant women and for people with private employer-based coverage, should be removed. The income limit should be lowered from 300 to 250 per cent of the poverty level. Rather than regressive tobacco taxes — those on cigars are outrageous — a better source of revenue needs to be sought. There is nothing difficult and nothing painful about this.)

Meanwhile, the Democrats should acquire some shame and stop exploiting children and lying about how this program and the bill is all about children, and continuing to appeal to emotion rather than to reason.

I’ll also be curious if Pew comes out with a poll and a study soon on this bill, including if the questions that are asked of the poll-takers include tests of their knowledge of the bill’s details.

No, I’m not a smoker, never have been. I don’t much like regressive taxation though (do you?) Somehow it seems a bit odd to use a tax that takes far more from the poor to expand govt funded healthcare for the middle class.

And then there’s the issue of what happens when some people do reduce their smoking and the funds start to dry up. I’m quite sure we’ll discuss how to do the fiscally prudent thing and trim back the program, right? Because govt programs never tend to take on momentum so that taxes have to be increased, right? And those who think a program is a bad idea are always given a respectful chance to voice their concerns, rather than being demonized, right?

The 35 billion needed to cover a further 3.4 million children is funded through an increase in the price of cigarettes.

This is far, far from a complete description of what is in the bill.

If anything good can come of this, then perhaps it will springboard to a discussion about the general eligibility requirements, so that people can actually have informed opinions about that.

The details are in the bill and in the history of the program, which supporters of the bill to this day still resist learning about — or admitting. This bill is not only about poor children (despite the dishonesty of the bill’s proponents) but also covers adults, and extends coverage deliberately to children currently insured privately, i.e., it deliberately produces “crowd-out,” transfer from the private to the public sector. The bill also raises eligibility to 300 per cent of the poverty level, which is too high. I’ve seen a lot of childishness in response to the veto of the bill and failed attempts to rationalize override or an earlier-hoped-for passage; if the Democrats fail to override the veto and deliberately pass the same legislation, they also are childish. Let us see first if an override can be achieved, and if not, then we who are reasonable and mature will expect to see a compromise by the Democrats in the form of a bill with a diminution in ambition and scope.

If some states feel it is necessary to cover families above that level, why not ask those state governments to pick up the tab for that? Then the federal money could continue to be focused on the poorest families.

The 35 billion needed to cover a further 3.4 million children is funded through an increase in the price of cigarettes. If you don’t smoke (like me, this year I swear) why are you fretting so? If you do, come on, cough it up for the kids.

First of all, what is true or not true about this family’s finances is not at all clear to any of us, I don’t think- I’m quite sure that there are distortions and inaccuracies all around (I’ve seen three or four different explanations for how the children’s tuition is being paid, for example, and they can’t all be correct). But my point remains that this one family should not be the focus of the debate.

If anything good can come of this, then perhaps it will springboard to a discussion about the general eligibility requirements, so that people can actually have informed opinions about that. And perhaps there will be some clarity as to why the Democrats are apparently asserting that kids like this one will lose their coverage under Bush’s planned $5 billion expansion of the SCHIP budget. I really can’t find the answers to that, other than that some kids currently enrolled in some states may lose their coverage because of changes in the eligibility guidelines- which I presume to mean that some states have already gone beyond the 200% over poverty level, or they’re using more ‘income set asides’ in the criteria (I can’t think of any other explanation but if anyone has information to the contrary, please post).

If some states feel it is necessary to cover families above that level, why not ask those state governments to pick up the tab for that? Then the federal money could continue to be focused on the poorest families.

The thing about the republican party is the support it attracts- stalkers and liars. Nothing Malkin has reported is true. The kid attends his fancy school on a scholarship, his sister is in a special school since the accident, the family earns $40,000 a year. The house they live in may or may not be worth $400,000, but when they bought it the local price was $50,000.

Knowing what we know about the Limbaugh’s, Hannitys, Coulters and Malkins of the right, the dems were wrong to put this kid in front of the cameras.

And no, Rudi- I don’t think it was OK for Bush to use the snowflake babies in that way either (though it would have been fair enough IMO to bring up that these children actually exist, since many people seem to not even realize that human embryos are sometimes used to make actual human babies).

And while I was not on the liberal ‘side’ of the Terri Schiavo issue, I didn’t approve of the demagoguing in that case either.

I wish we could get away from this kind of politics, but in my view the only way that could begin to happen would be for people to take their own ‘side’ to task for it, not to pit one party’s bloggers and pundits against the other to expose who is worse.

Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.

The “lad” referenced in the Army-McCarthy Hearings transcript was 33-year old attorney, Fred Fisher. Graeme Frost is a 12-year old child. I know that McCarthyism is a go-to trope of the Left, but how but resurrecting a more germane bogeyman, e.g., Herbert Hoover and the Joads.