The Energon Pub

lkavadas wrote:
I'm sorry, but I won't throw one group of citizens under the bus for another. If the funds came from somewhere else like a trimmed budget then I wouldn't have issues.

Your government could divert some funds from the money-hole that is the Iraq War. That would save the lives of children on two continents.

Except National Defense is a function of the Federal Government, child care is not. It's not whether giving kids free health insurance is a good idea, it's whether it's the federal government's business to do so in a Costitutionally limited Republic like the US.

Professor Smooth wrote:

lkavadas wrote:
I'm sorry, but I won't throw one group of citizens under the bus for another. If the funds came from somewhere else like a trimmed budget then I wouldn't have issues.

Your government could divert some funds from the money-hole that is the Iraq War. That would save the lives of children on two continents.

I have two brothers and a sister that have all served in Iraq. The first went over 6 months after Baghdad's occupation and they put his Jarhead's right in the heart of the Sunni Triangle in Al-Ramadi. My other brother went over to the same spot a year later. He couldn't believe the difference. He told me that it was nothing like the media have portrayed it. This is a common theme in those who have served overseas. Ask many who have served overseas and they will tell you that we ARE making a difference over there. The conditions are better now than they were before. It is slow, but the improvements are there.
In addition, this war is giving the military an opportunity to do something that had been prevented for the last couple administrations: they are modernizing. "Modernizing? What do you mean? We have the most modern military in the world!" Not really. Small pockets of the military have been modernized. I can tell you as a matter of fact that half of the military is still using equipment from the Korean War. The Navy is using ships from World War 2; the exteriors have been retrofitted, yes, but the engines are WW2 issue. This conflict has brought to light the difficulty that our military has had getting our men the best equipment, especially since nation defense has been cut so many times since 1992. Hopefully the new upgrade will be complete by 2022 as expected, but you never know.
Karl Marx wrote that "the people are essentially incapable for providing for themselves" and that "the government, through a strong socialist dictatorship, would be more than capable of providing everything the people need." I don't want the government going that far. Socialized medicine is one of Marx's foremost tenets. We've already removed a lot of responsibility from the parents for raising their kids. Do we really want to remove more of it? Is it entitlement? Or is it the parent's responsiblity? If the parents cannot work, Medicaid is available to cover their kids. It's their responsbility to handle those affairs. Providing it for them will just allow them to shirk more of what really is their job: raising their kids and providing for them.

Professor Smooth wrote:

lkavadas wrote:
I'm sorry, but I won't throw one group of citizens under the bus for another. If the funds came from somewhere else like a trimmed budget then I wouldn't have issues.

Your government could divert some funds from the money-hole that is the Iraq War. That would save the lives of children on two continents.

That's a lovely fantasy but that is not how this bill funds itself. If they reproposed this same legislation with an amended funding portion to reflect what you described I'd be fine with it. Until that happens, Mr. Bush, veto the hell out of this bill.

At any rate I'm still against the very idea of this bill anyways. This is not the role of our federal government and should be considered well beyond their umbrella of responsibilities as laid forth in the constitution. Not that matters, "self help" types like me are dinosaurs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/pl_nm/usa_health_kids_veto_dc_6

Bush vetoes popular bill on kids' health care

By Caren Bohan
Wed Oct 3, 3:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a measure to expand a popular children's health care program, launching the first in a series of major battles with Democrats over domestic spending.

The legislation had bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress and the veto risks angering many Republicans who fear the issue could hurt their party in the 2008 elections.

Democrats called the veto "cruel" and "heartless." The measure would have provided an extra $35 billion over five years for a health program for low-income children. Cigarette taxes would have been raised to fund the expansion from the current $25 billion level.

Supporters of the bill said the extra money would have helped provide health coverage for 10 million children.

While defending his veto, Bush offered to negotiate with Democrats on the program's funding. He had initially proposed a $5 billion increase in funding over five years, a rise that critics said would be insufficient to cover the children currently in the program because of rising health care costs.

"If they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poorer children, I'm more than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do so," Bush told a business forum in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

He said the bill's funding level would have expanded the health program beyond its original intent and taken a step toward government-run health care.

"The policies of the government ought to be to help people find private insurance, not federal coverage," Bush said.

"I happen to believe that what you're seeing when you expand eligibility for federal programs is the desire by some in Washington, D.C. to federalize health care. I don't think that's good for the country," he added.

Democrats vowed to try to override the veto and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the veto showed Bush had "turned his back on America's children."

"Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," added Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat. "Millions of American children and their families won't forget that they are on the bottom of the president's priority list."

The Senate overwhelmingly backed the health legislation. But, the margin of support in the House of Representatives fell short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a presidential veto.

House Democratic leaders plan to put off the override vote until October 18, giving supporters time to persuade more Republicans to switch their votes. The Democratic Party plans television ads attacking Republicans over Bush's veto.

Rep. Jim McCrery, a Louisiana Republican, said the delay was a "cynical" effort by Democrats to "politicize" the issue.

But Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who helped negotiate the bipartisan legislation, plan to use the time to contact House Republicans in an effort to win a veto override.

Bush's Republican supporters say they are confident they have the votes in the House to prevent an override.

The veto came as a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed more than seven in 10 Americans supported the $35 billion increase proposed under the bill. By contrast, the same poll showed many wanted to see a reduction in Bush's spending proposal for the Iraq war.

Bush, with just under 16 months left in office, has also threatened to veto a series of annual funding bills to keep domestic spending within his proposed limit of $933 billion.

The president is aiming to cast Democrats as fiscally irresponsible as he tries to shore up support from conservatives, many of whom are angry at Bush for allowing big spending increases during his first six years in office.

The rejection of the health bill marks the fourth veto for Bush since he took office in 2001. He twice rejected legislation on stem cell research and also vetoed an Iraq war supplemental spending bill because it included timelines for withdrawing troops.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let the world of political posturing BEGIN

lkavadas wrote:On top of that this bill will cripple the tobacco industry and put all cigar manufacturers and retailers out of business. It includes a 1000% tax increase on cigars, widely considered luxury items.

So Big Tobacco will take a major hit, and children will get free health care?

Oh, man, if I couldn't get my daily dose of second-hand smoke, AND my children could go to the hospital without me losing an arm and a leg, that would be SOOOO HORRIBLE!!

Shadowman wrote:

lkavadas wrote:On top of that this bill will cripple the tobacco industry and put all cigar manufacturers and retailers out of business. It includes a 1000% tax increase on cigars, widely considered luxury items.

So Big Tobacco will take a major hit, and children will get free health care?

Oh, man, if I couldn't get my daily dose of second-hand smoke, AND my children could go to the hospital without me losing an arm and a leg, that would be SOOOO HORRIBLE!!

I like to think of it as a legitimate business that provides products and jobs to the economy is being targeted by government fat-cats and socialists/hippies, while the US health care industry is brought one step closer to being turned into welfare. Yes, that is horrible.

Sorry to butt in, but after reading all this I felt the need to say something since I would be one of those people that that bill could potentially help and conversely harm at the same time. And this is just my opinion on the matter, I hope it doesnt offend anyone, if it does at least let me know how and why so I can try to figure out a way to word it better.
I'm female, I smoke(which does not affect my insurance rate), I have health insurance(supposedly one of the better plans offered in the state I'm in), I work making about 9 dollars an hour, my husband makes close to 8 an hour. Both of us work full time.
Each week half of my check is taken out on health insurance, for me and him(we have no children but it would be close to 75% of my check if we did). Each month over two hundred dollars goes to pay car insurance(the minimum we can get) which is required if you drive, and to get to work to pay the bills you must drive. We pay the lowest insurance rate since we have both taken defensive driving courses and have no accidents on our record. We have a 300 dollar a month car payment(the lowest we could manage), since we crunched the numbers and figured out a car payment on a new car would be cheaper than the continuous repair bills on a used car. Add 175 a month for utility bills(yes we do try and conserve). About 240 dollars is spent a month on fuel to go to and from work(we have compact cars that arent gas hogs). There is our on-line bill which is 30 dollars a month and is the one real luxury(other than cigarettes) we allow ourselves(no cable, satalitte, cell phone, ipod). The grocery bill would tally up to about 400 dollars a month(and yes, I use the heck out of coupons to cut it down that low). Also to be considered are all the other, little, things that add up in the end: clothes, socks, underwear, new tires(or used as is more often the case), shoes, the things that wear out eventually and usually at the most inconvient times.
This ideally leaves us with about 150 a month saved. Which as you can imagine doesnt work about 75% of the time.
Now, this "one of the best plans in the state" insurance of mine. We shouldnt have to worry about health care with it, right.
Wrong! Dead wrong! The dental plan, the only thing it covers is 50 dollars off of x-rays. Got a cavity, need a crown, root canal, a tooth pulled? You pay full price(which for just a cavity is 400 dollars). Laser eye surgery is considered cosmetic and therefore not covered. Eye exams are covered, prescription contacts or glasses are not. Oh, and the health insurance itself. They will cover one physical a year plus visits for illness up to a cost of 1000 dollars after that you are on your own for the most part they only cover 25% of cost after that. So you'd better pray that theres nothing really wrong with you cause if there is you're gonna be the one footing the bill. Prescriptions, did you know acid reflux medication is considered non-essential...as well as the medications that helps you stop smoking.
Seriously they have some screwed up ideas about whats essential and whats not. We even had to have an argument with them because they didnt want to cover an antibiotic the doctor presribed for me because pennicillin was the cheaper alternitive(I'm deathly allergic to pennicillin and sulfa drugs).
This is a good healthcare plan in my state.
And now the hospitals in the area are starting to demand payment up front for services. They dont want to accept payments, they want it all, right now, thank you very much.

And deadbeats on welfare, whose families have been on welfare for generations not working, popping out about 7 or 8 babies and are [/b]proud of it, they get better health care than me. Crack-hos, who dont give a frack about anything but the crack, popping out babies who will be a burden to society all of their lives, they get better health coverage than me.

They are parasites! And they get all the help, they get the breaks for doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, contributing nothing to society. I may not know a solution to the healthcare issue but I do know these guys are part of the problem, a big part of it.
But people like me, the "little people", who work our tails off, pay the lions share of the taxes but never get noticed by the government because we dont make enough to buy a voice the government will hear. We fight the good fight, do what we're supposed to do, give our all for all our lives. We get next to nothing, and are lucky at the end of our lives to get enough of a social security check to afford dogfood to eat for the month. I'm not such a fool as to have the delusion that it wont happen; I've seen it happen too many times already. I might get lucky, and it not be me. But then again it very well could be. I contribute, I deserve to get to have kids and not have them die of illness a doctor can cure, or die from an injury a doctor could heal. Why should deadbeats get a better chance at it than me?

I mentioned before I was a smoker and here's my opinion on increasing taxes on tobacco products. They are luxury items. Increase the taxes on them. Put them out of the price range of the working class and the middle class and let the rich have them, they can afford[b] to have lung cancer after all. And one of the most popular uses for cigars now is to cut them open and take out the tobacco and load it with pot. Which, while I'd rather deal with a pothead(they're just stupid) than a crack head(they're violent and downright evil), its still illegal. Why should we continue to let things be cheap for them to break the law?
But they arent going to raise taxes on tobacco, they get too much kickback from big tobacco. And we don't want the farmers to suffer, do we? The government pays farmers not to farm and we import all this food from other countries, which makes the farmers who continue to farm lose out to cheaper foreign market....but thats a whole other screwed up issue.

MamaKitty wrote:Sorry to butt in, but after reading all this I felt the need to say something since I would be one of those people that that bill could potentially help and conversely harm at the same time. And this is just my opinion on the matter, I hope it doesnt offend anyone, if it does at least let me know how and why so I can try to figure out a way to word it better.
I'm female, I smoke(which does not affect my insurance rate), I have health insurance(supposedly one of the better plans offered in the state I'm in), I work making about 9 dollars an hour, my husband makes close to 8 an hour. Both of us work full time.
Each week half of my check is taken out on health insurance, for me and him(we have no children but it would be close to 75% of my check if we did). Each month over two hundred dollars goes to pay car insurance(the minimum we can get) which is required if you drive, and to get to work to pay the bills you must drive. We pay the lowest insurance rate since we have both taken defensive driving courses and have no accidents on our record. We have a 300 dollar a month car payment(the lowest we could manage), since we crunched the numbers and figured out a car payment on a new car would be cheaper than the continuous repair bills on a used car. Add 175 a month for utility bills(yes we do try and conserve). About 240 dollars is spent a month on fuel to go to and from work(we have compact cars that arent gas hogs). There is our on-line bill which is 30 dollars a month and is the one real luxury(other than cigarettes) we allow ourselves(no cable, satalitte, cell phone, ipod). The grocery bill would tally up to about 400 dollars a month(and yes, I use the heck out of coupons to cut it down that low). Also to be considered are all the other, little, things that add up in the end: clothes, socks, underwear, new tires(or used as is more often the case), shoes, the things that wear out eventually and usually at the most inconvient times.
This ideally leaves us with about 150 a month saved. Which as you can imagine doesnt work about 75% of the time.
Now, this "one of the best plans in the state" insurance of mine. We shouldnt have to worry about health care with it, right.
Wrong! Dead wrong! The dental plan, the only thing it covers is 50 dollars off of x-rays. Got a cavity, need a crown, root canal, a tooth pulled? You pay full price(which for just a cavity is 400 dollars). Laser eye surgery is considered cosmetic and therefore not covered. Eye exams are covered, prescription contacts or glasses are not. Oh, and the health insurance itself. They will cover one physical a year plus visits for illness up to a cost of 1000 dollars after that you are on your own for the most part they only cover 25% of cost after that. So you'd better pray that theres nothing really wrong with you cause if there is you're gonna be the one footing the bill. Prescriptions, did you know acid reflux medication is considered non-essential...as well as the medications that helps you stop smoking.
Seriously they have some screwed up ideas about whats essential and whats not. We even had to have an argument with them because they didnt want to cover an antibiotic the doctor presribed for me because pennicillin was the cheaper alternitive(I'm deathly allergic to pennicillin and sulfa drugs).
This is a good healthcare plan in my state.
And now the hospitals in the area are starting to demand payment up front for services. They dont want to accept payments, they want it all, right now, thank you very much.

And deadbeats on welfare, whose families have been on welfare for generations not working, popping out about 7 or 8 babies and are [/b]proud of it, they get better health care than me. Crack-hos, who dont give a frack about anything but the crack, popping out babies who will be a burden to society all of their lives, they get better health coverage than me.

They are parasites! And they get all the help, they get the breaks for doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, contributing nothing to society. I may not know a solution to the healthcare issue but I do know these guys are part of the problem, a big part of it.
But people like me, the "little people", who work our tails off, pay the lions share of the taxes but never get noticed by the government because we dont make enough to buy a voice the government will hear. We fight the good fight, do what we're supposed to do, give our all for all our lives. We get next to nothing, and are lucky at the end of our lives to get enough of a social security check to afford dogfood to eat for the month. I'm not such a fool as to have the delusion that it wont happen; I've seen it happen too many times already. I might get lucky, and it not be me. But then again it very well could be. I contribute, I deserve to get to have kids and not have them die of illness a doctor can cure, or die from an injury a doctor could heal. Why should deadbeats get a better chance at it than me?

I mentioned before I was a smoker and here's my opinion on increasing taxes on tobacco products. They are luxury items. Increase the taxes on them. Put them out of the price range of the working class and the middle class and let the rich have them, they can afford[b] to have lung cancer after all. And one of the most popular uses for cigars now is to cut them open and take out the tobacco and load it with pot. Which, while I'd rather deal with a pothead(they're just stupid) than a crack head(they're violent and downright evil), its still illegal. Why should we continue to let things be cheap for them to break the law?
But they arent going to raise taxes on tobacco, they get too much kickback from big tobacco. And we don't want the farmers to suffer, do we? The government pays farmers not to farm and we import all this food from other countries, which makes the farmers who continue to farm lose out to cheaper foreign market....but thats a whole other screwed up issue.

First thin I have to say is that I salute you. First off, you're a female on a fanboy-heavy site which takes guts...LOL Second, you are trying to make your living the right way. I admire you for that. My wife is supporting me while I finish my degree. Now I admit she's making more than the two of you, but living on one income is tough and we can relate. While she finished her degree, I supported her by working 70-100 hours a week at $10 an hour. It does get better...but one other thing that really wasn't mentioned in this article. The tobacco tax wasn't the only tax increase to fund this bill: there was also going to be a tax increase on households with a combined annual income of $75,000 or more. So, not only would you and your husband pay through tobacco taxes, you would also end up paying in a tax hike too. I have to say that I'm glad they vetoed it. If Bush is really willing to negotiate on how to fund it, then good for everyone. To stay within the budget is good. And as for $700 million for Iraq's war...we're over there. There's nothing we can do about it now. So the LEAST we can do is provide the dollars to protect our guys the best that we can. After all, they are the defenders of our country...and apparently the spine of the United Nations.

75k?

Honey, combined we barely break 40k.
Gods thats almost double what we make, I'd love to know what it felt like to make that much!

MamaKitty wrote:75k?

Honey, combined we barely break 40k.
Gods thats almost double what we make, I'd love to know what it felt like to make that much!

You're right...I did math before my post and for some reason thought there were 104 weeks in the year (52 two-week pay periods). Blame nursing school...studying about ass, literally, for the last 8 weeks has fried my brain I think. LOL

I say stop smoking if you need more money - but don't think taking a "luxury" stops at cigar. It's easy to tax someone elses favorite thing if you don't do it, but how long till someone decided riding a motorcycle, or sky diving, or boating, or whatever are luxuries that cause injuries and taxes the hell out of them? When the liberties of one is threatened, all are threatened in my book. I don't smoke, and I would fight for the right of someone else to do it.

Lets spend money to discourage people from smoking.

Now lets impose a tax on said cigaretes in hopes of providing funds for health care to "poor" kids.


Now, does anybody see a problem with this logic?

Starscreams bad comedy wrote:Lets spend money to discourage people from smoking.

Now lets impose a tax on said cigaretes in hopes of providing funds for health care to "poor" kids.


Now, does anybody see a problem with this logic?

not the liberal leadership unfortunatly. Of course there's also the theory that this could just be a ploy to raise income taxes later.

Well, we are what you'd consider "little guys", and we work for the military. You'd think frequent deployments, harsh working conditions, and long, long hours would get you a nice fat paycheck, but we're not worth anything to the government. They pretend to care about us, but their actions say otherwise.

That said, we do get healthcare, and I think we DESERVE IT. My husband is one of those guys you've seen busting his ass in 125 degree weather in Iraq, and the least the government can do, since they don't like to pay us very well, is pay for our healthcare, especially when it's their fault when soldiers are hurt overseas. I recently spent four days in the hospital, with an MRI, spinal tap, and lots and lots of bloodwork done. I can only imagine how much it cost. But I'm ok with it, I consider part of our payment for the utter sh*t we put up with from the army.

If Health Care is part of your husbands employment package, then good for you. My wife and I also get insurance from our employers. I don't see how this effects whether Congress should be handing out taxpayer money left and right in order to get votes. I dont think anyone argued that soldiers families shouldn't get health care as part of their benefits.

BTW - Hope you are feeling okay after all you have been through. My sister had simlar tests a while back. They did not look pleasant at all.

Scaleface wrote:If Health Care is part of your husbands employment package, then good for you. My wife and I also get insurance from our employers. I don't see how this effects whether Congress should be handing out taxpayer money left and right in order to get votes. I dont think anyone argued that soldiers families shouldn't get health care as part of their benefits.

BTW - Hope you are feeling okay after all you have been through. My sister had simlar tests a while back. They did not look pleasant at all.

Well, I didn't mean to come across that soldiers didn't deserve their healthcare benefits, or that others don't deserve them. Sorry, I'm kinda on a rant against the army--long, long story!

Yeah, much better here. And believe me, it is a huge relief not to think about the costs. I can imagine that my three trips to the neurologist can't be cheap. I wish everyone had that peace of mind.

Moonbase2 wrote:Well, we are what you'd consider "little guys", and we work for the military. You'd think frequent deployments, harsh working conditions, and long, long hours would get you a nice fat paycheck, but we're not worth anything to the government. They pretend to care about us, but their actions say otherwise.

That said, we do get healthcare, and I think we DESERVE IT. My husband is one of those guys you've seen busting his ass in 125 degree weather in Iraq, and the least the government can do, since they don't like to pay us very well, is pay for our healthcare, especially when it's their fault when soldiers are hurt overseas. I recently spent four days in the hospital, with an MRI, spinal tap, and lots and lots of bloodwork done. I can only imagine how much it cost. But I'm ok with it, I consider part of our payment for the utter sh*t we put up with from the army.

It's people like your husband that make this a great country. On behalf of people everywhere I offer thanks for his dedication. I personally believe that EVERYONE in our military is a hero, and those that support them fit that bill as well. OOO RAH!!