An interesting topic that I hope creates some good debate.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/09/14/get_childrens_health_bill_passed/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.htmlhttp://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709270353
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.htmlhttp://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709270353
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709270353
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
When were talking about Hilary's universal healthcare plan, I first thought it was an outrageous idea, that would also never work, but I later decided that even if her particular plan might not work, the idea is right. For Americans to have the full oppurtunity to succeed in a capitalist society like ours, they need two essential things, health security and a proper education. I think a plan to secure extremely poor kids' health is even more essential than universal health care because it has a greater chance of happening first of all compared to Hilary's plan, and because children cannot support themselves yet, while adults have a better chance of working their way to a salary that would pay for their own healthcare, young children are much less aware of their situation and how protected they are. I dont know what else to really write about for this topic yet, and i still don't fully understand it, so I look forward to other people's responses so i can learn more about what this bill means.
Well, when I first read through the first article, really the only thing I could think of was “Of course Bush is going to veto this bill. God forbid we help poor kids. On the other hand, how about some more money towards the war?” Really, though, it’s the war that makes so many bills like this seem sadly impossible. When one thinks about it, the passing of this bill would be a big step towards better healthcare for all, perhaps even towards universal health care. But with so much money being poured into the military and the US so deeply in debt, it’s hard even for the most hopeful of us to think that such a step may be taken at this time. When one thinks about it, regardless of one’s political alignment, that’s a bit scary, huh?
As I am generally inclined to support all bills endorsing more healthcare for those in need, I would have loved for this bill to have been passed, but Bush, of course, went ahead and did veto it, didn’t he? Nonetheless, I doubt this is a plan that will be thrown to the wayside. After all, it's a pretty good campaign tool.
On a more random note, the fact that the money would be derived from a tax on cigarettes is sort of funny. There are a few things one can say about that. One can argue that it's a bit unfair to prey on addicts, but on the other hand maybe that will encourage them not to smoke so much (ha!). Well, we all know what happens when America's tobacco gets messed with...
Also I just want to state the obvious and put it out there... I think that the main reason Bush wont pass this bill is because he is convinced that if he passes this bill, universal healthcare is inevitable
I think its interesting how this ties in with something that Doc Roc said. When England needed money, they stuck it to the poor. The poor always get the short end of the stick because theyre low on the priority list. The middle class are of course very important because they are consumers and boost the economy. The wealthy and aristocrats are important because of their wealth and status.
This was even mentioned when they listed Bush's priorities: war in iraq, then the poor children;s health.
If sticking it to the poor caused a revolution and our countries independence, how can we learn from it in regards to this situation?
Phoebe, that is a little ironic that the money would be from tax on cigarettes..hopefully it would discourage smokers.
But then again,
1: "I'm so glad poor children have health care! Where are they getting th emoney from?"
2: "Smokers."
3: "Oh. Huh."
Ironic?
I think that would make a great poitical cartoon.
Wow, Angela, what a great connection! You're right. Benighting the poor rarely turns out well. We're in so deep with this war, though, it's hard not to put it at top priority (though personally, I wish the world in general would put a little less value on war a little more on culture). As for the smoking comment, yeah, that would make a great political cartoon. You're an artists! Go make it!
I am very much in favor for this law , and I see no logical reason for not passing it. It is very important for our society to provide health care for the poor children as since children cannot tend for themselves if help is not extended, their cases will be hopeless. It does not surprise me, however, that Bush is resistant to helping the poor. I think this brings about a lesson. Sometimes we focus to much on the international scale and forget to turn our thoughts inwards, into helping our own nation. I certainly think that we can sacrifice some money going to Iraq and use it towards a cause that will benefit our children. Also I like the cigarette tax. Ever an advocate of cleaner air and healthier habits, I hope that perhaps this tax will get people to stop smoking. Also it's ironic almost to a comical level that people buying a pack of cigarettes and thus harming their health are paying for the health care of others. Clever idea!Kudos!
I am so upset that Bush vetoed the bill giving health care to underprivileged kids. It says that only 9% of the peole who dont have health care are children under 18. That means it wouldnt cost that much money to provide health care for 9% of the people who dont have it yet. It makes absolutely no sense that Bush is spending 500 billion dolars for a war that is not progressing. He doesnt even have a legitimate justification for the u being in iraq. Bush says that he thinks his veto will hold. I hope that it doesnt because it would be horrible that underprivileged kids wont be able to get the health care that they need. One time, I read a story in a chicken noodle soup book about death and dying. It was about this poor kid who couldnt afford the treatment for his leukemia and his sister had to watch him slowly die because she couldnt do anything to help him. AFter i read that story, i felt that if underprivileged kids had health care as well, tragic stories like the one i read wouldnt happen anymore. I really hope congress passes this bill.
--Nina Kim
Angela, i love your comment on how the money for the health care would be provided for by the tax on cigarretes. That WOULD make a great political cartoon. you should make it :)
--Nina Kim
My initial thought was the fact that our budget has more focus on the war than it does on health care. Bush prefers to spend more money on something that does lose lives rather something that will save lives. what bothers me the most is the fact that the war at this point is pointless. I am all for this bill.
The SCHIP plan to provide for healthcare for the poor is really good idea. Extending the plan to provide for families in the $60,000-$80,000 income range is also necessary. Even though families in this income range are considered solidly middle class, they are stretched to the limit, particularly if they are trying to pay for their children’s education and if they are living in a city with a higher cost of living. As with all government programs, the question is where are we going to get the money to pay, but with the SCHIP plan the answer is clear. I truly believe that people should be taking care of their own health, and by smoking, they are negatively impacting their health. Our resources, as a society, will be burdened with their costly health issues caused by their poor choice of smoking, so this is a way for them to pay back the debt that their smoking related problems will cost us.
I also found it interesting that the there were portions of the bill which were to limit the amounts of cuts for physician reimbursement from Medicare and other health insurers. Although this plan was ultimately opposed, almost half of those voting were still in favor. I don’t understand why Congress is continually trying to cut physician reimbursement when we need them to have an incentive to take care of children and also the rest of us. It seems to me that the problem lies not with the physicians who provide the care, but rather with the insurance companies who stand to profit.
I liked Allison's idea of having the smokers "pay back the debt that their smoking related problems will cost us", this is a really creative way of dealing with this problem. There are 440,000 deaths per year due to cigarettes and now they will have to think twice before they decide to do so and if they decide to do so they will pitch in with this tax to some of the caost that cause.
http://s237.photobucket.com/albums/ff58/angelarnavarro/?action=view¤t=marlboro_ultra_lightscopy.jpg
oh photoshop....
ok jk
i dont think the above link works...
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff58/angelarnavarro/marlboro_ultra_lightscopy.jpg
the plan to the untrained eye looks great - health care for children financed by smokers (whom an increasing number of americans hate). When one takes a closer look however, there are some aspects of the bill that are troubling. First and formost in my opinion is the source of the money to finance the bill - tobacco. While its easy to say that its a good way to discourage the use of a deadly money maker while getting the necesary funds, its not exactly just to get the money soley from tobacco sales. The increased cost on tobabbo could massively decrease sales of cigarettes and criple the tobacco industry (which although hated like smokers, is a big part of the economy). Bisides, why is it anymore just to take money from smokers than from alcoholics. Alcohol is responsible for a vast amount of deaths from drunk driving. So why should part of the tax be put on alcohol. However, while its a shame that we have to take such measures to finance a bill with a war going on, it is a good idea to take the money from taxes on things that are unnecesary for suvival.
in responce to ninas comment, you're right, its a shame that health care isn't going to these kids who are the future of our nation. there are too many stories of medical tragedy due to finacial hardship and the first logical place to go to end these stories is the kids.
I find it very strange that our president doesnt care to spend money to help out kids. He says that it would be the government taking over health care, well so what. At least there wont be thousands of kids dying. Bush really needs to think that sometimes the government getting involved to save people is better than the government getting involved in something that kills many (see the Iraq War).
Then Perino said that Bush wants to do somethign liek this, well the money he's getting for it is a great source. Taxing tobacco is better than taxing workng class or even rich people. Tobacco is killign a lot of people, and maybe the tax will end up making 100 people buy 1 less pack a day and save lives in the future. To me, bush doesnt want anything like this at all, something i dont understand.
I definately think this is a great bill and should be passed with flying colors.
-Nick Berman
So basically when I read these articles, my mind went straight back to Hilary's heath care plan. I think that with Bush vetoing this bill, it is clear that he himself is against universal heath care program and in fact is more concerned with keeping money flowing out to the war in Iraq and other things. Instead of helping the uninsured people in our country by putting a larger tax on cigarettes, which are unhealthy and cause cancer, he is putting money towards the war. I think that if this plan passed, it would've been a step forward to universal health care and it scares Bush to think of supporting his entire country and putting private insurance companies out of business. Putting these insurance companies out of business would be bad; however, I think it is worse to have people everyday who aren't poor or rich enough.
Claire Soley
Angela,
I completely agree with your comment about England and how it reflects this situation today. I don't understand how we haven't learned from the past when we agitate the poor, they revolt and it's for completely understandable reasons. I think that not passing this bill is setting us back once again, throwing us further into a war that most think we should be getting out of, and not supporting our fellow Americans at home. If Bush doesn't realize that helping poor children is helping our country and putting us further into Iraq is hurting our country, then he is truely one of the biggest idiots around.
-claire soley
haha Claire, I love your comment, and Angela, that picture was awesome. I don't agree with you Harry, I think that the cigarettes is a great source to get the money.
I really hope Congress succeeds in overriding Bush's veto. I think that even if the bill does not pass, it will return to the Congress shortly. The issue of healthcare has been the topic of discussion lately not only with this bill, but also with Hilary Clinton's plan to universal healthcare. I am sure that the issue of guaranteeing health insurance to poor children will come up again in the term of our next president, whoever he/she may be.
Harry-
In response to your idea about the taxing of tobacco being an unjust way of raising money, i completely disagree with this. I believe that is much better than taxing working class people or richer people. At least the taxing of cigarettes goes toward raising the prices of a huge killer. You say that the tobacco inustry will crumble; well there's 3 problems i have with this:
1) a 70 cent tax would most likely not drive away a lot of tobacco buyers, maybe cut down their purchases a little, but would this be so bad
2) If the tobacco industry did crumble because of a 70 cent extra tax, would this be so bad. It would just save a lot more people's lives
3) Shoudl this tax be enforced, th tobacco companies would most likely subsidize this product. Meaningm they would artificially keep the price of tobacco low by lowering the original price of the tobacco by, let's say, 50 cents, so the increase is not so severe. I mean its not like these companies cant afford it.
Everytime i think of sales of tobacco, i think of the movie Thank you for smoking, and how horrible the business is. For those of you who disagree with the tax on cigarettes, please see that movie. I honestly beliveve that the tax on tobacco would be one of the better taxes that is a reasonable idea (for example it's not like a tax on the president's budget is likely).
I think it all makes sense and many of the quotes from the first article are correct.
Lian, I'm glad you liked it. I was debating what I should put on the box, but it gave me a chance to use my new photoshop skills from yearbook.
However ironic, I think its actually a good idea to get the tax from cigarettes. If it discourages a few people from smoking up a storm, it works. Plus, the money will hopefully help some problems caused by secondhand smoke.
I agree with Lian that I think the bill will be passed once it goes back to congress, and I truely believe that it will be beneficial to America as a whole, as well as its image abroad. I only hope there there is enough bipartisan support to pass the health support bill.
Also, i find that Bush vetoing this bill is somewhat ironic. HE complains that the government shouldn't be getign so involved, and yes i like checks and balances; however, it is ironic that he vetoes a bill that is "getting to involved" when the act of vetoing is getting very involved itself. I really don't understand Bush. He doesn't ant to get involved so he overrules Congress.
I think that President Bush made the wrong decision in vetoing the S-CHIP program. This program could help the children whom are uninsured. Instead he chose to put more money to buy resources for the unpopular war in Iraq. Leaving still about 47 percent of all americans lacking in health insurance, and with the S-CHIP program I believe that percentage can be lowered. I think that although we are fighting this war present day, this is a war overseas, and we still have problems right here in the United States. If we are unable to help the people in the United States, how are we suppposed to help people in other countries? I think that this bill will eventually be reviewed again, and will be passed, the only question is what will President Bush's reaction be?
I agree with Claire in that I do believe that Bush is scared of the bill putting private insurance companies out of buisness. But i think that his main priority is the war. If anything were to take money away from the war/resources for the war, Bush would definetly have a problem with that.
Good point Molly. Hopefully this bill will get passed, and if it does, I wonder what Bush's reaction will be. Will he pretend that he's glad it was passed, will he praise it? Or will his intial unsupport for the bill become apparent?
Reading all four articles, I am struck by some of the arguments made in particular by the third and final article. It seems to me that he is playing the part of the critic biased towards the Bush campaign, whereas the second article was leaning towards the senate decision, and the first was primarily informational. He made some very silly arguments here, that really seem ridiculous when actually thought about-- first, that because families are above the poverty line, they can therefore afford healthcare coverage, and we cannot provide it for them. However, just because families are above the poverty line doesn't mean they can afford their own healthcare-- and further, since these are necessarily families with children, providing healthcare for them allows them to better provide for other necessities of children, and to better prioritize education and moral guidance, now that the necessities of living are cared for. Second, he argues that we shouldn't raise the poverty line as the poverty level is dropping, however as we as a people improve, we should set the bar ever higher for what constitutes "too low", and thus we SHOULD raise the poverty line as poverty levels drop. This is compounded by the huge cost of living increase over the past few years, which has been largely unaccounted for in the poverty line evaluation itself (The price of groceries alone has risen 12% over the past year, well beyond the federal official "inflation" mark). In addition, he claims that it will make a family less prudent with safety, however this is a completely ridiculous argument, since first, the family still has to pay a premium, which for a poverty stricken family is very difficult, but second, it implies that through that reasoning we should never raise the level of the poor, since then they would become less frugal with there money. In fact, by Mr. Dickens' reasoning, we might as well bring everyone below the poverty line, so every single penny will count and people wil no longer be wasteful. Clearly this logic is flawed as it claims that we need to press people into necessity for them to act reasonably (1984 anyone?), and on top of all of that, people have more than simply economic reasons for being careful with their children especially. As cliche as it is, parents can't really put a price on a child's life, and since the threat to their life is too great by acting dangerously, the parent wouldn't act so. In essence, this healthcare will function not as training wheels, as Mr. Dickens suggests, but as a safety net below a tightrope walker- he still is just as careful not to fall, but when he inevitably does, he can still get back up. The primary problem with his case is that it deals solely with efficiency, not taking into account that people have an undefinable value in society and cannot be justly turned into a statistic. I think that overall, the fact that more money is spent in Iraq on a weekly basis at this point seals the deal for me- If the war is as limitless as it currently appears, why not just take a week off the very end (and who knows when that will be), and provide for more protection of life back home, where the impacts are felt just as heavily.
P.S. I am sorry that I am writing this case so late in the week, and that noone will have a fair chance to respond. I just got back from a hotel where I have had no access to internet for the entire weekend, something I completely did not foresee.
Harry, to your argument that it isn't fair to place payment solely on the tobacco business; First, I completely agree. Alcohol should definitely be punished as well. It simply makes sense that these highly addictive compounds be disincentivized while providing care for those that need it. However, there are a few things that we need to consider; First, alcohol is not solely used for damaging purposes, although it is overwhelmingly. What kind of alcohol we tax would become a key issue-- do we tax hospital rubbing alcohol, which is used to treat those healthcare recievers? do we tax any alcohol that is strong and pure enough that it could be helpful to a person against infection, even if it usually isn't? since there isn't really a point at which to stop while consdering this. Thus I think that the idea of taxing alcohol as well is a good one, it just needs to perhaps be flushed out more before it can be fully discussed. As to why tax them at all, it goes a long way to invalidate bush's argument of it being too expensive- It is simply showing the underlying influence of the tobacco lobby
(Which immediately brings to mind "Thank you for smoking"), since it is clearly they who will feel the brunt of the cost, not the government budget. Therefore, since the congress provides for a way to fund the bill internal to the bill itself, the president has no real reason to claim that it is too expensive, and the fact that it is simply logical prevails.
Obviously this bill sounds perfectly logical. Who would seriously be against healthcare for poor children? The problem is that none of us really have any idea how much money we have to spend. Obviously taxing would raise money and a cigarrette tax would be great becuase it might discourage some people from smoking, but everybody hates paying taxes. I'm pretty sure that the average non-evil person would say that health care for poor children is very important, but when they have to pay a tax, it all of a sudden doesn't look so good. It's really unfortunate that we have wasted so much money failing to police the world when our country has tons of our own problems because a bill like this should never have to be vetoed
I agree with Molly that Bush's main priority is the war. He's too stubborn or stupid to admit that this whole iraq thing was wrong in the first place. At this point i think he's just having trouble admitting defeat. surrendering is just not an option with him. He's either going to solve the conflict before his presidency is up so that some idiots in this country won't think he might be the worst president of all time, or he's going to pass this trouble on to the next president so he never technically lost the war. He's just going to keep our troops there, telling everybody they're there for a reason so that he doesn't take the blame that he deserves for bills like this not being able to be passed
Post a Comment