Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

Part of his compassionate conservative, "All Children Left Behind" program.

 

Good for President Bush!

That bill was a Trojan Horse and was written so broadly as to include many people who aren't poor and aren't children. One of the problems with this bill is that it defined "children" as anyone up to 25 years old.

And then, of course, there were all of the riders attached to it that deserved to be vetoed.

Everybody cares about the wellbeing of children, but as much as we may want to see them get help, it just isn't the role of the government to do it.

 

From the article linked

So what Bush really did was veto a tax increase that would have more than doubled the cigarette tax.

Go Bush Go!!! One of the few things he has done I approve of. (Ok, there have probably been more than a few, I just can't seem to remember them.)

 

1. Why do the Dems and some Repubs, who constantly complain about a bloated budget, want to add to it by increasing spending?

2. In this country, everyone has access to healthcare. Ability to pay is not an issue. A hospital cannot deny you healthcare based on your ability to pay.

3. Many uninsured are uninsured by their own choice. They will take it if it is free to them, but do not want to adjust their own budget priority. I have paid my own health insurance for years, and I make well below the limits established by this bill.

4. This bill highlights the problem with partial government healthcare. If the government makes healthcare available, it will entice employers and individuals to let the government pay for healthcare rather than paying for it themselves.
Why should an employer pay for healthcare when the government will? Or why should the individual? And healthcare will not get cheaper when the government takes it on. The cost will simply be hidden in less services available, higher taxes, and longer wait times.

It would be inaccurate, it seems, to position this as "Bush against the poor children." The poor children are already covered. This is an expansion of that to children who don't fit the "poor" category, as I understand it.

 

This is actually an acceptable tax increase, IMO. It is a use tax, so only those who buy cigarettes are taxed. It also serves as a disincentive to smoke, which would improve health overall and lower health costs.

The problem is that there is no guarantee that this was a zero-sum tax ... that the tax revenue raised would cover the cost.

 

I agree with that. But I think that taxes should be use taxes, not income taxes, and I am fine with a tax on cigarettes because 1) it won't affect me, and 2) it may serve as a disincentive to some to quit smoking.

As I said, there is no guarantee that this increase in tax would cover the cost of the program.

 

I am against an increase in tobacco taxes, 'cuz when the tax starts getting people to quit, the gov't will be used to the extra money, and the tax will be moved to another aspect of life, like say, driving trucks & such.

 

One is either for tax increases and increase in government size or a decrease in taxes and limited government. Picking and choosing tax increases to meet a personal agenda shows a lack of insight into a political philosophy. A true leader stays the course regardless of the consequences. It reminds me of Clinton basing his decisions on what was popular at the time, unlike Reagan who focused on a goal and went straight to it.

 

Well deserved veto.

It's a bad bill.

Too expensive and covers the wrong people in the wrong way.

 

A tax increase is still a tax increase Larry

Every dollar the government gets its hands on results in less personal liberty for its citizens.

Now I know living in NC I probably am closer to the tobacco farmers than many of you, but for every pack of cigarettes sold the tobacco farmer gets about 5 cents. The taxes on that same pack include 39 cents in federal taxes, then state taxes which can range from 17 cents in Missouri to $2.575 in New Jersey. Then you have local taxes which can add anywhere from 1 cent in Alabama to $1.50 in NYC. So you have our collective governments taking up to $3.00 in profit from every pack and the farmer who actually grows the stuff gets a nickel. Am I the only one who thinks that is backwards?

Even without the tax this is a bad bill that is really just an interim step to centralized government health care.

Good Veto, use it more often please.

 

But it's a use tax, not an income tax. And it is a voluntary tax. No one has to pay it. You pay it only if you choose to.

As for what the farmers get out of it, I am not sure how that is relevant to this discussion. It is not the governments job to help tobacco farmers make money (which I would assume you agree with.) Tobacco farmers are a part of the market and they decide how much to sell their product for in conjunction with what the producers will buy it for. If they want to make more than five cents a pack, then they need to raise their prices. I see that just as every other business. If you want to make more, then charge more, but realize that you might be pricing some people out of your product. So you have to balance whether charging enough to make seven cents a pack will outweigh the business you will lose. In any case, that's a market issue, not a tax issue.

As for taxes, I am for getting rid of income taxes and having a fair tax based on consumption.

You can't have a government without taxes, but the tax system needs to be fair to all. Someone should not have to pay more simply because they make more. Let them pay more because they use more.

I think this is a bad bill, and should have been vetoed and should be upheld. But the tax is the right kind of tax, as far as taxes go.

 

Again, you are either for tax increases and bigger government or you are not.

Subdividing and making excuses for tax increases that either do not affect you, people being taxed on an activity you do not approve of is not justification for a tax increase. There is no consistancy or logic to that type of thinking. It is just like "read my lips, no new taxes."

Whether you agree with it or not, there are states whose economies rely on tobacco, such as NC and KY.

 

If this is so, how do you propose to pay for Homeland Security, or defense (forget the Iraq War for the sake of this discussion and think about WWII)? The government has to get its hands on some dollars in order to carry out its constitutional duties. So I wonder if you have perhaps overstated your case.

Without the government getting its hands on dollars, it cannot defend any liberty for its citizens.

 

Again, I am for a use tax of some sort, a tax on consumption, not a tax on income. For some, I am sure that would be a tax increase and for others a tax decrease. Whether or not it would be bigger government, I am not sure. I imagine it would simply shift government in some way. Overall, I am for less taxes and a smaller government. I would cut out a whole bunch of stuff.

It's also a misunderstanding of what I said to some degree. I am not for a tax increase. I am for a different kind of tax system. My point was, that if we are going to have a tax increase on something, then we should make on something less desirable as a disincentive. My response was based on a "If we have to have it ..." Ideally, I would prefer something totally different.

Which is irrelevant to the argument, isn't it?

 

That's what one of the +'s of groups like the Black Panthers should be here for!

 

50 million Americans can't afford health insurance. I take it that does not include you. It included a 50 year friend of mine who died at Christmas and my brother who pastored a poor church that couldn't afford much of a salary let alone medical insurance. So you're saying you support an unjust war that will end up costing $1.7T over providing health insurance for the children? That's your call not mine.

 

Bush doesn't. He wants them to get sick and die.