• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Passes 2009 SCHIP Bill

winston53660 said:
In 2000 as a part of the Republican platform Bush promised expanded health care via privatization......How has that worked out?
Click to expand...

How has it NOT worked? Are you going to quote the mythical 40,000,000 or whatever the number is today of people who do not have health care?

By the way, where does that statistic come from? While you are at it, maybe you can explain how Government is a better solution to private managed healthcare and point to programs that Government manages efficiently?
 
obvious Child said:
Where did I say that? I just said the analogy is weak.
Click to expand...

How is the analogy weak? What evidence do you have to claim that second hand smoke in open air is any more dangerous?
 
obvious Child said:
You do realize that a NHC program can allow you to pick from your current doctor or another no?
Click to expand...

That is not really the problem for me.


obvious Child said:
You do realize that stripping out insurance profits can subsantially reduce costs to you for the same medical benefits no? In some ways, NHC can eliminate the middle man in the same fashion that Dell eliminated the middle man.
Click to expand...

It will replace the insurance middleman with the government middleman.

Cost is not always a reason to do something. Quality and time to get service are other considerations.

I leave you with what I think is a nugget of truth most don't think about.

People who use the most common type of insurance. Where you pay a co pay and you are shielded from the true expense of the fees the Dr. charges.

Most people are users of health care and not consumers because they are shielded from price. The only market competition is between doctors and insurance companies. Where as the competition should exist between doctors and doctors.

You rarely ever see a list of services and prices at a doctors office. I have never seen it myself. Since people do not decide on finding the cheaper doctor with the best quality there is no true competition to lower prices.

Health Insurance should be similar to car insurance. For emergencies only.
I checked a while back to see if I could find surgical only policies that used to be marketed about 5-8 years ago but I couldn't find any.

My main point is that if people payed out of pocket for most health care expenses it would start the real price competition and lower overall prices in effect.

In NHC systems time to services rendered is generally a lot longer and in a health care scenario that is bad don't you think?


obvious Child said:
So you're for pacifists refusing to pay taxes because they fund war?
Or companies that pollute to pay for superfund clean ups?
Click to expand...

There always better be a damned good reason to go to war. The evidence must be presented to everyone and there must be a just reason to pursue war.

If a company does not pollute they shouldn't have to pay. If they do pollute they should be required to clean it up at their expense.
 
First off, the entire "shorter lives equals less total medicaid/SS costs" is complete bunk bull****. In fact, it is so completely full of ****, that i cannot believe any libertarian would offer it as an argument premise.

I do not even have to site a source to state that smokers under the age of 50 are much more likely to develop terminal tobacco related illness. You see, its not the old folks who die from TRI that concerns me, its younger generations. For every tax payer who dies of TRI under the age of 52, that directly decreases the total potential tax base, otherwise known as our governments possible income. Yet this is not really what gripes me....

Those under the age of 62, who are not on government aid and do contribute to society might need to have medical care. Is someone going to call foul when i say: under 62 citizens who develop cancer due to TRI, pay taxes and have their own health care increase the overall cost of health care?

Combine the loss of production with the increased cost of medical care, and there is a serious problem. Hell, there are probably lists of people under the age of 62, who receive government medical aid and are being treated for TRI, all while not paying into the system, or producing in society.

Taxes are bad, yes i know this. Cancer is worse. But hey, that's just my own biased opinion. ;)
 
Goldenboy219 said:
First off, the entire "shorter lives equals less total medicaid/SS costs" is complete bunk bull****. In fact, it is so completely full of ****, that i cannot believe any libertarian would offer it as an argument premise.
Click to expand...

It would be really nice if you would quote my thread when addressing what I had said.

your entire premise is centered around the theme that it is costing government money when people die young.

As a libertarian, I find this idea hilarious. You just changed the argument from how much government funds are wasted because of smoking to how much potential revenue is lost. A libertarian that looks at a person as nothing short of a work mule, get a ****ing clue! Maybe we should apply a heavy sin tax to those that retire young as well...it's the same reasoning behind it and equally nonlibertarian.

I'm at a loss for words at how moronic your stance is.
 
ARealConservative said:
same is true if you choose to operate a motor vehicle.
Click to expand...

1. Motor vehicles serve a vital economic purpose.
2. The government CAN and DOES regulate their use and the emmissions of said vehicles.
3. I rarely use a motor vehicle. I am a cycle commuter.
 
aps said:
You should have read, I'm pissed because some fat lady is causing increases in my premiums because she chooses to do NOTHING about being fat.

Come on, missypea. I'm insulted.
Click to expand...

At least you don't live in a socialistic system where your insurance premium is based on your INCOME and not your HEALTH FACTORS like I do.
 
Orius said:
This legislation punishes smokers that don't smoke around people (i.e. just in their homes), but it addresses the health needs of people that may be harmed by a far greater majority of public smokers.
Click to expand...

Do those smokers have anyone else living in their homes?
 
dclxvinoise said:
Personally I think the high tax on cigarettes is absurd as hell to begin with. Rather than putting a restriction on some of the deadly chemicals that cigarettes contain (Canada did this I believe) the government just taxes it, which means that they just want a piece of the pie. The tobacco companies are blatantly poisoning people and rather than doing the right thing our government just puts on a high tax and is essentially complicit. They could give a rats ass about what cigarettes contain and what those chemicals do to people.
Click to expand...

Hey, personally I would rather ban it completely.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Personally I think the high tax on cigarettes is absurd as hell to begin with. Rather than putting a restriction on some of the deadly chemicals that cigarettes contain (Canada did this I believe) the government just taxes it, which means that they just want a piece of the pie. The tobacco companies are blatantly poisoning people and rather than doing the right thing our government just puts on a high tax and is essentially complicit. They could give a rats ass about what cigarettes contain and what those chemicals do to people.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing smokers to purchase cigarettes. If a smoker claimed that the tobacco compaines were blatantly poisoning him/her, I would laugh in his/her face. THE SMOKERS are the ones being complicit with the tobacco companies--not the government.

Like ludahai, I'd love to see tobacco banned completely.
 
ludahai said:
Hey, personally I would rather ban it completely.
Click to expand...
Great idea. Prohibition was such a great success. And that war y'all are having on drugs, how's that working out for ya? :roll:
 
Are you'll still talking about SCHIP?
 
ARealConservative said:
It would be really nice if you would quote my thread when addressing what I had said.
Click to expand...

It was not intended strictly for you, as this common pitfall persists throughout the aisle.

your entire premise is centered around the theme that it is costing government money when people die young.
Click to expand...

That was part of it, but what i am really concerned about is my increased costs. You know, someone else's actions affecting me. I'm not to fond of such idea's.

As a libertarian, I find this idea hilarious. You just changed the argument from how much government funds are wasted because of smoking to how much potential revenue is lost.
Click to expand...

All i displayed were the various reasons tobacco should be taxed.

A libertarian that looks at a person as nothing short of a work mule, get a ****ing clue!
Click to expand...

Is this coming from a libertarian who views people dieing young as a cost saving phenomenon? If so, the hypocrisy is blinding.:cool:

Maybe we should apply a heavy sin tax to those that retire young as well...it's the same reasoning behind it and equally nonlibertarian.
Click to expand...

Maybe to those who view Rothbard as this great economic thinker, but i consider the entire "anarcho-capitalist" notion to be about as plausible as full blown communism. Being that government is by far the greatest health care customer, increased costs of that particular service has the right to be reimbursed via excise taxation, a constitutional allowance. Watching people pay $7 per pack of cigarettes in Chicago has convinced me government has not taxed this excise to an unprofitable position.

Ad hom and strawman...

Your notion will be correct once taxation has caused profitability to suffer, resulting in layoffs and dividend slashing.

I'm at a loss for words at how moronic your stance is.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, you cannot defend your position in a logical manner, so you result in ad hom's and strawmen? Ideology is great, but those unwilling to negotiate (requires common ground AKA compromise) should go work for Amnesty International, because they will be no more effective in achieving their political goals than AI.
 
aps said:
No one is forcing smokers to purchase cigarettes. If a smoker claimed that the tobacco compaines were blatantly poisoning him/her, I would laugh in his/her face. THE SMOKERS are the ones being complicit with the tobacco companies--not the government.

Like ludahai, I'd love to see tobacco banned completely.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's a shame that no one is regulating the tobacco companies to keep harmful and addictive chemicals out of their cigarettes. That would put them out of business and keep the massive amounts of tax money out of the government's pocket, so I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
All i displayed were the various reasons tobacco should be taxed.
Click to expand...

Do you have similar views on inheritance tax?

Viewing individuals as revenue streams is nothing short of servitude. I want to see how far you are willing to slip down this slope on your crusade against tobacco.


Is this coming from a libertarian who views people dieing young as a cost saving phenomenon? If so, the hypocrisy is blinding.:cool:
Click to expand...

This is why I would prefer you quote my words as you are stretching what I wrote. The amount of money the government spends per person is effected my their length of life, so any argument that it costs the government money when people smoke is inherently false. An individual that chooses risky behavior alone does not cost the government a dime, nor does he have the power to emand entitlements...they were willingly giving independent of his decision to engage in risky behavior.

Maybe to those who view Rothbard as this great economic thinker, but i consider the entire "anarcho-capitalist" notion to be about as plausible as full blown communism. Being that government is by far the greatest health care customer, increased costs of that particular service has the right to be reimbursed via excise taxation, a constitutional allowance. Watching people pay $7 per pack of cigarettes in Chicago has convinced me government has not taxed this excise to an unprofitable position.
Click to expand...

Those that worship at the tit of Art Laffer have missed the crux of what libertarian stands for. I could care less if you have some brilliant scheme to maximize revenue, I'm dealing with property rights.
 
ARealConservative said:
Do you have similar views on inheritance tax?
Click to expand...

No. Completely different concepts.

Viewing individuals as revenue streams is nothing short of servitude. I want to see how far you are willing to slip down this slope on your crusade against tobacco.
Click to expand...

If you want, i can find some tales of the poor families who were effected because mom died @ 35 due to dads second hand smoke.

This is why I would prefer you quote my words as you are stretching what I wrote. The amount of money the government spends per person is effected my their length of life, so any argument that it costs the government money when people smoke is inherently false. An individual that chooses risky behavior alone does not cost the government a dime, nor does he have the power to emand entitlements...they were willingly giving independent of his decision to engage in risky behavior.
Click to expand...

It is ok to view someone as a laggard of the system, and that their death reduces costs, but if someone dies before they reach retirement age, its immorally off the table?


Those that worship at the tit of Art Laffer have missed the crux of what libertarian stands for. I could care less if you have some brilliant scheme to maximize revenue, I'm dealing with property rights.
Click to expand...

I could care less about revenue as well, just making a point. As i said before, and what you have still failed to address (my main point), TRI increases the cost of health care overall. If you are a health care consumer at any point, is it of your interest to want to reduce the costs of health care?

BTW, excise taxation is constitutional and has been for over 200 years...
 
danarhea said:
That's right. You heard it correctly. The Federal government is about to put a 61 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to pay for the SCHIP program. Taxes will also be levied on cigars, smokeless tobacco, and all other tobacco products. This means that, if you are a smoker, or if you chew, the government is going to take more money out of your pocket and give it to someone else.

Now Bush had his problems (a whole crapload of them), but at least he vetoed this theft of money from taxpayers last year after Congress passed it. But there is a new moneygrubber in town, and his name is Obama.

Article is here.

An excellent editorial about what SCHIP means for smokers is here.

The Senate is taking up the bill right now, and if you are against the Federal government redistributing YOUR money to others, now is the time to let your Senator know that a vote for this bill means one less vote for him when he comes up for reelection.
Click to expand...

Anti-smoking ads are now anti-child-health adds.

I think anyone who opposes smoking should explain why they hate children so much.

Smoking: It's for the children.
 
Hey pundits were joking that we need 24,000,000 more smokers now to pay for this program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom