• 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

With all this talk of the post office shutting down for a day due to mismanagment and the economy. We should expect the same level of service from government in healthcare.


Careful. Sometimes we get excactly what we ask for.

I don't get the crummy postal service in the US. Here, you can use post offices nearly every day of the year. There is a post office near my home that is open late at night, on Saturdays and it seems to be open on Sundays as well.
 
It is put in the general fund. NH has no state income or sales tax due to constitutional prohibition.

As for NHs parks, A LOT of out-of-staters use NH parks. Tourism is a large industry in NH. Why SHOULDN'T out of staters contribute to paying for their upkeep?

It would be different if you were accomplishing that through a room and meal tax and not through admissions into the park and fees for park services. Still, I'm not sure what the room and meal tax is, does it cover all apartments/rental properties/homes/motels/hotels/restaurants/bars/etc.?
 
It would be different if you were accomplishing that through a room and meal tax and not through admissions into the park and fees for park services. Still, I'm not sure what the room and meal tax is, does it cover all apartments/rental properties/homes/motels/hotels/restaurants/bars/etc.?

When I lived there (admitedly quite a while ago) it was an 8% tax on hotel/motel/resort rooms and meals at restaurants. I don't know about bars as I did not go to them very much (preferred going across the border to Quebec at that time).
 
And I'm all for taxing smokers, personally. Should one group have to suffer for no apparent reason? No, but there is a reason here and I'd consider it payback since smokers put pollutants into the air that we all breathe in, not just them. There's second-hand AND third-hand smoke that are quite dangerous and lowers life expectancy. Why should they be taxed for something that doesn't benefit them? Why should I have to breathe their polluted air?

This is some of the worst logic I have ever heard. Everyone who drives a car is hurting our environment roughly 70 times as much... Let's tax everyone who drives a car, too. :roll:

"The carbon produced by smoking a cigarette is quite small, even when multiplied over a large scale. So in this sense, smoking is very far from being a cause of climate change. Driving one mile in your car has the equivalent emissions of around 70-80 cigarettes (maybe a few less if you've got a Prius)."
 
This is some of the worst logic I have ever heard. Everyone who drives a car is hurting our environment roughly 70 times as much... Let's tax everyone who drives a car, too. :roll:

"The carbon produced by smoking a cigarette is quite small, even when multiplied over a large scale. So in this sense, smoking is very far from being a cause of climate change. Driving one mile in your car has the equivalent emissions of around 70-80 cigarettes (maybe a few less if you've got a Prius)."

How is that the "worst logic" you have ever heard? A car takes us from point A to point B, whether it be to work, to a hospital, to the grocery store to get food. A car is essentially a necessity. Cigarettes, however, are NOT (and don't give me this BS about how nicotine addiction makes cigarettes a necessity).
 
How is that the "worst logic" you have ever heard? A car takes us from point A to point B, whether it be to work, to a hospital, to the grocery store to get food. A car is essentially a necessity. Cigarettes, however, are NOT (and don't give me this BS about how nicotine addiction makes cigarettes a necessity).

A car is not a necessity, nor will it ever be one. Riding a bike or walking are far better for your health, the environment and the people of the city you live in. So now that we have established that driving a car is something that has pros and cons, like everything else, and not a necessity, let us discuss the benefits of cigarette smoking:

- Helps individuals cope with stress
- The rhythmic breathing calms the smoker
- Helps focus
- Fights loneliness and depression
- Stimulates serotonin in the brain

So, like everything in this world, cars and cigarettes both have upsides and downsides to their use.
 
A car is not a necessity, nor will it ever be one. Riding a bike or walking are far better for your health, the environment and the people of the city you live in. So now that we have established that driving a car is something that has pros and cons, like everything else, and not a necessity, let us discuss the benefits of cigarette smoking:

- Helps individuals cope with stress
- The rhythmic breathing calms the smoker
- Helps focus
- Fights loneliness and depression
- Stimulates serotonin in the brain

So, like everything in this world, cars and cigarettes both have upsides and downsides to their use.

Yeah, and the above is evidence of some really good logic. NOT. Sorry. I think your argument stinks.
 
This is another instance where this should be a state issue, and not a federal one. I understand SCHIP is federal funds that "match" state funds, but when the state funds see shortfalls, its not the responsibility of the government to pick up their slack. States can, and do, increase taxes on their cigarettes to fund these kinds of things, and while I agree that taking money from an unrelated group, to fund something that has nothing to do with them is sketchy and downright scary, I'd be more comfortable if the feds were not involved. Just like people need to excercise some personal responsibility and pay for their own mistakes, so too should states.
 
Then good? If a large majority of the country's children one day grow up under a specific standard, then their respective children will probably not need the program that their parents went through.

And I'm all for taxing smokers, personally. Should one group have to suffer for no apparent reason? No, but there is a reason here and I'd consider it payback since smokers put pollutants into the air that we all breathe in, not just them. There's second-hand AND third-hand smoke that are quite dangerous and lowers life expectancy. Why should they be taxed for something that doesn't benefit them? Why should I have to breathe their polluted air?

You are living in a pipe dream if you think Tobacco taxes are going to be paying for the SCHIP program. Because when you tax the fuck out of something people are going to either going to stop smoking(which is a good thing but not for the program it is funding) or they are going to smoke less(which is a good thing but not for the program it is funding) or they are going to find other sources(grow their own, buy on tribal land, mail order and etc) all three which will reduce revenue for the SCHIP program.I am pretty sure they had to use to some projections of what they may get in revenue in order to make the tax seem like a good idea in the first place, however since they were just trying to increase funding for a program I am also sure those tax revenue projections didn't take into account of people quitting,people smoking less or going to other sources for tobacco. We are going to be stuck with a program increase that is going to cost everyone.

Our population is increasing and medical care is rising in cost so that means more money will be needed to fund those programs. Do you think that when tobacco products are not producing the desired tax revenue revenue needed to fund the SCHIP bill increase that those in office are going to go "Oh crap! we do not have enough money lets cancel the programor reduce cost"? No they are not going to do that, they are going to argue that we need the program and they are going to find other **** to increase taxes on to make up the difference.
 
Last edited:
Is that number of businesses that closed supposed to be "high"?

Is that number of businesses acceptable to you? They would be perfectly fine and standing if they were not forced to ban a legal practice on their own property.
 
I don't fail to grasp your argument--I fail to see that it's a good one.

If you want an appropriate comparison.

Should we add the tax onto fast food?

Should we add the tax onto Soda?

Should we add the tax onto over the counter medicine?
 
How is that the "worst logic" you have ever heard? A car takes us from point A to point B, whether it be to work, to a hospital, to the grocery store to get food. A car is essentially a necessity. Cigarettes, however, are NOT (and don't give me this BS about how nicotine addiction makes cigarettes a necessity).

Yeah but lots of poor folks smoke. What they ought to do is put a luxury tax on expensive stuff that rich folks do. If they're gonna steal money to help the poor they ought at least steal it from the rich. They should put these taxes on spas, country clubs, premier hair salons, golf courses. **** that only rich people do. At least that would make some sense. You don't want to teach people that smoking is good ie charitable. Getz them thinking, "Well if I quit smoking who will care for the wee children?"

But if the tax were on say golf then Crippler could say to his wife, "I must golf to save the children." And she could reply, "Well I'll be at the spa because I'm charitable like that. ":mrgreen:
 
But if the tax were on say golf then Crippler could say to his wife, "I must golf to save the children." And she could reply, "Well I'll be at the spa because I'm charitable like that. ":mrgreen:

But I'm not rich. So I guess the wife will have to give up her spa days.
 
Yeah but lots of poor folks smoke. What they ought to do is put a luxury tax on expensive stuff that rich folks do. If they're gonna steal money to help the poor they ought at least steal it from the rich. They should put these taxes on spas, country clubs, premier hair salons, golf courses. **** that only rich people do. At least that would make some sense. You don't want to teach people that smoking is good ie charitable. Getz them thinking, "Well if I quit smoking who will care for the wee children?"

But if the tax were on say golf then Crippler could say to his wife, "I must golf to save the children." And she could reply, "Well I'll be at the spa because I'm charitable like that. ":mrgreen:

That was sarcasm, right? :shock:
 
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.

I don't agree with this move by the House at all. Smokers shouldn't be taxed for this cause.

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.
What does Obama have to do with the House of Reps passing a bill? Is it Obama's bill?
 
I believe he is saying that Obama will not veto this bill once it reaches his desk.

Well then danarhea needs to use his powers for foresight for good and tell me the winning numbers on this upcoming weeks Super Lotto.
 
You are living in a pipe dream if you think Tobacco taxes are going to be paying for the SCHIP program. Because when you tax the fuck out of something people are going to either going to stop smoking(which is a good thing but not for the program it is funding) or they are going to smoke less(which is a good thing but not for the program it is funding) or they are going to find other sources(grow their own, buy on tribal land, mail order and etc) all three which will reduce revenue for the SCHIP program.I am pretty sure they had to use to some projections of what they may get in revenue in order to make the tax seem like a good idea in the first place, however since they were just trying to increase funding for a program I am also sure those tax revenue projections didn't take into account of people quitting,people smoking less or going to other sources for tobacco. We are going to be stuck with a program increase that is going to cost everyone.

Our population is increasing and medical care is rising in cost so that means more money will be needed to fund those programs. Do you think that when tobacco products are not producing the desired tax revenue revenue needed to fund the SCHIP bill increase that those in office are going to go "Oh crap! we do not have enough money lets cancel the programor reduce cost"? No they are not going to do that, they are going to argue that we need the program and they are going to find other **** to increase taxes on to make up the difference.

I will address this post and then the other one which attacks my argument or whatever. First, if less people smoke, then medical costs would lower overall as hospitals would not have to deal with the common (numerous) problems dealing with smoking. This would happen across a large number of people since many many people are affected by smoking whether it is the smoker him or herself or children living in a house full of smokers, or something to that effect. There will never be a shortage of smokers. Ciggs are successful for a reason. We've basically told the public that there's rat poison, antifreeze, and many other things contained in each ciggarette- I don't see a massive shortage of smokers in the nation. Ciggs are addictive; they will not be going anywhere. And as you said, the population is constantly increasing. Even if percentage wise, the numbers go down every year, total dollars coming in every year could increase.

As for the "worst argument ever" or whatever. Dude, if you want to get fired from work for traveling a 30 mile commute on a bicycle, then sure it's a viable option. I really would rather spend some of the hours that I'm not working a full time job either A) sleeping or B) relaxing, preferably both. Also, I'm sure when I go to the store and pick up all of my groceries, my bicycle will be able to handle multiple shopping bags of milk, poultry, eggs, etc. without falling over or harming my groceries.

There is nothing besides peer pressure that forces someone to smoke; if you don't drive places, 9 times out of 10, you just can't function properly in society. I mean, I attend college and so yeah technically I could get away with walking wherever I want to because I live in a small town. Could I do that in LA? Detroit? Orlando? Maybe, but probably not. But hey, why change the subject. Do ciggs contribute to the pollution of the air? Are they necessary?
 
As for the "worst argument ever" or whatever. Dude, if you want to get fired from work for traveling a 30 mile commute on a bicycle, then sure it's a viable option. I really would rather spend some of the hours that I'm not working a full time job either A) sleeping or B) relaxing, preferably both. Also, I'm sure when I go to the store and pick up all of my groceries, my bicycle will be able to handle multiple shopping bags of milk, poultry, eggs, etc. without falling over or harming my groceries.

Choose to live closer to your place of work.

Choose to work closer to your home.

See, this "it's a choice" arguement is kinda boring when it's turned back onto you isnt it? :roll:
 
Yeah but lots of poor folks smoke. What they ought to do is put a luxury tax on expensive stuff that rich folks do. If they're gonna steal money to help the poor they ought at least steal it from the rich. They should put these taxes on spas, country clubs, premier hair salons, golf courses. **** that only rich people do. At least that would make some sense. You don't want to teach people that smoking is good ie charitable. Getz them thinking, "Well if I quit smoking who will care for the wee children?"

But if the tax were on say golf then Crippler could say to his wife, "I must golf to save the children." And she could reply, "Well I'll be at the spa because I'm charitable like that. ":mrgreen:

These poor folks could save lots of money if they stopped smoking. Wow. What a concept.
 
These poor folks could save lots of money if they stopped smoking. Wow. What a concept.

These poor folks could save lots of money if they stopped _________ . Wow. What a concept.

Would YOU be okay with this bill taxing fast food sales, soda, over the counter medicine, or anything of the sort?

If a cigarette company wanted to add on to the costs of their product in order to donate to ________ I would be fine with that. But the government deciding on a product to tax heavier in order to support _________ bugs the **** out of me.

As a side note, these poor folks will be saving money when they buy their cigarettes on indian reservations instead of buying them at the local gas station or grocery store.

Then where is the funding going to come from?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom