Child health insurance bill faces veto

[Lanya]

[Funny, I would have thought the right to life crowd would want to preserve life. I guess if it's already born, never mind....]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/ap_on_he_me/children_s_insurance



Child health insurance bill faces veto

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 27 minutes ago

WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration said Saturday that senior advisers would recommend the president veto Senate legislation that would substantially increase funds for children's health insurance.
ADVERTISEMENT

The legislation calls for a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. The revenue would be used to subsidize health insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford insurance on their own. Members of the Senate Finance Committee brokered a bipartisan agreement Friday that would add $35 billion to the program over the next five years. The Bush administration had instead recommend $5 billion.

The Senate legislation expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program beyond the original intent of the program, said White House Spokesman Tony Fratto.

"It's clear that it will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage ? purchased either through their employer or with their own resources ? to go on the government-subsidized program," Fratto said. "Tax increases are neither necessary nor advisable to appropriately fund SCHIP."

Congress is considering renewing the program before it expires Sept. 30. When Congress approved the program in 1997, it provided $40 billion over 10 years. States use the money, along with their own dollars, to subsidize the cost of health insurance. The federal government covers about 70 percent of the cost.

"Congress needs to deliver a bill the president can sign or they need to send him an extension so that people don't worry about losing their current coverage," Fratto said. "It's important that Congress understands the serious consequences of delaying this or sending the president legislation that he clearly cannot sign."

Fratto also called on the Senate Finance Committee to consider the president's recommendation to tax employees on the health insurance premiums paid by their employers. The president would offset the increased taxes by giving taxpayers a deduction or credit. The result would be a tax cut for most families, but not for those with the highest-priced insurance plans.

"We believe that these proposals would mean that as many as 20 million others who have no health insurance would purchase basic coverage," Fratto said.

Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, had called on the president Thursday to step back from veto threats of legislation that had not been finalized yet.

Grassley and Hatch said they would like to consider the president's proposals to change how tax law treats health insurance. Such changes could make insurance more affordable for many families, but now is not the time, they said.

"Not taking that (tax proposal) on is a missed opportunity, but it's not realistic given the lack of bipartisan support," the senators said.

Grassley and Hatch were among the lawmakers that backed the agreement reached late Friday with key Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee's chairman, said the proposal would lead to more than 3 million uninsured children obtaining health coverage. But others said that estimate is high because they believe some families that would sign up for the program would have already been getting their coverage through the private sector.

[Amianthus]

The Senate legislation expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program beyond the original intent of the program, said White House Spokesman Tony Fratto.

Seems like the program is already in place.

Guess only liberals are allowed to imply things that aren't true.

[fatman]

The legislation calls for a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. The revenue would be used to subsidize health insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford insurance on their own.

Is there anything that the govt won't tax cigarettes for?  Yes, I realize it is a bad and lethal habit, but so what?  Is eating that pint of ice cream every other night or stopping at McDonald's three times a week any better?  Why don't they add a tax to junk food instead?  When the states sued the tobacco companies a few years ago, the money that Washington state recouped was to be put into the Basic Health program (an insurance for low income people) and stop smoking campaigns.  Two years ago the Seattle Times did an investigation and found that over 80% of that money went into the general fund, paying for road improvements, prison maintenance, and govt salaries.  Sin taxes should be abolished, period.  If they want to tax an activity or product because they are unhealthy, then at least have some consistency about it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Logically, tobacco tax should be used to (1) encourage people, especially young people, not to smoke, and (2) to pay for treatment of people with the diseases caused by smoking.

[BT]

Logically, tobacco tax should be used to (1) encourage people, especially young people, not to smoke, and (2) to pay for treatment of people with the diseases caused by smoking.

So the question is a disagreement about how to fund the prgram, not as Lanya implied, how to kill it.

Credibility.

[fatman]

Logically, tobacco tax should be used to (1) encourage people, especially young people, not to smoke, and (2) to pay for treatment of people with the diseases caused by smoking.

And that is logical, but not the reality.  Further, should there be a tax on Big Macs and Twinkies for the same thing?

[BT]

Further, should there be a tax on Big Macs and Twinkies for the same thing?

That would make more sense as kids are more know for eating happy meals and twinkies than they are for smoking.

[fatman]

That would make more sense as kids are more know for eating happy meals and twinkies than they are for smoking.

But OMG BT YOU'RE GOING TO TAX THE CHILDREN??!!  Obviously, it's sarcasm but if such a thing were proposed, that's how it would play out in the media.  If not the children, then poor people who eat fast food because it's cheaper than healthier food, or something.  As a smoker I have no problem with the taxes I pay with each pack (in WA, the combined state and federal taxes are somewhere around $3.75 per pack) going toward my future health care, or preventative measures to keep kids from smoking, but the truth is that the money doesn't really go there.  For such a small minority in American culture these days, smokers sure fund a lot of things.

[BT]

The bottom line on this is the left screams for health care programs as long as they aren't the ones paying them.

Now i am sure some leftists smoke. But judging by the plethora of public smoking bans and the spectrum  from which they  came i would suspect that the majority do not.

An across the board sales tax is the way to go. Everyone pays. And it is collected at the state level.

Turn the entire program over to the several states and let them fund it if that is what they want.

[fatman]

An across the board sales tax is the way to go. Everyone pays. And it is collected at the state level. 

I'm in total agreement with you bt.