Politics is a very touchy subject, which I normally do not discuss due to everyones strong views...But WAKE UP!!! How much more crap has to happen for people to impeach this ridiculious person who we have to call president because he stole the election. I am sorry but I don't know anyone who voted this man in office. He is a crook and is still standing there having our men and women fight a battle to fatten his and his familys pockets... I am in total agreement with Alicat1 and Maastiffluv.... WAKE UP AMERICA... We need a real president in office.. So quite being racist and judgemental when you obviously have not read up on Obama and are judging Hillary for Bill's simple mistakes.. I can tell you Bill was more of a president than any BUSH could ever be...
The reason she is still with her husband really has nothing to do with her own personal goals to be president of this country. I believe that she really truely sticks with her commitments (as another poster stated) and it just goes to show how commited she really is.
***Edited By: weimngolden on 11/7/2007 2:32:51 PM*** Reason: .
Imposing and increasing cigarette taxes have not to date resulted in reducing the number of smokers, at least not in a significant or proveable way. If you're addicted, you do whatever it takes to budget for your cigs. And if this tax increase did result in fewer smokers, that positive outcome would very much outweigh the negative of reducing revenue for the children's health bill. Plus, it would take a long time for that (reduced revenue) to happen, but if passed now, the revenue for the children's health bill could start being generated immediately. The children's health bill was conceived as a transition measure to deal today with today's uninsured children, between now and when everyone could be covered by something more wide-reaching.
Another interesting, and somewhat un-Democratic, thing I heard suggested about the bill is that it disproportionately punishes those without higher education (therefore those more likely to be poor) because they smoke in higher numbers. So the bill would disproportionately tax the same families it purports to help. The formula is usually to tax the rich to help the poor.
Thanks Joan. Was thinking of something to state but could not get the words to come out nicely like I wanted them to.
I think that the Childrens Health bill would have been a great great great idea. The Children are the future of this country and if he cannot afford to take that into consideration, he doesn't deserve to have our support. I would have impeached this moron a long time ago if only it was that easy.
Illini I have to disagree with that. My husband and I both work full time along with having a dairy farm that we milk 40 cows on. (So consider that 3 incomes, one very low but 3 incomes) and we would not be able to afford health insurance for us and our three kids have it not be through my husbands union employer. There are some employers who offer very very high priced medical insurance. I know mine here at work is way more that I would ever imagine to pay. People are not all offered affordable health insurance through employers and try to get a policy on your own...no way those prices are even higher yet.
So really, you are not taking money from the poor to help the poor. If my husband did not have the job he has and we had to take health insurance through my employer, we would be dead broke and our kids would suffer.
Illini, yes it's true, US smoking numbers are dropping, gradually over time since Gallop began tracking it. I was just disagreeing that the increased tobacco tax itself would impact the trend. If it would, that in and of itself would be a great reason to institute it, even if the revenue generated weren't to be earmarked for a good cause. Plus, if it had the effect of accelerating the downward trend, it would theoretically disporportionally help the poor to quit smoking, which would be a good thing.
The formula is traditionally tax the rich to help the poor, but not as much lately, and not with "sin taxes." States use lotteries, races, and slots (indulged in more by the mathematically challenged) to pump funds into education.
***Edited By: JoanEK on 11/7/2007 3:07:27 PM*** Reason: aded paragraph
I can't speak for the quality of the studies, but what I have seen from the anti-smoking lobby suggests raising the price of cigs through taxes does lower smoking rates, especially among young people. Which means there are fewer future smokers. The bill would have almost tripled the federal tax. I guess in a roundabout way it would work out, as the number of smokers would decrease, so they would be cheaper to insure.
Personally I just don't think that government-sponsored insurance is the answer. We have a free-market system that basically works. I would be more in favor of the government taxing large, high-profit corporations in order to subsidize small businesses so they can provide their employees affordable insurance. Not to mention penalizing large corporations (a.k.a. Wal-Mart) that provide inadequate insurance.
Anyways, I think when we talk about chidren and access to insurance, what we really mean is access to good medical care. In large parts of America, particularly rural areas or inner cities, hospitals are sub-par and there are not even enough doctors.
Bill Clinton was our president for 8yrs???? I thought it was Hilary, lol!
Either way Bill'ary have proven tendencies to disregard the military and it's families. That's enough for me to ask, "Hilary who?" when election time comes.
As for the US/Canadian beef... Why? We are better than they are in areas and they are better than us in others. No reason to flame each other over what our governments do. If a lady runs over your mail box are you going to yell at her kids for it?
"If you see something new or different don't be afraid to explore it. You may just find the one thing you've been waiting for!"
Here's what doesn't work about the free-market system of health care: it charges the most to those who can afford it the least, and it totally shafts the self-employed and young retirees. If I'm uninsured and buy my care directly from my doctor, I'm charged more than my insurance company would have been charged if I were insured. Even though taking my check involves far less paperwork for them than dealing with an insurance company. If I'm self-employed and buy my insurance as an individual policy, I'm charged more than my employer would have been.
Our government already administers "insurance" through Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare, and the VA and DoD health care systems. It would make sense to me to open up eligibility and let more people buy into these systems, either on a sliding scale depending on income, or at the point at which the government could break even. I'm 55 and could retire tomorrow if I could buy into Medicare for the next 10 years instead of having to wait till I'm 65. That would open up my place in the economy to a younger and more deserving employee (many of them smarter, harder-working, and willing to work for less). As it is, although I'm ridiculously healthy and don't need maternity coverage, a decent individual policy would cost me a good $500 a month. And it goes up steeply from there! A 59-yr-old retired friend, doesn't smoke, rides centuries and does charity triathlons, pays $750 a month for single coverage. It's his single largest expense.
***Edited By: JoanEK on 11/7/2007 10:52:57 PM*** Reason: added paragraph
if you don't recognize that there's something wrong with this country, you haven't been paying attention. starting with the violations of the geneva convention with use of torture on POW's and ending with Bush's first stolen election. all the candidates dishearten me but i'll support whatever democrat is chosen in the primaries... as for the canada bashing- wth? those insults weren't good or even accurate. do you know where the U.S. ranks in health care? do you really think we honor those brave soliders who fought in WWII by now undermining the peace they fought for? and why is it that every time someone from another country criticizes the U.S., some American yokel jumps up and says something like, "we saved your butt in WWII!"? whatever. Dogdaddy, not all Americans think like this. some of us actually respect each other and people outside our borders.
Indifference turns clarity into denial. ~Quan Tracy Cherry
I believe this whole country needs a uniform health coverage for all that is inexpesive and affordable to every one from the dirt poor the the super wealthy.
Yes doggydaddy not everyone from the US is gung ho on bashing the heck out of our neighbors to the North. I have no problems with Canadians. IMHO I could care less if the United States and Canada combined into one uniform country of its own.....but that is just me. What you have better and more figured out than us and what we have better and more figured out than you could come together to make one great country to live in....