OMG...here he goes again!

[Punch Joe]

President Signs Bill to Expand SCHIP Funding

President Obama seemingly ended two years of controversy on Wednesday, signing a measure that raises the federal excise tax on tobacco while expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

The bill, which was ratified by the House earlier in the day by a vote of 290-135, calls for the tax on large cigars to be capped at 40.26 cents per cigar. The legislation will take effect on April 1, the day after funding for SCHIP was originally scheduled to end. The current tax has a five-cent cap.

In addition to raising the price of cigars, the new law calls for an increase on the price of a pack of cigarettes as well as “roll your own” tobacco.

The measure authorizes $32.8 billion, funded by the new tobacco taxes, for SCHIP, a 12-year-old program that provides health insurance coverage to families who can’t afford it, but don’t qualify for Medicaid.

Since 2007, the expansion of SCHIP has had Democrats and Republicans at odds. Twice the Democrat-controlled Congress passed bills to expand the program, and twice former president George W. Bush vetoed them.

[Ken Gargett]

President Signs Bill to Expand SCHIP Funding

President Obama seemingly ended two years of controversy on Wednesday, signing a measure that raises the federal excise tax on tobacco while expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

The bill, which was ratified by the House earlier in the day by a vote of 290-135, calls for the tax on large cigars to be capped at 40.26 cents per cigar. The legislation will take effect on April 1, the day after funding for SCHIP was originally scheduled to end. The current tax has a five-cent cap.

In addition to raising the price of cigars, the new law calls for an increase on the price of a pack of cigarettes as well as "roll your own" tobacco.

The measure authorizes $32.8 billion, funded by the new tobacco taxes, for SCHIP, a 12-year-old program that provides health insurance coverage to families who can't afford it, but don't qualify for Medicaid.

Since 2007, the expansion of SCHIP has had Democrats and Republicans at odds. Twice the Democrat-controlled Congress passed bills to expand the program, and twice former president George W. Bush vetoed them.

morning jose. easy ansswer is to stop shipping to the states!!

if i were involved with the cigar industry, cuban or otherwwise, i would be doing my absolute utmost to put as wide a gap as possible between cigaettes and cigars, but i suspect it would be fruitless. politicians will never mis a chance to up the taxes unless they think it will cost them votes.

[Colt45]

Yes, some stimulus. Raise taxes on things that people already buy. Here in my home state the governor wants to cut services while at the

same time raising taxes. On a federal level there is talk of raising the tax on gasoline because people are driving less. They say they're losing

money for road maintenance, but if there's less driving, there's less wear and tear on the roads.

This reminds me of medieval times in England or France - Even though the peasants struggle, we shall tax them even more.

Effing politicians.....

[PDC1]

This reminds me of medieval times in England...

How is your hip holding up after all this time?

[anacostiakat]

Inexcusable and irresponsible. . .

[SethG]

The honeymoon ended quickly. First tax increase for a pet project.

[yossie]

In Cuba, Health care is usable at free of charge. Viva la revolution!

[Colt45]

In Cuba, Health care is usable at free of charge. Viva la revolution!

Yossie, there's no such thing as free health care.

[Professor Twain]

Hard to be against healthcare for children who don't have insurance. Imagine the worry it must be for families to have to choose between getting healthcare for their kids and putting food on the table, or having to go into massive debt for catastrophic illness for a child.

Nobody likes taxes but unless a better source of revenue is identified smokers are a politically safe group to tax.

Universal healthcare in the US will come during the Obama administration. We have nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance and our current patchwork system causes all kinds of troubles.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2608.html

[jwm8592]

I just last evening was at a local cigar shop smoking one w/the guys and the talk of the SCHIP came up. The owner said the tobacco companies, RJ Reynolds, etc lobbyists were at the heart of this bill, being that they (tobacco companies) have been severely crippled from people rolling their own tobacco, instead of purchasing their products. He said they sell alot of bulk tobacco for rolling as well as pipe tobacco to customers (almost 35% of their business), and April 1st the tax on the bulk is somewhere around $23/LB, for rolling tobacco, pipe tobacco also is being taxed but not at the same rate, strange, and pretty unbelievable. I guess this will help the tobacco giants pay off some of their debt incurred by getting sued by every American that contracted lung cancer, etc. due to cig's being forced down their throats. I may be wrong on the tax per pound, but its pretty close to that. Shop owner said it will take a big bite out of their business.

[KB24]

Hard to be against healthcare for children who don't have insurance. Imagine the worry it must be for families to have to choose between getting healthcare for their kids and putting food on the table, or having to go into massive debt for catastrophic illness for a child.

Nobody likes taxes but unless a better source of revenue is identified smokers are a politically safe group to tax.

Universal healthcare in the US will come during the Obama administration. We have nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance and our current patchwork system causes all kinds of troubles.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2608.html

Agreed!

[Punch Joe]

Fully understand your point but just thinking about finding another way to support Health Care than definitely turning out the retailers or tobacco business as an easy target to go (taxation) and always at hand when needed.it would be great to help out those who can´t cover the expensive medical service in the US, I stand for that. aren´t there any other ways...?

[rudder]

-There arent enough smokers in the US to even remotely cover his (Obamas)plans.

-I love children (have two of my own) but I really do not feel like paying for other peoples children.

- When I get the coughs, looks and comments from nonsmokers I will now tell them I am smoking for the children.

[cigarros]

In Cuba, Health care is usable at free of charge. Viva la revolution!

Viva Cuba Libra! Cubans health care the best all around the world!

[cigarros]

Hard to be against healthcare for children who don't have insurance. Imagine the worry it must be for families to have to choose between getting healthcare for their kids and putting food on the table, or having to go into massive debt for catastrophic illness for a child.

Nobody likes taxes but unless a better source of revenue is identified smokers are a politically safe group to tax.

Universal healthcare in the US will come during the Obama administration. We have nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance and our current patchwork system causes all kinds of troubles.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2608.html

Agreed completely!

[SethG]

Hard to be against healthcare for children who don't have insurance. Imagine the worry it must be for families to have to choose between getting healthcare for their kids and putting food on the table, or having to go into massive debt for catastrophic illness for a child.

Nobody likes taxes but unless a better source of revenue is identified smokers are a politically safe group to tax.

Universal healthcare in the US will come during the Obama administration. We have nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance and our current patchwork system causes all kinds of troubles.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2608.html

That's certainly the logic, Do you love children? Then you'll love this bill! Pretty simply marketing campaign.

Why don't their parents buy them health insurance? Have you priced health insurance on a child recently? It's less than 100/month everywhere, less than 50/month almost everywhere. This is about sending parents stimulus checks for plasma TV's and xbox's because that's more important than health insurance.

This thing is only for poor children right? Oh wait, it's for 300%+500% over the poverty level, also known as ABOVE THE MEDIAN NATIONAL INCOME. But that's just a few children! Nope, 69% of these kids have parents that make the same as everyone elses.

Let's be honest here, it's about enrolling as many children as possible in Medicare, whether they need it or not. This has nothing to do with health insurance for poor kids.

[Professor Twain]

That's certainly the logic, Do you love children? Then you'll love this bill! Pretty simply marketing campaign.

Why don't their parents buy them health insurance? Have you priced health insurance on a child recently? It's less than 100/month everywhere, less than 50/month almost everywhere. This is about sending parents stimulus checks for plasma TV's and xbox's because that's more important than health insurance.

This thing is only for poor children right? Oh wait, it's for 300%+500% over the poverty level, also known as ABOVE THE MEDIAN NATIONAL INCOME. But that's just a few children! Nope, 69% of these kids have parents that make the same as everyone elses.

Let's be honest here, it's about enrolling as many children as possible in Medicare, whether they need it or not. This has nothing to do with health insurance for poor kids.

Look, I think that the goal of the Democrats and the Obama administration is without a doubt to provide UNIVERSAL health coverage for every American. Why not? To the best of my knowledge the U.S. is the only major economic power in the world that doesn't provide health coverage for everyone. We spend more money on health care than other countries but by all objective measures of health, the U.S. lags behind other nations who get everyone covered, and more cheaply than we do it. But it has not been politically feasible to press for universal coverage, so we see these kinds of incremental bills.

Subsidy on xboxes and plasma Tvs? I don't think people making the median income in the US are living the life of luxury. People I know who make around the median income are living paycheck to paycheck, doing their best to make their house and car payments, and have NO cushion in case of misfortune. Sure, they may not always be making the smartest choices possible. I can imagine good people and caring parents trying to cut a corner and skipping the health insurance, or waiting to take their kid to the doctor out of fear of the cost. But I think that it is unwise for a society to fail to provide health care, education, nutrition, etc. to children. Sure part of it is about compassion, but it is about making an investment in our future. Untreated illness and lack of necessary medical care in children is ultimately very costly to EVERYONE.

[SethG]

Look, I think that the goal of the Democrats and the Obama administration is without a doubt to provide UNIVERSAL health coverage for every American. Why not? To the best of my knowledge the U.S. is the only major economic power in the world that doesn't provide health coverage for everyone. We spend more money on health care than other countries but by all objective measures of health, the U.S. lags behind other nations who get everyone covered, and more cheaply than we do it. But it has not been politically feasible to press for universal coverage, so we see these kinds of incremental bills.

Subsidy on xboxes and plasma Tvs? I don't think people making the median income in the US are living the life of luxury. People I know who make around the median income are living paycheck to paycheck, doing their best to make their house and car payments, and have NO cushion in case of misfortune. Sure, they may not always be making the smartest choices possible. I can imagine good people and caring parents trying to cut a corner and skipping the health insurance, or waiting to take their kid to the doctor out of fear of the cost. But I think that it is unwise for a society to fail to provide health care, education, nutrition, etc. to children. Sure part of it is about compassion, but it is about making an investment in our future. Untreated illness and lack of necessary medical care in children is ultimately very costly to EVERYONE.

60+ thousand a year is plasma TV and xbox territory, those things measure sales units in the tens of millions. Sorry. You're not living in a hut at that amount.

When you say not "politically feasible" you mean democracy won't currently support. The American people have spoken time and time again against socializing our medicine, and here we are again, just doing it in piecemeal. Isn't democracy enough here? The American people have spoken and said No! to socialized medicine.

Why is it hard to believe that most of us don't want FEMA to run our healthcare? You're not talking about all of us having health insurance, and this bill isn't about getting underinsured children covered. It's about enrolling people in FEMA healthcare, they're not giving them vouchers for health insurance.

So here we are, cigar smokers stuck in a politically acceptable target zone for further taxation to pay for things like this. If you're a big proponent, would you mind paying for it? I don't ask you to pay for my grand social experiments. Or is this the kind of thing that just makes sense with other people's money?

As a matter of fiscal policy, well, it's politics as usual in Washington D.C. Where getting a beltway bill passed is about getting a foot in the door, not sound thinking. This bill finances a new entitlement to a growing group of people (children) with a shrinking population (smokers). Every year there are more children and less smokers. It's obviously going to be yet another financial trainwreck requiring a bailout in a few years. Where's that change we've been promised, so far Pelosi et. al. are showing us not much.

I have a hard time blaming Obama, he's been on the job 3 weeks and is focused on the Stimulus bill. But I hope he learns on the job quickly, because combined with the Omnibus ban on ATV's/Dirt bikes, he's piling up long term problems fast.

[Professor Twain]

60+ thousand a year is plasma TV and xbox territory, those things measure sales units in the tens of millions. Sorry. You're not living in a hut at that amount.

When you say not "politically feasible" you mean democracy won't currently support. The American people have spoken time and time again against socializing our medicine, and here we are again, just doing it in piecemeal. Isn't democracy enough here? The American people have spoken and said No! to socialized medicine.

Why is it hard to believe that most of us don't want FEMA to run our healthcare? You're not talking about all of us having health insurance, and this bill isn't about getting underinsured children covered. It's about enrolling people in FEMA healthcare, they're not giving them vouchers for health insurance.

So here we are, cigar smokers stuck in a politically acceptable target zone for further taxation to pay for things like this. If you're a big proponent, would you mind paying for it? I don't ask you to pay for my grand social experiments. Or is this the kind of thing that just makes sense with other people's money?

As a matter of fiscal policy, well, it's politics as usual in Washington D.C. Where getting a beltway bill passed is about getting a foot in the door, not sound thinking. This bill finances a new entitlement to a growing group of people (children) with a shrinking population (smokers). Every year there are more children and less smokers. It's obviously going to be yet another financial trainwreck requiring a bailout in a few years. Where's that change we've been promised, so far Pelosi et. al. are showing us not much.

I have a hard time blaming Obama, he's been on the job 3 weeks and is focused on the Stimulus bill. But I hope he learns on the job quickly, because combined with the Omnibus ban on ATV's/Dirt bikes, he's piling up long term problems fast.

It's clear we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in promoting the well being of its citizens. If a family with four kids is faced with paying $400 a month for heatlh insurance, that is almost $5,000 out of a $60,000 income. If enough of those people choose not to pay over 8% of their incomes on health insurance for their kids, society suffers, not just those families. Who do you think pays when an uninsured sick kid goes to the hospital and their parents can't pay the bill? Who pays when an injured kid doesn't get the right medical care and develops health problems later in life, or can't work? We all do.

I pay taxes, lots of them, and much of that tax money goes to endeavors I don't support. It is part of living in a society.

The American people are ill informed about their healthcare system and the insurance companies have used scare tactics to make people fear universal healthcare coverage. It is hard to defend a system that yields higher costs than other countries, poorer health than other countries, and leaves so many people without coverage.

Check out the following information if you think everything is fine and dandy with our healthcare situation.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publicatio...m?doc_id=482678

Again I agree that it is a bad idea for this bill to put the costs for coverage on tobacco alone. I predict that when the American public is better informed about the problems we have in healthcare in the U.S., Obama will be able to align with forces ranging from consumer groups to businesses (that are getting killed competing internationally because of the high healthcare costs they pay) to get universal healthcare through during his first term.

[anacostiakat]

This is a good discussion. Personally I have the biggest problem with who it is that will actually benefit from something like this. The truely needy I have no problem with trying to help.

[SethG]

Certainly we stand on different sides of the issue, nothing wrong with that. Things cost what things cost, you're not talking much about lowering the cost. If you're saying that 8% is too much and universal coverage is the answer, you're saying someone else should pick up the tab. That's a pretty big statement.

I'd say it comes down to needs vs. wants. I think we all need health insurance/care. If someone is choosing to purchase other things in their lives and therefore asking someone else to pick up the health insurance bill.... well that's something for American's to decide through the ballot box if they want to support. If someone cannot afford healthcare and is not spending money on TV sets, well then I support tax dollars being used to help them out.

If you feel the same way that I do, that someone who cannot afford healthcare and isn't choosing toys over healthcare, deserves healthcare paid for the government. Then you're in luck, no legislation needed because they're already covered under medicare/medicaid.

Now if you think healthcare is too expensive, and you don't want to pay it (even though you could) and believe that the answer is to raise taxes on someone else so that they can pay for your needs, then this legislation is what we're talking about.

As far as system efficiency and all that, more people pay. it's the old money for nothing argument. The act of paying insurance does not lower the cost of damages for the company, it raises them as they are now covering more people. Hopefully it washes.

What makes the system inefficient, and makes our healthcare system so expensive, is the amount of extraordinary life saving technologies and medicines we provide to the terminally ill. If you look at health insurance carefully, you see that for every 10 people paying 100 bucks a month:

1) maybe half don't even use it or certainly not up to what they paid.

2) 4 out of the remaining 5 use it to what they paid and more and were therefore covered by the first 5 (no harm there).

3) the 10th person got cancer, spent 350 thousand on chemo for two years, had 400K in operations and blew the entire budget out of the water.

The underinsured in this country, that's the 10th person. When you add that person into the system the costs explode, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm okay with that. But, that's where this whole efficiency argument comes from. If this guy was paying his 100 bucks a month for the past 10 years and got cancer, the whole thing would wash and it would be okay. But spending 12K/year for 10 years does not in anyway add up to a million dollars.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but if you want to debate it, it should be out in the open what we're talking about here. And all this talk about foreign countries having it so good is bollocks. The UK and Canada are already beginning the process of re-privatizing, their costs are spiraling out of control and they routinely deny drugs and treatment to all sorts of people because "it's not approved."

American cancer medicine, the best in the world, is about hitting someone from 12 different angles with 12 different kinds of med's. The doctors (oncologists) are fighting this disease in the trenches, with bayonet's and shovels, by exploring the boundaries of modern pharmacology. They move fast and dynamically, faster than any FDA approval process for "new use" on an existing drug. In Medicare and everywhere overseas, doctors are flat out barred from these approaches and new drugs are banned outright until they're demonstrated in the US for years. the survival rate for most forms of cancer is much lower in almost every other socialized country there is.

Look, I support your dream of healthcare for all, I think we all do. It turns my stomach to see someone get third world medical care, but let's face facts here. the worst off are those receiving medicare/medicaid and FEMA, we saw that with Hurricane Katrina. Until we can talk about the fact that it's going to cost untold sums to give everyone medical care and that there's no upside to it BESIDES morality, we can't honestly debate good vs. bad solutions to this problem. I support your goals, I think we all do, but we can't even talk about them while trying to piecemeal in all of these cases on little bits of laws and taxes and then deny the benefit to those paying the taxes, it makes people angry and non-receptive to the message.

[SethG]

again, I'm not saying that universal healthcare can't work. It's not working anywhere in the world, we're Americans, we can do better, we can make it work. But to do so we need to admit and be willing to discuss the mechanics of it in a post-partisan world, and then let the partisans have their say.

1) There's going to be rationing, it's that way everywhere else in the world, we probably need a base coverage that's rationed and an opt-out to no-rationing for people who pay their premiums every year and don't just show up on their death beds.

2) It's the US, no one will accept making it a crime to pay a doctor and see who you choose, in every nationalized country, this is the fact of it. They all have outlawed private medicine.

3) We're not ready for FEMA to run our healthcare, I'm not living in a formaldyheid trailer. We're also not ready to have Halliburton cost-plus it and rape the government blind.

4) We need to ask ourselves frank questions about heroics, how far does medical care go on a terminal patient.

5) We need to be prepared to provide the same coverage for all

Personally, in my mind, the answer to this problem is relatively simple:

a) Change the health insurance system so it's only catastrophic, i.e. they cover any massive bill over 5-10K but they don't cover anything smaller. The idea is that insurance is for, well, insurance not health care.

Allow healthcare ***'s to flourish but cap what they have to pay out very low, i.e. they take care of you but if something should happen they only cover you up to where insurance kicks in. Basically we all have normal healthcare for free with 20 dollar copays so there's something to deter frequent flyers.

c) Have the government shift the medicare funding into the ***'s, make them be plentiful so people can pick and choose which ones to go to and build review websites, the free market will punish those that suck

d) Everyone who wasn't insured and had something go wrong, they get medicaid. It's like insurance but there we face the reality of rationing. We'll take care of things but the American public sets the bar by the funding number for medicaid.

e) no interstate rules for insurance, there's no real rules for insurance except that it's catastrophic only, they cover everything without complaint, it works everywhere. They'll love ditching the healthcare costs and will set a free-market price on the insurance portion. The high deductible is going to limit haggling and hassles.

Do it that way and the free market takes over, but the poor are covered, we all have healthcare and we're empowered to choose our medical professionals. Sort of like school vouchers but there's no public hospitals, medicaid pays for you to go to the normal ones.

[SethG]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29110391/

Let's put this idea of the poor not getting medical care to rest. This woman has no insurance, she has, what, 15 kids? 3 are on welfare, she's collecting foodstamps for them and, you guessed it, this third world country with it's non-universal health care is spending between 1.5 and 3 MILLION dollars on just incubating the babies out of the hospital. That's paid for by the US taxpayer, not her.

Must suck for her not to have insurance, when is the country going to step up and get her the insurance she deserves. Oh wait, it's covered already.... what exactly was the problem I get? About the uninsured? I'm lost???

[El Presidente]

Seth, With all due respect is does work but it is not perfect.

In Oz All taxpayers pay 1.45 % of income tax (from memory) for Public Hospital services. They are good if not perfect.

On top of that I pay $350 per month for a family of 5 for full private hospital care. I can book in and be seen immediately. There may be a gap on some claims but in the main it covers most including 75% dental and physio.

I had a heart ailment last year (minor, second electrical stimulus). Diagnosed Thursday, operated Tuesday out Tuesday night...cost $0

God forbid I lose my income and had to go to public healthcare but I would still have somewhere to go. Everyone is covered. It would take 12 months to 2 years to be treated for the same ailment but I would have been covered for 0 cost.

There is a balance in healthcare. With all due respect your system in the US is screwed. When we were in NY three years ago Shagga who was travelling with me had chest pains. Called the local Hotel doctor who quoted $800USD to be seen. WTF?

Universal healthcare means universal taxation 1-2% regardless of weather you have private cover or not.

It is not perfect but it does work.

[Guest rob]

I have to concur wit Rob here.

The only thing I would add to his post is that those that go into the public system you will be seen in order of importance. You wont be sent home (or asked to wait) if you have chest pains or breathing problems.

It really does work pretty well considering how many people rely on it.

The only thing I would campaign for (if in a position to) is for the public health system to treat lower income people with dental problems. Basically, unless a dental problem is problem is life threatening poor people have to live with pain and sometimes an inability to even eat the most basic of meals. Kind of a shame when you consider that people who have self inflicted problems (like alcohol or drugs) get public treatment for things they have done to themselves... but I need to digress here as I feel myself starting to rant