Long story short, yesterday the House and today The Senate passed The SCHIP legislation.

The president is going to veto the legislation and congress, with the help of the media, is creating a perception of massive public support.

The President is either going to stand his ground, and hope that Congress doesn't override his veto, or come up with a compromise measure.

I've got to give Bush credit for standing firm on this one. Anyway, it looks like SCHIP is going to be a close shave.

http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/12475

Has Bush ever asked why smokers should be paying for this or is his opposition only because of his anti-tax stance?

You would think that if he really wanted to point out whats wrong with extending Government Healthcare to 25 year old ADULTchildren, that at least the smallest statement would be made that only 25% of the population will be footing the bill for everybody elses kid by increasing the Tobacco Tax while simultaneously trying to convince smokers to quit.
If nothing else, he could point out how incredibly stupid, and shortsighted this approach is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20954735/

- Good article, click onto link to read it all.

~snips~
And it looks like he'll have the support he needs to make his veto stick: in a vote Tuesday night, the House fell 19 votes short of a veto-proof majority. It takes a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress to override a veto.

Also voting against the bill were eight Democrats, including tobacco state Democrats such as Reps. Mike McIntyre and Bob Etheridge, both from North Carolina. The bill would pay for expanding insurance coverage by imposing a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent per pack federal cigarette tax, which amounts to a 156 percent tax increase

In the paragraphs below, I believe that every place it reads children, it should read children/adults.

It is grossly immoral for a smoker to be paying for the health insurance for people that may be earning 3 to 4 times as much as the smoker earns.
Gary K.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA560.html

The legislation passed by Congress takes this unfair system and makes it regressive. First, much of the new funding for SCHIP comes from a large increase in the cigarette tax.

As Table 1 shows, people with incomes under 200 percent of the poverty level smoke at rates higher than those with incomes above 200 percent of the poverty level.

Thus, the taxes to fund the expansion of SCHIP will fall disproportionately on those making under 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

It could be argued that this is a fair system if all children in families under 200 percent of the poverty level were eligible for SCHIP and if only those under 200 percent of poverty were eligible for SCHIP.

But none of this new revenue goes to those under 200 percent of the poverty level; benefits for those children are already funded via other taxes.
The added revenues from the cigarette tax are for the purpose of funding the expansion.

Indeed, both SCHIP bills passed by Congress take the tax revenues from those under 200 percent of the poverty level and give it to those children who live in families above 200 percent of poverty, likely all the way up to 400 percent of the poverty level. Table 2 shows the income amount by family size for each poverty level.

It is not inconceivable that a parent with one child with an income of $13,690 will be funding benefits for two children in a family of four with an income of $82,600.

In short, SCHIP expansion would result in families whose income puts them in the bottom 15 percent of households funding benefits for children who are in families close to the top 25 percent of households.

You know, I get a kick out of these 'poverty line' stats.
Costs around the country are so varied [housing, income,taxes] but everyone gets put in the same poverty barrel equally.
They should be varied by regions.[Cost of living]

The example of a family of 4 with an income of $82,600 would probably be destitute in San Francisco or Boston, etc. But would survive with ease in another part of the country

HE ACTUALLY VETOED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But, as someone on another blog said-"The Dims wanted the ISSUE, not the legislation". Now the ads with that kid will begin. The Pubs better get their act together-and SOON.

quote:

But, as someone on another blog said-"The Dims wanted the ISSUE, not the legislation". Now the ads with that kid will begin. The Pubs better get their act together-and SOON.

I heard yesterday that the override vote for the house is put off until October 18th - Pelosi wants to give the RWJF-paid anti- lobbyists enough time to work their magic. As of last night - I heard that they had talked 4 or 5 congressmen who had voted against sCHIT to vote for the veto override...we can only hope that the remaining who voted against it will stand their ground. I know that this issue won't go away though - and that in the near-future, esp. if Hillary wins next year- we will see cig. taxes go up even more. Look for states to use the veto as an excuse to raise taxes too - I already heard that Maryland is planning to raise their cig tax by $1/pack...

quote:

Originally posted by NickM_71:
- Pelosi wants to give the RWJF-paid anti- lobbyists enough time to work their magic.

A light bulb just went off in my head when I read that sentence: Technically, aren't they also Phillip Morris Paid Anti-Lobbyists - Reynolds Paid Anti-Lobbyists?

We have that story about the University in Cal not wanting to take tainted Tobacco money for research, we all know these guys are funded by Tobacco money - why are we giving them a pass and associating them only with RWJF.

They are bed-fellows with PM and RJR - they may sleep with a board between them, but they are in bed. PM and RJR are technically the 'john's' and the anti-lobbyists are prostitutes. RWJF is the Pimp.

Would be very bad-press to call them what they really are.

People Hate big business, they are all Big Business.

The Families USA outfit, the ones who want us to pay for children's health insurance, continue to be a good font of information. Here's a better list of the congresspeople and Senators, tells you where they're from, etc.

Boren of Oklahoma, a Republican who had previously voted against SCHIP, has already caved in, now says he'll vote for it.

We're a minority of about 30-35 per cent. But if we don't contact our congressional people, they'll think we don't exist at all.

http://www.familiesusa.org/bushvskids/how-congress-voted.html

TWO WEEKS postponement. Read the comments after this article, along with the article itself. Eight of the votes they need are democrats. We're in trouble.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/10...ve.html?hpid=topnews

back in 1994-1997 when the clintoons where in office

billiry had worked behind the sceens at proposing schip a national childrens health bill that was funded by an increase in fed and state tax on tabacco and now they are wanting to increase a tax on a tax

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_el_pr/clinton...b4J7yk8nQAiW.jKs0NUE

FACT CHECK:

After the first lady's effort to enact universal health insurance went down to calamitous defeat in late 1994, she and other White House officials began looking for smaller changes that could win bipartisan support. Republicans had taken control of both the House and Senate that year.

A similar effort was taking place on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Edward Kennedy playing a lead role. One area he and the Clintons explored involved expanding health insurance coverage to children who had none.

On Dec. 9, 1996, senior White House health adviser Chris Jennings sent a memo to the first lady outlining several options — and recommending ways for her to increase her visibility on the issue.

With his wife's backing, President Clinton announced a plan to expand health coverage to as many as 5 million children in his 1997 State of the Union address.

Kennedy, meanwhile, introduced legislation based on a Massachusetts model with Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch as the lead Republican co-sponsor. The bill called for $20 billion in grants to states, paid for in part by raising the federal tax on cigarettes.

Gene Sperling, a Hillary Clinton campaign adviser who served as one of President Clinton's lead budget negotiators in 1997, said efforts to include children's health coverage were constrained by a balanced budget agreement between the White House and Republican congressional leaders.

But he said Hillary Clinton pushed hard and even favored boosting the price tag to $24 billion, instead of the $16 billion that had been floated as a compromise.

"Her office was across from mine, and I knew what her priorities were," Sperling said. "I remember her having a lot of influence — you're getting this done because you know the first lady wants it."

The effort nearly went off the rails when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican, said it violated the balanced budget agreement. President Clinton, eager to preserve the agreement, actually phoned lawmakers to kill the legislation when it came to the Senate floor.

Hillary Clinton defended her husband's action at the time. "He had to safeguard the overall budget proposal," she told one audience. But she insisted he would find other ways to provide health coverage for kids.

The effort was revived, with Kennedy, Hatch and a coalition of advocacy groups ranging from the Children's Defense Fund to the Girl Scouts lobbying hard. Kennedy made a special appeal to the first lady, who added her pressure anew.

"The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Kennedy told The Associated Press.

President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.

While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial.

"She wasn't a legislator, she didn't write the law, and she wasn't the president, so she didn't make the decisions," says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. "But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."

Everyone, please send thanks to President Bush ASAP, so that he knows he has our support! We are quick to criticize, so we should also send praise and support when it is deserved. You may e-mail him at comments@whitehouse.gov

A simple one paragraph letter is plenty. Just tell him that you appreciate his refusal to promote national healthcare, socialized medicine and hypocritical taxation of smokers to support middle class America. Smokers are Americans too. We smoke and we vote!

You can also phone the White House at 202-465-1111 (comment line). Your comments are kept on file....they do make a difference.

Also, on behalf of Michael McFadden, remember:

One thing we know for sure: the Antis are going to bend over backwards during the next week or so to try to make it appear as though there's a *firestorm* of outrage throughout the country over how Bush "has sold out our sick children to Big Tobacco". We've got to be ready to jump in IMMEDIATELY in any and all public forums to counter that!

President Bush's Radio address today:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071006.html

I thought it might be useful to share what the current SCHIP income and premium guidelines currently are. A fact that doesn't seem to have been pointed out by supporters of the expansion. These guidelines vary from state to state and I have been admittedly selective and chosen New York State, probably one of the more generous states in terms of what SCHIP offers.

In New York State, under current SCHIP guidelines:

A family with six children making an income of $69,036.00 a year would only have to pay a total of $45.00 a month for health insurance for all six children.

A family with one child and an income of $25,536.00 a year would only have to pay a total of $15.00 a month to provide health insurance for that child.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/chplus/who_is_eligible.htm

It needs to be pointed out that not only is the president in favor of passing legislation that will continue the existing program, but he is in favor of expanding the program by $5 billion, where the democratic congress wants to expand it by $35 billion.

The notion that the president is "taking healthcare away from children" is assinine, despite its mass acceptance.

Also, please don't think that private insurance companies are fighting the expansion of SCHIP. Quite the opposite. The public seems to think that the actual day-to-day running of such programs is done by government workers. Rather, these programs are contracted out to private health insurance companies for day-to-day administration.

In short, if you have SCHIP and you call the 1-800 number on your membership card, you're not talking to some government worker. You're talking to someone who works for Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Healthcare, Humana, HIP or one of the other large insurance companies in the U.S.

Private health insurance companies are married to Big Government. HMOs are probably one of the largest lobbying groups in your state, if not the largest. HMOs receive a good portion of their profits from administering government health programs.

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:
Everyone, please send thanks to President Bush ASAP, so that he knows he has our support!

I emailed the president to show my support.

Really, there is absolutely no reason to fail to do so. It does make a difference and only the commonly accepted idea of "well, I'll leave it to everyone else" destroys the power of our voice.

As hard as it is to believe now, there was a time in this country when an ordinary citizen could walk right up to the front door of The White House, knock on the door, ask for some face time with The President, and actually get it!

This is America and it is not only your right to make your voice known to public officials, but it is your primary right, above all others. There is no reason to fear respectable communication with a public official. Fears of some sort of reprisal aren't irrational in this day and age, but freedom isn't free. The point isn't to "win" or to "change their mind". The point is to show opposition. Opposition slows the progress of even those who vehemently disagree with you. It creates an internal threshhold in the minds of those you are opposing.

For instance, you may not win a court case to overturn a smoking ban, but the knowledge that one may have to go to court to defend a smoking ban is likely to slow them a bit, regardless of the outcome.

The Democrat Rebuttal was given by a Boy who is on the SCHIP program now.

I'm posting here from the FreeRepublic site, which is a conservative site, but I highly doubt this backstory will gain any traction in the Main Stream Media [spread the word]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts?page=1,50

Be us Republican or Democrat, this link has some facts, facts that we don't really see in the media anymore. Please read the comments under the article.

Below are bits and pieces of the original, highlights are mine.
Gary K.
http://www.americansmokersparty-illinois.org/


http://www.forces.org/Forces_Articles/article_viewer.php?id=528

Readers might also find the Congressional Research Service summary for House Resolution 976, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, to be of interest.

Three items in that summary merit attention:

1. (Sec. 501) Directs the Secretary to conduct a childhood obesity demonstration project.

2. (Sec. 607) Prescribes requirements to achieve mental health parity in CHIP plans.


3. (Sec. 701) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the excise tax on: (1) cigars; (2) cigarettes; (3) cigarette papers; (4) cigarette tubes; (5) smokeless tobacco; (6) pipeless tobacco; (7) pipe tobacco; and (8) roll-your-own tobacco.

Both S.1074 and the current SCHIP bill include similar provisions in that they subsume anti-tobacco, anti-obesity, and mental health under a larger umbrella and provide federal grants to further those programs.

The costs associated with the mandate for a childhood obesity program will increase costs to taxpayers.

These are further expansions of the bill’s cost that are not considered in the direct payment obligation costs of SCHIP ($25 billion current cost and $35 billion expansion).

Considering that H.R. 976 integrates anti-tobacco, anti-obesity and mental health into SCHIP the bill would enact a beginning blueprint for nationalized health care.


H.R. 976 also expands the types of products on which tobacco taxes are charged. The bill extends the tobacco tax to cigarette papers and tubes.
Will we next hear that tobacco taxes must be applied to ashtrays sold at Target or Wal-Mart? Will new fat taxes be extended to purchases of plastic knives, forks and spoons by fast food restaurants under a similar theory that they are directly related to consuming cheeseburger or taco salad “Target” products (forks used to fish in pork barrels and political troughs for the earmarked “good stuff” being exempt, of course)?

SCHIP’s Economic Give Away to the Fortune 500 and Pharmaceuticals

An additional provision in the Congressional Research Service summary of the SCHIP legislation also merits scrutiny:


“(Sec. 703) Amends the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 to decrease from 114.50% to 113.25% the estimated tax rate for certain large corporations in the third quarter of 2012.

HR 976 does not reduce taxes for corporations with assets of $1 billion or more, it reduces the amount of future quarterly estimated tax payments that must be deposited. The benefit conferred is therefore the time value of money – some funds that were required to be deposited with the IRS against final income tax liability at year end filing could be retained and earn interest.

To put that in perspective, consider in very broad terms Johnson & Johnson, which reported earnings of $3.1 billion for the 2nd Quarter 2007:

1. Assuming a 33 percent corporate tax rate, the tax deposit liability would be $1 billion.

2. Before SCHIP the tax deposit requirement would have been 114.50 percent or $1,145,000,000.

3. After SCHIP the tax deposit requirement would be 113.25 percent or 1,132,500,000.

4. The difference is $12.5 million.

5. At a 5 percent time value of money that equals an annualized value of $625,000 for just one quarter’s deposits.

6. Since this is an ongoing reduction, in effect a corporation with assets of $1 billion or more is continuously rolling forward and annualized value of $625,000, which becomes permanent economic value to them.

7. Multiply that figure over all corporations in the US with assets of $1 billion or more.

Just 160 such corporations equals a $100 million give away to big business by Democrats under SCHIP. 1600 of those corporations equals a $1 billion tax give away to by Democrats in the name of “Saving the Chlidren.”


The above calculations are a general discussion and the actual amounts may vary depending on corporate performance.

The essential illustration remains the same: SCHIP provides an economic reward for the biggest of Big Business while taking money from everyday “Target” consumers. While the amounts are comparatively modest (in relationship to JNJ quarterly earnings) they are still very important.

How does increasing profits for Johnson & Johnson add to the affordability of children’s health care? Why should persons who smoke subsidize even $1 in tax payments?


The Section 703 provision in the SCHIP legislation shows Democrats busily at work to finance tax payment reductions for “certain large corporations” on the backs of their “Target Group” of choice, persons who lawfully consume legal tobacco products.

This, in addition to the subsidies provided for pharmaceuticals through cigarette tax policy and Parity Pricing. The SCHIP bill reduces the estimated tax payment requirements by corporations with assets in excess of $1 billion or more underThe Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA).

Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Philip Morris would be beneficiaries of that provision in the SCHIP bill. It appears to me that Democrats would “Save the Children” of parents who choose to smoke by forcing their parents to involuntarily subsidize reduced estimated tax deposits for the biggest of Big Corporate special-interests.

So much for Democrats looking out for American families and the little guy.

SCHIP also provides a huge income benefit to Fortune 500 pharmaceutical corporations like Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer.

Having already received a tax deposit subsidy under SCHIP, that legislation also assures a prospective increase in income for them. Expanding health insurance also increases the dollars available to purchase prescription drugs. How many of those $35 billion dollars for SCHIP expansion will wind up on the income statement for Johnson & Johnson etc. as increased prescription drug sales? I believe that $1 billion-plus is a conservative estimate.

This economic benefit is directly focused on the pharmaceutical industry. It also illustrates an often-overlooked reason for pharmaceutical support of tobacco control: tobacco control has become the front advocacy group to both advocate for and finance increased pharmaceutical sales revenues.


How many more school kids will be prescribed, and therefore be stoned on in the classroom, Ritalin or Prozac with the demand for “mental health parity” in the SCHIP final bill, HR 976?

Will Johnson & Johnson’s nicotine patches – financed by taxpayer dollars -- become mandatory for school kids caught smoking?

Will Pfizer’s Chantix smoking cessation drug become the prescription-of-the-day for 18 to 24 year old “children” covered by SCHIP?

Will GlaxoSmithKline’s Alli diet pill be required for kids whose Body Mass Index does not meet the prescribed anti-obesity standard?

SCHIP provides the health insurance money to pay for those drugs.

Why would corporate tax deposit reductions for Fortune 500 companies be included in a children’s health bill? Such provisions do not directly or indirectly support children’s access to health care.

It could be argued that reducing federal tax deposit receipts is adverse to supporting a children’s Medicaid program.

The answer is because the tax deposit economic incentive insures that all corporations with assets of $1 billion or more will sic their lobbyists on Congress to support overriding President Bush’s veto.
It matters naught if the individual benefit received is a mere $10,000 or $1 million per year. For any corporation with assets of $1 billion or more the costs of having a lobbyist support overriding President Bush’s veto are miniscule compared to the tax deposit economic benefit derived.

In the final analysis SCHIP is not about children’s health at all, it’s about the bucks.

quote:

In the final analysis SCHIP is not about children’s health at all, it’s about the bucks.

That, and the start of a nationalized health care system, with which they WILL be able to control how you live.
Don't want to live within their rules? No healtcare for you!!

SCHIP is not entirely new. But, it seems they want to use it to open up new doors.


The ULTIMATE social engineering experiment.

This is the plan;get more kids mistreated=more health problems=more money for the health care system.

These are the same people and groups that are so anti-smoking.

Raise a big ruckus about the fake dangers of smoking and the public and politicians will not notice the real cause of preventable deaths.

The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths is 783,936.
http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/7/healthcare_death.htm

Gary K.


Children's health care incorrect in 50% of casesOctober 11, 2007
BY Linda A. Johnson Associated Press

As Washington debates children's health insurance, a startling study finds that kids who regularly see doctors get the right care less than half the time -- whether it's preschool shots or chlamydia tests for teen girls.

The findings, from the first comprehensive look at children's health care quality, are particularly troubling because nearly all the 1,536 children in the nationwide study had insurance.

Eight-two percent were covered by private insurance. Three-quarters were white, and all lived in or near large or midsized cities.

Two experts called the findings "shocking." Others said minority children, those with more-restrictive government insurance, and the millions with no insurance at all certainly fare even worse.

They said the results highlight the importance of the debate over the proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Congress approved and President Bush vetoed. A vote to override the veto is set for next week.

The study, by the Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute and the nonprofit Rand Corp. research group, concludes that overall, doctors gave children the appropriate outpatient medical care only 47 percent of the time.

"They got an 'F'," said Dr. Joseph F. Hagan, a Burlington, Vt., pediatrician. Hagan co-edited the American Academy of Pediatrics' latest update to its children's health guidelines, due out later this month.

"It's sad, but I think it reflects some unpleasant realities about our current health care system or, I might say, non-system," Hagan said.

The compliance rate was even worse than that found in a study of adults: They got only 55 percent of recommended care.