House votes to expand health care for children, passes 289 to 139

[babylonsister]

House votes to expand health care for children

By KEVIN FREKING
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Wednesday to expand government-sponsored health care to 4 million more children of working families, making a down payment on President-elect Obama's promise to provide universal health care to all Americans who want it.

The bill, passed by an overwhelming 289 to 139 vote, would increase federal taxes on cigarettes by 61 cents to a dollar a pack to pay the $32.3 billion cost of expanding State Children's Health Insurance Program for the next 4 1/2 years. Departing President George W. Bush vetoed similar legislation twice in 2007

"Soon we will have a new president who has committed himself to reforming our nation's health care system so every American can access affordable and quality health care." said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J. "The bill we are considering today makes a down-payment on that promise."

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHILDRENS_HEALTH_INSURANCE?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[The Straight Story]

1. yeah, raise taxes on a product mostly used by poor people, then watch the revenue go down

when they cannot afford it.

All for the insurance, just the source of it I have issues with. Depending on people doing something unhealthy for themselves to fund a health program, then using part of that same tax money to fund programs to get people to quit buying the product your funding is relying on seems a little stupid.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. You make a very good argument. It's more band-aid approach to health care. It's short sighted

in a lot of ways, yet better than nothing.

Why not just fix it like Canada did?

Their law makers don't waste a bunch of time on this crap because they already took care of it years ago.

[The Straight Story]

5. indeed - relying on fundind from a shrinking revenue source is just a band aid

If it REALLY meant something to people they would fund it outright from general funds like other things (defense, etc).

We all know what will happen as well - the tax will go up, revenue will come in, it will be hard to get the insurance and get payments, there will be extra money in the till, and pork projects will get that money (ie, they will loan it to other projects, promise to pay it back, then when they can't will come crying to us to save it for the kids....).

Tax and spend. they already took enough of my money for bailouts and wars, we don't need new taxes until we get our priorities straightened out.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. CHIP allows millions of children access to care, lets be honest about that. But if

the funding of CHIP is tied to a source that dries up, then what? Kid may be covered, but what do the kids do if their parent or parents get sick?

I'm not going to take a position on whether a sales tax (excise) on tobacco is a great or horrible idea except to point out that sales taxes are regressive.

However, tying children's health care to one source is just as stupid as tethering American's health insurance to their employer.

It's a bandaid approach that helps but doesn't cure. It treats the symptoms without curing the problem.


edited to add- I gave up nicotine (tobacco) last May, but if you buy the cans of American Spirit rolling tobacco it's so much cheaper than buying the taylor made packs. they have rolling machines and filter systems for those who don't go filter-less and the end result is just like taylor made.

But the only cure for the tobacco money drain is quitting or death. Or you keep paying. Such is the life of a junkie, eh?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Well, it puts to the test one long held theory:

Fewer smokers = reduced health care costs.

If what you're saying is true - that the tax itself will reduce revenues because fewer cigs will be smoked - then it should (in theory) also be true that the cost of the program itself should be reduced as well. Of course, kids (hopefully) aren't getting sick because of cigs, so I'm not sure the theory will hold up exactly, but still, it's not entirely non-sensical.

[Warpy]

8. The revenue source is risky

and penalizes the poor families the insurance on kids is supposed to help.

It's a piecemeal approach to healthcare, insuring the cheapest population--children--while ignoring the disaster that lack of insurance is causing for their working parents.

When is this country going to realize that working adults matter?

[Pithlet]

11. While I do think that a better source of revenue could be tapped

I'd be willing to bet that, to the average working family, the cost of health care outweighs the cost of their ciggies. That most would welcome this, even if it means the costs of their cigarettes go up a little more. Because having insured children costs a heck of a lot more. I think sin taxes are regressive, too. I wish this had been better funded. But I'd take this over nothing at all.

[WI_DEM]

2. Excellent!

[NightWatcher]

3. are you sure this isnt an Onion article? are the Dems really going to DO stuff?

Ho-Lee Shit, all this from a 39 cent tax increase on smokes....

[endarkenment]

6. The house should have extended SCHIP to everyone 25 and under.

They aren't thinking big. They aren't challenging the existing order.

[Cleita]

9. When was the last time they challenged the existing order?

At least they passed something that hopefully can be tweaked in the future to something more meaningful and practical.

[tabbycat31]

12. good

and I am glad to see my congressman (Frank Pallone) at the forefront of this. I'll call his office thanking him for it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. That's great but why is it tied to cigarettes?

I'm not necessarily opposed to the notion of "sin taxes" per se, but tying funding for specific programs to them is a bad idea. Where is the incentive for people to quit? And what happens to the funding for this program if smoking declines substantially?

[bvar22]

14. Sorry, Mom, but I can't quit smoking now.....

...too many little children are depending on me.