Bush HATES our children

[rich76]

Here's a little ditty I received this morning in answer to an e-mail I sent to my congressman........

August 7, 2007


Mr. Richard -----------

Dear Mr. --------
Thank you for contacting me about the federal excise tax on tobacco products. As Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture which has jurisdiction over tobacco, I am strongly opposed to increasing the tobacco tax.

As you know, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expires at the end of this fiscal year and must be reauthorized to continue providing vital medical benefits to our nation's children. H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medical Protection Act of 2007, expands the SCHIP program coverage to 5 million additional children and preserves physician reimbursements. H.R. 3162 uses a 45-cent tobacco excise tax increase to fund a portion of the bill's cost, raising taxes on working class families. The bill also cuts funding for Medicare Advantage, which provides health benefits for senior citizens. In addition, it eliminates the current requirement that individuals applying for Medicaid or SCHIP services show proof of citizenship or nationality. While I am strongly supportive of expanding SCHIP and protecting our physicians, I cannot support a bill that uses a regressive tobacco tax as the offset, cuts funding for our senior citizens, and allows illegal immigrants to collect benefits funded by the American taxpayer.

During my time in the U.S. Congress, I have consistently been opposed to increasing taxes and a 45-cent increase on tobacco products will hurt those individuals least able to afford it. The median household income of an average American smoker is less than $35,000 a year. These families can ill-afford to spend more of their hard-earned income on an increase in taxes.

In addition, an increased tobacco tax is an unreliable way to pay for something as important as children’s health care. Studies have proven that an increased tax will decrease consumption of tobacco products. Decreased consumption will mean less money collected in taxes, thus providing less and less money for children through North Carolina's health care program. Also, higher federal taxes provide an incentive for more and more individuals to turn to the black market for cigarettes where they can evade paying taxes entirely. Each increase in taxation on cigarettes induces increased evasion and, as a consequence, an erosion of revenues for the taxing authority. Furthermore, many convenience store owners are concerned about an increase in theft at retail outlets. Business owners have experienced a rise in theft as cigarette prices have gone up. Thieves are looking to steal cigarettes, not cash, because cigarettes command a high price on the black market. A higher tax on tobacco will make cigarettes even more valuable on the black market and may lead to higher instances of crime at tobacco retail outlets.

Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. I will continue to be a strong voice for you in Washington. If you would like to receive my periodic e-newsletter, visit my website at www.house.gov/mcintyre/IMA/issue.htm.

Sincerely,

Mike McIntyre
Member of Congress


This Internet Mail message is sent from an unattended mailbox. To contact Congressman McIntyre, please visit http://www.house.gov/writerep/

[bobbums27]

Originally Posted by hork

not to mention one borne not of reality but personal vendetta and the word of god (which god i can't be sure but one none the less).

but he's lied so long and done everything he can to build his legacy on the farce that he must continue to pretend it's a valid and just war and hope there might be a handful of folks around who still buy into it.



well he is from texas, and conglomerate farmers are one of his largest campaign contributors and have been since his "gubner" days.



i'd call that planning for the future. heck he's abused his power so regularly, an abuse intended to line his own pockets seems hardly that bad.




but in his defense he's never claimed to care one iota for the american public or that "god damn piece of paper" it was built upon.

I agree totally what a disgrace!!!!

[P562045]

So the president is the only person in Washington that is a bold faced liar?

[spoc22]

Another reason to fight such a stupid bill is simply this...what governemnt run program has ever been run efficiently and cost effectively?

[P562045]

Originally Posted by spoc22

...what governemnt run program has ever been run efficiently and cost effectively?

In a few weeks towards the end of the month that question will be answered right in front of our eyes and CNN will probably be one of the first ones in line of the media to moan and groan about it. In fact CNN started last month doing this already.

And another question is if the State of Louisiana did such a great job why is Governor Blanco not running again? Part of the reason things are so far behind and you will clearly see this is how inefficiently the government is run in Louisiana. And I very much doubt that will be the main focus of the story on CNN. I can't wait for another Bush is evil story.

I am sure some of us remember when Uncle Sam started handing out those debit like cards that were supposed to be used mostly for emergency purposes. And people were buying other things lets just say some people were not buying food, clothing and water with the money. There was some public outrage in that whole episode after Katrina. Even now don't we have some ice melting away?

What happened in Louisiana does disgust me as much as it did with many other people but for a very different reason than most people.

[P562045]

I would say by far the most efficiently run program at least at the federal level is Social Security. Everyone that is supposed to get a check gets one right? Well not everyone that receives a check is supposed to get one but that is for another day. I am sure that 100% of the money that goes towards the Social Security trust fund is being spent only on making sure the people that really need the money are the only one that receive those checks right?

I am still wondering what Bill Gates is going to do with his Social Security check when he starts receiving one.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by spoc22

Another reason to fight such a stupid bill is simply this...what governemnt run program has ever been run efficiently and cost effectively?

Whatever you say Grover Norquist.

[hork]

why don't those damn lazy kids just get off their butts and get a job. after all it's not like there aren't billions of well paying jobs for minors why should we care if some infant dies because they receive inadequate (if any) healthcare, not my problem.

and steve for the record, the law states that hospitals must administer emergency health care only. having a cough does not qualify so unless you're literally on your deathbed, you're not guranteed squat from a hospital unless you can pay. and even in those cases where treatment is administered, you can bet 9 times out of 10 it's not on the same level as those who can afford it.

i wish it weren't so but it is. all one needs to do is drop their blinders and visit a health clinic or an emergency room just once.

as a side note, cp, the last time the democrats tried to improve health care was the mid 90's. they of course were bushwacked by a GOP led congress. I'd offer you the name of the individual charged with trying to make medicine available to all but given the tone of these boards i see little point in doing so.

[P562045]

Years ago the democrats were in the minority and wanted to improve health care. Now the democrats are in majority and they still want to improve health care.

But in both cases the republicans are trying to stymie the democrats efforts to try to improve health care.

So why would the democrats be going back to this now years latter?

I just said the reason why. And to be as frank as possible it has absolutely nothing to do with wether these children get health care or not.

I just have a few other things I want to say. This is starting to turn into Hillary thread in a way. As a person might remember I went off on a totally different direction and started talking about Mrs. Clinton in vague generalities and I was not even talking about what I wanted to discuss. That may be happening now in this thread I don't know.

It is very difficult at the moment to not get caught up in what is going on in our nation. But that should not be any excuse to at least try to be constructive when we talking about any topic not just this one. I will readily admit that I was not constructive at all during most of the Hillary thread and even in parts of this thread.

I would never want any of us to lose our passion about any number of subjects but at least lets try to stay somewhat on topic and also try to be constructive when we talk about whatever it is.

I am going to leave the first part of this post in its entirety to show people what I mean even though I know that it is not constructive at all.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

Years ago the democrats were in the minority and wanted to improve health care. Now the democrats are in majority and they still want to improve health care.

But in both cases the republicans are trying to stymie the democrats efforts to try to improve health care.

So why would the democrats be going back to this now years latter?

Years ago, you mean the early years when Bill was the prez and Newt led the House and the PR disaster for the Clintons when they tried to push through their health care plan? Just trying to clarify myself there on what you are saying, not really questioning it yet.

[P562045]

Is a hospital required to ask if a person that comes into the emergency room if they have health insurance or not?

I just wondered because I have been truly blessed and not had to deal with an emergency room except for a couple of times in my entire life and I can't even remember if they asked me if I had health insurance or not.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Years ago, you mean the early years when Bill was the prez and Newt led the House and the PR disaster for the Clintons when they tried to push through their health care plan? Just trying to clarify myself there on what you are saying, not really questioning it yet.

I am talking about when the republicans took over congress in the January of 1995. Some may not even remember when the Clintons tried to push the health care plan through as first part the congress was controlled by democrats in both houses but as I said before the republicans would have blocked it from ever reaching the president's desk. I could be wrong but I think the Clintons started to push their plan sometime in the last half of 1993? It took at least some time for the democrats to even consider the health care plan in congress but by that time the republicans and their Contract with America had started to gain at least some momentum and I know the democrats were still in the majority when republicans started to see what they wanted to see with regards to the Clinton health care plan and the republicans started to say they were opposed to it. This very topic in this thread sort of reminds me what had happened with the Clinton health care plan. None of this happened overnight and the republicans just pretty much delayed the health care plan from getting to a vote on the floor until the republicans took over the congress in January of 1995 and for all intensive purposes the Clinton health care plan was not even really considered by the republican majority after that. What is happening even now reminds me of when the republicans were last in the minority when there were many procedural votes in congress right now but votes on the actual bills are not happening very much at all except for appropriations bills but that is a whole other matter entirely.

The best example that I can give that has happened just this year when it comes to republicans delaying votes on actual bills on the senate floor is there have been a number of procedural votes on the comprehensive immigration reform but the actual legislation has never been voted on the floor of the senate that I know of at least.

Now I must admit I have a very selective memory of the Clinton years in the white house so I may be off on when each different thing happened but I am pretty sure what I am saying is what happened in the end when it comes to the Clintons health care plan.

[Chin Music Express]

Originally Posted by spoc22

See this is one of the classic lies perpetuated about both Bush and the Repubs. There is no denial of in surance to poor kids. Any child that goes to a hospital by law CANNOT be turned away because of a lack of insurance. As a matter of fact, it is the abuse of this law by the thousands of illegal aliens here in sothern California that has cause the closure of over a dozen trauma centers in our area. There are so many of them using the emergenciy rooms to treat a child with the sniffles, that the hospitals cannot afford to continue to operate and so have closed their doors.

Actually, from time to time you do hear reports of people being denied because they do not have insurance. Especially, when the hospital is losing money.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by hork

and steve for the record, the law states that hospitals must administer emergency health care only. having a cough does not qualify so unless you're literally on your deathbed, you're not gu[a]ranteed squat from a hospital unless you can pay. and even in those cases where treatment is administered, you can bet 9 times out of 10 it's not on the same level as those who can afford it.

i wish it weren't so but it is. all one needs to do is drop their blinders and visit a health clinic or an emergency room just once.

well hork, my wife is a nurse and she works in a hospital and you are wrong. No one is, or can be, turned away. The only thing that the severity of your ailment affects is the order in which you are seen. If no emergency treatment is needed the patient "may" be referred to a doctor or given cough medicine and sent on their way.

As for the care being less than that available to those who pay for it - thanx for helping to fight against the socialized medicine being pushed by the Dems. That's exactly the point. Socialized medicine makes all medicine like what you have described regardless of what Michael Moorecrap says.

[P562045]

It does make sense to me that a person that has a bloody nose would get help before someone that appears to have nothing wrong with them. I sure would hope the hospital would treat someone with a broken arm before someone with a cold. And whatever their health insurance situation is should not be the determining factor on which person the people in the emergency room see first. But I also could see how some might think otherwise.

There is also the liability factor for the hospital. The person that recently died while being in the emergency room I am sure that family has more than one attorney because the family is probably suing the hospital for many other things besides just their loved one dying.