Against wishes of country, congress, Bush vetoes healthcare bill for poor children - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 10-25-2007, 06:49 AM

ace...a NO vote from a tobacco state? What a surpise.

BTW, NC is also receiving $3.9 billion over the next 10 years as payment for Bush's 2004 program to end federal subsidies of tobacco.
http://www.nccob.org/NCCOB/Financial...accoBuyout.htm

Thats a nice chunk of change for NC tobacco growers to ease the pain of withdrawal from years of getting "welfare" from the feds for growing an addictive product.

aceventura3 · 10-25-2007, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...a NO vote from a tobacco state? What a surpise.

BTW, NC is also receiving $3.9 billion over the next 10 years as payment for Bush's 2004 program to end federal subsidies of tobacco.
http://www.nccob.org/NCCOB/Financial...accoBuyout.htm

Thats a nice chunk of change for NC tobacco growers to ease the pain of withdrawal from years of getting "welfare" from the feds for growing an addictive product.

It is not a surprise that people do what they think is in their best interest, nor is it a surprise that those who fail to support what you support are; screwed up/have dishonest motives/hacks/etc. while those who do support what you support is always looking out for the good of mankind. Honest people can disagree on this bill for a number of reasons that don't have anything to do with not wanting to help poor children.

It get tiresome hearing the same talking point over and over from the left saying anyone who is against SCHIP is against helping poor children. Perhaps it is time for a new talking point. Don't you agree?

host · 10-25-2007, 07:11 AM

....anything for a buck....ehhh, ace? The congressmen from NC mentioned in your posts should be impeached....they are tools of the special interests who are the foundation for my argument about the "two tier" malignancy in the US that results in the superior numbers of "have nots" in the US, "taking it" in the nether regions from the buying out of the political power due them by the wealthy elite. Would a congressman who works for the greater good....a sincere representative of his constituents allow himself to have his vote (it isn't "his" vote...he's supposed to bring the collective will of his constituents to congress, or he should get the eff out....cede his privileges to someone who will vote the people's will..or in their best interests....) "bought" by corporations with profits greatly enhanced by...buying away populist political influence.....

Quote:

http://www.agr.state.nc.us/markets/c...ticul/tobacco/
...The Tarheel state continues to rank number one in the production of tobacco with an approximate 2006 annual farm income of $506.2 million dollars. In 2006, North Carolina flue-cured tobacco farmers raised 155,000 acres with an average yield of 2,090 lbs. per acre.......
....Employment relating to tobacco is 662,400 in the United States and 255,000 in North Carolina. The tobacco industry's estimated spending-induced impact on America's GNP was over $64.0 billion. North Carolina's tobacco economic impact is over $7.0 billion....

Quote:

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/gue...ildrens_health
Guest Post: Is Big Tobacco Stealth-Lobbying Against Children's Health?

By Howard Park on October 2, 2007 - 5:00pm.

The post below is written by my friend Howard Park, who now makes his living selling used books, but once made it bamboozling on behalf of corporate America. Read on for his stunning discovery of a grass-roots campaign that turns smokers into lobbyists against SCHIP. —Rick Perlstein

By Howard Park

Kid's don't vote. But smokers do, and the tobacco lobby is working hard to mobilize them to stop more kids from being covered by health insurance.

...Big PR firms conduct political and media training for the thousands of people in the extensive distribution networks that make up a mass-marketing corporation like Phillip Morris. The PR folks are also good at collecting personal data about employees such as what congressional district they live in or where they service stores.

When a Congressman needs a nudge to vote against something like funding health insurance for kids the grassroots lobbying network goes into action in targeted districts. The goal is to reach a Congressperson and their staff, but under the media radar. Phillip Morris USA is now owned by something now called "The Altrea Group" -- no doubt a name invented, over zillions of meetings, by public relations people. Any smart company since the 1980's makes every employee into a part-time grassroots lobbyist. An employee such as a route driver in places like rural Georgia help turn their customers, such as store clerks, into yet another layer of grassroots lobbyists—like the pretty clerk who asked me to sign the petition.

One nice thing about Burson-Marsteller and PM in the early 1990's was great benefits. Philip Morris, especially, was known for treating its people very well. Back then I never had a co-payment when I saw a doctor. It's not the same for people who live along the back roads or in big cities. Rural kids without health insurance are the sort of folks that Big Tobacco wants to grow up and become addicted to its products.

The biggest issue for Big Tobacco these days is exports-- making sure that American brands like Marlboro, Merit, and Camel continue to grow in huge markets mostly in Asia, South America and Europe. A 61 cent increase in the USA is still a big deal, however, which would have a noticeable impact on the American market. Big tobacco still has a good friend in the White House who probably still likes to think of himself as a Marlboro man as he clears brush in Crawford, Texas. The lobby also has just enough friends in Congress to sustain the Bush veto. Grassroots lobbying in places like a convenience store off the Interstate is still very important for tobacco companies. It's too bad that kids don't have the same voice or even health insurance. Don't be confused -- a vote against SCHIP is a vote for tobacco profiteers over kids......

`

Quote:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/repor...php?StateID=NC

....Smoking-Caused Monetary Costs in North Carolina
Annual health care costs in North Carolina directly caused by smoking $2.46 billion
- Portion covered by the state Medicaid program $769 million
Residents' state & federal tax burden from smoking-caused government expenditures $589 per household
Smoking-caused productivity losses in North Carolina $3.30 billion

Amounts do not include health costs caused by exposure to secondhand smoke, smoking-caused fires, spit tobacco use, or cigar and pipe smoking. Other non-health costs from tobacco use include residential and commercial property losses from smoking-caused fires (more than $500 million per year nationwide); extra cleaning and maintenance costs made necessary by tobacco smoke and litter (about $4+ billion nationwide for commercial establishments alone); and additional productivity losses from smoking-caused work absences, smoking breaks, and on-the-job performance declines and early termination of employment caused by smoking-caused disability or illness (dollar amount listed above is just from productive work lives shortened by smoking-caused death).

Tobacco Industry Influence in North Carolina
Annual tobacco industry marketing expenditures nationwide $13.4 billion
Estimated portion spent for North Carolina marketing each year $569.3 million

Published research studies have found that kids are twice as sensitive to tobacco advertising than adults and are more likely to be influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure, and that one-third of underage experimentation with smoking is attributable to tobacco company advertising. ....

dc_dux · 10-25-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It is not a surprise that people do what they think is in their best interest, nor is it a surprise that those who fail to support what you support are; screwed up/have dishonest motives/hacks/etc. while those who do support what you support is always looking out for the good of mankind. Honest people can disagree on this bill for a number of reasons that don't have anything to do with not wanting to help poor children.

It get tiresome hearing the same talking point over and over from the left saying anyone who is against SCHIP is against helping poor children. Perhaps it is time for a new talking point. Don't you agree?

I dont see anything wrong in pointing out the facts when the WH and other Republicans have misrepresented this bill.

In general, I agree with your observation/complaint, but lets not pretend that kind of rhetoric is only a "left" thing.

I would suggest that it gets tiresome hearing the same talking points over and over from the right saying anyone opposed to Bush's war policy is weak on terrorism and against our men and women in uniform.

edit:
I thnk Host summed up the influence of the tobacco industy pretty well....an industry with a hell of a lot more money to influence public policy than child advocacy organizations.

BTW....Cong. Robin Hayes (R-NC) who opposed this bill is in the top 10 recipients (out of 535 members of House and Senate) in contributions from agribusiness....to the tune of nearly $1/4 million in 06:
http://opensecrets.org/politicians/s...315&cycle=2006

aceventura3 · 10-25-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

BTW....Cong. Robin Hayes (R-NC) who opposed this bill is in the top 10 recipients (out of 535 members of House and Senate) in contributions from agribusiness....to the tune of nearly $1/4 million in 06:
http://opensecrets.org/politicians/s...315&cycle=2006

Imagine the nerve of a guy taking money from one of his constituent groups.

I think he laid out a good argument for the people in North Carolina to consider, if the net cost is greater than the net benefit - why should anyone in the state support the bill? Yes, you can dispute his numbers, but you can not dispute the fact that some states will send more money for the program than they get back in services for the program.

dc_dux · 10-25-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Imagine the nerve of a guy taking money from one of his constituent groups.

Working class families w/o insurance in NC are also a constitutent group....but they cant afford to give $1/4 million to his election campaign.

I dont have a`problem with people who oppose the bill on philosophical or cost grounds. I do have a problem when they misrepresent the bill (like Bush and many Repub members of Congress did or those who say it is unconstitutional) or those who complain about its impact in a vaccum.

The net loss in NC, if in fact the study is correct, is more than offset by the $3.9 billion of tax dollars over the next 10 years from you, me and the rest of the country, to wean NC off of 50+ years of federal tobacco subsidies and prices supports (again paid all those years by tax revenue from you, me and other non-carolinians).

There are winners and losers among the states in most every federal categorical and block grant program, just as there are winners and losers among the states when it comes to overall federal spending by state per dollar of federal taxes.

NC gets back $1.10 in federal spending for every $1.00 in federal taxes. I dont think Cong. Hayes would complain about that....but Hillary, Barak, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should raise hell

aceventura3 · 10-26-2007, 06:33 AM

I have already made the point that it is inefficient to have the federal government funding state programs compared to the states collecting and spending money on their own programs. Federal spending should be for the common good. I think health care for children is a common good issue and should not be subject to the wealth or whims of individual states. Every child should be treated the same, address should not be a factor.

Also the fundamental problem with the tobacco tax to fund this program is not only is it regressive in nature, but it is asking a specific group to pay for a program that we all should pay for.

It is pretty easy to shout lets do the right thing and then ask someone else to pay for it. If this program passes it should be paid for through general funds.

host · 10-26-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have already made the point that it is inefficient to have the federal government funding state programs compared to the states collecting and spending money on their own programs. Federal spending should be for the common good. I think health care for children is a common good issue and should not be subject to the wealth or whims of individual states. Every child should be treated the same, address should not be a factor.

Also the fundamental problem with the tobacco tax to fund this program is not only is it regressive in nature, but it is asking a specific group to pay for a program that we all should pay for.

It is pretty easy to shout lets do the right thing and then ask someone else to pay for it. If this program passes it should be paid for through general funds.

ace....I propose a deal, with you....

I'll support your "every state on it's own"....independently raising taxes to sustain it's own programs....and when your changes take effect...and the impact of them is felt..... I have your approval to leaflet the residents of these two states:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/prof...6&cat=1&ind=10

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/prof...0&cat=1&ind=10

.....to inform and encourage them to move to your county. I'll use a catchy slogan like..... there is more quality of life and better opportunity awaiting in ace's county.....even if I have to camp in a vacant lot there....or sleep on a park bench....than there is living where I live now.....

Rekna · 10-26-2007, 08:45 AM

It is funny now that the dems have changed the bill to address GOP concerns the GOP are still voting against it. It is clear that the GOP have taken an obstructionist stance in politics. The best way to deal with obstructionists is to vote them out.

aceventura3 · 10-26-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....I propose a deal, with you....

I'll support your "every state on it's own"....independently raising taxes to sustain it's own programs....and when your changes take effect...and the impact of them is felt..... I have your approval to leaflet the residents of these two states:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/prof...6&cat=1&ind=10

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/prof...0&cat=1&ind=10

.....to inform and encourage them to move to your county. I'll use a catchy slogan like..... there is more quality of life and better opportunity awaiting in ace's county.....even if I have to camp in a vacant lot there....or sleep on a park bench....than there is living where I live now.....

I have not updated my profile but I live in North Carolina now. I moved for a number of reasons including the cost of living. When I was doing research on various places, I was intrigued by the wide difference in the cost of living between the various states.

Again the data you reference requires more analysis prior to reaching accurate conclusions. Certainly the national poverty level is an interesting number, but it is more or less an average. I am certain that what is hardly livable in Ventura County, California would be a good standard of living in Mississippi.

Also, don't misinterpret my position. If people in a state are sending money to Washington to support a state program, then Washington sends the money back, at the very least less will come back to the state just to cover the Federal overhead. That is wasteful. If a state needs to be subsidized for some reason, call it what it is. Otherwise national issues are national issues. Health, education and welfare of children is a national issue in my opinion. Every child in this country should have food, clothing, shelter, education, medical, and a responsible and caring guardian or parent(s). I have no sympathy for adults who have made poor choices unless they are disabled or a senior citizen. My view is not complicated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

It is funny now that the dems have changed the bill to address GOP concerns the GOP are still voting against it. It is clear that the GOP have taken an obstructionist stance in politics. The best way to deal with obstructionists is to vote them out.

They have not changed the things that are the most problematic. The program will still be a mess relative to what could be done. Is it your opinion that the bill is as good as it could be? Do you this this approach is the best approach to making sure children have health care coverage?

Rekna · 10-26-2007, 12:22 PM

The GOP are not voicing honest concerns they are making things up about the bill and then using that to vote against it. The republicans are obstructionists preventing the congress from doing anything so they can say congress couldn't get anything done.

10-25-2007, 06:49 AM	#121 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...a NO vote from a tobacco state? What a surpise. BTW, NC is also receiving $3.9 billion over the next 10 years as payment for Bush's 2004 program to end federal subsidies of tobacco. http://www.nccob.org/NCCOB/Financial...accoBuyout.htm Thats a nice chunk of change for NC tobacco growers to ease the pain of withdrawal from years of getting "welfare" from the feds for growing an addictive product. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-26-2007, 06:33 AM	#127 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I have already made the point that it is inefficient to have the federal government funding state programs compared to the states collecting and spending money on their own programs. Federal spending should be for the common good. I think health care for children is a common good issue and should not be subject to the wealth or whims of individual states. Every child should be treated the same, address should not be a factor. Also the fundamental problem with the tobacco tax to fund this program is not only is it regressive in nature, but it is asking a specific group to pay for a program that we all should pay for. It is pretty easy to shout lets do the right thing and then ask someone else to pay for it. If this program passes it should be paid for through general funds. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-26-2007, 08:45 AM	#129 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	It is funny now that the dems have changed the bill to address GOP concerns the GOP are still voting against it. It is clear that the GOP have taken an obstructionist stance in politics. The best way to deal with obstructionists is to vote them out.

10-26-2007, 12:22 PM	#131 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	The GOP are not voicing honest concerns they are making things up about the bill and then using that to vote against it. The republicans are obstructionists preventing the congress from doing anything so they can say congress couldn't get anything done.