« Gurkha Cigar’s Black Dragon Cigar Coming to a Shop Near You | Home | SCHIP Bill Passes Senate 68-31 »
Another reason I am against expansion of SCHIP.
By Jesse | August 2, 2007 |
I’ve already covered the insane cigar tax increase proposed as part of SCHIP on behalf of the “poor children”, but according to the Heritage Foundation some of those kids aren’t as poor as you think. (emphasis added)
Some proposals would increase eligibility by covering children in families with incomes up to 300 percent or even 400 percent of the FPL. In 2007, that would mean income of $61,940 or $82,600, respectively, for a family of four. Such eligibility expansion would encroach solidly into middle income territory. Raising the threshold to 300 percent of the FPL would result in 14 states extending coverage to families with median incomes; a 400 percent threshold would result in 42 states covering families with median incomes.[9] As families with earnings at the exact middle of the income distribution of the state, median-income earners are by definition not poor. Covering them under SCHIP would go well beyond the original objective of helping truly low-income families, effectively creating a new middle-class entitlement of government-run healthcare.
I’m not against helping the poor, but am I the only one that doesn’t consider $60,000/year poor?
If you're new here, you may want to check out the Cigar Review Index or subscribe to get updates through RSS or Email. Thanks for visiting!
Topics: Cigar News |
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Eh, 60k is plenty, but I guess with 2 kids it could MAYBE be a little tight. But 82k? Um, that’s plenty for a family of four anywhere. Ridiculous laws passed by more politicians that lie and steal.
RON PAUL!
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
It’s funny, my family always had health insurance (health care is what you get when you’re sick, health insurance is one way of paying for that service), and we were dirt po’. As the saying goes, we couldn’t afford the last two letters of the word. This is just a blatant attempt to push through socialized medicine, poorly masked as helping poor children. Sorry, you make 60K? You buy your own damn health insurance. I do!
Wanna sure way to know when you’re about to be screwed? Any time you hear a politician talking about children, it’s time to grab the K-Y.
I love talking politics on other people’s blogs. :)
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Again, Bush has promised a veto of this bill for the mere fact that this is the Democrates first attempt at national healthcare. They are starting with the “poor” kids and will work their way up to “poor” adults, etc. National healthcare is a mistake and a topic for a differnt blog.
The point with SCHIP is congress has now identified a target group for financing any one of their liberal ideas. The cigar smoker! They want your money! We lack the numbers to be an effective voice against this discrimination. Therefore, wriet your congressmen and tell them to look for funding somewhere else.
I believe Bush and it will be vetoed, but what is next! So wriet your congressmen and vote Republican next November.
Thanks for letting me vent. I am going to go light one up.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
One question I don’t hear asked, what happens when all the cigar smokers stop smoking? What happens with the cigarette smokers decrease their habit?
Where is the money going to come from then when these sources of tax revenue dry up because of those examples above?
Unlike cigarette smokers, cigar smoking is not a habit and cigar smokers don’t need that daily fix.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
The answer is simple. Te liberals will start taxing liquor, twinkies, cake, ice cream, etc. Anything unhealthy will get taxed. Remember, congress knows best! They want to thnk for you and control your life style. Well, I say, BS! Stop the madness! Write your congressmen and tell them you don’t want your ciagrs taxed!
As you can see, I am still fired up.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Both parties sold us out on this one. There were enough conservatives that are too scared of being labeled as someone who took “medicine away from poor children” to give it a huge margin. Not to mention it is fairly pork laden and I believe 25 is still considered “poor children” according to the articles I read.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
The Republicans sold us out! The Democrats I come to expect this type of legislation and if it were not because of the Democrats, this bill WOULD NOT be currently in the process of being passed by both the House and Senate.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
look i work in a pharmacy, and there are plenty of poor folks that need help. but there are also plenty more, almost 4-1 that don’t that are on public help. if you pull up to get your medicine in a new car with rims and a system, don’t expect me to feel sad for you when the government says you have to pay for it this time because there is an issue with the insurance. i think there should be no help for anyone. just 3 years ago i would have said i was poor. i was married, two fulltime college students getting 6 buck an hour, maybe 40 hours a week between the two of us with a car payment and a house payment too. we had a 27″ color tv and a twin size bed. if it hadn’t been for family we wouldn’t have had a fridge, washer, or dryer. i know what its like to not have things, but i would have been God damned to take a hand out. i am able bodied, and so are most of those people on assistance! the best thing i have heard of is make them take a pee test for the help because i have to to work so the tax man give my money to them, AND limit it to 1 adult 1 child, or 2 children; and no more. that will get them to close their legs!!! i know i cant afford kids right now, so i dont have them. besides i am paying for all the other MFers kids anyway!
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
The Democrats define a kid less than the age of 25! They define poor as a family of four making less the $80K. Gimmie a Break. This is the first step to socilized medicine.