The Daily Background
| Bush says he is “philosophically” opposed to bipartisan children’s health care plan
by Arlen Parsa
Talk about putting profits before people. President Bush says he is morally, “philosophically” opposed to a bipartisan program which would expand a measure designed to insure uninsured children. And, in doing so, he’s defending cigarette corporations. How does this work? The Washington Post explains:
President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.
The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House.
[…]
And it would rely on a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes, to $1 a pack, which Bush opposes.
[…]
A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the program would require about $14 billion in new money over five years — on top of the current $5 billion in annual funding — merely to keep covering the same number of children, in part because of rising health-care costs. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt, accompanying Bush yesterday, said: “We disagree with that number.”
Bush also said he didn’t support another bipartisan bill, which would allow the FDA to regulate tobacco products, which the Post says “could lead to stronger warning labels and limits on nicotine and other ingredients.” Bush explained “We’ve always said that nicotine is not a drug to be regulated under FDA.” Why are they giving cigarette manufacturers special treatment then?
We need health care for citizens, but not financed by cigarette taxes. These are just more taxes that disproportionately hit the poor/working class. The bulk of the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes directly into taxes, into discretionary spending funds for legislators to use as they wish—and this has been going on for a quarter century, hiking the cost of a pack of cigarettes from roughly 50 cents to $3.50.
Tackle the habit that actually does incur the highest costs for health care—unhealthy/junk foods. Yes, a major “twinkie tax”. Or…put an end to the quarter-century chain of “tax breaks” for the richest 1%, having them pay a fair share.