As Jesse Jackson says in this article, "This isn't partisan or ideological; it is moral." The issue is that the health of a people, whether a nation, a race or a culture, is one of the most important issues to be addressed by that people. We, as "Americans", have a responsibility to all of our people, whether "legal" or not, to care for their health at a minimum level. I am not saying that every medical concern has to be covered, but the basic needs for health maintenance must. As stated in the article, "All agree that insured children are healthier. And that saves money, reducing preventable diseases, lowering the cost for emergency-room services that result when treatments are put off, and reducing the risk of infection in other children." At the end of the day(what a wonderful economic phrase), what is at issue is the health of a nation. Our failure to provide health services to all people is an abdication of our moral and ethical responsibility to our fellow human beings. To state that it is the individual's responsibility to provide for their own healthcare is to evade the real issue: A healthy population contributes to the common welfare of all; an unhealthy population drains the assets of that population--financial, social, physical, psychological and spiritual. The arguments against the implementation of a universal healthcare system are advanced to divert our attention from the underlying reasons for denying coverage: the entire corporate/medical/congressional complex is threatened. But, this is a short term threat. Without universal healthcare, the entire system is at risk. At some point in the very near future, the system will collapse as the health of the nation deteriorates as a result of the failed healthcare system. When corporations begin to suffer from the declining health of its workers and the loss of productivity starts to affect the bottom line, it will be too late to make the needed corrections. And, the costs to U.S.-based corporations is one example of how this failed policy affects the system: in the U.S., automobile manufacturing industry healthcare coverage is a key to union negotiations. U.S.-based manufacturing plants cannot compete with plants in Canada and Japan and other countries with "socialized medicine". It is not "socialized", a pejorative term used to separate various segments of the population; it is common sense. "It Saves Money and Makes Kids(and all people) Healthy — What's the Problem?" The problem is power and control. Until we recognize that "One Nation[people], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" is our true motto and guiding principle, we will not progress into a healthy future for all.

peace,
st john

The problem is that it's not healthy for the insurance companies on whose bribes pols depend.

The Problem is this-
There are very definite gates through which one can become wealthy.
There is an attitude, there is a rite of passage.
That has to be controlled.

Part of this is the gravy train that is just easy money for the haves.
That rides on the backs of the have nots, and Columbus and The Stewarts(Bush ancestors) before, it has break the backs of the havenots for them to have.

As simple as that.

If you believe in SCHIP, contact a Republican Congressperson who did not support the bill and get him/her to change his vote.

Here is the list of those in the House that voted for and against it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll102.xml

I read a hilarious website the other day that explained point by point how Bush is the Antichrist. I don't think it's so funny anymore. . .

Ideology often trumps what's practical, sane and humane, does it not?

I just sent this article and my response to "my" rep., John Campbell of CA, who voted against it.

peace,
st john

You are arguing with logic and alas, in the battle of logic vs. ideology, logic hasn't a hope. Remember that Bush had never knowingly met a poor person before he became president; even now, such encounters when they occur are for a photo op. What he does know is that he's against government running any programs that in his view ought to be offered by private business. So even if health insurers aren't interested in covering the poor, since there's clearly no profit there, Bush ignores that. On principle (a poor word choice, I know, since 'principle' itself isn't part of this discussion) all programs should be run by business, he believes.
It would be wonderful if the veto were to be overturned!

The Bush family has been a horrible stain upon our country. From grandpa Bush trying to expand the fasist agenda be it in germany or here, from daddy george practicing real politic and murdering uncounted numbers in south america, to little georgie who must have sat at his grandfather's knee and learned that is is only "our people" who deserve the benefits of society, all the rest are expendable cannon fodder. Sickly kids don't make good soldiers so why spend money on them

When is Bush going to come out against all of the government programs that pay his own fantastic insurance, retirement, security, travel, etc? It seems that should be privatized also along with the lifetime perks of all the worthless Congress and Supremes. Surely they would not want all of that socialized junk when they could pay private companies for it, and then they could set the good example for the rest of us to follow.

Reverend Jackson writes: "This isn't about reckless spending; the expansion is paid for by an increase in taxes on cigarettes."

And just like that, twenty per cent of the population is declared non-persons.

Reckless taxation, unfair and regressive taxation doesn't seem to enter into the thought process here at all.

The end DOES NOT justify the means. I'm in favor of SCHIP and would never begrudge my income tax share of the money to pay for it. But I'll be damned if I'm going to say thank you for being treated like the twenty per cent of the population I'M IN doesn't count.

The problem is the huge cigarette tax increase that is yet another de-facto tax against the working class. Think about it: 1% of the population owns 35% of the wealth in the US, and the top 1% owns the wealth equivalent of the bottom 95% of the population combined, yet I watched the Democratic presidential candidates fall all over themselves supporting a massive tax increase on the working class. Additionally, most of the candidates were giddy about making a national no-smoking law.

I've been a loyal Democratic voter, but after watching the debates and Nancy Pelosi, I'm seriously looking at alternatives. I often sit at break time and realize that the other smokers are the people who have the highest propensity to consider voting democratic, but I know that once smokers find out that the Democrats are the ones who behind raising cigarette taxes and banning smoking, then the Democratic Party is finished.

We're talking about a fifth of the population here. Smokers are already highly pisssed by Nazi like anti smoking policies, and because we are treated like second-class citizens (Middle class and affluent voters by in large no longer smoke). I was going to vote for Edwards, but not now.

It's interesting how so many Republicans love this legislation because it's a regressive tax for services (i.e., it lets the wealthy off the hook) and it simultaneously pigeonholes the Democrats for failure.

Most people, including myself, want national heath insurance. But the way to fund this is through capital gains and corporate wealth taxes. Democrats need to stop pandering to special interest groups and they need to start listening to the people who actually vote, and stop committing political suicide. Most smokers see this as a civil rights issue (not in the racial sense), and you can bet that smokers are paying attention.

What's the Problem? The way it is funded isn't Fair to smokers. I'd feel the same way if the tax was only aimed at alcohol or even cotton.

"The problem is the huge cigarette tax increase that is yet another de-facto tax against the working class."

And which class is it that you suppose will benefit most from this plan?

Failures to support measures that would increase the health and well-being of Americas next generation as a whole group, indicate the huge social, ethnic and racial fractures that exist between different groups in America today. Its not a whole country anymore, if it ever was. Latent but intense inter group hostilities, means the wealthy don't want to give up their group resources, to other groups they despise. Its every group for itself. If you want something good done for your group in America, organise it amoungst yourselves. The poorer ethnic and religious groups will gain benefit from banding together. Its us and them, all over again. Socialism, ie organising resources for fairness and efficiency over all groups, is feared, because some groups feel have the most to lose, because other groups would gain. The wealthy feel someone elses gain is their loss, especially if their taxes increase, so they will oppose anything that is not "free market"
The failure to unite the social fabric of groups in the USI (United States of Israel) points strongly to its failure as a nation. If you cannot do anything for your peoples, what good is there belonging to the USI? Its groups form jostle of competing resource gobblers, and are ruled by massive war machine. External wars, and the residues of the consumer life, are no substitute for internal cohesion and working for a common future. Poverty and deprivation will only just provide the cannon fodder for the military, which is another reason why education for the masses is not to be funded. The secrets of sowing the various groups together in cooperation, cannot be found in hype about external threats. Its more about adequate nutrition, health, environmental health, and education, and training in common values of cooperation. If this is socialism, why not try it?

Funny how they always tax cigarettes while the alcohol industry continues to escape the wrath of Congress.

I wonder what the Center For Disease Control has to say about that - behind closed doors?

Apparently we need all that money to inflict Post Traumatic Stress Disorder on the millions of Iraqi and Afghani children we don't actually kill. American plutocrats don't give a flying f**k about the health of common children as long as they are able enough to grow up and take over the menial labor their parents had to do.

THIS is not meant to call any particular person out.rev jackson asks a rhetorical question here,to wit "whats the problem" .some on this thread feel that the problem is the increase in schip will be paid for with a ..gasp...REGRESSIVE TAX ON THE POOR MAN'S SMOKES.well,for a generation we have watched progressive taxes slashed and replaced by regressive ones.we've watched the social safety net slashed to the bone as the country veered to the right in the 1980's.well,right now the chickens have come home to roost on healthcare-especially for the poor,and near poor children,and their parents,some of whom are really kids themselves.we all know that the proposal bush vetoed is a reactionary stopgap measure.rev jackson has been railing against regressive taxes,and stop -gap reactionary programs for forty years now.he does this as a matter of principle,he does not use it as a subtext to blur the issue at hand-sick kids who need real help-not abstractions.if all the folks who blather obvious platitudes about how things ought to be,-hell,if half of them-had stood up to the trickle down-golf cart logic crowd,we wouldn't have had the era of voodoo economics which led to this moment.now ain't the time to whine about regressive taxes,and jesse certainly doesn't need the lecture.finally,i live in a state with cheap ass smokes,and terrible medical care for poor and near poor kids-if we can help the latter,by taxing folks who are addicted to the former,i'm afraid i'm for it.i don't need the lecture either,its part of the narrative down here-the way to help the poor is to light 'em up,and smoke the bastards.it isn't a pretty sight,believe me.

It seems clear to me that since the early eighties - and I don't subscribe to "conspiracy theories" lightly - the Republican party has done its best to systematically do away with FDR's New Deal. The insurance mess is part of the general picture of deregulation.

The only reason we still have social security is that even most of those folks who've been convinced by Big Business to "just trust us... because your elected officials are the enemy and We are your good buddies..." - even most of those folks couldn't be sold on the idea that the wholesale impoverishment of retirees makes sense for America.

We've entered the new Gilded Age but instead of Carnegie building railroads we've got people in the financial sector devising ingenious ways of siphoning off money from our retirement funds.