Amazon.com Widgets

« Six Black Cordelias | Main | Truth »

Michael Moore on Oprah

A clip from Michael Moore's appearance on Oprah. Speaking of CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) Michael reminds the insurance shill that "you own these guys"
Related news




Quicktime Video 8.5 MB | Duration: 06'54
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

lol Moore burned that chick at the end. (I think shes with an insurance company)

I didn't quite catch that at the end, so thanks for pointing it out, Kev.

And this is totally off topic, but I would be remiss as a librarian if I didn't mention it. Celebrate Banned Books Week (BBW) by exercising your freedom to read. It's one of the most American things you can do! (And yes, you'll be shocked by the titles that have made the banned and most challenged books list.)

Thanks for letting me have my say, Norm, and for the wonderful video clip.

"Christianized" Medicine? Pah.

How about "Jesus-ized Medicine"?

Two more related links from over at DK:

1) Kucinich makes a very stupid move, and votes against SCHIP:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/27/164123/134

2) Miscarriage = "elective abortion" for Blue Cross/BS:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/26/232053/857

Women and children first!

Frebetic, I'm with you on what calling it "christianized" medicine says. But as some one who lives in a swarm of right wing religious republicans I have to say that Moore was just trying to emotionally engage a Oprah's base. For some reason its not enough to point out the tragedies in the world to motivate some people. You have to threaten them with eternal damnation to get them to do care.

It is painfully obvious i did not proof read. Sorry!

It was a very ineresting program. The entire show can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5rXxXyeOY8

I'm with you on what calling it "christianized" medicine says. But as some one who lives in a swarm of right wing religious republicans I have to say that Moore was just trying to emotionally engage a Oprah's base. For some reason its not enough to point out the tragedies in the world to motivate some people. You have to threaten them with eternal damnation to get them to do care.

Of course, you're right. If you say, "humanizing" medicine instead of "Christianizing" it, you're just another godless socialist looking the put more government on the backs of god-fearing Christian taxpayers.

I think Moore's movie scored points for people who want universal healthcare (if not enough to push single-payer healthcare to the forefront), and won over some people who are on the fence too. But I really wonder if his "Christian" strategy is effective. On balance, I would guess that it is moderately counterproductive. "Supply-side Jesus" Christians are likely to view it as a calculated ploy and, even if I support Moore's aims, I see it the same way.

I think everyone's being too hard on CEOs. CEOs are executives, executing on behalf of... Whom? When Ward Churchill outraged about "little Eichmanns" (in my thoughts...some Oak through the trees), he (peace/piss? be upon him) was getting at the executive functionality of said "Eichmanns". Even Eichman's boss was surfing a wave greater than himself, and he felt it.

"Who are these CEOs executing on behalf of? Who is behind it? Is it Adolf Coors (don't drink it)? The "Kansas" Koch-topus? Who is pulling the strings? Are they a collective: collect-ivist-activists? Is it a mindless cultural viral madness? I am confused. I admit.

Relative to the robopathic brutality of ancient Rome, Inc., I think we are all "christians" here. Give it a small "c".

Think "cross" (i.e., the "cruci-"fix is always in). Not "Christ".

Good point emo. But I don't think anyone here is really blaming CEO's, they're merely scapegoats. This ties into the supercaptialism "two minds" post from earlier. Health Care got swallowed up by supercapitalism, focusing only on making more profits (financially), no matter the cost (morally). When you are killing americans by denying health care, it's not hard to get the dow above 13,000.

All the CEO's were doing was their job, but their job description needs to change, perhaps removing the word "profit" from any part of it.

Hey, hey, Bush Eli,

How many kids are going to die.

Wiley, if that is the case, the CEO's shot themselves in the foot.

Now they complain they cant be competitive because of rising health care costs.

Cant have it both ways?

Having some contract law in my background, I can say that Health Insurance companies are the only ones who can change a signed contract after the fact. They do it all the time, with price increases, and reduced benefits. It is a losing investment for many because of this.

Think you are covered because you read the policy before signing on? Think again if you dont keep up with all the addendums and notices they send. BCBS just sent out a notice of a price increase for October.

I did not have to sign anything, hahah. They are special, get ready for a super nice birthday increase each decade. Thanks for the present, Insurance company.

Why should only adult smokers pay for this All-American child health care?

TAX REVENUE IS NOT ALWAYS ALLOCATED AS EXPECTED - SCHIP was originally designed to provide insurance to children from low-income families that aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. However, in some states, SCHIP is now covering children from families making as much as 300 percent of the federal poverty line. And, in states like Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, it's covering more adults than children. The Wall Street Journal is calling SCHIP a “giant middle-class health-care entitlement” – so why should smokers have to pay for it?

STATES WILL LOSE MILLIONS IN TAX REVENUE - Cigarette excise taxes are a major source of revenue for state governments, and an increase of the federal excise tax is expected to cut into that revenue by decreasing legal cigarette sales by around 1 billion packs per year. A federal tobacco tax hike of up to 61 cents could take an estimated $1 billion in net tax and Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) funds away from state governments each year – nearly 5 percent of their overall tobacco revenues. States rely on tobacco tax revenues to fund a variety of programs, from public education and children’s services to health care and more.

EMPLOYEES' SAFETY COULD BE IN JEOPARDY - A tobacco tax increase means cigarettes will become more valuable, making cigarette theft and burglary more common at every stage of distribution. From convenience store robberies to warehouse break-ins to truck hijackings, cigarette crime is expected to increase – putting the men and women who work with cigarettes in danger on the job.

HIGHER CIGARETTE TAXES BURDEN LOW-INCOME AND WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES - Cigarette taxes are extremely regressive, affecting the poor more heavily than the rich -- the tax represents a larger portion of the lower-income smoker’s budget. Since most smokers are low- or middle-income Americans, increasing cigarette taxes forces those who can least afford it to shoulder the burden.

CIGARETTE TAXES ARE AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE OF INCOME - Cigarette sales are declining at a rate of around 1 to 2 percent per year, and an increase in the federal excise tax is expected to reduce consumption by as much as another 6 percent. As demand for cigarettes decreases, so does the revenue earned from excise taxes. This creates an unstable funding source for government services, which can lead to budget shortfalls – as well as nationwide tax increases down the line to cover the deficit.

AMERICAN WORKERS WILL LOSE JOBS AND PAYCHECKS - More than 12,000 workers could lose their jobs due to the proposed federal excise tax increase. These lost jobs will come from all parts of the tobacco industry, from farmers to factory workers to convenience-store clerks. A federal excise tax increase of up to 61 cents per pack is expected to decrease cigarette sales by around 1 billion packs per year.

SMOKERS MAY GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO PURCHASE UNTAXED CIGARETTES - Studies show that revenues from increased cigarette taxes often fall short of projections, partially because some smokers will go out of their way to purchase tobacco via untaxed channels: international Web sites, Native American reservations and even the black market.

HIGHER CIGARETTE TAXES CAN INCREASE GANG AND OTHER ORGANIZED CRIME - An increase in tobacco taxes could escalate an already-thriving underground market, making it more lucrative for gangs and other organized crime outfits to steal, smuggle and funnel black market cigarettes to consumers. For each 1,000 cartons of cigarettes smuggled into the U.S., the federal government currently loses $3,900 and state governments lose an average of $7,850.

HIGHER TAXES ALONE DO NOT PREVENT YOUTH SMOKING - When tobacco taxes are raised, smuggling and theft become more prevalent, enabling more and more adults (including kids) to obtain cigarettes through unregulated sources. Higher taxes alone do not prevent youth smoking. Positive peer influence, parental guidance and smoking prevention programs do. Instead of penalizing adults who choose to smoke, government should focus on reducing youth smoking through proven methods.

TOBACCO FARMERS MAY SUFFER - Increased globalization and declining consumption are already taking an economic toll on our nation’s tobacco farmers, making it more difficult for domestic producers to compete with international growers. As consumption dips again due to an FET increase of up to 61 cents, around 1,800 Americans who work in the tobacco farming industry are expected to lose their jobs.

Maybe I missed something, but who the hell said that universal health care should be paid only by cigarette smokers?

Christianized is the right term as far as I can tell. (The) Christ was the title given to Jesus of Nazareth. Christian means a follow or adherent of Christ. Christ and Jesus are synonyms in this case. That being said, the article about Atheists for Jesus was interesting.

Re: Doobie's post "(W)ho the hell said that univeral health care should be paid only by cigarette smokers?"

NOTE: The issue in discussion pertains to Child Health Insurance Program, not universal health care.

Here's Diane Feinstein's response. Barbara Boxer avoided the fact that smokers would be targeted to finance SCHIP.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding an increase in the Federal tobacco tax. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.

I have been a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is a federal-state partnership designed to provide health insurance coverage to low-income children. Studies have shown that 62% of uninsured children are eligible for a publicly-funded health program, but are not enrolled. To improve this situation, I have supported legislation to provide outreach to increase the enrollment and participation of eligible children in these health programs.

On July 19, 2007, the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation by a vote of 17-4 to reauthorize SCHIP. This legislation included a provision to increase the federal tobacco tax, with all revenue generated by the increase dedicated to the reauthorization and expansion of SCHIP. While I am not a member of that Committee, I have supported efforts to increase the federal tobacco tax to fund SCHIP in the past.

Please know that I understand your concerns about the possible effects of increasing the Federal tobacco tax. While we are not in agreement on this issue, I value your input and will keep your comments in mind when the Senate considers legislation to reauthorize SCHIP.

       Again, thank you for writing."

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein United States Senator

Hey, Norm --

Alicia Kelso's post is a cut & paste job from tobacco.org. Just do a search on any part of the text.

I don't know if this user has commented here before, but this is basically spam...

Re: Dzwonka inaccurate spam claim

All Americans should pay for SCHIP if it is to continue, not just us smokers. The fact that I quoted Diane Feinstein's email to me and tobacco.org facts shows that I'm informed and active.

Facts quoted do not spam make, my friend.

How about another sin tax to support SCHIP, say only people who buy alcohol, or target gay people, maybe a gasoline tax, or only people who have kids -- it would be just as ridiculous as only targeting smokers. All Americans should pay for SCHIP if it is to continue, not just smokers.

There, I quoted myself. Is that spam in your book, Dzwonka? Do try to care about the real issues.

It is unfair to tax a portion of society to pay for all of that society. This measure is trying shoulder the cost of the State Children's Health Insurance Program on adult smokers. SCHIP is using an unfair form of tax profiling.

Ok, Alicia, I hadn't done any thorough research into the funding of SCHIP, and so I had no clue what you were talking about. But frankly, I'm surprised anyone can smoke manufactured cigarettes, and knowingly ingest rat poison, hair-dissolving chemicals, and other such carcinogens, that will make them and their children sick, if they breathe in second-hand smoke.

I'll agree with you though, taxing one product for to pay for something that everybody's children would use, seems a bit unfair. I don't know if it would actually cause all of those problems that you posted before. Some of those claims seem exaggerated.

Re: Dzwonka inaccurate spam claim

Norm, if you google "STATES WILL LOSE MILLIONS IN TAX REVENUE" you'll hit this: http://www.tobacco.org/articles/org/rjr/?top_only=1

This is a registration-required site, but you can find it cached here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vmvYBn1AlC8J:www.tobacco.org/articles/org/rjr/%3Ftop_only%3D1+%22STATES+WILL+LOSE+MILLIONS+IN+TAX+REVENUE%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

You can also find the "TAX REVENUE IS NOT ALWAYS ALLOCATED AS EXPECTED" bit here at nocigtax.com here: http://www.nocigtax.com/10-reasons-to-say-no.php

I guess this puts Alicia at a 1-100 ratio of genuine comment vs. quoted text from propaganda sites...

And just so you don't think I shy away from genuine debate (which you'd be more likely to get, had you actually written a post, rather than that cut & paste job):

It is unfair to tax a portion of society to pay for all of that society.

Aside from the sad fact that mommy & daddy obviously failed to tell you something rather fundamental about the nature of life itself (it's not always fair!), this isn't any less fair than all of society being taxed to pay for part of that society.

That being said, your hypothetical suggestion about a "sin tax" targeting gay people is more than a little suspect. I mean, the idea of "sin tax" is used extensively in some of the more successful democracies in northern Europe, and it amounts to taxing things that are bad for you, while subsidizing things that are good for you.

Essentially, it means that you might not be able to afford to buy as much beer as you would LIKE, on Friday -- but you'll be able to afford all the milk you NEED, on Monday.

Yes, it means the government is interfering with our free will -- but it already does that, in countless ways. The "sin tax" concept just means that the government interferes for a good reason...

And, oh yeah -- being gay is not a sin.

Michael Moore is full of shit. He over-simplifies issues to the point of stupidity and feeds it to the gullible and the credulous from whom he profits.

That is has conned Oprah does not make him any more credible.

Cool, Doobie got the point: "(T)axing one product for to pay for something that everybody's children would use, seems a bit unfair."

You're the best, Dzwonka: I am not an important person and my perspective is intrinsically biased, so I quote those whom others might respect and you provided more perspective in that regard. Objectivity is very helpful.

Dzwonka is now the king of "face it": "Aside from the sad fact that mommy & daddy obviously failed to tell you something rather fundamental about the nature of life itself (it's not always fair!), this isn't any less fair than all of society being taxed to pay for part of that society."

The issue in the wings of SCHIP is, in fact, "should people who don't have and never will have children contribute taxes to other people's child health care? This could impact education, as well. Why should you or I be required to subsidize those whom you and I have zero connection?"

This is my stupid answer: Because if we do/are able to contribute anonymously via taxes, we will live amongst people who would be able to advance themselves given a healthy and educated life. Nescient neighbors might become far and few between, if given a chance offered by our farseeing government, rather than limited by their often subsitence-living, often necessarily short-sighted family, neighbors and friends.

SCHIP and the "waiting in the wings" universal health care causes those of us who seriously ponder the matter to question whether we are becoming socialistic, if not Socialist. Inquisitive minds ask if we're letting prejudice guide our votes and public policy with regard to targeting certain groups who are often suceptible to legal molestation due to those prejudices against smokers, gays, people with children, buy alcohol or gasoline (none of which are a sin in my mind).

It's simply crucial that the SCHIP plan not be approved due to it's tax profiling, which would be an ethical faux pas, were it anyone but smokers.

Next time YOUR category may be the tax profile target, if there's enough consensus to penalize you via taxes, in order to finance the next untenable situation.

Smokers should not be held responsible to keep SCHIP afloat, nor should anyone.

We might end up agreeing, as a nation to become more socialistic. This issue would be a referendum in European nations - a special, national vote on the specific issue of whether, certain groups or citizens as a whole should finance a government program. At present, all-child health care above the poverty line is not government subsidized by taxes.

One might GIVE money to one's neighbor out of good will, but not be REQUIRED to fork out the taxes requisite to finance SCHIP as it hopes to be by the end of the month.

If you dislike smokers, we'll continue to populate lower income levels, as we pay higher taxes for prejudice's sake.

BTW, Dzwonka, my parents are as cowed as most other Americans and told me to keep my mouth shut and accept inequities in government as a given.

I'm a participant, not an activist or a passivist; Simply a voice of my own (yes I quote others so you know I'm not an army of one).

Vote NO on passage of SCHIP, please.

Thank you, Alicia

Well Alicia, I applaud you for taking a stance, and for not accepting the inequities of the government as a given. But I don't applaud the cause you've picked. I mean, as far as inequities go...

Our tax money is used for wars, "faith-based initiatives" and what have you -- there's a damned near endless list of inequities that I would rank as more important than this.

And sincerely -- good luck with quitting.

Tobacco is our payback for (distilled) spirits.

Often CEOs are damned if they do, and if they don't, maximize $$$$, obey, or "obey" by skirting the (distilled) spirits of the Law. Since Reagan I think the Zeitgeist has been trending towards always erring on the side of $$$$. The shareholders over the hypothetical "stakeholders". It complicates itself when privatized Media synergizes with Big Money to put politicians up for auction.

Why not quit playing complicated tax games and just print and ship money in the form of grants to say,... the opposite of criminals, not "saints", the overworked, students maybe, struggling micro-businesses. Or make it loans. Require in turn non-military service for all for real needs (not phoney wars). I see humble houses falling down while superfluous 2nd, 3rd, ...12th "homes" spring up like weeds, everywhere, ... a certain minimum living standard for simply being citizens can't totally ruin all character. Would anyone really be more Uprighteous if he/she had to work, say 4 hrs. extra a day to afford the air bill (air being now a free "handout") because the atmosphere is so polluted that we must live in Biospheres, of varying degrees of humbleness/arrogance? Has Automation produced no surpluses worthy of a wider distribution? I believe the Billionaire Bass Brothers Biosphere here was financed with an eye to long-range planning on the part of the wealthy. The future is paying for things you always took for granted so much that the idea of "free" never even entered the Theater of Concepts.

If I wrote a constitution, free air, free water, and public land would have priority, public baths if you hate B.O, over private ego-enhancement, superficial pecking order display. And "life" is less than worthless if quantity, not quality is the priority. Philip Larkin, "And This Be the Verse,"

"And don't have any kids yourself",

China's 1 child policy is the historical polar opposite extreme from Germany's Lebensraum hyperimperialism. Give credit where due.

Oh oh, I ramble.

Well, More Moore!

Attention Deficit Disorder is what the last 2 posts exemplify. Dzwonka attempts to raise other issues to distract the direction of inquiry because he doesn’t want to stay on task (cuz he’s a troll anyway) and “one evo emo” is in outer space. Don’t get a prescription and thereby support the state sponsored pharmaceutical fiasco (the side effects disable your body’s ability to produce serotonin and then you’ll be depressed by the very medication allegedly intended to, uh, help you); just try very hard to focus on the one issue of SCHIP in this thread: one worthy issue at a time.

At issue in this thread is SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), which Congress will vote on, not you and me. My senators do not support my right to buy a legal American product without punitive taxes to pay for SCHIP.

Because we Americans are challenged with the apparent need for socialized medicine and the notion that everyone should pay for all others offends our political sensibilities, tax profiling is used to punitively milk a portion of Americans, instead. Those undesirables will be taxed for buying a perfectly legal, American produced product to finance a failing public program. The government will get away with state sponsored behavior modification (raising taxes on cigarettes to reduce one’s ability to buy them).

The above makes for an unreliable financing mechanism, as it is a public program that children will depend on and many will quit, or buy elsewhere to flout the attempt at personal choice.

SCHIP is a stepping stone to universal health care, in that it will cover children above the poverty line, but not adults. If we want universal health care, then let’s stop the stepping stone modus operandi and face this issue without involuntary contributions via punitive taxes that affect a targeted portion of our population. If we all agree the kids need it, then, of course, so do adults.

President Bush promised to veto SCHIP, as he perceived 156% increase in taxes was not right. I think it’s also unconstitutional, as it deliberately makes it more difficult for people to afford choosing to buy a legally made American product.

Focus on whether you think we should all support children’s health care and then the natural concomitant; it’s the same for adults.

Do you think we’ll still be able to get a 2nd and 3rd doctor’s opinion in a government controlled situation? Will we lose private healthcare altogether and have no option but government providers? Controlling others choices, Behavior Modification, Attention Deficit (in healthcare financing) Disorder – it's starting to get very scary how we're played the fool by our own senators, too. They appear to be angels with children's best interests, but it's apparent it's a lie.

Alicia, if Bush is going to veto it, what are you worried about? As for your characterizations of other posters, Dzwonka and one evo emo (formerly one evil axis) are two of the most respected regular commenters on here. Making personal attacks against them is not helping your case.

"Dzwonka and one evo (formerly evil) emo are two of the most respected regular commenters on here."

Doobie must be smoking himself.

           .

Come out to the res, or over to the urban island, archipelago thereof for tax free cancer.

           .

"“one evo emo” is in outer space. Don’t get a prescription and thereby support the state sponsored pharmaceutical fiasco (the side eff"

G.G., Galileo Galiliei, e.g., was in outer space in inner space (his thoughts, obsessing), paradoxically following such obsessive crackpots as John Kepler, et al. He fell down when he commonsensibly rejected Universal Gravitation as too weird, far out, astro-illogical, leaving the Bible-code-deciphering Isaac Newton to pick up the rejected pieces in his spare time (18 mos. worth, and he picked up the pieces of Archimedes's opus interruptus at that time too).

Perhaps pharmaceutical grade soma (speaking of my "body") IS on the way, along with a Brave New World Order where your common (alas) sense will finally and absolutely prevail.

Alicia, Aleesha, whatever, Time itself is a categorical field to me, 2nd thermodynamic law? Down to earth! I am so far above your petty concerns, beyond quibbling. If you must have tobacco, chew it green, and don't swallow too much. But you might prefer Tillerman's Tea (Jimson Weed).

You might just be a hinatma, a petty soul, whilst I just might orbit eccentrically far in and out of the mahatmosphere.

(some moqui) Peace.

Those undesirables will be taxed for buying a perfectly legal, American produced product to finance a failing public program.

SCHIP isn't failing. What a blantent lie. And to bring up the fact that cigarette companies are "american" doesn't have anything to do with this, it's Nationalistic bullshit and you know it.

as he perceived 156% increase in CIGARETTE taxes was not right.

Fixed that misleading statement for you. Oh, and real great arguement, a Republican president who wont' even raise taxes to pay for the war, won't raise taxes to pay for a child's health care either, surprise surprise.

Why should you or I be required to subsidize those whom you and I have zero connection?

This statement INFURIATES me. You think that not helping out your fellow being helps YOU? The robbery of your house wasn't done by a high-school graduate, I can almost guarantee it. Let's let the poor stay poor, and not fund any sort of public system. Pull themselves up by thier bootstraps, or more likely, by robbing you of your extra bootstraps.

YOU are tied to these people dipshit, they are your neighbors and fellow human beings, and until you live in a self-preserving bio-dome, with no outside contact, it will always be this way. Only take care of yourself and your precious Cigarette's, and you'll die alone of lung cancer, you selfish git.

(sorry to get so angry, but man this shit bugs me.)

claps

Someone had to say something.

also claps

Why should you or I be required to subsidize those whom you and I have zero connection?

Well, smokers increase the costs of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. I wonder if Aleesha thinks that everyone should have to subsidize smokers?

Smokers also increase the cost of health insurance. I wonder if Aleesha thinks that smokers should pay substantially more for health insurance so that others don't have to subsidize smokers?

How do smokers increase the cost of social security? I thought smoking made you die early. Wouldn't that save money for social security?

Willey, federal tax revenues are at an all time high right now (yes, even after inflation). If you raise tax rates and federal tax revenues go down, who have you helped?

tax revenue

Doobie: "...(I)f Bush is going to veto it, what are you worried about"

I'm worried about Senators posing motions that are not only unconstitutional, but sway the public to vilify those whom the senators deem inconsequencial and worthy of victimization for financial purposes to support an untenable government policy, which contradicts the constitutional rights of both you and me.

Willey: "SCHIP isn't failing. What a blantent lie. And to bring up the fact that cigarette companies are "american" doesn't have anything to do with this, it's Nationalistic bullshit and you know it.

1st subject: It is the Senators that claim the need to finance SCHIP via punitive taxes against smokers, not me.

2nd subject: Don't be a stupid troll; American tabbaco is American. How pedandic does one have to be to inform you?

3rd subject: I posed a rhetorical question, which Willey misrepresented, and did not include the entire context "Why should you or I be required to subsidize those whom you and I have zero connection?

For Willey and others who don't care to pay attention to the entire thread or context:

"This is my stupid answer: Because if we do/are able to contribute anonymously via taxes, we will live amongst people who would be able to advance themselves (IF) given a healthy and educated life. Nescient neighbors might become far and few between, if given a chance offered by our farseeing government, rather than limited by their often subsitence-living, often necessarily short-sighted family, neighbors and friends."

I might add a quote from a wonderful teacher: "The level of personal generosity and it's gratitude in a society determines the level of government oppression; the taxes and public harrassment required to make up for the lack of generosity and the lack of gratitude are the collective product of that population to make life livable."

To reinforce the above: The lack of gratitude/benevolence is indicative of the lack of benevolence/gratitude in the private sector of that society.

Meaning that, there is no thanks for government hand-outs, which hand-outs only produce demanding anger of its recipents, not personal gratitude.

The above translated means that when one knows who granted benevolence to them, the recipient seems to be personally grateful, not a demanding, self-righteous recepient of sustinance or finances for whatever.

Gratitude is missing in the government dole, ESPECIALLY IF FINANCED FROM THOSE DEEMED WORTHY OF PUNITIVE TAXES, rather than the benevolent, volitional general public.

SCHIP and the "waiting in the wings" universal health care causes those of us who seriously ponder the matter to question whether we are becoming socialistic, if not Socialist with regard to health care. Inquisitive minds ask if we're letting prejudice against (vilified groups) to guide public policy and approve of previously unheard of punitive taxes to support what popular benevolence will not.

"Why should you or I be required to sugbsidize those whom you and I have zero connection?

I, Alicia Kelso, ask: "You think that not helping out your fellow being helps YOU?"

Why funnel your benevolence through the government? Why support government or any outside control of benevolence? Give to those whom you have contact with and care about. They'll thank you from the very bottom of their hearts.

Anyway, I wish us all the very best.

Re: Willey

My house was robbed and violated by Defense Intelligence Agency and defended by U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, without justification.

Supreme Court Case 03-1035

I never have had my day in court, as DIA was never required to claim the 5th Amendment thanks to Carol Lam's actions on the part of the DOJ.

Inequities are something I've had to accept for many years.

Try to focus on this current topic of exploiting smokers for what all Americans should, apparently care about.

Re: "Dzwonka and one evo emo (formerly one evil axis) are two of the most respected regular commenters on here. Making personal attacks against them is not helping your case"

It was not my intent to return fire on personal attacks regarding my parental upbringing, only to comment on SCHIP. You have Dzwonka and "one evo emo" to forward your admonishment to.

It is about time these internet venues attempt to solve conflicts, rather than perform provocatuer functions, which lead to useless threads of hateful words and no solution at all.

1st subject: It is the Senators that claim the need to finance SCHIP via punitive taxes against smokers, not me.

2nd subject: Don't be a stupid troll; American tabbaco is American. How pedandic does one have to be to inform you?

Duh, "american tabbaco is american". I was merely pointing out that calling it an "AMERICAN COMPANY" is not relevant to the arguement. The water in my state is full of PCB's due to "american companies" LINK but saying it's 'american' companies that put them there does nothing but inflame the conversation. It's a diversionary tactic.

The fact that senators say that we have to raise tabacco taxes to expand SCHIP does not mean that SCHIP is 'failing'. It only means that there are more kids out there who need health care, and the senators thought that tabacco taxes would be a sufficent way to pay for more kids' health care.

Gratitude is missing in the government dole, ESPECIALLY IF FINANCED FROM THOSE DEEMED WORTHY OF PUNITIVE TAXES, rather than the benevolent, volitional general public. ... Why funnel your benevolence through the government? Why support government or any outside control of benevolence? Give to those whom you have contact with and care about. They'll thank you from the very bottom of their hearts.

"oh, thank you dear neighbor, for giving me money directly.. grovel grovel grovel please sir, may i have another? grovel How much thanks must I give to be deserving of such a wonderful gift from someone as generous as you!"

Why must a man be on his knees to recieve help for basic necessities? Must a man be willing beg before he recieves food?

Your personal "sphere of influence", (which i'm sure you pay for your poor neighbor's health care, you generous saint you) can only stretch so far. There are schools in this country where sewage flows into the cafeteria and playground, and they don't have the money to fix it. The teachers don't stay, because they don't get paid, the textbooks are long outdated, but because the revenue in the county is so low, they don't have the tax flow to pay to fix any of this. Who in that neighborhood will be so generous as you, oh godly saint. Not everyone has a friend who can throw $1000 at you when you hit rough times. You essentially are saying "well, i know enough people who are well off that I can get help. Damnation to anyone who is poor, and lives in a poor community, without a support net."

"Oh supply side Jesus, shouldn't you heal those leppers?" "oh no, then they will be asking for handouts, they must learn to walk on their own one foot and stump!"

Willey, the point was that tobacco is a legal substance that is already prohibitivey taxed.

The subject of this discussion is targeting a portion of society instead of taxing all of us for the benefit of all of us.

Enlarging SCHIP is an attemt at federalizing health care, using smokers to pay for it.

You appear to get an adrenaline boost in argumentation. I did not join this thread to deal with people who like and seek to make angry discussion. I contributed and you and contributors have repeatedly misunderstood and tried to misdirect the point. Why, don't you want to focus on the issues?

Of course the world is not perfect. We need taxes and public services to help those of us in need. Your religious rant doesn't help the discussion or benefit anyone. It's creepy.

And yes, anytime you can help someone, do it. It makes you and the recipients feel good and be happier. It's not a perfect world, but you and I can do our best to make something good happen. In this case, disallowing government abuse of power against an already targeted portion of society would be good -- but that's in the House and Senate's hands.

You just try to be kind and you'll be happier.

Go read up on some facts about SCHIP, and stop spreading misinformation..

http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=284843&

Alicia, I would image that the reason why congress has choosen smokers to pay for the increase in the CHIP program is because society is already subsidizing their health care. As such I am sure congressional members thought that it would take a lot of guts and very little shame for smokers to complain about this. Congratulations!! You seemed to have past that hurdle….

I look at this is a win win, either people like yourself are forced to quit smoking or cut back thereby making society overall more healthy or you pay into a health care program that covers kids…

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives