The Lizard Master: Bush is an Idiot and Republicans Hate Children...

Display One Post

October 3, 2007 , Bush is an Idiot and Republicans Hate Children...

The small chance that Republicans would have something to run on ran out today as Bush vetoed health care for kids. Before you give the standard, "I don't like socialized medicine" cop out about expansion that's not what it did. The extra money was geared to-wards covering kids who already qualify for the program, but don't currently enroll. Meaning if all the kids who did qualify signed up right now, the program would collapse. Here's Bush's argument summed up:

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

This sounds like a debater from the last Beauty and the Geek show. How did we let this guy become president? This was a bipartisan bill that continued health coverage to poor children who don't qualify for Medicare. How exactly are these kids going to join the private medicine that I enjoy? Abracadabra??!?! This is another embarrassment in a long line of Idiocracy coming from our leader. If I were Republican, I would be completely and utterly ashamed.

McCain came out in full support of the President today, that's a sure fire way to get his train wreck back on track. Blech. I'm so glad I didn't vote for a leader "elected by god" that would chose to deny kids health coverage. But TLM, waaaa, why should *I* have to spend *my* money to make sure our kids are covered. The extra coverage was fully funded by a 61 cent per pack of cigarettes tax. If you don't smoke you wouldn't even pay so quit it.

There is a rally I will be attending tomorrow. I'm not going to sit by and watch this happen. We only need a hand-full of votes to overturn the veto. Here are the locations and you can sign up at moveon.org (yes, moveon.org, I've been left with no choice): Boca - http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=41036&id=11324-3614478-HyhBHS&t=4# and Miami - http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=40895&&id=11324-3614478-HyhBHS&t=2

Here are the Republicans and Democrats who voted against health-care and hate kids (bonus hate for GWB for the veto):

Republicans: Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Everett, N; Rogers, N.; Flake, N; Franks, N; Shadegg, N.; Boozman, N.; Bilbray, N; Calvert, N; Campbell, N; Doolittle, N; Dreier, N; Gallegly, N; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, N; Lungren, Daniel E., N; McCarthy, N; McKeon, N; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.; Lamborn, N; Musgrave, N; Tancredo, N.; Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Feeney, N; Keller, N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Putnam, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Stearns, N; Weldon, N; Broun, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.; Sali, N; Biggert, N; Hastert, N; Johnson, N; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Shimkus, N; Weller, N.; Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N; Souder, N.; King, N; Tiahrt, N.; Davis, N; Lewis, N; Rogers, N; Whitfield, N.; Alexander, N; Baker, N; Boustany, N;McCrery, N.; Bartlett, N; Camp, N; Hoekstra, N; Knollenberg, N; McCotter, N; Rogers, N; Walberg, N.; Bachmann, N; Kline, N;Pickering, N; Wicker, N.; Akin, N; Blunt, N; Graves, N; Hulshof, N.; Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, N.; Heller, N; Frelinghuysen, N; Garrett, N; Saxton, N;Pearce, N; Kuhl, N; Reynolds, N; Coble, N; Foxx, N; Hayes, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.; Boehner, N; Chabot, N; Jordan, N; Schmidt, N; Cole, N; Fallin, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.; Walden, N.; Peterson, N; Pitts, N; Shuster, N.; Barrett, N; Brown, N; Inglis, N; Wilson, N.Blackburn, N; Davis, David, N; Duncan, N; Wamp,
Barton, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.; Bishop, N; Cannon, N.; Cantor, N; Drake, N; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, N; Hastings, N; Ryan, N; Sensenbrenner, N.

Democrats:

Castor, N; Marshall, N; Taylor, N; Etheridge, N; McIntyre, N; Kucinich, N; Democrats - Boren, N.

*** Quick note, yes Kucinich is interestingly on this list. If you want to see why he voted against it, click here, it's nothing like Bush's reasoning and he actually did "vote for it before he voted against it."

People who didn't show up and should be fired this election because they are indifferent to kids:

Republicans: Herger, X; Jindal, X; Poe, X; Davis, Jo Ann, X;Cubin, X.

Democrats: Carson, X; Delahunt, X;Johnson, E. B., X;

I'm so sick I can't even write any more; thank God at least I have health coverage. If you want to read more on the bill, or see a video on what it was about, make sure you stop by our Glorious Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. It's almost like the Republicans want the chicks to take over doing stuff like this.

Comments

what;ll be interesting is if he vetos the bill in any form. after all, the coverage group remains the same, so when he says "poor kids" he really means super poor on medicaid and that the program even before the money increase was beyond his idea of poor. - poor me

(Poor Me), he did veto the bill. However, it received a vote by as many people as it did because it's a potential solution. To me, the thought of socialism is much scarier than a lack of coverage for children. I feel so strongly against socialism that I'd be willing to give my life in a heart-beat if I knew that it would secure the United States into being a Capitalist Republic forever. I certainly don't believe in giving people something without them having to earn it. That said, children don't have a choice, disabled people don't have a choice, and neither do elderly. (as you all know, since I've said this numerous times). Although I do think something needs to be done, I'm relieved that it did not pass. HOWEVER, I think with respect to what he's said, he should immediately propose that they raise the "family income" limit that they use to determine if children are eligeble for health care. It should at they very least, move at the same rate of inflation so that it keeps up with people's pay. To say though that Republicans hate children is simply silly. I consider myself a Republican (I am registered as one), and I sponsor children through World Vision. You wrote it clearly because you are angered, but obviously it's not a true statement. - Todd

I just want to add one more dig on socialism. Socialism breeds laziness. It hinders growth, it stunts creativity, it holds people back like Wayne Huizenga, Warren Buffet, and other great business men who have created the world we live in today. EVERY great nation or culture that has EVER existed in history, was a Capitalist Republic. The great Roman empire was an early form of a Republic (althogh Democracy wasn't very strong). The amazing ancient society in Greece was a capitalist republic. Japan, economically... they were small. Until the "7 dragons" became capitalist societies, their countries didn't amount to much. Thailand, China... the list goes on. ONCE they became capitalistic... their countries became powerful. China was nothing more than a massive underdeveloped country. They have a great culture, but they certainly didn't have any power short of their sheer numbers in population. Now that they've turned to capitalism... they're booing. And you know, just one more thing I want to add. Of the dozens and dozens of reasons I've given why I don't support a National Healthcare System... one important reason is medication. If the government starts setting prices for medications, what "incentive" does a pharmaceutical company have to spend money in research & development of new drugs? If they're immediately going to lose money on it, they just won't bother. If you want R&D, you'll need to end up subsidizing that as well, and then guess what... the taxes will go up even more. There is a very REAL reason why 90% of everything that gets invented, is done so in the United States, and why we (by quite far) have the worlds most sophisticated medical equipment in the world, and some of the most sophisticated facilities in the world. It's because of capitalism, not socialism. - Todd

In reference to my first group of sentences on my second post. HOW could I have forgotten Bill Gates? If we lived in a socialist society... Bill Gates and Microsoft never would have happened. The most perfect example of a country that went from capitalism to socialism is Holland. For several hundred years, they basically OWNED the world. They started "the corporation", they created the first "stock market", "company shares"... the single handedly brought Western Europe out of the dark ages with the Dodrecht port (now Amsterdam), they OWNED New York. And more recently from this past 100 years, they owned the largest bank in the world (ABN AMRO and also ING), they owned the largest air line in the world (KLM), they owned practically everything. They invented the Laser Disc, the Compact Disc, and numerous other inventions we use today. In the past 30 years, they've moved heavily towards socialism. Taxes are over 50% of your income. This is what's happened in the past 10 years. 1) KLM was sold to Air France, 2) ABN AMRO was sold to HSBC, 3) Philips had to merge with Magnovox... the list goes on. I do NOT want to see this happen to the US. It's already happening with General Motors and the other two. Unions are a perfect example of forced socialism. Toyota and Honda don't have unions. They can pay their employees whatever the hell they want. The war in Iraq is a whole seperate issue, and you can debate whether Bush has been a good president or a bad president. But how come some people simply can't see how dangerous socialism is? You're basically dooming your children to a life of mediocrity. In our civilization now... if you work hard enough, and you're smart enough, you can just about take over the world if you want. I want those kinds of opportunities for my children. - Todd

Just so you know, pharmaceutical research is already subsidized by the government in some cases. In addition, I really can't imagine why you would have a problem with a program that gives health care to children paid for by a tax increase that YOU WOULD NOT EVEN PAY. Perhaps "don't care about" children would be better wording than "hate". - Pickle

Just wanted to make a quick note that one of the main reasons I said Republicans hate children, is because Dems have been accused of many forms of hatred. The first and foremost "Hating America." What comes around, goes around, and so Republicans hate children. - TLM

I want to read a passage of a book that I read many years ago. It's called "Socialism" by Von Mises (published in 1922). "Capitalism is the only conceivable form of social economy which is appropriate to the fullfilment of the demands which society makes of any economic organization." Just think about that. - Todd

Just think about this, "That said, children don't have a choice, disabled people don't have a choice, and neither do elderly." - TLM

Pickle, subsidized pharmaceutical research by the government makes up an extremely small percentage. The majority of it is used to help cure potential outbrakes like Polio (in the 60s) and cures for Anthrax (Cipro). And a 60 cent tax increase on tobacco will only last so long. At some point, people will eventually smoke less and less. What will the solution be then? Perhaps socialism will in turn eventually lead to the BAN of smoking? What will happen then? ONCE the bill is put into effect, it's there. When the money is no longer available from tobacco tax, it'll come from somewhere else. - Todd

Right, Alex, I agree... so lets increase the income limit for our existing Medicaid. Very simple solution. - Todd

This is the dumbest article you have ever written. You have built a straw man and torn it down. Congratulations. - Fat

The bill already was there. They were just trying to fund it correctly and make sure the kids that already qualified received the benefits. This whole idea of growing the program is a misnomer. - TLM

I know you are embarrassed and ashamed Fat, but you don't have to break out the straw man. - TLM

Pickle, the issue is not who pays the taxes. One of your arguments seems to be that if you don't pay the taxes then you shouldn't care. Taxes affect the economy which in turn affect all of us. - Fat

Trust me the Republican Party is full of crooks and thieves who failed to come through for the American people in doing the things they promised to do after twelve years in power (6 in which they had a Republican president to help them). That being said, I don't know if they were right or wrong on this one (though I lean towards Todd's view). What I do know is that this blog post offers a completely inaccurate version of the reasoning behind not supporting this bill - hence you have built a straw man and torn it down. - Fat

Is it REALL a misnomer? If there was no fear of growing the program, then why didn't they just raise the income limit for medicaid? Answer me that... it would have solved the problem easily. - Todd

I don't know Todd, why don't they? - TLM

Fat, I've got to be honest with you. Socialism has got to be the scariest thing on this planet. I know it sounds silly... but the truth is, the inevitable downfall of every nation in our world's history has either been through domination by a stronger country, or through fading into obscurity and insignificance through socialism. - Todd

Alex, the reason why is because the Democrats WANT a national health care system. They felt they could "slip this by" in the name of helping the children. If they REALLY, REALLY wanted to help the children, they would have simply raised the income limits for medicaid. I'm sure EVERYONE would have voted for it. - Todd

BTE, the audio of Bush defending his veto was not nearly as bad as the broken quote you provided. - Fat

I meant BTW, not BTE - Fat

Todd, I think it's the second scariest thing behind radical Muslims. - Fat

Well, radical Muslims are bad, just as anything that becomes radical is. The difference is, a capitalist society can afford to defend themselves against a threat... but can a socialist society??? 301.14 million concerned citizens don't amount to much if we don't have the technical sophistication (and capital) to ward off a nuclear or chemical weapons attack. Doesn't matter how PROUD and steadfast those 301.14 million people are. - Todd

Funny how the party who cares about children so much is so quick to defend the "right" for women to murder 1.5 million unborn babies a year through legalized abortion. Perhaps I would believe the rhetoric more if the Dems were more consistent in their "caring." - Fat

Great points Todd. - Fat

Funny you would have to resort to bringing up abortion, considering no one cares for the child once out of the womb. Also, the states have full rights over the fund. In some states SCHIPS actually does increase medicade: "In Ohio, SCHIP funds are used to expand eligibility for the state's Medicaid program. As a SCHIP Medicaid expansion program, all Medicaid rules and regulations (including cost sharing and benefits) apply. Children from birth through age 18 who live in families with incomes above the Medicaid thresholds in 1997 and up to 200% of the federal poverty level are eligible for the SCHIP Medicaid expansion program. In 2004, the maximum annual income needed for a family of four to fall within 100% of the federal poverty guidelines was $18,850, while 200% of the poverty guidelines was $37,700." - TLM

I'd also like to point this out considering the cigarette tax "affects everyone. "In 2007, researchers from Brigham Young University and Arizona State found that children who drop out of SCHIP cost states more money because they shift away from routine care to more frequent emergency care situations. The conclusion of the study is that an attempt to cut the costs of a state program could create a false savings because other government organizations pick up the tab for the children who leave SCHIP and later need care. In a 2007 analysis by the Congessional Budget Office, researchers determined that "for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children." The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives.[4] The program cost $40 billion federal dollars over 10 years." - TLM

So let me get this straight... you think that giving local state beurocrats the power to spend the money they way they see fit, is the right way to go? All the more reason why this whole plan is utterly ridiculous, and just proves that much more why they should raise the income limit for Medicaid. - Todd

Oh, and the cigarette tax DOES affect everyone. Capitalism is the mother of necessity. At some point, tabacco will become so expensive that people will simply just stop using it. (or will be unable to afford it). When that happens, they may turn to something else (whatever that might be), and you then lose that tax base. What will they do then? Well... guess what, it WILL affect all of us when the funding starts coming from somewhere else. Just because they're taxing smokers, doesn't mean it's "free". - Todd

If you feel that way, then go back to 1997 and explain that to them. SCHIPS already exists though and does cover many children. As of now, it's just going to get wiped. - TLM

"If they REALLY, REALLY wanted to help the children, they would have simply raised the income limits for medicaid." I'm not getting how denying children health care coverage falls under the umbrella of "helping the children". Also, I would not mind one bit if cigarettes were banned, except for the fact that we'd then have the problem of policing people who sell them on the black market, like we do with any illegal drug currently. I really find the Republican standpoint on this selfish and disgusting. - Pickle

And just because you don't cover the health care of children, doesn't mean we don't all have to pay for it anyway when they end up in emergency care. - TLM

Pickle, the answer to your question(s) are listed above. - Todd

Obviously not. TLM, that's a really good point and I wonder why more people don't realize that. - Pickle

Oh, I'm VERY well aware of it, more so than everyone put together on this blog. After all, - Todd

After all, *your* child has $10,000 in medical bills right now? - Pickle

After all... I've written Medicare modules for IDX Billing for home health care of the Elderly, including outpatient care, and hospice (At Care Centric). I've written modules for IDX and Antrim billing software for Medicaid, Medicare, as well as private health insurance companies for various pathology labs, entire hospitals (Aventura Hospital, St. Vincent & St. Francis Hospital in Indiana), as well as speciality locations (Center for Advanced Diagnostics, Bethesda Research Group, Cleveland Medical Institute), (all while at AmeriPath / Quest Diagnostics). More recently, I worked at Team Health which deals specifically with inpatient / outpatient billing for everyone else (who can't or do not do their own billing). This includes thousands of medical businesses / offices which use literally every insurance company and government program in the South Eastern United States. - Todd

Oh yeah, I was also one of the team lead (now consultant) on developing an ENTIRELY new billing system (from scratch) for AmeriPath. - Todd

Oh, I also worked with Flowcast. - Todd

"Funny you would have to resort to bringing up abortion, considering no one cares for the child once out of the womb. " Great straw man argument again. - Fat

Look, all I said above was that I don't know where I stand and then ripped Republicans for being corrupt and incompetent. But the arguments you give here are a complete fabrication of why many people oppose this bill. I also added that Democrats should be more consistent with their beliefs if they want to be known as the party "that cares about children." It's just a hard sell when its the same party that champions abortion on demand. Very inconsistent position. Say all you want about the Republican party (and I've already ripped them twice in the comments above) but at least they've historically stood for the child's right to live. I would think that would be the first right we should worry about. - Fat

The thing that gets me about it is... I really believe the Democrats tried to slip this by for purposes of spreading socialism. I respect what they do because like the rest of us, they DO CARE. They just believe in a different method (one which scares the crap out of me). I truly believe this because I'm pretty certain that IF they had just decided to raise the income levels for Medicaid, it would have unanimously passed. Why they decided to go against that very simple path? Because they wanted to get their foot in the door of socialized health care. - Todd

Caring about children and supporting a woman's right to choose are not mutually exclusive. If the pro-choice argument accorded a fetus rights equal to (actually more than equal to) a born person they might be, but that is not the case. Either way I'm pretty sure an abortion debate on this forum is completely pointless. - Pickle

Pickle, Alex, DO YOU support raising the income level for Medicaid? - Todd

How was the rally? - Fat

"Caring about children and supporting a woman's right to choose are not mutually exclusive." Actually they are. - Fat

Ok, so which little box would you put me in then, Fat? - Pickle

I've already stated it. Your views on these two issues are totally inconsistent. - Fat

I think it's funny that you have to fall back on that issue every time the Democrats make sense and it makes you feel uncomfortable you may be on the wrong side :). - TLM

World Vision should offer American kids for us to support - cdl

Man, I've got to be honest, it "makes sense", but it makes sense to me in the way that Democrats want it. It's no secret that Democrats (at least those who call themselves Democrats and know what it means to be a Democrat) believes in Socialism. I've spoken to you about it before too and you said that you really do support socialism, but that you encourage capitalism as well. Unfortunately though, as history and time have shown, they really seldomly go hand-in-hand. It sometimes works for a little while, but eventually the money runs out, and the whole government fails (East Germany, Russia, etc). The further this country moves towards socialism, the further we move into insignifigance, and the slower the human race will grow and achieve new technologies. Your basing all of your beliefs of socialism purely on faith and emotion. History constantly repeats itself, and there has NEVER, EVER been an example in history where socialism or communism has prospered. I REALLY don't see things from a "Republican" VS "Democrat" point of view. I see things from a "Capitalsm / Republic" VS "Socialism" point of view. I always have since I've become politically aware. - Todd

I'm not sure why it is that you guys are arguing about Socialism and Abortion. There are many countries that have national healthcare and aren't fading into oblivion because of it. We have a backdoor healthcare system here already called the emergency room. You asked if I support extending medicade. That's fine, but that's not what was on the table. We're talking about sick poor kids. If you are trying to use the slippery slope idea on a program that already has existed since 1997 it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you want to privitize the Fire Department? SLIPPERY SLOPE TO SOCIALISM OH NOOOOESS. - TLM

No, that's the point. I DO NOT think health care should be subsidized. The Fire Department is NECESSARY. Just like health care for kids, elderly and disabled are necessary. It's NOT necessary for grown adults who can afford it but don't feel like spending the money. But since you bring it up, all government subsidized programs LOSE money. Just like (much to your surprise) when I told you that the United States Postal Service has been in the red since the Carter administration. I'm not willing to make a stupid decision to meet a goal, simply because no one wants to make the RIGHT decision. To me, that's like selling my soul to the devil. - Todd

So how was the rally? - Fat

"I think it's funny that you have to fall back on that issue every time the Democrats make sense and it makes you feel uncomfortable you may be on the wrong side :)." - Just looking at the obvious and glaring inconsistency in your political position. - Fat

But dropping that, why don't you answer Todd's arguments instead of making fun of themand trying to laugh them off. I've stated in the comments above that I was on the fence on this issue and since then I've seen intelligent arguments posted by Todd and straw man arguments and stupid jokes from you. If this is such a serious matter as you said it was in your original post, I would think you would try to more seriously answer your critics. - Fat

Also, how was the rally? - Fat

First, you know there were issues going on and I was unable to attend the rally. Do you want me to say it? I am still going to take whatever action I can. Secondly Todd has said Kids need to be taken care of, but doesn't agree with how it's being done. I said that's fine, why would I have to answer questions about Socialism and Abortion no matter how intelligently they are put? The fact is, this goes away, millions of children are without healthcare that they now enjoy under an existing program. His issue is "It's NOT necessary for grown adults who can afford it but don't feel like spending the money." Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with this argument much like Abortion. - TLM

Apparently one of the sticking points, according to CNN, is that the bill would extend health coverage to the children of illegal immigrants. - Fat

Also that, "Critics have said their concern is that parents might be prompted to drop private coverage for their children to get cheaper coverage under the bill." - Fat

The article you linked to provides very little information on what the bill actuallly entails, just what Democrats are saying about it. This CNN article was much better: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html - Fat

That's incorrect. It would not extend health coverage to illegal immigrants. That was never the case at all. What was at contention was that coverage would go to Leagal Immigrants. That was taken out of the bill and that's why Dennis Kucinich actually voted against it (See link in my post about this). Also the extra money was to cover kids who actually now qualify for the program. - TLM

I still haven't found what income level the bill would raise coverage for and that's really the heart of the matter. If it's raising it for amilies with combined income of $20k that's one thing while if it's raising to families with an income of $50k that's completely different. Any numbers TLM? - Fat

We have Healthy Kids in Florida and when you apply they ask if you have dropped private coverage for your children in the past 6 months. They also ask if your employer offers health care for your children and if so, how much it would cost. It seems like a pretty simple thing to confirm. But that's really besides the point if they fall under income limits. - Pickle

"The bill already was there. They were just trying to fund it correctly and make sure the kids that already qualified received the benefits. This whole idea of growing the program is a misnomer" - TLM. Everything I've read has been contrary to this statement. From the CNN article I referenced it says the bill would "expand" the program. Another quote saying the bill would double the number of kids covered: "The bill, which would have spent $35 billion over five years, would have doubled the number of children eligible for the State Children's Health Program, its supporters said." - Fat

Most states provide coverage for uninsured children with family incomes up to two times the federal poverty level. However, a few states have set higher income limits, and a few states have lower income limits. New Jersey’s SCHIP program, for example, covers uninsured children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the federal poverty level (an annual income of $60,095, for a family of three in 2007). North Dakota and Montana cover uninsured children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level (an annual income of $25,755 for a family of three in 2006). http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:UXr1Aw08a2oJ:www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/SCHIP-101.pdf+schip+income+limits&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a It seems to me that the income limits would change whenever the federal poverty level changes (however often that is). "In 2007, 14 states exhausted their federal SCHIP funds and experienced shortfalls that jeopardized coverage for thousands of children." "Between 1998 and 2005, the number of uninsured children dropped by more than 2.7 million (Figure This is remarkable in light of the growth in child poverty and a significant decline in the number of children whose families have job-based health insurance.Experts agree that expanded coverage for children through SCHIP and Medicaid is responsible for this good news." I don't see how anyone could be against this program. - Pickle

But Alex, Socialism IS the key argument. It has EVERY bit to do with this argument because THAT is exactly what the Democrats are trying to push. I truely feel that they are using "children" to push their agenda of a socialized health care system, which means doomsday for the United States. I support helping people who simply CANNOT help themselves, but people who are fully capable financially and physically to take care of themselves have no business feeding off the government. I relate this DIRECTLY to this bill because there is a VERY SIMPLE and CLEAR solution to providing healthcare to children from low income families, and that's as simple as raising the income level for Medicaid. I would be hard pressed to find ANYONE in congress who would vote against that. It's very clear and obvious (to me at least) that this bill was nothing more than an attempt to grow socialism and a national health care program. EVEN if the Democrats had their hearts in the right place. This country has become the country it has BECAUSE of capitalism. We were able to grow faster than any other country in the history of the world (matched only by the Roman Empire) because of our city-state Republic, and capitalist economy. The United States is the epicenter of 95% of all technical ingenuity and creativity. Socialism stifles this... it beats down capitalist goals and ideas. I simply WILL NOT stand for the growing of socialism by ANY kind whatsoever. You mentioned above... "Many socialist countries have national health care, and they aren't fading into oblivion." For one, I never said oblivion, I said "insignifigance". Half my family lives in Western Europe. That includes relatives in England, France, Holland, Germany, and Belgium. Those are MAJOR EU countries. Their taxes are absolutely INSANE. The cost of everything IS practically equal to everyone. But, a Cadillac Escalade is equally out of reach to both the middle class, as it is to the poor. Socialism is meant to make everyone equal. You know what it does? It creates an ENORMOUS lower middle class society, and an impoverished upper middle class. You're either financially elite, or you're lower middle class driving around in a Renault 307. - Todd

You haven't found the income level raise because it isn't there. Everything you've read must have been incorrect (i.e. Illegal Immigrants getting coverage). "Despite claims by President Bush, this bill does nothing to “expand” the CHIP program; this bill maintains current law regarding children’s eligibility for CHIP. Two-thirds of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage through CHIP or Medicaid – but better outreach and adequate funding are needed to identify and enroll them. This bill gives states the resources and incentives necessary to reach millions of uninsured children who are eligible for, but not enrolled in, the program." - TLM

It's not that I couldn't find the income level raised its that I couldn't find the income level period - whether its the current one or the one proposed. Your article you linked to has very little real information. The CNN article was a bit better but still didn't really break the bill down to the nuts and bolts level. - Fat

So answer Todd's question: Why can't we just raise the level of Medicaid? - Fat

How many times do I have to say, I don't know why don't we? I don't care if we raise Medicare or fund this program. This isn't a new program though so I don't even see what that has to do with anything actually. - TLM

A bit of clarification: What I read was not that illegal immigrants would be given coverage but that the children of illegal immigrants would get coverage. Those children, if born in the US though, would not be illegal. A subtle difference but a real one. Democrats and Republicans are telling two very different stories about what exactly this bill entails and thats why I wish there was a real breakdown of it somewhere. - Fat

Well, if raising Medicaid is a just as good as an opption it would appear that Todd is correct in saying that the Democrats real motivation behind this is to start the socialization of our health care. That's a valid pont and one that hasn't been answered. - Fat

Well that was removed from this version of the bill which you can find in the link in the post on why Dennis Kucinich voted against it so it's irrelevant. I say if you don't like that, then you need to change the rule about being born in America makes you American, but that's a totally different argument. - TLM

Then go back to 1997 and make that argument. If this is a ploy by the Democrats, then it's a ploy by the Republicans who voted for it as well. This is an existing program. You'll see the motivation when the Democrats say let's get rid of this system and get National Healthcare going here. - TLM

Besides, if they increased Medicaid wouldn't they be accused of the same thing? It's about covering poor kids. I was being funny about saying Republican's hate kids as in Democrats hate America, but you guys aren't making a good argument against that at all. - TLM

Yes, my real motivation is an intense hatred of kids. I hate them so much. They make me sick. The fact that some of them might go around sick without medical care gives me the warm fuzzies... - Fat

Medicaid is a necessary socialist program that we've already adopted, and one that both parties, including the Republican party have learned to accept. It feeds off the morals that our Christian society have learned to accept... that is more or less, help those who are unable to help themselves. "Growing" Medicaid is a bit far fetched, all we would be doing is simply updating Medicaid with today's figures (to adjust for inflation). These OTHER programs are additional programs that really shouldn't have been created in the first place and they are NOT necessary. If we raised the medicaid income level, we wouldn't NEED them and we could get rid of them. The Democrats are probably well aware of it. It would be much easier for them to simply request that the medicaid income level be increased. But, lets call a spade a spade, shall we? The Democrats DO want more socialism and more subsidized programs. I mean, there's no secret there, you and I both know it. I guess they figured they could further their ultimate cause while helping children at the same time. We know their hearts are in the right place, but I just don't support creating additional programs, or growing unnecessary ones. A decision, any decision, isn't always the right one just because the goal is noble. - Todd

Again, Medicaid IS updated with today's figures, because the income level isn't a flat amount. It is a percentage of the federal poverty level, so it is adjusted every time the poverty level is adjusted. And do you even know what the current numbers are? I think I am the only one that actually managed to find some actual figures on SCHIP (see above). - Pickle

I know what they are for Medicaid, it's around ~$22,000. But I haven't bothered to really look and see what it is for SCHIP, because it doesn't really matter to me. It's unnecessary. It can be handled by properly fixing Medicaid. We just keep going ROUND and ROUND, I don't know what either of you keep insisting. Would it not be MUCH easier to just raise the medicaid income level? Why do we keep going back to this? Are you saying that you would PREFER to grow this unnecessary program rather than adjust medicaid? - Todd

the folks that make money on this are in the health insurance business and are lobbying for it (I'm guessing). Is there accountability built in? Are the scammers (parents that should pay their own insurance) going to profit when they shouldn't? Most kids don't really need insurance. Is it for all or the truly needy? - cdl

Here's the dirty little secret dirt. The kid's a 12-year-old "activist"? Somebody give me a break. He's 12 years old, he had to have what he said written for him or explained to him or what have you. But here's what everybody seems to be forgetting. Forget for a moment the family's economic or financial circumstances. They are what they are, and there's probably a lot more about this that we don't know, but that's, to me, still not the point yet. What the Democrats had little Graeme Frost go out and do is explain his circumstance, car crash and all that, and then say he "doesn't want the same thing to happen to other kids his age because President Bush doesn't want to increase the S-CHIP program." So you got a little 12-year-old going out there, telling a falsehood because the Frost family assessed the S-CHIP program as it is currently constituted! We don't need to expand it in order for people like Graeme Frost to be able to assess it. So to send him out there as a 12-year-old, and say that Bush wants to deny and the Republicans want to deny coverage to people like him is just incorrect. It is a falsehood and it is a lie -- and they continue to use children as foils like this. This program is exactly what, as it's currently constituted? The S-CHIP program is exactly what got Graeme Frost and his sister their coverage! Yet they send him out there to say that Bush wants to deny people like him coverage? No! Bush is for increasing the coverage to poor children by $4 billion a year. The Democrats want to increase coverage to "children" up to age 25, with family of four income levels at $83,000. This prompted Mrs. Clinton to get in on the action on MSNBC, whatever the stupid network is. The question that she was asked by somebody, "When the Democrats went to someone in that group, a 12-year-old kid to answer the president on the S-CHIP health care program, the radio speech, this poor kid was eviscerated by the far right." - Rush Limbaugh

I was appalled by the way this young man and his family were treated, and I said last night in Boston, you know, as someone who has been, uh, pretty used to taking the incoming fire from the right, I'm willing to take it. I'm big enough. I can, uh, keep going and, you know, not worry too much about it, as I've proven over the years. But to turn on this young man and to impugn him and his family for telling their true story, you know, I never cease to be amazed at the mean-spiritedness that you can find on the right. But think carefully about this, because what's happening here is that there are commercial, partisan, political and ideological points that are being scored at the expense of this young man. - Hillary Clinton

You blew it, Mrs. Clinton. Your party blew it by using this young man. It would have been one thing to go ahead and use him as an example of the greatness of the program and how it needs to continue, but you put words in his mouth and you made him lie! You made this little kid lie, you and your party. You made him tell people in a radio address, that the president wanted to deny people like him and his sister health care coverage if they had some tragic accident -- and it was that very program that Republicans created in 1997 that led to the Frost family being able to get covered after this accident. So if there's any deceit and if there's any lying going on, and if there's any misrepresentation going on, Mrs. Clinton, as usual, it is coming straight from your party. - Rush Limbaugh

no wonder you people are afraid of him. he exposes you - D. A.

Most kids don't really need insurance? What? - Pickle

There's great news about that today, by the way. USA Today has a poll out, and get this (this poll has got to just devastate Mrs. Clinton and the whole socialized-medicine crowd): Despite the Drive-Bys, 52% of the American people back the president, and insurance targeting poor kids should go to poor kids. Imagine that! Fifty-two percent actually believe the program should remain constituted as it is and not be expanded the way the Democrats want to. "A majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children's health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree with the president that government aid should be targeted to low-income families, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows. Two days before the Democratic-controlled House attempts to override Bush's veto of a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the poll shows that opinions on the issue are mixed. Fifty-two percent of respondents say they have more confidence in Democrats to deal with the issue, compared with 32% for Bush." But -- "Fifty-two percent agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level -- about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow. Fifty-five percent are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care." The American people have made it plain now in two different polls I've seen, this and a Rasmussen poll, that they have no interest in government-run health care. They don't want to have to give up their own insurance. That has to be a slap at the face of Mrs. Clinton, the most cheated-on woman in the history of the world. Has to be a slap at the face. Because they've done everything they can throughout this whole S-CHIP program to convince people that Bush wants to deny health care coverage to poor kids, and it isn't working for them. Another great sign here, folks, of how the Drive-Bys and the Democrats can in fact be beaten back and overcome - Rush Limbaugh

That's really not such awesome news. 52% is really not something to be so proud of. It tells me that basically half of the country thinks we need socialized medicine. The Democrat political propoganda machine has done a great job of currupting people's minds into thinking that the vast majority of us are unable to manage ourselves and we need for the community to pay for everything together. After socialized health care, what comes next? A fully funded socialized retirement plan? What about after that? A fully funded mass transit system for the entire nation? Soon, there won't be very much money left in our pay checks. That will mean less income for everyone, and then we've essentially beaten down the middle class, created an EXTREMELY elite and aristocratic upper class. Sure... the lower class will join the middle class to make a nice lower middle class average... but... that would make us like every single other socialized country in Europe? I've been to Europe more times than I have fingers and toes, and I do NOT want to live like a european. What makes the US what it is is our grand and exceptionally large goals. - Todd

All right, I FINALLY found the figures...In some cases the proposed Democratic SCHIP plan would cover families making up to...$62000! Are you kidding me TLM! That's ridiculous. TLM, seriously, how can you support this. This expansion - and that's what it is - would cover middle class children, not poor ones. This bill would be the beginning of the end - the age of entitlement for Americans would reach a new milestone. Give me a break. Thank goodness there are some decent people left in Congress to stop this socialist madness. - Fat

I believe I covered that in my comments and post. I can't believe you would pull that out and parade it around! - TLM

Are you kidding me? This is great stuff, I'm going to parade it around everywhere. People need to know that this is the reason why people should be skeptical when Democrats propose a health care "solution". - Todd

What is the source for that information? - Pickle

Whoa, even the $62k estimate is conservative. From Bloomberg: Over the years, some states expanded eligibility, citing higher costs of living. Eight states, plus Washington, D.C., allow kids to enroll if their parents have incomes up to $62,000 for a family of four, according to the Kaiser foundation, a health-care policy center based in Menlo Park, California. New Jersey allows children in families earning up to $72,300, Bush has said the measure he vetoed would permit families earning as much as $83,000 a year to enroll their kids. The administration recently rejected a request by New York state to raise eligibility to that level. Supporters of the legislation said it includes incentives for states to focus on low-income children. States pay about 30 percent of the costs, and the measure would reduce U.S. funding for kids in families earning more than $62,000. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOjasHFlqMoY&refer=home) - Fat

Fat, I covered this in the post you found better here: http://www.lizardmaster.com/displayone.cfm?docID=3034, but you can play the blind partisan game if you want like I did in this post and ignore the other if you want. States have the ability to run the program as they wish, just because New Jersey has a program that may cover someone with that income you want to remove it for the rest of the states. Nice. By the way, many sensible republicans voted for the bill. - TLM

That scares me, it just proves the point that I Was afraid of... that this bill was nothing more than an attempt to spread socialism. I'm all for allowing the states to do what they want, but don't involve federal income tax money. - Todd

I thought you like Medicaid you socialist! :) - TLM

12 noon on 1/25. Is this really an Obama speech to his cabinet? "Joe, my cabinet and my economic advisers agree." Will he give his state of the union speech from his bunker?

- c