MSNBC's Brewer claimed "even conservative Republican presidential candidates are trying to sidestep" SCHIP -- but several support veto
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, discussing Democrats' efforts to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, Contessa Brewer stated that "even conservative Republican presidential candidates are trying to sidestep this issue." However, several of the leading Republican candidates have spoken in support of Bush's veto, including Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Discussing congressional Democrats' efforts to override President Bush's veto of a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), anchor Contessa Brewer asserted, during the October 15 edition of MSNBC Live, "It's interesting, even conservative Republican presidential candidates are trying to sidestep this issue. I was just thinking about last week when Mike Huckabee, who believes in fiscal restraint, was asked would he veto this SCHIP bill, and he did not want to answer that question. He didn't want to get nailed on this." In fact, several of the leading Republican presidential candidates, all of whom call themselves "conservative" -- notably Sen. John McCain (AZ), Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney -- have spoken in support of Bush's veto.
When she made the assertion that "Huckabee ... was asked would he veto this SCHIP bill, and he did not want to answer that question," Brewer was apparently referring to the October 9 Republican presidential debate -- broadcast on CNBC -- during which MSNBC host and moderator Chris Matthews asked: "Would you have vetoed the bill -- the SCHIP?" Huckabee responded: "The president was caught in a tough political battle. The Democrats won the political battle. Unfortunately, the issue wasn't about children; the issue was about political posturing. And the reality is: You're going to create a huge problem for the Medicare advantage plan and shortfall that, and many of the kids who will be covered under the expanded SCHIP are people who already have insurance -- it'll be coming out of their insurance programs." Pressed by Matthews, "But if you got there, would you have vetoed, Governor?" Huckabee said: "I'm not absolutely certain that that's going to be the right way because there are going to be so many issues we've got to fight. And the political loss of that is going to be enormous."
But contrary to Brewer's assertion that "even conservative Republican presidential candidates are trying to sidestep this issue," several Republican presidential candidates have reportedly expressed support for Bush's veto:
- During the October 9 debate, McCain criticized SCHIP and called on Bush to veto the legislation: "Another one he should veto is the SCHIP program, which he should say, 'Take the 'C' out of, because now it's for everybody, like every other entitlement program.' And, by the way, a dollar a pack increase for cigarettes? So we want to take care of children's health and we want everybody to smoke? I don't get it." On August 2, McCain had voted against the legislation, which would have provided an additional $35 billion in funding over 5 years. In his floor speech prior to the vote, McCain said: "We will be spending billions and billions of dollars providing coverage for children who already have coverage, and I believe this is a dangerous step toward Government-run health care insurance."
- In a September 21 entry, NBC News' First Read blog reported that Giuliani "said that he supports the president because [the bill Bush vetoed would allow] some states [to] expand coverage to families making 400 percent above the poverty level. 'We're going to take people off private insurance and put them on government insurance -- that's a disaster.' "
- In an interview with The Kansas City Star's Prime Buzz blog, Romney was asked whether he would veto SCHIP. He responded: "Yeah. Yeah, I sure would. I'd veto it out of my belief that we should have every citizen insured. I put forward a plan in my state that gets every citizen insured. I put forward a program for the nation that gets every citizen insured.
- In an interview with Radio Iowa, Thompson reportedly said of the bill, "That's a classic example of a good idea and a good program that's working that's taken to a place that was never envisioned by the originators of the law," adding, "Certainly children's health care insurance needs to be expanded and it can be done in different ways. ... The president himself proposes a way to be done through the tax code."
From the 9 a.m. ET October 15 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: Millions of kids -- American kids -- are at the center of a political fight that could help shape the 2008 presidential election. It started when President Bush vetoed legislation that would expand a children's health program. Well, now, Republicans are weighing their options. They can back Democratic attempts to override the veto later this week, or they can stick with the president, who says this bill was too expensive and that Democrats simply won't compromise.
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA) [video clip]: The president has never talked about a compromise. He's -- a compromise to the president means -- in all due respect to him, and I have great, shall we say, respect for the president -- he's -- compromise to him means, "Do it my way."
BREWER: Richard Wolffe is an MSNBC analyst and senior white house correspondent with Newsweek magazine. Richard, good Monday to you.
WOLFFE: 'Morning, Contessa.
BREWER: Are we seeing the president backtracking here when he's talking about a compromise?
WOLFFE: Not hugely. You know, the White House does want to get this issue off the table. Republicans do, they're feeling a lot pressure from members of Congress. But the kinds of compromises they've hinted at are maybe an extra $5 billion. The Democrats have written legislation that adds $35 billion, and they say they have come down from 50. So, you're not talking about a significant move towards a compromise.
BREWER: The House minority leader, John Boehner, defended the president's veto, and he said that people don't want government-run health insurance. But you put that up against millions of kids going without health insurance entirely, which one, which argument is going to resonate more with the American people?
WOLFFE: Well, the optics, as they say, are not good here. As you say, you've got the Republicans taking the line of spending restraints, always pretty unpopular. And the Democrats are saying they're out there for sick kids. So, it's a no-brainer in terms of the politics of it. And that's why I think you're seeing many Republicans, certainly in the Senate and also significant numbers in the House, moving towards the Democratic position. They don't -- the Democrats don't have enough votes currently in the House to override the veto, but they're getting close.
BREWER: You know, it's interesting, even conservative Republican presidential candidates are trying to sidestep this issue. I was just thinking about last week when Mike Huckabee, who believes in fiscal restraint, was asked would he veto this SCHIP bill, and he did not want to answer that question. He didn't want to get nailed on this. So, is it any surprise that some Republicans now would side with Democrats in trying to override the president's veto?
WOLFFE: It's not a surprise if they're up for election. And Huckabee, as a former governor, knows very well the importance of this program to individual states. Iowa, for instance, is one of the key states that could run out of money for this program as early as this month. So, you know, this is a crunch issue for these people, and yet, on the other side, they've got the core base of the party for these Republican candidates who say fiscal discipline first and foremost. So, it is a tough challenge for the candidates.
BREWER: Richard, great to talk to you. Thanks.
WOLFFE: Thanks, Contessa.
It should be vetoed as it's written right now.
It needs a tweak or two or three.
Jeter, why do you hate children? ;)
Typical liberal response. Intentions are all that matter and results shouldn't ever matter. As long as you have good intentions when you write the legislation then it's good legislation. Even if the bill simply increases the deficit and funds health care for children that are already insured, that doesn't matter since the Democrats' intentions were good.
I thought it was Liberals who had no sense of humor.
Did you not see the ;) wink?
My bad. I'm not good at all the secret signs. But my comment about the liberals focusing only on the intentions of legislation still stands.
Bull. I can cite plenty examples of conservatives doing the same thing. Abstinence education is top o' the list. Why not just come clean and say there are not a single example of black and white solutions available in historical laws ever being successful?
I actually agree with you on that. I don't think that the federal government should be spending a dime on sex education, period. That's an issue that should be left to parents to deal with. Public schools should simply teach the basic subjects of math, english, science, and reading.
Do you realize how many parents are afraid to talk about sex & educate their kids? Do you realize how many parents themselves do not have accurate information? Do you realize how DISASTROUS the consequences are when people are not informed of the necessary measures to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs? That's a public health NIGHTMARE. Far better to teach kids about responsible behavior (for any eventuality) in a safe & regulated environment in the presence of trusted authority figures and presenting information that withstands rigorous tests of accuracy. What good does it do to hide the problem away and say "the government shouldn't spend money on this" when it is VITAL to the health, happiness, economic success, and emotional well-being of millions of people in our country.
Moreover, if public schools are just teaching basics, how are we supposed to excel in the world economy? We need a capable, brilliant, and well-educated workforce if we are to be the leader in creating new technologies and developing new business models, and to have people able to contribute to the global community in such a way (of necessity, skilled) in order to provide comfortably for themselves and their children.
As for subjects in public schools, you forgot about physical education, health education, life skills, history, social science, humanities, government/political science, economics, rhetoric (objective and persuasive), technical writing, journalism, literary analysis, foreign languages, fine arts, music, drama, design, computer science, and many more.
Yeah, that is not a point. It is known as a baseless assertion. Rhino pull accusation out of ass CLAIM it is a point
Solon,
Considering the first post from over the weekend where I 'spoke' about Billy and Bruce and was wrong about Bruce......
Would it be a fair assesment to replace Rhino with Billy?
As for the SCHIP..... I have three kids and between my wife and I we barely make $40,000.....
Here in Illinois we do have the AllKids program, which is very much like SCHIP, but many programs have had to be cut to fund it.
The passing of SCHIP would allow some of that extra dollars to go for those programs that were cut back.
So the question is: Who in their correct mind can allow a child to not have health insurance?
I realize that it isn't a written 'right' in our Constitution.... BUT IT SHOULD BE!
Or the question is: Why should your neighbors have to pay for your children's health insurance? Should they also pay for your auto insurance, mortgage, groceries, cable, cell phone, car payment and vet bills?
No Dave, he can pay for his cable TV, cell phone, dvd player, blockbuster movies, mini-van lease, lottery tickets, etc. That's why he can't afford to buy health insurance for his own kids. The neighbors are going to have to pick up the slack.
If that's the case, I bet the good Capt doesn't get invited to many neighborhood block parties. He sounds like the guy who always shows up empty handed and waits for the Govt provided beer and barbeque.
Great point Dave, it's TYPICAl liberal BS that all they want to do is sit on thier ass, collect food stamps, SS, health insurance, ect, ect. When does it ever stop, they have forgotten the REAL AMERICAN SPIRIT of independance, self reliance, hard work, morals... Stop waiting for me to pay for your life choices. i only have 1 child, not 3... why ? Because I wanted to make dang sure I could do it ALONE, I have never taken 1 dime from the Gov., never and I have been unemployed 2 times... NEVER, and I have had 3 operations, NEVER and my son goes to Private school. Get off your ass, get a better job and get your hands out of my pockets for what you believe is OWED to you. Nothing is OWED to you, you jerk. Stop telling me I have to give you ANYTHING, it's NOT the way America was founded, nor how it became great, but it IS how it will die when more and more of you COMMIES take and take and take from others instead of earing for yourself.
Then stop driving on our roads. Stop calling our cops if you get robbed. Stop calling our fire department if your house is burning down. Don't bother to call our ambulance if you're hurt. Keep your kids out of our schools. In fact, just get out of OUR country if you're not willing to help pay for it!
Bad comparison. Roads are necessary infrastructure, as are police and firemen. I WISH we could opt out of paying for public schools because we home school.
The SCHIP legislation is horribly flawed and asks citizens to pay for the bad decisions of other citizens. LIberals seem to be ignoring the fact that Bush wants to increase funding for it by $5B, while Dems want to increase it by $30B.
The government does not exist to subsidize middle-income familes' health care.
You've got it wrong. The government doesn't exist to give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us, thereby giving the wealthy better means to care for their families. The government is a government for all, not just the wealthy and/or business owners, nor is it just for the middle-class (which Republicans have been trying to wipe-out since the 50's). The government is of the people, by the people and (to me) most importantly, FOR THE PEOPLE.
Typical rightwing moron stupidity. More I got mine if you cant get yours die quietly in the corner heartlessness. THIS liberal has had the same very good job for 30 years. I HAVE all those things. I want to be sure my nieghbor has them too even if he isnt fortunate enough to have a job as good as mine. YOU dont care. If it costs you a couple of dollars to save a life you want them to DIE. Its because you wingnuts LOVE to see people DIE. You HATE Americans and WANT them to DIE. You are selfish, heartless and want to be told that is a good thing. Well it isnt. We are all in this together.
Actually, helping to pay for insurance for children is an investment in our future. It's also an investment in your fellow man. You can pay for your own cable TV, cell phones, etc. Some people cannot afford that, nor can they afford health insurance.
For you righties out there that claim to be Christians, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I thought you followed Christ's example. I thought wrong.
When Christ floats down from heaven on a dollar bill, I'll think about changing my mind.
Actually, helping to pay for insurance for children is an investment in our future. It's also an investment in your fellow man.
I think you are being way too generous with my money. Nice Lib talking point, but where'e the return on my investment? Also, where's the personal responsibility on the part of that parent to support his own child? Why am I obligated to pick up the shortfall? Should that child come over to my house and mow my lawn to say thank you?
The return on your investment, for one thing is that you don't have people draining the public coffers showing up much sicker in emergency rooms and costing money. Or, would you rather these people DIE? Actually, because these people have waited so long to get treatment by the time they show up in the emergency room, they're more likely to do so anyway.
But, it seems, you would like to take the Ebeneezer Scrooge approach of, "If they'd rather die then they'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Another important return on your investment is that if people are severely ill, they can't really be working and supporting the economy. Even if they're suffering from manageable chronic diseases, that will severely decrease their productivity.
As for all of this I'm-so-moral-and-you're-not-and-why-don't-you-just-be-responsible-and-pay-for-all-your-medical-bills-yourself?, I think you are totally unaware of just how much medical care really costs nowadays, and I pray that you and your family never have to find this out the hard way.
Let's imagine for a moment that you are an elementary school teacher. You provide a vital and valuable service to our communities and country by educating the future of tomorrow. It's hard to think of a more deserving job. You make somewhere between $40,000 and $44,000 per year in this work that our nation so desperately needs.
Now, you, an elementary school teacher, are diagnosed with breast cancer, and you aren't responding to tamoxifen (which is at least reasonably affordable), so you have to go on herceptin, treatment with which costs $48,000 a year.
So, shall we all sit around and berate you the elementary school teacher for wanting public assistance, because your drugs cost $4000 more than your salary? With nothing left over to pay for FOOD, housing, clothing, transportation, any other medical difficulties you may have, much less support children if you have any?
Or, maybe because you the elementary school teacher chose to go into a career that doesn't pay well but instead provides vital resources to our society, you should just die because you can't afford herceptin?
Give up. They're just too damn greedy to understand that living in a healthy society benefits them. They're the ones always wanting something for nothing.
You've got that ass backwards.
Wanting a healthy, educated society with a strong infrastructure and economy....without paying for it. Sounds like something for nothing to me.
Let's imagine for a moment that you are...
...a retired professional. Your kids are grown and out on their own. You have a wife and a cocker spaniel. You have health insurance and so do all of your children. You smoke approx 3 cigars a day, which under the new SCHIP program, you will be paying anywhere from $1-$6 more per stick. I ask again, how does the increase benefit me? I can answer that for you....it doesn't. But thank you Libs very much for your generosity in raising my taxes. What would I do without you?
Lets imagine for a second, since we are doing hypotheticals, your hard working father got into a car accident and lost his job. You are a 12 year old that just lost his family health insurance and your mother waitressing until your father heals barely puts food on the table. He gets walking pnuemonia, he doesnt have health insurance and thank you heartless soulless conservatives for telling him he gets to DIE because he cant see a doctor until its too late
Why should those who dont drive pay for highways. Those in cities pay for rural electrification? Those without children pay for Public Education? Because all of society benfits from the results.
As Teddy Roosevelt said
"This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in."Chicago, IL, June 17, 1912
Sure. I didnt mean to take you to task so much as support Bruce. I like your posts, I enjoy reading them. This site prospers from good conservative posters I think Bruce is one of them.
"Intentions are all that matter and results shouldn't even matter."
This from Rino, who thinks abortion should be illegal and is oblivious to the fact that such a measure won't actually prevent aborti0n, but will merely result in more deaths of women trying to get abortions illegally (which is between 50 and 250 times more likely to cause death than legal abortions), not to mention increases in people living in poverty, taking drugs, etc. He is also apparently oblivious to the fact that the countries that have the lowest rates of abortion worldwide (the Netherlands) are those where it is legal, and some of the highest rates (Latin America & Africa) are where it is illegal.
So, please don't try to tell us about good intentions overwhelming any considerations of the effectiveness of what you are trying to propose!
"Even if the bill simply increases the deficit and funds health care for children that are already insured,"
I won't even touch the deficit argument, instead:
I'll Reiterate A Question:
What are your priorities for deficit speding??
I'll also mention that the bill comes with provisions to pay for it.
Also, even the most wary estimates say 50% is the maximum possible number of children covered under SCHIP that are already covered (and this fails to note children in current SCHIP programs who went from private insurance to public because parents lost their jobs). But most analysis puts this number around 28%. The other 72% are those who need coverage.
Even those that do switch, one of the reasons the CBO cites is that they get better benefits with SCHIP, which actually brings up another important point:
Private insurance as it operates in this country is in the business of denying coverage to as many people as they can, so it is no wonder that parents would prefer SCHIP to the restrictive and manipulative private insurance industry.
My position is that the we shouldn't increase spending in any area until the budget is balanced. We should freeze spending and not create any new programs until the budget is balanced. It's very important to balance the budget, because we don't want to leave a huge debt for future generations.
Not going into deficit spending? Again,
I'll
Reiterate
A
Question!
(autoformatting didn't make that clear the first time...)
Keep in mind that we had deficits through Reagand and H.W. It was that pesky Clinton who kept insisting that they be balanced (fought tooth and nail by Republicans every step of the way, I might add!)
Um, no. The Republicans in Congress balanced the budget. Clinton merely signed the bills. It wasn't until we had a Republican controlled Congress that we balanced the budget. We still had a deficit when we had a Democratic Congress. Divided government often leads to more fiscally responsibility and more fiscal restraint. The two sides were forced to compromise and find a way to balance the budget. Whenever one side gets total control fiscal irresponsibility usually occurs.
So, when everything was Republican, it set the stage for wonderfully balanced budgets and prosperity as far as the eye can see ... whoops, that was until 2001, when the budget surplus went into deficits, despite the only change being a Republican became president, and never vetoed a Republican-led spending bill ...
I get it ... you're a comedian, right?
You don't even have that right ...
In 1993, Republicans virtually all voted against Clinton's budget ... said things like "It will cause deficits as far as the eye can see", suggesting economic catasthrophe of biblical proprotions, also pointing out that the cuts wouldn't take effect until 1997 (as one Repug suggested after Clinton leaves office in disgrace), and one famously made a bet that it wouldn't do what Clinton said, or the Repug would lobby to have Clinton's bust put on Mt. Rushmore (which the Repug reneged on).
The budget passed, and prosperity ensued.
In the late 90s, Repukes held the budget hostage (with Rush one time claiming "The Republican budget is virtually identical to Clinton's, so why won't he sign theirs?" - obviously trying to make it a Republican victory). The Republicans finally had to cave, because their partisan hostage-taking was hurting their standing.
So, when most people were comfortable, the Repukes were able to sit there, without anything to hit Clinton with except a stained blue dress ... one Cleveland RW blowhard pointed out that, if it weren't for relative peace and the economy going so well, the country wouldn't be bothered with something so trivial as a BJ ...
Rino, where on EARTH are you getting your data? You just made up that assertion becuase it conforms to your pre-determined political ideology. Perhaps this will enlighten you:
Legislative history
Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993], as did a number of Democrats. Vice-President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the actual bill and the conference report. In the House the bill passed by only one vote, 218-216. President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
So that means you're for cutting all funding of the occupation of Iraq? Seriously, you've got to come up with a better argument than "we need to balance the budget" as a response to S-CHIP. When we're spending millions of dollars a month (or is it billions?) in Iraq to support our occupation and murder of their citizens, we could be giving health insurance to our future, our children.
You righties really have your priorities screwed up.
Don't forget the $9 Billion IN CASH that went missing in Iraq. Thanks, fiscally responsible Republicans!
I think we know where that $9 billion went. Methinks it went into some contractor's pocket. Though I won't say who, let's just say that the sitting vice-president has ties to such contractor.
When we're spending millions of dollars a month (or is it billions?) in Iraq to support our occupation and murder of their citizens
Calling our military guys murderers now? Nice. Rush only called them "phonies". Great support of the troops. There's no such thing as a "commonsenseliberal".
No, he never called the troops murderers. Stop hiding behind the "support the troops" nonsense. Our NATIONAL MILITARY POLICY in Iraq is causing the murder of all those civilians. Our troops (with the occasional exception of Haditha or Abu Ghraib) are doing the best they can in a badly-managed and unplanned war, and are not out to kill anyone (contractors, apparently, are another story).
Furthermore, in the cases of Haditha and Abu Ghraib, where are troops did in fact commit atrocities, don't give us this "How dare you call our troops murderers!" The military in this country is answerable to the people and we must hold them accountable when some (tragically) do horrible things, or we'll get into a Heart-of-Darkness scenario where the bounds of civilization have evaporated and normal people start behaving like monsters.
Dave is probably the type which would say "Rush never said exactly 'I think all soldiers phony'" as a defense of insulting the soldiers ... but will try to say that you called the troops murders ... because you said something that, in a Rube Goldbergian way (in other words, the Republican way) might be construed as "Our soldiers are murdering innocent Iraqis", or say "Kerry said sodiers are stupid!"
650,000 dead Iraqis. Someone killed them. Let's see...who invaded, guns blazing? Who's still occupying their nation, shooting and bombing at will? I know! It's the Bolivians! They did it! They're the ones MURDERING all those Iraqis!
Typical liberal response?
RINO, let's get something straight here: The "Why do you hate ____?" quote is from Sean Hannity, who used it profusely (and probably still does) during the whole Patriot Act nonsense. If you're remember correctly, Sean Hannity used that phrase to demean the person who disagreed with the Act, thereby twisting the argument, turning anyone's dissent of the Act into anti-Americanism. Actually, the whole "Why do you hate ____?" is a tactic used by RIGHT WINGERS to steer the debate away from the actual issue. It's a kind of "Hey, look over here" sort of thing.
As for Jeter, well, he is one of the more sensible, moderate (conservative?) posters on this board. My comment was meant as humor. If you cannot see that, then you must be as humorless as most here think you are.
um...if you'll remember correctly (not you're correctly). my bad.
I work in insurance and I can tell you the SCHIP plan as written is bad. It has nothing to do with hating children as I belive in this program whole heartedly. I do not believe in expanding it to the size that is puported with this legislation though. It needs to be based on regionally adjusted low income scales.
Why is it that when someone disagrees in these threads things take a nasty tone. I thought we all are intitled to an opinion. Apparently not here.
It seems that many individuals on this site require to take sometime to investigate what the issues they are discussing. Many seem just to go along with whatever this site spues as the weeks talking points.
Get a mind of your own!!!!!!
Nah, you're just angry that people will be able to get insurance through S-CHIP and won't turn to your insurance company, thereby sidestepping the insurance industry's raping of the middle- and lower- class. If this goes through, you won't get that Christmas bonus now, will you?
Why would there be a nasty tone? Go to the first page and read MRGarner and Dave tell us how us lazy liberals want a handout and to be taken care of and get back to me. In the mean time try getting a mind of YOUR own.
I can't wait for next year's general election.
The bill needs vetoed...it is poorly disguised attempt to advance national health care by the federal govt.
The funding proposed is preposterous:
2008 = $9.1B
2009 = $10.7B
2010 = $11.9B
2011 = $13.8B
2012 = $3.5B
Why is the funding severely reduced in the last year? Budget tricks and dishonesty. They know full well that the bill as written will require additional funding in the last year...or children will be taken off the rolls.
This bill funds children already on insurance...and adults...and is a rotten scheme that will cost a lot more than they're telling us.
"a rotten scheme that will cost a lot more than they're telling us"
Deja vu
Exactly...a rotten, murderous scheme that costs:
"The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found."
Yet somehow the idea of spending money on health care for kids is a waste?
Mary I was just about to say the same thing. Poorly written or not the objections to this bill are pathetic. We have spent billions in Iraq. We have Billions of tax payer money that cannot be accounted for. Under a Republican controlled congress with a Republican President we spent money like a sailor on shore leave for 6 straight years and THIS is when we hear about 'cost' and 'tax dollars'?. Where was that objection when Don Young and Ted Stevens wanted their 'bridge to nowhere' for 50 people at a cost of 941 million dollars?.
Pearl,
don't ya know the GOP thinks helping kids starts by groping kids?
But honestly, their fear of any kind of socialized medicine is funny. God would approve, Jesus would approve, but they are too vain to submit to the will of God. What a conundrum they have created for themselves!
Notice how Coiies only refer to God when they try to use it against us ??? God and Jesus would want us to give to children thru HIS HOUSE, charity... The House of the Lord would be, imho, where God would want good Christians to help the homeless, the hungry, the needy... NOT THRU YOUR HOUSE ! (dem controlled house of rep) So get your hands OUT of my pockets, I'll have more to give to charity, the UN-insured childeren will and CAn get insurance thru alot of different ways, EVEN THIER PARENTS getting a fricking life and EARNING instead of DEMANDING things. Try cutting back on ball games , videos, bling, cars, fancy clothes... FEED, EDUCATE, HOUSE, CLOTH and above all LOVE your children and maybe teach them to WORK AND STRIVE for what they need and want and get rather then show them the "WOMB TO TOMB" Gov will s be you' daddy and provide all...
Seriously, get a grip. The Victorian era died out long ago. It's too bad it's ideas are still around to haunt those of us who truly have the interests of the citizens of this country at heart.
Well, we can guess you've never tried to raise a family on an $8 an hour job. But of course your answer will be for them to get a better job (heh! like $100k a year jobs are just laying around for the taking) or more education (there's people with college degrees out there flipping burgers because the job market has been trashed by outsourcing).
Reality, a foreign concept, eh?
A good point and a good argument Wes that certainly looks like a budget trick to me at first glance.
Wow, Solon actually paid attention and learned something!
I do it all the time I am not as stupid as you are. Wesley and I disagree plenty but he also makes good points. That is actual ideas NOT given him by Rush Limbaugh. You should try it sometime hiveminder
I hope they all support the veto.
Of course you do, Simon La Greedy.
Stop being a leech. If you want to give to a charity of your choice go right ahead.
So people who scrape by or make a lower-middle-income and have a really tough time (or just can't) come up with astronomical health care premiums for their family are leeches?
Compassionate Conservatism demonstrated right before your eyes.
1) I'm not a compassionate Conservative;
2) People cannot afford healthcare because our tax code creates incentives for people to get health insurance over paying directly to their doctor.
For example, if your car insurance paid for gasoline, you would never care the price of gas everytime you went to the pump. In fact, you'd be willing to pay $50 a gallon because your insurance would be paying for it.
But, the people who could not afford car insurance would get shafted with the higher prices.
The same would be true if there was food insurance; you would go to the market and pull all the steak off the shelves.
This is what has happened to our healthcare. People have an incentive to have third-party insurance companies pay for their healthcare. As a result, the price rises because people and doctors don't try to create competitive prices.
Replacing a third-party insurance company w/ a third-party government, is even worse.
The solution is to remove all entilments, reform the tax code to remove the incentive to get insurance over paying for your own care, and watch how the price drops.
An example of where this has worked is with Lasik surgery, which insurance does not cover. The price had dropped by hundreds of a percent and the technology has gotten much better.
This is America, Dissent. Liberals founded the country, freed the slaves, fought off totalitarianism, created a strong middle class and now we're going to heal the sick.
Love it or leave it.
The obvious failure in your argument, of course, is that you are making comparisons with affordable goods. Quality healthcare is extremely expensive and very few people are going to have that kind of disposable income, so they need to pay with affordable insurance to guard against the possibility that an unaffordable ailment strikes them.
The other absurdity in your argument is to act as though there are no repurcussions for overcharging on an insurance-funded program (be it gasoline or food in your hypotheticals). The way any insurance works is that it takes relatively small payments from many people and pays out relatively large compensations to a much smaller number when catastrophes strike. If everyone is reaping all the possible benefits, as in your scenario, each of them would have to be paying for ALL of it (plus administrative costs) through their premiums.
Also, as for prices, insurance companies are very good at negotiating to keep prices down for them, because payouts reduce their profits.
The obvious failure with your argument is that your responded to mine as if I was advocating insurance companies. Read it again, and try again.
Stop being a moron. It isnt wrong to say society should pay for societies obligations. Like promoting the general welfare. Helping assure children have health care certainly fits MY definition of promoting the general welfare.
Government entitlements don't do anything that you just described...see above.
Bunk many government entitlements have done EXACTLY what they advertised. Social Security for instance. Before it half of all seniors died in poverty today that number is less than 10%. The government does many good things the free market would never have done. Rural electrification is a perfect example as is the highway system. You cons are always looking for the holy grail of con philosophy, that is why GREED and SELFISHNESS are the highest public good. IT. DOESNT. EXIST. Ebeneezer Scrooge was never meant to be a role model
SS is broken, busted... IT WAS INTENDED TO BE A SAFTEY NET, not your fricking retirment Dave. It takes 5 workers now to pay for the retiring... When founded it was ALMOST the opposite... One paid in to 5 recieving. So morons like you, instead of investing, saving for your own retirment decide that SS IS your retirment ? Typical... Rural Elect., what a crock. Worked as intended MANY MANY years ago, it wrapped up, it's over, tell me a modern program that has run it's corse, ended. You can't, they GROW every year, as more and more feel ENTITLED to be PROVIDED with all of lifes needs... Russia did that, go there...
America was built by folks working and not EXPECTING one dang thing for Gov., SS was installed to provide a TEMPORARY SAFTEY NET, not to live on... Typical that you do not even read the law and it's founders intentions.
You seriously need to get your facts straight. Social Security was actually solvent when Clinton left office. Remember the whole "social security in a lock-box?" that BOTH candidates promised us?
If I remember correctly, W raided that lock-box. We should have known better to trust a Republican shoot-em-up cowboy with the country's retirement money.
There has never been a lock box, SS has been pay as you go almost from day one. Until the mid 60's, SS funds were off budget so they did seem to be in a lock box, but LBJ and his friends in Congress mixed those funds into the General Account to help make the cost of Vietnam look substantially smaller than it was. My personal retirement money is in a lock box, accessible by only myself or my heirs. Good luck in ever going to SSA and asking for the $ credited to your account. Has never been possible (and will never be possible), therefore no lockbox, past, present or future.
It sounds to me like your real beef is with people who feel "entitled". Of course you want all of America's children to be healthy and have decent health care. Of course you don't want poor people dying in the streets. None of us want that. But for you to sit there and say that those who are suffering claim that they are "entitled" to government help is assinine. I truly believe that the number of people who actually believe they are "entitled" to government help is much smaller than you think.
Let me put it to you this way: We all pay taxes; some more than others. Our tax money collectively pays for certain government programs which help those who aren't as fortunate as you might be. But one of these days, it might be you who is in line for government cheese. See, it's more than just giving handouts to those who are less fortunate, it's also a type of insurance for YOU, in case you should ever need it.
Righties are so f&&&ing greedy it boggles the mind. All they seem to care about is money. There's more to life than money - and you really cannot take it with you...
No, he wants the poor dying in the streets. So he can spit at them and yell "get a job!".
I glad I pay for your education.
I am glad we paid for yours even though it was an obvious waste of money. It COULD have turned out an actual human being. Mores the pity
Its not my fault you are so stupid. I am not in social security and have a real pension so your mindreading attempt sux as much as your stupidity. Rural electrification makes the point as does the highway system which is STILL being expanded much to the betterment of the economy. Social Security is NOT broke it will in the future face some problems but has been adjusted many times before when demographics changed and a future adjustment will solve the coming problem too. Just because you are so selfish you would MUCH rather see Americans DIE then help them doesnt mean that is a decent attitude. Rent a heart take it for a spin around the block and see if you enjoy having a functioning SOUL your moronic, heartless automoton. I have a good job, good health insurance, a good pension. I am set and have been my entire adult life. I want those things for everyone possible. YOUR economic Darwinism is a recipe for DEATH to many Americans. That probably sounds good to a cretin like YOU. It doesnt to me.
Because elders are no longer in poverty to the extent they were before SS was instituted can not be fully atributed to SS payments. The payments that I am forecasted to receive in a few years when I retire would leave me right at the poverty level. Fortunately, I have taken it upon myself to invest for the future in a manner that should keep me out of poverty (unless I live to 110, which I'm not planning on doing).
True enough but you only had to do a bit to ADD to SS. And whatever you say there is no getting around the fact that BEFORE SS half of ALL elderly died in poverty. Now less than 10% do. It might not be due solely to SS but that surely helped. Personally I am not in the SS system it did good though and is wildly popular.
It isnt wrong to say society should pay for societies obligations.
This could perhaps be the most perfect sentence ever written to define Liberalism. Thanks Solon.
Dave is the "perfect" Lib truth twister... He lists one or two, maybe three outdated, washed up Gov programs as examples of how wonderfull, bright and happy things are when the BIG BROTHER Gov provides for all our needs...
He sites SS... rofl, what a joke... it's BROKE, it was never intended to be your ONLY retirment, it was a SAFTEY NET... If you and I had been ALLOWED to take our OWN money, save, invest, use, OUR CHOICE... WE WOULD BE WEALTHY... Galvaston, Texas gov employees are a PERFECT example. They opted out years ago from SS, thier funds were MATCHED just like our employeers do to SS, but Galvaston got to PRIVATLY invest, now EVERY SINGLE ONE IN THE PROGRAM HAS OVER 1 MILLION IN THIER ACCOUNTS, fact, not twisted lies... THE YCAN GIVE THE MONEY ON TO KIDS (maybe uninsured), TO WIFE (maybe uninsured)... IT'S ALL THIERS... Our SS is NOT ours, my kids get none of mine, my wife, one time small chunk... Can't pass it on.
Ok, shot that one to hell, next...
List that did not work so good Dave...
Postal Service ( had to go private )
Medicare ( Broke, Full of Waste, Fruad )
Welfare ( Clinton had to reform, was totaly out of control )
God, time for reserch on Gov programs and redundancy of programs...
I'll get back to you Dave with PROFF that MOST Gov programs SUCK and are huge unfunded wastes of tax money.
Dave is the "perfect" Lib truth twister
That is the first time I've ever been accused of that. You must be new here or had one too many Coronas. Love the passion, though.
Don't stop him now, he's on a roll.
was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
;-)
"Dave is the "perfect" Lib truth twister"
Dave was quoting solon. Did you read Dave's post. He's on your side. Did you stop reading it after the first sentence? Try not to opine without first comprehending the discussion.
You say that like its a bad thing.
I once heard Rush Limbaugh say that health care coverage is a luxury...tantamount to a beach house. This is the Republican mindset we are dealing with. Fortunately some Republicans have seen the decency in expanding SCHIP. So what if a few people who could otherwise afford health care coverage marginally qualify? Look at the number of deserving Americans who will qualify. Life can be tough if you're not a comfortably middle-class Republican. But as asomeone once said, there are two Americas. For the greatest country on the earth to ignore the health needs of its people is unpardonable. For America to spend billions of dollars a week fighting an unnecessary war and yet nickel and dime the health and welfare of its own people; to turn its back on a a major American city, New Orleans; to continue to cater to the wealthiest citizens is sinful...it's un-Christian. I commend those Republicans who voted in favor of the SCHIP bill and who will vote to override King George's veto.
In my view , if the Republicans had their way SCHIP would never be even discussed. These people do not want children to be covered for healthcare unless they are rich and have private coverage. The selfishness is amazing.
As for Contessa, you need to do your homework.
What a name, contessa. Contessa de nial sounds about right!
REPIBLICAN CREATED SCHIP's PROGRAM YOU MORON, not libs... ROFL
We do what they say we don't... we created the program, we just don't want to see it OVER expand... just a modest increase...
Yeah, better err on the side of a few kids dying or their families going broke, than someone getting extra help from the government.
There are many objections to this, but they all ring so false considering the same people are willing to spend billions on sacrificing Americans in Iraq.
Four R Presidental candidates support the veto and yet it appears from above transcript, not one of them is actually against finding a way to insure not just the children, but all American citizens. It is the fact that they have different ways of addressing the issue that has most here in a tizzy.
I remember a meeting where Mark Hatfield (then a Senator from Oregon) spoke, stating in so many words that the Endangered Species Act in its final form was far from what was first proposed, in that the cost (both of enforcement and economic impact) was far greater than anticipated. This and other examples are one reason that some of us are wary of government programs as a proported "cure-all" to all the problems that face the citizens of the nation.
As I read the preamble to the Constitution, the purpose was to provide for "common defence (sic)", promote general welfare (that's promote, not provide), and secure the "Blessings of Liberty." Too often, promote has been turned into provide, rights have been granted without explaining personal responsibilities.
Look at tax credits as a possible solution, if they are not enough to give us the health care we want because of the lifestyle we live, perhaps we would take some responsibility in changing lifestyles (get more healthy) in order to reduce medical costs.
There is a small fraction of the people that truly need direct government help, but the way the current bill is written, it appears government would be going way beyond what is necessary.
if they are not enough to give us the health care we want because of the lifestyle we live, perhaps we would take some responsibility in changing lifestyles (get more healthy) in order to reduce medical costs.
And we'd all do well to do so. But that doesn't repair your broken body after an auto accident.
"Four R Presidental candidates support the veto and yet it appears from above transcript, not one of them is actually against finding a way to insure not just the children, but all American citizens. It is the fact that they have different ways of addressing the issue that has most here in a tizzy."
CORRECTION, The fact that Republicans have failed to even attempt a remedy while they watched the cost of insuring a family skyrocket by 59 percent (2000-2005) is what has most here in a tizzy, and it's why I'm always skeptical whenever a Republican says their on the side of those who pay the premiums.
They have done NOTHING. They have tried NOTHING. Letting the health care market run wild and reap profits on the backs of the sick and injured while denying them coverage does not fit the definition of promoting the general welfare.
When they actually do talk about how to fix it, they want to cut taxes and make everyone get a savings account. What that's supposed to do about costs and the rate at which they increase, I have no idea.
Are we going to keep giving everyone a cost-increase-proof tax cut every year as the cost of insurance goes from ridiculous to astronomically insane?
Auto accidents, catastrophic illness can happen to anyone, and even people with insurance have trouble paying and keeping track of everything. Why do Americans acccept this stress and uncertainty?
I seriously doubt that any country with universal health care would want our "system."
So why aren't the Democrats giving us ALL health care with our tax dollars? Or are they playing that old "for the children" card while ignoring all the adults, as usual? They have the majority, so where's our universal health care?!?!
You really, honestly, have no idea why?
No, he knows why ... he just needs to parrot the rhetoric ...
Oh I know why. Cause they're bought and paid for by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who would lose their big fat profits from preying on the sick and elderly. If we devoted just 10% of our insane war-n-weapons budget on giving our people single-payer coverage, we'd be kicking arse health-wise. Instead they vote to fund a war crime and leave the workers to die prematurely cause they can't afford a doctor. Let them eat cake!
"So why aren't the Democrats giving us ALL health care with our tax dollars?
They will, given the chance. First the kids. Only a horrible monster would deny health care for kids.
They have the majority, so where's our universal health care?!?!"
Unfortunately there's an obstructionist minority gumming up the works. I have a feeling voters will remedy that situation a year from November.
Yeah, always the other guy's fault why the Democrats won't do anything. Elect the Greens and watch how fast we get single-payer coverage. We'll make the Dems look like the conservatives that they are.
You Libs absolutly crack me up ! ROFL, you never, ever seem to learn that your LIES and DISTORSIONS backfire ALMOST every time. Welstone Memorial, Move-On Ad, Lying about Rush... Just today, as if the REAL AMERICAN public needed any more evidence about your motives and lies, the President / Chairman of The Marine Corps Charity that is ABSOLUTY, 100% NON-POLITICAL, has SEVERAL PROMINENT DEMOCRATES on the board, made a public statment condemming the House & Senten Dems, namly Harry Ried and the other 41 Wack-Jobs as UTTERLY AND TOTALY FALSE with the assertion the Rush is ANYTHING but a true blooded supporter of US Military, remember this Organization has NEVER run one single political ad, nor issues support for ANY political side and HAS A BOARD FULL of DEMOCRATES, but still they KNOW AND HAVE SPOKEN THE TRUTH about Rush and his unending finicial support for wounded and killed soldiers... yes, soldiers that are DEMS too... They make NO distinction about who they help. Scholorships for childeren of killed soldiers LONG BEFORE any of this Phoney Soldiers crap accured Rush was helping... That's more then ANYONE can say about the Dems in the Congress. The silly, worthless piece of garbage letter that the moron Libs sent to Clear Channel is being auctioned off on E-Bay and is currently at $52,000.oo... It goes till Friday at which time Rush is going to MATCH the highest bid and ALL the money goes to the same NON-PROFIT, NON-POLITICAL CHARITY that he has supported for YEARS. Rush has officialy asked Reid and the Dems to agree to match HIS (Rushs) Donation to the charity, but THE DEMS ONLY WANT MONEY FROM TAXES, not from themselves. So who REALLY supports our vets more, no doubt if you ask the thousands he's helped, it's RUSH, not Reid. So again Libs, we Conservatives thank you for your stupid ploys that only make our side stronger... Oh, and btw... Harry Reids own state, in a poll, though Rush was more popular and doing the right thing then Reid... ROFL ! WTG LIBS ! You guys continue to make this too easy... When the news story gets out later today and into the week about the Official Statment and members of the organization both Repb & Dems stand up and tell what they think and the support Rash has given ALL vets, you guys are going to look ever worse. What's next, what will BACKFIRE on you next time you LIE, oh wait, nvm... just look at SCHIP's ! ROFL (socilized medicine) Folks are just starting to get this whole issue, tide is turning, 80k is NOT poverty, 25 is NOT a child... The 5 BILLION increase Bush would give is enough to fund MORE kids, certainly NOT cut them off from needed care... So ANOTHER lie and distortion that is FINALY getting told. New poll, MOST now (changed from last week) DO NOT favor the SCHIP's expansion but rather the small increase Bush pledged.
Thanks for everything and keep up the great work, we need you to win.
"You Libs..." (snip)
Wow, that just kept goin', didn't it?
As Brutus mentioned, he was on a roll. I'm thinking by now he either fell asleep or his keyboard exploded.
You MORONS crack ME up. You are stupid and your rants are worthless. Ignorant heartless and apoplectic are no way to go through like you ignoramus
Want more people to read your posts? rediscover the wonders of the paragraph.