- Environmental saviors
- Judge has a backbone
- Trick or treating etiquette
- Homelessness in Colorado
- Politics never meant to be a career option
- Term limits the answer for Congress
- Turkey may have saved Dems' bacon
- Teachers unions: free ride on accountability
- Teachers unions: free ride on accountability
- Blaming the hippo
SCHIP 2.0
The Democrat stated concern is children’s health in “low income” families.
Their actual intention is to create a new federal entitlement that will trap and create a new segment of Democrats. Schip 2.0 would extend coverage to a family of four with an annual income of $61,950. According to the Census Bureau the median income for the group is $48,201. Apparently Democrats think “needy families” include those earning 128% of the median.
President Bush will veto Schip 2.0. Congress will probably sustain the veto and legislation will be passed funding Schip at current levels. So the children of truly needy families will continue to be covered. But that was never in doubt.
The Democrats were never concerned about children’s health care. The lesson is that they are more interested in creating a new, large contingency of “needy” than good governance.
This letter has not been edited.
Jones: "The Democrats were never concerned about children’s health care."
This, of course, is a blatant lie, but how unusual is that in a James Jones' post?
Posted by Truth on November 3, 2007 03:56 PMTruth,
The proof that I am a liar being the fact that I am liar.
How unusual is that for a Truth post?
Posted by James Jones on November 3, 2007 04:44 PMIf neo-cons would of funded domestic programs with a ounce of zeal they put into saddling our heirs with crippling debt. All done for the sole purpose of enriching their cronies, at our expense, there would be no battle over health care for the poor. Thirty percent of my (family of 4) income goes to healthcare that will either, A) drop us when we really need them, or B) Increase the rate to be 50% of our income, or more. If I can get my kids covered by SCHIP, I might just be able to send them to college, rather then fattening some health insurance executives golden parachute.
Now try and tell me our healthcare is not a broken system and I will call you a liar to your face.
Posted by The common man on November 3, 2007 05:38 PMThe common man
I'll save you the trouble. The health care system is broken.
The questions is: how do we fix it?
The government currently spends about $0.50 of every $1.00 that is spent on health care.
Do you honestly think that upping the ante makes the problems go away?
Posted by James Jones on November 3, 2007 06:34 PMThe democraps will do everything in there power to screw us..
Posted by Keith on November 3, 2007 06:46 PMJJ:
Yes, you're right. Covering children in hard working families who have been overstretched by out of control health care costs is a dreadful idea.
Let those buggers suffer so JJ can keep his ideological purity.
Posted by Charles B on November 3, 2007 07:30 PMHave any of your people actually looked at the bill, or are you just spouting out a bunch of liberal garbage? This bill stinks and the Dems know it, they just want Bush to veto it, for political reasons.
Posted by jgd777 on November 3, 2007 07:41 PMThe truly needy get Medicaid.
SCHIP is for families who make too much to get Medicaid, but don't get insurance from work or can't afford to buy it privately.
~$14K/yr for a insurance for family of four out of ~60K. Wealthy freeloaders.
Posted by on November 3, 2007 07:52 PMFix the problems with the insurance industry! Socialized medicine does nothing to fix that problem, it only penalizes the taxpayers.
Posted by on November 3, 2007 07:58 PMSCHIP is a great program, however the expanded bill passed by the Congress stinks. It is so full of loopholes and distortions it should never pass. This bill was presented to Bush knowing he would veto it, and that is exactly what the Dems want. They want to use his veto for political reasons, plain and simple
Posted by jgd777 on November 3, 2007 08:07 PMUniversal Health Care will relieve us of the wasted money paid to the army of "adjusters" whose job it is to deny our care at our expense. It will also relieve us of the cost of the executives hyper pay. These things come out of your ever rising premiums with the for profit system we have now.
Universal Health Care means you can go to the doctor when you are sick and get treated. It would also relieve us from having to stay with a lousy job just to keep our health insurance.
We have the advantage of seeing the rest of the industrialized nations take care of their people with universal healthcare so we can use the best features of the programs.
You right wing tools are going to wonder what happened if you develope an illness and get your premiums raised so high you have to choose between paying rent or the insurance company. You will also be worried that if you choose to pay your healthcare that they can always deny your coverage to pay for the CEO latest fetish.
Universal Health Care will relieve us of the wasted money paid to the army of "adjusters" whose job it is to deny our care at our expense. It will also relieve us of the cost of the executives hyper pay. These things come out of your ever rising premiums with the for profit system we have now.
Universal Health Care means you can go to the doctor when you are sick and get treated. It would also relieve us from having to stay with a lousy job just to keep our health insurance.
We have the advantage of seeing the rest of the industrialized nations take care of their people with universal healthcare so we can use the best features of the programs.
You right wing tools are going to wonder what happened if you develope an illness and get your premiums raised so high you have to choose between paying rent or the insurance company. You will also be worried that if you choose to pay your healthcare that they can always deny your coverage to pay for the CEO latest fetish.
Dave,
Like I said before fix the insurance problem, but Socialized medicine is not the answer.
The majority of people who have lived with Socialized medicine, will tell you all of the drawbacks. The lousy care, the waiting in lines, being denied care because they were too old or too sick.
Why do you think we have so many people coming down from Canada? Could it be that they do not have the resources or the expertise to care for them properly.
I don't know about anyone else but the last thing I need is to have my healthcare being controlled by the same people who run the rest of our welfare programs.
Posted by jgd777 on November 3, 2007 08:27 PMjgd777,
I have to laugh out loud when statements such as yours are made "Why do you think so many people are coming down from Canada?" I talk to Canadian's every day and they thank their lucky stars they don't have the health care system we have. Many are afraid to come to the US because if they got hurt or sick they may have to visit a hospital here and they can't afford it. Do you think there are no waiting lines for care in the US? Do you think nobody is denied care in the US? Or in the US you will always get the proper care? Do you think your taxes would raise more than your insurance premiums? We have a form of socialized health care it's called helth insurance, the difference is they decide what, how, where and why. And of course the less thay have to pay out the more $ they make. That is what the real crime is, making $ denying people care. Does it seem logical if you have to change insurance companies they will not cover you for pre existing conditions? If you are sick you are denied coverage for that sickness. WTF is wrong with this country?
Posted by Karl Cheney on November 3, 2007 08:51 PMLucky for me, I grew up with socialized medicine. My father was in the Air Force. Those military doctors did a fine job whenever it was needed, for free. I don't know what you are talking about when you say there will be wait times. My worst waiting period has been with private doctors. I've had billing errors, and been denied coverage after being told I would be covered. This system is broken. The profiteers in the insurance industry have sapped our money with no promise of care when we are ill.
Of course to trust the government, you would need to get the republicans out of power. They underfund everything then try to privatize it when a system breaks due to malignant neglect.
Posted by Dave Clark on November 3, 2007 09:43 PM"We have a form of socialized health care it's called health insurance, the difference is they decide what, how, where and why"
Karl,
Not sure how you can call health insurance, socialized health care. I am free to choose any company I want, the level of coverage that is best for me and my family, and if I wish to continue with that coverage. With socialized medicine I get to choose ummm.. NOTHING! The government gets to choose it for me and we all know how much they give a damn about me or my family.
Dave,
You can honestly say the Military facilities are adequate and up to date after the recent scandal regarding the medical care given our returning soldiers from Iraq. If that is your idea of good medical treatment, then I will pass. Thank you anyway!
Our government has screwed up every program they control,and I don't really give a damn if my mail is late. On the other hand I do care if I can not get decent medical care for my family because of some government screw up.
Looking at the people we know from Canada provides good stories and bad statistics.
A report in Canada concerning breast cancer was posted, don't remember the address, and outright stated that the final stages 4 and 5 take 85% of the health care dollars spent on that condition. Conclusion was that care is denied for final stage and limited for stage 4. The doctor who wrote the report opposed denying care but suggested that costs could be cut by getting rid of medicines that don't save the life of the patient but make her comfortable. They don't offer anything but pain medication women near death from a spreading breast cancer.
The cure for our health care problems is in letting the individual take the tax breaks instead of giving them to corporations. HSA accounts will also lower prices because they lower the cost to doctors when the payment is made instantly. Low income workers and those currently on Medicare and Medicaid should be offered a choice of HSA with a catastrophic coverage for the rest of the problems. Charge them according to their income and deposit the amount charged into the account. If we do this we will be taking lessons from those working poor in seeking out and finding less costly health care.
We need more clinics like the ones at Wal-Mart where you pay either your co-pay or a simple low, posted on the door, flat fee that is almost always somewhere in the range of the co-pay or even less. If the city would contract with these clinics or put more of them in all areas and make the care free to those using the government pay cards. They will have an account and it will either grow or shrink according to how they use it. Best incentive of all is the fact that once you get twice the yearly family threshold amount in your account you can opt to receive the monies over that amount, probably 10,000 dollars. Some people will never use health care and the account builds up when people are healthy and gets smaller when there is a health crisis. It is the choice my insurance agent made (and he can get any kind of health insurance he desires) with a family of two children who are about 13 and 14 and his wife. It's my choice as well come January. We will maintain a Kaiser insurance policy for me because I have terminal heart and kidney disease and need a bit more care than we can pay for. We WILL use the account for medications because some of the medication I take is changed by Kaiser policy even when the doctor specifically orders it. Estimate is that keeping only me on the policy for 200 a month and using the 200 HSA contribution for my granddaughter and my husband. Now we pay 600 a month...After January we will be paying 400 a month total. That is saving money. By paying some doctors on the spot we get reduced rates. Whole Foods put all their workers on HSAs and they discovered that they didn't know the cost and often a doctor's office had no clue because they collect the co-pay, bill anything they want to the insurance company and accept the designated payment from the insurance company. With an HSA you get almost total control over every part of health care. Since it will take time to get used to we should offer those on Medicare the choice of making the change or not. In this climate of Individual control, individual purchasing of backup policies (like the one I have) and tax benefits to the individuals who will either receive a deduction or a tax credit which will be added to the account. System will work. It does so well for so many people that both the politicians and the insurance companies worked to keep the accounts limited and difficult to obtain. Anything they will both work against is worth checking out. It's not a panacea. It's an improvement. The different medical procedures not covered by insurance lasik surgery and cosmetic surgery have gone down in price and advertise for business. Competition. You might not shop the ER prices in an emergency but some prior knowledge of prices and practices will prepare people to deal with the hospital costs. My cardiologist charges Kaiser a lot more than he will charge me. I pay a 50 dollar co-pay and they run an EKG on me every visit. After I have my HSA they will charge me a total of 100 dollars per visit and add 50 if I need an EKG. We can give it a chance. We can handle any problem if we get government out of our way. Think about it.
Posted by momma y on November 3, 2007 11:07 PMMamma Y
So why do you hate the children? Thought I would get that in before the liberals do.
Actually I think your post was very informative and give me a few things to think about.
"Just say NO to socialized healthcare" My new bumber sticker, how do you like it?
Posted by jgd777 on November 3, 2007 11:29 PMThanks jgd777
I like the sticker.
How about "If you like the DMV you'll love government health care.
Or:
Government Health Care Preview.
or : Socialized Medicine the efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the IRS.
I have a granddaughter and she qualifies for SCHIP and Medicaid. We put her on our insurance and got a phone call from Social Services asking why we didn't put her on a health plan because children need to be covered. When I told her we had private insurance she went nuts and basically asked us how we could claim we needed LEAP assistance when we were paying for health care when we didn't have to. We still get regular calls from them about how she qualifies for food stamps. Those we might sign her up for because her mother, who abandoned her and hasn't even seen her in over a year, keeps signing up for food stamps in her name and messes up a lot of things and makes us angry. The school told us to sign up for the stamps and buy a gallon of milk a month or something to make sure it's active. That way mommy can't live off of her kid. If her history is any clue she will just get pregnant again and go to California to have the baby then state hop her way back to Colorado. She is a rotten mother, last time she had the baby early, before she could leave the state, so Social Services had a close watch on her and took the baby away when it was 11 weeks old. She was still calling us at that time and every time she did I heard the baby screaming. If she ever figured out I called Social Services when I found out she was pregnant and had them watch her she'd go atomic. We just found out, by accident, that our little one here, had several visits to hospitals before momma dumped her on the doorstep four years ago. Next month she will have been with us for 4 1/2 years which is longer than she has been with anyone else. Momma used to put her at church sponsored baby sitting services and claim she was going to school and getting medical treatment and unable to care for the child. Since government money paid the bill no one complained until one day two of the care centers compared notes. Seems that every time momma got the "baby" there was an "accident" so they called the authorities and momma ran. She kept this little girl in a dark room for two years. First in California and then back here. She was hiding from the law so there was to be no sound at all. The food was scarce and they shared a quart of milk a week. Don't think the little one got a quarter of it either. She was the size and development of a 1-2 year old when she got here and unable to walk, speak, except to repeat words, and no potty training. She is about a year and a half behind in school which means she is catching up by about half a year. This year she's in second grade and, with special ed assistance, is fully qualified to be in the first grade about one third to one half of the year in. Hope to have her even with the other kids by 6th grade. I understand the need for assistance but the oversight is just plain not there most of the time. Momma might call at Christmas but Social Services and the police are together on this one. Tests show mommy was using meth when she was pregnant with L. which made the coordination and movement problems more severe. We also found the evidence of physical abuse the baby sitting services had suspected so they are going after her. First night here without mommy she held her arms to her chest and said, "no tie, no tie." The doctor we took her to for a general physical pointed to a scar on her arm and told us it was from something tied around the arm not the accidental scrape mommy claimed. Story, pieced together over a year, is that momma went out at night and tied the baby to her bed so she couldn't wander around and "steal" food. We were very suspicious when we gave her a glass of milk and she was afraid to drink it. "All for me?" then drank it down in seconds. She also would hide and cringe when there were loud noises. Not enough evidence to charge mama with child abuse, but the proof of drug use and the neglect of the newborn in Denver will put her on the permanent radar so no other babies get left with her for even a minute. Also will keep her away from here.
Anyway SCHIP is for poor children whose parents can't afford insurance. The bill that is being vetoed expands the program based on statistics drawn from programs that manage to count my granddaughter at least 3 times as uninsured. Bush keeps saying he will sign a bill that allows the expansions ONLY after 90% of the eligible children are covered. Few even know about that. I think the libbies are afraid to sign off on that because they know they've cooked the books to boost the numbers. Now they can't go back and put our honest numbers because it would be too easy to prove the lies. I can see that this one will end badly for the liberals if they don't start listening to the voters. Too easy a target and the media take is exactly the opposite of the real feelings on this.
Posted by momma y on November 4, 2007 11:18 AMBULLSCHRIP...keep this Trojan Horse for socialized medicine roadapples!
Posted by Hank on November 4, 2007 11:59 AMSo charles b.,You are for raising taxes on these hard workers,policies that would take away there jobs and rationing there healthcare.Find out the facts first before you act like you care about people.
Posted by Keith on November 4, 2007 02:08 PMJimmy Jerkoff would have you believe this bill and its timing are the reponsibility of the Democrat(ic) Party, but it's actually the Rethuglicons who bear the blame.
It is the Senate’s Republican leaders who are doing their best to block any compromise.
They clearly would prefer to have no bill enacted — and provide ammunition for the president’s campaign to depict Congress as a failure — than do anything meaningful to help children.
The bill up for consideration in the Senate had already passed the House with substantial bipartisan support — but not quite enough votes to overcome another veto. As a result, a few prominent senators from both parties had been meeting with House Republicans to work out a compromise that could attract enough moderate Republicans to overcome a veto. Those talks, according to a key participant, were making “really good progress.”
That is when Senate Republican leaders stepped in and, under the rules, refused to postpone a scheduled vote to allow more negotiations. The result was predictable. The Senate, which has always been enthusiastic about expanding S-chip, approved the House-passed bill by a thumping 64-to-30 vote. But the bill lacks enough Republican support in the House for an override.
The efforts to find a compromise are expected to continue, and we can only hope they ultimately bear fruit. Surely there are enough Republicans in the House who are more concerned with children’s health than with ideological posturing and gamesmanship.
Posted by on November 4, 2007 02:09 PMJones makes another one of the wild, arrogant and emotional outbursts for which he is famous:
"The Democrats were never concerned about children’s health care."
Of course, as a practical and common sense matter, no one with a brain really believes that Democrats are not concerned about children's health care. There are many who believe that the current SCHIP proposal is unjustified and unwise, and there are some who claim that the proposal is part of the Democratic push for universal health care, but that is quite different from the egregious and fallacious claim that Democrats are unconcerned about our children and their health care.
It is such wildly emotional outbursts as this one by Jones that is a lead reason for the lack of credibility of the forum.
How illogical, inane and just plain stupid is it to claim that if a person wants the law to cover more children, then that person doesn't care about children's health care?
We need a debate about the parameters of children's health care the government should cover. We don't need such asinine emotional outbursts such as we regularly get from Jones.
momma y's suggested poster sticker: "If you like the DMV you'll love government health care."
I think that momma y has the mistaken notion that the Department of Health and Human Services goes through the Colorado Department of Moter Vehicles to hire its doctors and other medical personnel. But I am sorry for the way they must have treated her, although it could have been that they didn't have time to listen to all of her story.
Now, this one might be effective: "If you like the way Halliburton and Blackwater have handled Iraq"". Oops, I mean "the government", then, etc."
Posted by Truth on November 4, 2007 02:43 PMThe last time I was at the DMV I waited less than the last time I was at the (very well paid by private insurance) doctor.
Posted by on November 4, 2007 03:03 PMTruth,
You want socialized healthcare? Have your liberal friends put together a program and then present it to the citizens of this country and see how far it flies. This expanded SCHIP bill is nothing more than trying to backdoor socialized medicine, under the pretense of protecting the children.
Tell your liberal friends to quit trying to buy votes with my tax dollars!!
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 03:26 PMjgd777
We have socialism through the back door now. This is an attempt to march in through the front door without telling us who they really are.
Posted by James Jones on November 4, 2007 06:06 PMJames,
Guess it is up to us to close the doors.
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 07:00 PMYou know, jgd777 and Jones, if you don't have anything to say you would look less ignorant if you just didn't post.
This idea of Jones' that the Democrats aren't concerned about children's health because they want to cover more of them is good fodder for Ripley's believe it not. How sick can a mind be that comes up with this nonsense?
Posted by Truth on November 4, 2007 07:02 PMTruth,
This SCHIP program is suppose to be paid for by a tax on cigarettes, and 54% of the smokers have a yearly income of $40,000 or less. So you tell me how does making families making less than $40,000 pay for insurance for families making $60,000 a year make any sense to you.
To finance this program with a tax on smokers would depend on an additional 22 million smokers. What do you suggest we do about that, stand down by our high schools and promote smoking?
In the fifth year of this bill, as written by the Dems, the budget drops off 80%, so in the fifth year 80% of the "children" would lose their benefits. Does that sound like they want to protect the children?
I believe there are 11 states that are authorized to cover "children" up to the age of 25. Close to 10% of the total funds went to those "children" , in Michigan alone 72% of the funds spend by the state went to "childless adults" over 25.
Bush has asked that 90% of the children eligible for SCHIP coverage under the existing program be covered and enrolled before expanding it. Why is that so unreasonable? Isn't that actually caring for the children, making sure they are all covered before you use funds for an expanded program.
The Dems knew Bush would veto the SCHIP bill as presented to him. They also you knew liberals like you would never look into the actual wording of it and just blame Bush for "hurting the children" It is nothing more than a political ploy to get people like you to vote for them in "08"
Read the bill and tell me I am wrong!!
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 08:19 PMTruth,
How sick can a mind be that comes up with this nonsense?
We are talking about “needy families” include those earning 128% of the median.
This may seem sick to you, but not everyone in America dreams of becoming a needy familiy dependant on the good will of Hillary and Teddy.
No, Jones, you are not sick because you oppose SCHIP 2. You are sick because you claim that people, who you are too cowardly to identify, are not concerned about children's health because they want to include more children in SCHIP.
Posted by Truth on November 4, 2007 08:46 PM"[HHS Secretary] Leavitt said that the [Bush] budget proposal [an additional 5 billion over five years] would reduce the number of SCHIP enrollees from 4.7 million in 2008 to 4.3 million by 2012."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/62576.php
(dated February 9, 2007)
Truth
Better bumper sticker:
Want Government Sponsored Health Care?
Go to a VA hospital and get in line.
My problems with Social Services is their attitude that everyone needs them and must do as they say. I did have a long conversation with people about my step daughter in law. There we had a great deal of success except in the matter of mommy getting food stamps and a stipend because of a child she hasn't had custody of nor any care or consideration for in over four years. Now we are in the middle of food stamp applications for her. We qualify also and if we have to will file for them but not use them. Learned from a friend who was in the system for six years while she recovered from a car wreck. Says they need to get the dollar amount per client up to make the quota and get promoted. Whether or not it's true we've had no problem getting our applications for LEAP and food stamps accepted. Know it will take a lot of time and energy but need to keep them away. Little one was taught to be terrified of them and she still is. She wets her pants for two weeks after we take her in there. Want to keep her away from the system as much as possible but with my bad heart I"m going to have to set the path for her SSI in case anything happens to me. My husband couldn't budget his way out of an inheritance. Without my medical expenses there will be more money but he will have to retire and take a pay cut. That will leave a yearly income of about 20K for two adults and one child. Neither of them could sew her clothes either so that would be a new expense. We are old fashioned. We live by the rule that we take care of ourselves but we want her to be safe and capable of going to college. We work with her on academics every day. We also work with her teacher, fantastic school, to make sure she is treated exactly like any other student. The rules don't change for behavior and for academics we meet with the teacher regularly to coordinate lessons. Tuesday I have to go to the class and demonstrate magic zero. Simple sleight of hand. Change a penny to a dime and a dime to a dollar then go backwards. Kids really remember it when it's right in front of their eyes like that. We'll make it with minimum help. Friend says she still has a food stamp card and when she stopped receiving benefits they kept reloading the card every month. She would buy a gallon of milk a month until the end of the year then she decided to leave well enough alone. Old fashioned independence here. Just like we take our health care. I do support helping the poor get good health care. Government has shown a total inability to do that job. VA hospitals and doctors have shown me that. Also the childhood immunizations that were supposed to be free and convenient are neither. Now that the government is offering them for free, twice a week for a total of 8 hours, doctors have limited supplies of the vaccines and charge a pretty penny. That is really worth the 30 dollar co-pay.
The same efficiency and decision making processes in the post office, old style, DMV and VA hospitals would doom us to substandard care unless we could pay extra for it. Try the HSA route first. IF that were to fail, it won't, you will have an ID system tied to medical records to start a new system with.
Truth,
That reduction takes in account the million or so "childless adults" that would be dropped from the program. Along with the illegals currently receiving the benefits of SCHIP. In effect that the number of "children" that the program was designed to protect would increase by a million or so.
I found the article very interesting, the one point that really caught my attention was John Dingell (D-Mich) was the biggest opponent. This is the representative of the state that 72% of the recipients of SCHIP benefits are "childless adults" I can tell he wants to protect the children and not just buy votes
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 09:37 PM"The program – SCHIP – was created 10 years ago by Republicans. Rep. Mark Souder voted for it then, as did Rep. Dan Burton. They raised cigarette taxes to pay for medical insurance for kids in families that made too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to buy insurance if their employers didn’t provide it."
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070930/EDIT0501/709300427/0/EDIT01"
Posted by Truth on November 4, 2007 09:43 PMThe only reason SCHIP is being funded by tobacco taxes is that it's the only thing Republicans would agree to. The Dems wanted to reduce payments to Medicare Advantage insurance companies, but the Rs wouldn't budge.
Now they gripe about sin taxes, and make everything bad look like it's the Democrats fault.
More evidence JJ's full of it.
Posted by on November 4, 2007 09:45 PMTruth,
The people I am too cowardly to identify are the Congressional Deomcrats I identified in my letter.
The reason it is clear that the Democrats are not interested in children's health care is not that they are trying to expand the program to poor children who are not poor.
The reason iis is clear that the Democrats are not interested in children;s health care is that they are playing politics with a program that is designed to help poor children.
Posted by James Jones on November 4, 2007 10:08 PM9:45,
The Republicans want to increase the funding by 5 billion, which would be sufficient to cover the eligible children currently on the program and about a million or so more. That is when the childless adults and illegals were removed.
The additional tobacco tax was suggested by the Dems, Bush has stated many times he does not want to raise taxes for this bill.
Could anyone please tell me why you object to covering 90% of the children currently eligible before you start expanding the SCHIP program.
Posted by jgd777 on November 4, 2007 10:12 PMUnknown
I would retract everything I have said about tobacco taxes, Medicare Advantge insurance companies and sin taxes except for the fact that I haven't said anything about tobacco taxes, Medicare Advantge insurance companies and sin taxes.
You are delusional.
Posted by James Jones on November 4, 2007 10:12 PMThe "conservative" routine in a nutshell:
Government is bad.
Govern badly.
See! Government is bad!
It all goes back to Gingrich's "drown it in a bathtub" argument, which is still the MO of conservatives in government.
Posted by Charles B on November 5, 2007 06:54 AMCharles B,
Our once respected government has been corrupted by a group of money grabbing, self serving, arrogant, snake oil peddlers. That goes for both sides of the aisle, Dems and Reps. None of them have the willingness to be honest with the people, lies and half truths are all we are told. It is not the government that is bad, but it sure as hell is the people currently running the government.
No one has to convince me that the people in our government are bad, they do a fine job of that all by themselves.
The least amount of control this crooked government has over my pocket book the better I feel. I can spend my money far more efficiently than they can.
Posted by jgd777 on November 5, 2007 10:05 AM"Our once respected government has been corrupted by a group of money grabbing, self serving, arrogant, snake oil peddlers."
"they are playing politics with a program that is designed to help poor children."
You guys are half right...for once:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/washington/05health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"Senator Hatch tried to bring White House officials into the negotiations, believing their involvement would produce a better bill. But, lawmakers said, the administration did not want to discuss the child health program except as part of a broader discussion that included the president’s tax proposals. […]
But after checking their calendars, lawmakers said they and their aides had had more than 35 meetings and telephone conversations on the issue with [administration officials] Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Hennessey and Ms. Goon from January through September."
Posted by jay on November 5, 2007 11:27 AMjgd777:
I know your "a pox on both their houses" routine well. Since your gang of thieves has had a monopoly on power for six years and we have nothing but bad government to show for it, you obviously cannot say: "See! Conservatives know how to govern!". So you fall back to your default: "They're all thieves!" position, which works nicely for you in trying to avoid any culpability for your votes.
Quite transparent.
There happen to be a lot of great people in government. There just happens to be a lot of idiots as well. Thanks for putting them in office with your vote.
Posted by Charles B on November 5, 2007 11:29 AMCharles B.
"There happen to be a lot of great people in government. There just happens to be a lot of idiots as well. Thanks for putting them in office with your vote"
I didn't put any of those idiots into office I voted for a write-in candidate. "Mickey Mouse", I figured he was just as capable as any of the snake oil peddlers currently serving. Socialists or War mongers, and you call that a choice?
Thanks for putting the socialist in during the last election. What this country really needs are more taxes, i can hardly wait.
Hey, freeloaders you better get in line early or we will run out of money, never mind we can just tax the "rich" some more
"What this country really needs are more taxes, i can hardly wait. "
You should have thought about this concern before voting for Republicans who have spent more than they've made....resulting in an inevitable tax raise the likes of which we haven't seen in decades.
Posted by jay on November 5, 2007 01:15 PMJimmy Jism wants you to think that this bill was passed when it was, the way it was because of political manipulations perpetrated by Democrats.
The evidence shows that there were political manipulations from both sides.
Posted by on November 5, 2007 03:02 PMjgd777:
If you don't vote for the candidates, why vote at all?
And perhaps you should check on the rate that government grew under those "fiscal conservatives" that you're now disowning.
I think you're lying about who you voted for because of embarrassment...-understandable..
Posted by Charles B on November 5, 2007 03:25 PM3.02
You mean to tell me that politics is being perpetrated in the House of Representatives?
That's an outrage.
Posted by James Jones on November 5, 2007 04:55 PMCharles B
"If you don't vote for the candidates, why vote at all?"
When the parties put some creditable people on the ballot I will vote for one of them.
I have looked over the crop being presented this election and found the same to be true. Rudy, Hillary, Barrack, John M. John E. Fred Mitt. would you trust anyone of them with the future of your children? I wouldn't! I voted for Mickey Mouse because this way I will have the right to criticize either party and not beholden to anyone of them.
"I think you're lying about who you voted for because of embarrassment...-understandable"
I would like to know if you have the balls to call me a liar to my face.
Posted by jgd777 on November 5, 2007 08:51 PMVA health care is not universally bad all over the country. In large cities, sure there will be lines. You guys in Denver can`t buy a cup of coffee without standing in line.
Some veterans actually move to smaller communities for the VA care, and since many of my friends are Viet Nam vets, I see the great care they get.
For those of my family, who are not able to be in the military, I wish they had a program just half as good.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 6, 2007 02:28 AMI'll say it...jgd...you lie.
You vote strictly along republican party lines at each election.
there you go.
Posted by jay on November 6, 2007 10:23 AMjgd777 protested with too much enthusiasm:
I would like to know if you have the balls to call me a liar to my face.
If you have the balls to let me watch you vote...
It's telling that you imply the threat of physical violence in response to mere words. Get hold of yourself mate.