Hello:

I think the S-chip debacle finally sealed the fate of the Republicans. It WAS, after all, pretty MEAN of them.

In their attempt to create a permanent majority of Republicans, I think they're going to create a permanent majority of Democrats.

The Dems need about 9 Senate seats to create their veto proof majority. I think they'll do it. Then I think they'll restore the Constitution. Then I think guys like Scalito and the Dude who admits he "hates" the left, will be replaced.

Then I think this attempt at fascism will be a footnote in the history books.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong.

excon

The SCHIP is bad policy but it was probably bad politics to veto it. The truth is that the Democrats used a Sat. morning reply to the President that featured a kid who was allegedly dependent on the program. The truth however is that the kids dad is pretty well off and that he chose not to cover the kid with medical insurance knowing the kid would qualify under SCHIP.

The program is an unnecessary middle class welfare program and it is also creeping universal Hillary care socialism . What doesn't bode well for the country is that so many can be influenced by the sheer demogogery by the proponents . All it takes is for San Fran Nan to moan "what about the children " and she can sell the country the Brooklyn Bridge. That 45 Republicans voted in favor shows how intimidated they are about being baited in next year's elections by Democrat challengers taunting them for being "anti-children."

As Tom said, SCHIP (or as I call it "SCHIT") was an unnecessary program. We don't need it. Most people who are aware of the politics involved agree with that sentiment. Those who don't know the issues behind SCHIT back it because it's a feelgood program and "it's about the kids".

But how many people on the street really know SCHIT? The typical American doesn't read the papers, and unless its big news like the War in Iraq or Britney Spears losing her kids to K-Fed (y'know, important stuff), most Americans don't give a SCHIT. SCHIT isn't big enough news to get most people to notice. To use a PR term, it isn't "sexy" enough. There is no sexy SCHIT. So I think that the veto "debacle" will end up being no big SCHIT.

As for "Scalito" (is that Scalia, Alito or some other character I don't know about) and the Dude who admits he hates the left, they can't be "replaced". Their positions are permanent, lifetime appointments.

Elliot

Hello again, tom:

Truth?? I don't know about that. Here's the REAL truth:

The Frosts and their four children are exactly the kind of people S-chip was intended to help: working Americans who can't afford private health insurance.

The parents have a combined income of about $45,000, and don't receive health insurance from employers. When they looked into buying insurance on their own before the accident, they found that it would cost $1,200 a month — a prohibitive sum given their income. After the accident, when their children needed expensive care, they couldn't get insurance at any price.

Fortunately, they received help from Maryland's S-chip program. The state has relatively restrictive rules for eligibility: children must come from a family with an income under 200 percent of the poverty line. For families with four children that's $55,220, so the Frosts clearly qualified.

Graeme Frost, then, is exactly the kind of child the program is intended to help. But that didn't stop the right from mounting an all-out smear campaign against him and his family.

Right-wing water carriers like Rush Limprod and Michele Malken began insisting that the Frosts must be affluent because Graeme and his sister attend private schools (they're on scholarship), because they have a house in a neighborhood where some houses are now expensive (the Frosts bought their house for $55,000 in 1990 when the neighborhood was rundown and considered dangerous) and because Mr. Frost owns a business (it was dissolved in 1999).

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud.

And there's one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn't about the Frost parents. It's about Graeme Frost and his sister.

I don't know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.

excon

PS> Yup, I borrowed from your home town rag again.

If you're a smoker, I doubt you would be in very much favor of SCHIP. Why? Because the smokers would have had to carry the burden. We all know that the majority of smokers are in the low to middle class bracket. And Democrats say they look out for the poor, yet they want to raise their taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goddard

If you're a smoker, I doubt you would be in very much favor of SCHIP.

---

Hello again, Goddard:

If you're a smoker WITH CHILDREN, I'll bet you would.

excon

I'll admit I'm a little ignorant about the s-chip program, so if someone could point me to an unbiased link, I'd appreciate it.

I seem to remember reading somewhere (can't remember where, though) that this program would FORCE individuals who fall into the income brackets to enroll their children in the plan, giving them no option for private insurance. In other words, if my husband and I make $40K/yr and have 3 kids, we MUST enroll our kids in the program - no private insurance allowed. Is that accurate? Also, wasn't there a loophole in the bill allowing coverage to extend to adults, not just children, as well as illegal immigrants? Or was the article I read full of lies and propaganda? :)

I haven't been following this thing carefully (no kids and make above the limits anyway), so excuse my ignorance. I am curious about it, however. Any links/info would be much appreciated!

No kids here, nor am I a smoker.

Ex ;You know I have to respond to a Krugman quote. He's very good at making the argument that anytime Conservatives question the facts they are out to smear . Even you would have to admit that the choice of spokesperson for the Democrat response could've been better. Now we are forced to unnecessarily subject the family to examination They are the ones who make the Frost family the issue .So here it goes :

All 4 of his children got scholarship to private schools ? Is it full scholarship or partial ? My bet is that most likely they are paying a pretty decent chunk of their kids private school bills while the government foots the tab for the health care. The Frosts have the means to take care of their children ;they should. At very least it shows that the family did not make health insurance a priority until after the accident .

What Krugman failed to mention is that Frost "went out of business"the same year that he purchased the building his business resided in . Now he's a commercial land lord.

Quote:

---

“I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period.”

---

Ever hear of Medicaid ?
Besides ;they already did under existing provisions of SCHIP .Bush vetoed an expansion of the program that would've increased the age of eleigibility to 25 whose parents make $83K a year.

Quote:

---

they found that it would cost $1,200 a month

---

. Insureblog punched the #s in for a quote in Baltimore and came up with much less. InsureBlog: $45,000 and No Insurance

I could go on but I really do not wish to trash the family . My point was that the Democrats demogogued the issue by using the kid to make their statement . It was a cheap shot .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

I think the S-chip debacle finally sealed the fate of the Republicans. It WAS, after all, pretty MEAN of them.

In their attempt to create a permanent majority of Republicans, I think they're going to create a permanent majority of Democrats.

The Dems need about 9 Senate seats to create their veto proof majority. I think they'll do it. Then I think they'll restore the Constitution. Then I think guys like Scalito and the Dude who admits he "hates" the left, will be replaced.

Then I think this attempt at fascism will be a footnote in the history books.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong.

excon

---

First, I don’t think Fascism is the appropriate description; repression under the auspices of the new Anti-Terror Law is a much more accurate description.

Secondly, it does not matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat majority, repression will continue. Having bred the post September 11 hysteria, there is nothing easier for any state, which follows neo-liberal directions, than simply sticking a label "terrorist" onto anyone who is not convenient to them.

A veto proof majority ? Possibly ,but what I see in the Democrat ranks is a substantial block of blue dog's who ran as moderates and conservatives in 2006 and will not likely let San Fran Nan go to extreme.

Thanks for the link, tom.

Quote:

---

Bush vetoed an expansion of the program that would've increased the age of eleigibility to 25 whose parents make $83K a year.

---

That must have been the age thing I was remembering.

Hello again, jillian:

I'm a libertarian. I believe that an unfettered marketplace will better serve the needs of everybody, including the poor.

That, however, is idealistic, because one side or the other rigs the game when they have the chance. That's been going on for quite some time. The result is a rigged economy.

So, if the economy is going to be rigged for either the rich or the poor, I'm going to choose the poor.

No, I don't think government should take care of anybody. But, if the righty's rig it, so the poor can't get out of poverty, then I'd be happy to rig it so that the government acts as a safety net for 'em.

At least, if it's going to be rigged, it SHOULD be rigged for the have NOTS - and not the HAVES.

That is why I think S-chip is a good thing.

excon

So that eligibility to $83 K income a year hand out is something you should be opposed to .

Thanks, excon. I'd say in general I have libertarian views as well; I fully believe people should accept responsibility for their own actions, which is where nationalized health care kind of irks me. On the one hand, I think about the people who are literally living paycheck to paycheck and are NOT driving $80K cars and carrying $900 purses. The ones who taking the kids out to dinner at McDonald's is a treat, and as such, do not have access to decent insurance. It's especially not fair to the kids. Then I think, well, could the parents get better jobs, make more money? Could they have made better decisions in the past and be in a better position? Maybe they've made their bed, now they should lie in it, and why should I have to support them because I made better decisions? But again, it's not fair to punish the kids for the parent's wrongdoing or poor planning. All that does is limit opportunities to the kids and put them in the same boat when they are adults. That's bad for society in general. But then I think about the people who live paycheck to paycheck who DO drive $80K cars and carry $900 purses and whine that they can't afford insurance, that the gubment should take care of them, etc. THOSE people make me angry. I don't want to help THOSE people at all. But again, if there are kids, it's not fair to punish the kids for their parent's poor planning and wrongdoing. This is where I could go on and on about how we need to educate our population about finances and money management so more people would be equipped with the knowledge to make better decisions, but that's another thread! :)

The bleeding heart in me says we should provide a system for children - all children who are US citizens. They should have access to vaccinations, check ups, basic care and so on. We should not have kids dying of scarlet fever in this country because they couldn't get to the doctor for a round of antibiotics. If a program such as that were implemented and enrollment was OPTIONAL, I'd probably be in support of it. I say probably because that does start setting us up for nationalized health care and I just think that's a bad idea. Also because our gubment has a way of buggering things up.

It sounds like the s-chip needs some work (like everything else on Capitol Hill). It seems our political parties are in such strong opposition to one another (not just on this, in general) that if one party says, "I like it!" the other party says, "I hate it!". That's never going to get us anywhere. Boy do our states need more power...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so that eligibility to $83 K income a year hand out is something you should be opposed to .

---

That's making the assumption that $83K is enough to support a family of four everywhere in the country; that people who make that amount are part of the "have-crowd". I don't know where you live, but in my area, $83K/yr for a dual income family is not part of the "have-crowd".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so that eligibility to $83 K income a year hand out is something you should be opposed to .

---

Hello again, tom:

I'm opposed to punishing children by NOT providing them health insurance, even if their parents aren't good money managers. So my formula for S-chip eligibility would be different than yours.

What formula would that be? I don't know. There isn't a workable formula that only tinkers with a broken health care system. A bigger fix than S-chip is necessary.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

I'm opposed to punishing children by NOT providing them health insurance, even if their parents aren't good money managers. So my formula for S-chip eligibility would be different than yours.

What formula would that be? I dunno. There isn't a workable formula that only tinkers with a broken health care system. A bigger fix than S-chip is necessary.

excon

---

A simple formula would be to provide health insurance for *ALL* children, regardless of the parent/guardians gross income.

Yeah, it's really that simple.

So we are back to the basic principle that the nanny state should provide . I hear all this and then I have to ask ;when all is reduced the basics ,is there a difference between libertarian and social liberal ?

So I go to the voting record and I see that Ron Paul voted against S-Chip ;and Ron Paul is running as libertarian. Maybe he just hates children . Or maybe he sees how well the Vets hospitals are working or the elder care system with it's months worth of red tape to qualify for some of the programs and maybe Ron Paul just thinks that the government doesn't do health care very good . He also voted no on the huge entitlement called Medicare Rx drug coverage so maybe he hates elderly also .

Wake Up America has some facts about SCHIP worth looking at

Wake up America: Facts about SCHIP and what we need to do this week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So I go to the voting record and I see that Ron Paul voted against S-Chip ;and Ron Paul is running as libertarian. Maybe he just hates children .

---

Hello tom:

Ron Paul is running as a classic Libertarian. IF he get's elected, and IF he could carry out his policies, S-Chip would be unnecessary, and the children would be well taken care of.

SINCE that ain't going to happen, all we got is short term fixes that only TINKER with a broken system. They don't FIX it.

Look, what I want is children to be taken care of. That's what I want. You can call it Libertarianism. You can call it a Nanny State. You can call it flapjax. I don't care. I just don't want a child to go without health care in THIS country. The system is broken!! We can START to fix it by covering all the kids.

OR, better yet, let's get the insurance companies out of the equation.

excon