Right Attack Machine On Warpath AGAIN [Archive]

n2nh

10-17-2007, 11:08 PM

Yes, it's an opinion piece, but it's bolstered by the link to the National Review citing the original story:

Quote[/b] ]I noted earlier that, two weeks after much of the right went after the Frost family, another S-CHIP family stepped up to endorse the bipartisan compromise legislation recently vetoed by the president. Bethany Wilkerson, a two-year-old who was born with a heart defect, was able to get life-saving surgery thanks to her S-CHIP coverage. The good news, politically, is that Bethany’s family struggles enough financially to meet far-right standards. As her father said on a conference call yesterday, “We rent a house, we have one car that is a junker. Let them dig away. I have $67 in my checking account. Does that answer your question?”

A lot of us joked that the Wilkerson family might want to be cautious, because the Limbaughs and Malkins of the world have proven to be surprisingly vicious about the issue. That said, I didn’t seriously think the right would go after the Wilkersons. The smearing of the Frost family proved to be a ridiculous embarrassment for the right, and I kind of assumed conservatives wouldn’t be foolish enough to make the same mistake twice.

And yet, here’s National Review’s Mark Hemingway, going after the family anyway...

I shouldn’t be surprised, but the fact that clowns like Hemingway are this shameless is breathtaking.

Here we go again... 2 Year Old Socialist Undermining the American Way of Life! (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13254.html)

kc0ukk

10-18-2007, 12:30 AM

Another tent revival you've got going here. Too bad the preaching isn't particularly engaging. Had you read the article, you surely would have noticed nothing said about the baby other than it was covered and would have been covered without increasing the SCHIP coverage levels, just like the Frost family.

Thw article did point out that Bethany's mother quit her job with health coverage to take another without health coverage. She didn't fall through the cracks, she jumped off the cliff.
I suppose that's just fine with the Church of The Leftist Looters; no need to expect folks to help themselves.

Keep preaching Brother, someone may be listening somewhere...

n2ize

10-18-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 17 2007,17:30)]Another tent revival you've got going here. Too bad the preaching isn't particularly engaging. #Had you read the article, you surely would have noticed nothing said about the baby other than it was covered and would have been covered without increasing the SCHIP coverage levels, just like the Frost family.

Thw article did point out that Bethany's mother quit her job with health coverage to take another without health coverage. #She didn't fall through the cracks, she jumped off the cliff.
I suppose that's just fine with the Church of The Leftist Looters; no need to expect folks to help themselves.

Keep preaching Brother, someone may be listening somewhere...
Looters ? Oh you must mean the ones in the white house right now. The ones that are spending billions upon billions on a corrupt war while cutting health care for kids and telling Americans that health coverage can't be expanded to coincide with rising costs.

n2ize

10-18-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 17 2007,16:08)]Yes, it's an opinion piece, but it's bolstered by the link to the National Review citing the original story:

Quote[/b] ]I noted earlier that, two weeks after much of the right went after the Frost family, another S-CHIP family stepped up to endorse the bipartisan compromise legislation recently vetoed by the president. Bethany Wilkerson, a two-year-old who was born with a heart defect, was able to get life-saving surgery thanks to her S-CHIP coverage. The good news, politically, is that Bethany&#8217;s family struggles enough financially to meet far-right standards. As her father said on a conference call yesterday, &#8220;We rent a house, we have one car that is a junker. Let them dig away. I have $67 in my checking account. Does that answer your question?&#8221;

A lot of us joked that the Wilkerson family might want to be cautious, because the Limbaughs and Malkins of the world have proven to be surprisingly vicious about the issue. That said, I didn&#8217;t seriously think the right would go after the Wilkersons. The smearing of the Frost family proved to be a ridiculous embarrassment for the right, and I kind of assumed conservatives wouldn&#8217;t be foolish enough to make the same mistake twice.

And yet, here&#8217;s National Review&#8217;s Mark Hemingway, going after the family anyway...

I shouldn&#8217;t be surprised, but the fact that clowns like Hemingway are this shameless is breathtaking.

Here we go again... 2 Year Old Socialist Undermining the American Way of Life! (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13254.html)
Typical of the hypocrisy of the far right and the way they ignore facts to suit their agenda. Their agenda which is to eliminate the middle class and turn the country into a 2 class rich/poor, privileged/unprivleged system. Of course they have their pawns who have been caught and reeled in and are laying on ice.

W5JO

10-18-2007, 12:58 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,11:36)]Looters ? Oh you must mean the ones in the white house right now. The ones that are spending billions upon billions on a corrupt war while cutting health care for kids and telling Americans that health coverage can't be expanded to coincide with rising costs.
Cutting health care? Go read some more or do you have trouble with understanding. The white house proposed an increase in the coverage, it just wasn't enough to please the Sociocrats who want to buy votes to get the white house back.

Before you regurgitate the liberal machine you should check more.

n2ize

10-18-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote[/b] (W5JO @ Oct. 17 2007,17:58)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,11:36)]Looters ? Oh you must mean the ones in the white house right now. The ones that are spending billions upon billions on a corrupt war while cutting health care for kids and telling Americans that health coverage can't be expanded to coincide with rising costs.
Cutting health care? #Go read some more or do you have trouble with understanding. #The white house proposed an increase in the coverage, it just wasn't enough to please the SocTiocrats who want to buy votes to get the white house back.

Before you regurgitate the liberal machine you should check more.
Quote[/b] ]
Cutting health care?

In effect yes indeed.

Quote[/b] ]
Go read some more or do you have trouble with understanding. #

yeah, blah blah blah.

Quote[/b] ]
The white house proposed an increase in the coverage, it just wasn't enough to please the SocTiocrats who want to buy votes to get the white house back.

The vetoing of this bill and the possibility of a subsequent loss of health care may just wind up giving the democrats the edge into the white house come election time. The issue of millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans is going to be a hot issue over the next year or so and the loss of health care coverage for children isn't going to set too well among a large portion of the middle class. Although the proposed increases were more or less reasonable and in line with rising costs (based upon my own analysis as well as others) and if anything reflected a reality rather than an attempt to buy votes. Ironically the presidents veto may have bought them those votes anyway. Albeit at a very high price, the health of America's children...our future.

Quote[/b] ]
Before you regurgitate the liberal machine you should check more

I will ignore your reference to the "liberal machine" jingo since this is a matter that has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. health care costs, lack of insurance, and the problems many Americans face affects everyone equally. Disease shows no preference for political orientation, it kills and cripples liberals and conservatives alike. When people are uninsured and lack the means to afford quality care the results are euually devestating regardless.

In summary, I trust my ability to perform my own analysis. However, i have done some extensive reading on this particular topic. Perhaps the SCHIP veto can be overturned. If not lets hope that enough voting middle class Americans see it as a wake up call to elect leaders who will work for the poor and middle class.

KC4RAN

10-18-2007, 02:25 AM

If the Democrats actually wanted the SCHIP funding bill to pass and the program to continue, they would have constructed the bill so that it would pass and be signed. They knew up front that the President would veto that much of an increase.

The reason the Democrats did it has nothing to do with 'children' and everything to do with 'politics'.

Vile.

They used the program just like they're using the little children they're parading in front of the cameras over the last few days... whatever they think will gain them a political advantage, they'll use it.

Dispicable.

KA7RRA

10-18-2007, 02:30 AM

people who want better heathcare should stop smoking and drinking and over eating

W5JO

10-18-2007, 02:39 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,12:26)]I will ignore your reference to the "liberal machine" jingo since this is a matter that has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. health care costs, lack of insurance, and the problems many Americans face affects everyone equally. Disease shows no preference for political orientation, it kills and cripples liberals and conservatives alike. When people are uninsured and lack the means to afford quality care the results are euually devestating regardless.

In summary, I trust my ability to perform my own analysis. However, i have done some extensive reading on this particular topic. Perhaps the SCHIP veto can be overturned. If not lets hope that enough voting middle class Americans see it as a wake up call to elect leaders who will work for the poor and middle class.
Did your analysis include this source?
Poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-15-poll-schip_N.htm?csp=34)

or this?

Another (http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071017/EDITORIAL/110170010/1013)

Bet not. Throwing money at a problem usually makes it bigger rather than solving it. Get the program right and there wouldn't be any opposition.

K3XR

10-18-2007, 04:01 AM

"S ocialist CH ildren's I ndoctrination P rogram"

http://hotair.com/archive....print=1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/17/audio-michelle-talks-frost-and-schip-with-john-gibson/?print=1)

n2ize

10-18-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote[/b] (W5JO @ Oct. 17 2007,19:39)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,12:26)]I will ignore your reference to the "liberal machine" jingo since this is a matter that has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. health care costs, lack of insurance, and the problems many Americans face affects everyone equally. Disease shows no preference for political orientation, it kills and cripples liberals and conservatives alike. When people are uninsured and lack the means to afford quality care the results are euually devestating regardless.

In summary, I trust my ability to perform my own analysis. However, i have done some extensive reading on this particular topic. Perhaps the SCHIP veto can be overturned. If not lets hope that enough voting middle class Americans see it as a wake up call to elect leaders who will work for the poor and middle class.
Did your analysis include this source?
Poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-15-poll-schip_N.htm?csp=34)

or this?

Another (http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071017/EDITORIAL/110170010/1013)

Bet not. #Throwing money at a problem usually makes it bigger rather than solving it. #Get the program right and there wouldn't be any opposition.

First and foremost let me start by saying I am well aware of the methodolofgies employed by Gallup and the great lengths they go in trying to make their polls as fair and objective as possible. I appreciate their efforts. However at this point I'm not listening to the polls very closely. I am more concerned about the idea of keeping programs like SCHIP in line with the rising cost of living and medical care. I would like to see a poll regarding whether the American people feel it was responisble of this administration to veto the bill and potentially put our children in jeopardy of loosing much needed coverage.

That said, It's not an issue of throwing money at a problem. It's an issue of keeping the program in line with rising costs. $61,950 of 300% over the federal poverty line for a family of 4 sounds like an awful lot when someone calls you out of the blue and throws the number at you. At one point or another I might even be inclinded to have said #"yeah, it's asking way too much", had I not been thinking of the overall costs of health care and was suddenly confronted by a pollster.

61,950 is a big number. But in terms of the high costs of health insurance and the high cost of medical treatment for a catastrophic illness 61,000 #is not very much at all. #The medical expenses involved in treating a uninsired child with cancer, leukemia, heart ailments, etc.. can easilly wipe that out in no time especially considering the vast expenses that a typical American family of 4 is faced with.

Regardless, vetoing the bill altogether and placing American children in jeopardy of loosing their insurance is quite irresponsible on the part of this administration. An administration that see's money as no object towards spending on corrupt wars, see's no problem with running up a huge deficit and yet, is willing to gamble with the lives of America's children. Let's hope this veto can be overridden.

Actually we shouldn;t even be having this discussion about SCHIP. We should have a national health care plan in which everyone is covered, young or old, rich or poor. Much as virtually every other industrialized nation on this planet does.

AC0H

10-18-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,20:26)]Quote[/b] (W5JO @ Oct. 17 2007,17:58)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,11:36)]Looters ? Oh you must mean the ones in the white house right now. The ones that are spending billions upon billions on a corrupt war while cutting health care for kids and telling Americans that health coverage can't be expanded to coincide with rising costs.
Cutting health care? Go read some more or do you have trouble with understanding. The white house proposed an increase in the coverage, it just wasn't enough to please the SocTiocrats who want to buy votes to get the white house back.

Before you regurgitate the liberal machine you should check more.
Quote[/b] ]
Cutting health care?

In effect yes indeed.

Quote[/b] ]
Go read some more or do you have trouble with understanding.

yeah, blah blah blah.

Quote[/b] ]
The white house proposed an increase in the coverage, it just wasn't enough to please the SocTiocrats who want to buy votes to get the white house back.

The vetoing of this bill and the possibility of a subsequent loss of health care may just wind up giving the democrats the edge into the white house come election time. The issue of millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans is going to be a hot issue over the next year or so and the loss of health care coverage for children isn't going to set too well among a large portion of the middle class. Although the proposed increases were more or less reasonable and in line with rising costs (based upon my own analysis as well as others) and if anything reflected a reality rather than an attempt to buy votes. Ironically the presidents veto may have bought them those votes anyway. Albeit at a very high price, the health of America's children...our future.

Quote[/b] ]
Before you regurgitate the liberal machine you should check more

I will ignore your reference to the "liberal machine" jingo since this is a matter that has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. health care costs, lack of insurance, and the problems many Americans face affects everyone equally. Disease shows no preference for political orientation, it kills and cripples liberals and conservatives alike. When people are uninsured and lack the means to afford quality care the results are euually devestating regardless.

In summary, I trust my ability to perform my own analysis. However, i have done some extensive reading on this particular topic. Perhaps the SCHIP veto can be overturned. If not lets hope that enough voting middle class Americans see it as a wake up call to elect leaders who will work for the poor and middle class.
Typical libby accounting.
Cutting the size of an increase in health care for poor kids is tantamount to "cutting health care". Please God, tell me he doesn't work for a company I have stock in.

If the mother made the decision to quit a job with health care coverage for one which doesn't, she is a dumb ass. I resent having money taken from me and my family and given to stupid people who show no signs of taking responsibility for themselves or their families.

Whoops, there's that phrase the rabid little girls on the left hate,......personal responsibility.

w3scm

10-19-2007, 12:54 PM

IZE - John - go back to the key fact: the wife had a job with health benfits and quit.

And please, let's not invent all sort of PC speculation about why she quit (gender/racial/ethnic/body fat content discrimination). You gotta gut it out when the chips are on the lien and one would think that this case represents one where the chips were.

There are jobs with benefits out there, people just don't want to do the work. How many of us know of people who hold down multiple jobs in order to succeed? I know plenty. Most of them do it because they want "nice things", but it would seem to me that health care, if you don't have it, is even more important to work for. Some people just seem convinced that health care, unlike the Porsche, is something they ought to get as an entitlement.

I know an oriental couple who managed to go a mile into debt to buy a restaurant. For a good 6 years they both worked 12 hour days, minmum, 7 days a week most weeks. They were robbed at gunpoint on deliveries numerous times. But they came from a culture that says you have to work for what you want and they refused to become victims. They've gotten ahead and don't have work that much any more but they still put in more hours a week than I do and probably than all of us do.

This is just a plan to create another dependant class to vote the "right way".

"Vote Democratic - the party that pays your bills with the Republicans' money."

n2nh

10-19-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Oct. 19 2007,08:54)]IZE - John - go back to the key fact: the wife had a job with health benfits and quit.
Quote[/b] ]Hemingway left out a pertinent detail: Dara left that job seven years before Bethany was born. The implication in the National Review piece is that Dara should have stayed at her job in order to provide for her family. The reality shows otherwise. (And Hemingway’s decision to leave this fact out doesn’t reflect well on his argument.)

Never let the facts get in the way of a good arguement. She left that job 9 years ago.

w3scm

10-19-2007, 02:11 PM

Point taken onthat rather narrow issue, but it ignores the one that is most important: you know you need health benefits so why doesn't one of the spouses go get a job that has them?

I work with lots of nurses. Whenever a new medical facility/business opens, they scarf up nurses by offering cash bonuses and higher than usual salaries - but without benefits 99% of the time. Most of the nurses who leave to take them have husbands with benefits: they PLAN. But some don't, they'd just rather have the cash now and worry about retirement and health care when the need arises.

That's the problem for the most part.

n2nh

10-19-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Oct. 19 2007,10:11)]Point taken onthat rather narrow issue, but it ignores the one that is most important: you know you need health benefits so why doesn't one of the spouses go get a job that has them?

I work with lots of nurses. Whenever a new medical facility/business opens, they scarf up nurses by offering cash bonuses and higher than usual salaries - but without benefits 99% of the time. Most of the nurses who leave to take them have husbands with benefits: they PLAN. But some don't, they'd just rather have the cash now and worry about retirement and health care when the need arises.

That's the problem for the most part.
Here there's a hospital that is offering a bonus between $20-$35K, a new car taxes paid (sorry Rick, not a Focus, but a Ford) and health care for nurses. I can't imagine a medical professional not getting health care, but I have heard of it happening. Usually the hospital will offer them care at their facility when this happens.

w3scm

10-19-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,08:27)]Here there's a hospital that is offering a bonus between $20-$35K, a new car taxes paid (sorry Rick, not a Focus, but a Ford) and health care for nurses. #I can't imagine a medical professional not getting health care, but I have heard of it happening. #Usually the hospital will offer them care at their facility when this happens.
That's without doubt near NYC. There's a chronic shortage up there and they pay thru the nose as a result.

Here in the hinterlands (only 40 or so miles from Philly) there is a very large amount of per diem work, without benefits. Believe me.

N5NPO

10-19-2007, 02:45 PM

Wait a minute here, if healthcare is or should be guaranteed in this country, the shouldn't foodcare? Everyone doesn't get sick, but everyone has to eat. Some people cannot afford healty food for themselves and their families. We can spend billions on war, but we don't have universal foodcare in this country. Shame, shame!
While we are at it, what about "clothes-care" and "housing-care"? Some people can't afford those things either. Everyone needs clothes and housing everyday. This should take immediate priority over healthcare. This is on on huge crisis!

w3scm

10-19-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ Oct. 18 2007,08:45)]Wait a minute here, if healthcare is or should be guaranteed in this country, the shouldn't foodcare? Everyone doesn't get sick, but everyone has to eat. Some people cannot afford healty food for themselves and their families. We can spend billions on war, but we don't have universal foodcare in this country. Shame, shame!
While we are at it, what about "clothes-care" and "housing-care"? Some people can't afford those things either. Everyone needs clothes and housing everyday. This should take immediate priority over healthcare. This is on on huge crisis!
Yep. Gotta be consistent!

Eventually, everyone will be sitting home, all nice & cozy with all needs met fully by the now-all democrat government.

Except for the 6 employed Republicans left, who will be paying the taxes to support it all (it'll be illegal to be a Republican and not have a job and pay taxes).

K3XR

10-19-2007, 04:06 PM

More LIB, no facts, just attacks.

http://newsbusters.org/node/16478/print

n2nh

10-19-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ Oct. 19 2007,10:45)]Wait a minute here, if healthcare is or should be guaranteed in this country, the shouldn't foodcare? Everyone doesn't get sick, but everyone has to eat. Some people cannot afford healty food for themselves and their families. We can spend billions on war, but we don't have universal foodcare in this country. Shame, shame!
While we are at it, what about "clothes-care" and "housing-care"? Some people can't afford those things either. Everyone needs clothes and housing everyday. This should take immediate priority over healthcare. This is on on huge crisis!
http://i20.tinypic.com/1tosop.jpg

n2ize

10-19-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ Oct. 19 2007,07:45)]Wait a minute here, if healthcare is or should be guaranteed in this country, the shouldn't foodcare? Everyone doesn't get sick, but everyone has to eat. Some people cannot afford healty food for themselves and their families. We can spend billions on war, but we don't have universal foodcare in this country. Shame, shame!
While we are at it, what about "clothes-care" and "housing-care"? Some people can't afford those things either. Everyone needs clothes and housing everyday. This should take immediate priority over healthcare. This is on on huge crisis!
Health care is a bad thing. A terrible terrible terrible bad thing. I like the idea that we pay more per capita for health care than the rest of the world yet we get less in return. I also really love the idea that there are millions of Americans that have no health coverage. And you know what is awesome ? If you have a prexisting health condition, say like cancer, or diabetes, or a heart condition it's really hard to even get health insurance at a reasonable rate even oif you want to pay for it yourself . That is awesome. You know what else I like, IU like the idea that a serious illness puts many Americans into debt and bankruptcy. Just think, you get sick and if you decide you want to get treated instead of dying you might have to sell your home or file bankruptcy afterward. Now how COOL is that ??

You know what I think. I think health care should be a luxury for the rich nobility only. if you are middle class or poor you should just find a hole to get sick and die in. Only the Amnerican nobleman should have health care. That would be so cool.

K4GUN

10-19-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,17:40)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 17 2007,16:08)]Yes, it's an opinion piece, but it's bolstered by the link to the National Review citing the original story:

Quote[/b] ]I noted earlier that, two weeks after much of the right went after the Frost family, another S-CHIP family stepped up to endorse the bipartisan compromise legislation recently vetoed by the president. Bethany Wilkerson, a two-year-old who was born with a heart defect, was able to get life-saving surgery thanks to her S-CHIP coverage. The good news, politically, is that Bethany&#8217;s family struggles enough financially to meet far-right standards. As her father said on a conference call yesterday, &#8220;We rent a house, we have one car that is a junker. Let them dig away. I have $67 in my checking account. Does that answer your question?&#8221;

A lot of us joked that the Wilkerson family might want to be cautious, because the Limbaughs and Malkins of the world have proven to be surprisingly vicious about the issue. That said, I didn&#8217;t seriously think the right would go after the Wilkersons. The smearing of the Frost family proved to be a ridiculous embarrassment for the right, and I kind of assumed conservatives wouldn&#8217;t be foolish enough to make the same mistake twice.

And yet, here&#8217;s National Review&#8217;s Mark Hemingway, going after the family anyway...

I shouldn&#8217;t be surprised, but the fact that clowns like Hemingway are this shameless is breathtaking.

Here we go again... 2 Year Old Socialist Undermining the American Way of Life! (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13254.html)
Typical of the hypocrisy of the far right and the way they ignore facts to suit their agenda. Their agenda which is to eliminate the middle class and turn the country into a 2 class rich/poor, privileged/unprivleged system. Of course they have their pawns who have been caught and reeled in and are laying on ice.
What an interesting observation. You think its an agenda to eliminate the middle class. If such an agenda exists, its only because conservatives want to bring the middle class up and reduce the ranks of the poor as much as possible.

That's a basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives want to raise everybody up and liberals want to bring everybody to the same level.

n2ize

10-19-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ Oct. 19 2007,10:24)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,17:40)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 17 2007,16:08)]Yes, it's an opinion piece, but it's bolstered by the link to the National Review citing the original story:

Quote[/b] ]I noted earlier that, two weeks after much of the right went after the Frost family, another S-CHIP family stepped up to endorse the bipartisan compromise legislation recently vetoed by the president. Bethany Wilkerson, a two-year-old who was born with a heart defect, was able to get life-saving surgery thanks to her S-CHIP coverage. The good news, politically, is that Bethany&#8217;s family struggles enough financially to meet far-right standards. As her father said on a conference call yesterday, &#8220;We rent a house, we have one car that is a junker. Let them dig away. I have $67 in my checking account. Does that answer your question?&#8221;

A lot of us joked that the Wilkerson family might want to be cautious, because the Limbaughs and Malkins of the world have proven to be surprisingly vicious about the issue. That said, I didn&#8217;t seriously think the right would go after the Wilkersons. The smearing of the Frost family proved to be a ridiculous embarrassment for the right, and I kind of assumed conservatives wouldn&#8217;t be foolish enough to make the same mistake twice.

And yet, here&#8217;s National Review&#8217;s Mark Hemingway, going after the family anyway...

I shouldn&#8217;t be surprised, but the fact that clowns like Hemingway are this shameless is breathtaking.

Here we go again... 2 Year Old Socialist Undermining the American Way of Life! (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13254.html)
Typical of the hypocrisy of the far right and the way they ignore facts to suit their agenda. Their agenda which is to eliminate the middle class and turn the country into a 2 class rich/poor, privileged/unprivleged system. Of course they have their pawns who have been caught and reeled in and are laying on ice.
What an interesting observation. #You think its an agenda to eliminate the middle class. #If such an agenda exists, its only because conservatives want to bring the middle class up and reduce the ranks of the poor as much as possible. #

That's a basic difference between conservatives and liberals. #Conservatives want to raise everybody up and liberals want to bring everybody to the same level.
Baloney. The policies of people like Reagan and Bush (policies many conservatives support) #are precisely what is bringing down the middle class. The reality is that the middle class grew, florished and gained it's robustness under such policies as FDR and the "New deal", labor Unions, regulations, wage laws, etc.. the very policies that most conservatives decry as "socialism", "communism", "left wing extremism" and condemn

Much of the middle class can no longer save for their childrens college tuition, they cannot afford to get sick, they cannot afford many of the things that they could once afford. Taking away childrens health care does not benefit the middle class. It straps them down with even more expenses and makes the so called "American dream" that much further from reality. Providing a national health plan would benefit the middle class just as it does in most other countries. When the middle class doesnlt have to chose between getting health treatement or possibly loosing ones home they can better focus on other things, like saving money for college, investing, taking a vacation, etc. "ooooh but that would be socio-communism" say the conservatives. Not so, said I.

W5JO

10-19-2007, 07:26 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 19 2007,03:55)]A terrible terrible terrible bad thing. I like the idea that we pay more per capita for health care than the rest of the world yet we get less in return. #I also really love the idea that there are millions of Americans that have no health coverage.
Mostly, it is a choice of how much we want to spend for health care per capita?

No one here wants to deny health coverage to anyone, but where is the limit. That is actually the debate. The republicians are playing the game and the Sociocrats want to move the goal posts.

If you nationalize health care, the per capita costs will increase many, many times. So if that is your worry, you are avocating a hugh increase funded by people like you and me.

We already have national coverage for adults and children who cannot afford it (Medicare, Medicade and SCHIPS plus many states, like the one I live in has high risk pools for the pre-existing conditions and low income). What was bad about the bill is the Sociocarts want to expand it to adults, which they have in certain places and take control so they can mandate what treatment you receive rather than let you choose. No one respects something given free, it is only when it costs something do you respect it and care for it.

You want to force the issue? Then require everyone to buy health care at a percentage of their income and let private industry offer the coverage. Those who don't want it, would not have to buy. That is the premise of the argument. Keep the damn government out of it, they can't even run congress, the environment, national security or for that matter they are having real trouble with the borders. They won't let energy companies explore for oil, natural gas, mine coal or other solutions to high energy costs. You want the govenment in charge of your health care? I really don't think so.

The answer might be if you are low income, get more education and, as a result a larger paycheck so you can afford it. Give up the toys, Iphones, cell phones, fast food every night, beer, whiskey, drugs and buy a used car rather than a new one and keep the number of cars to one rather than two or more. Smaller TV sets, no surround sound, boat, one computer rather than multiple installations, pagers, designer clothes, shoes, glasses, fancy hair dos, fake fingernails, body piercings, tattos and so much more the low income people squander their fund on.

n2ize

10-19-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote[/b] ]
No one here wants to deny health coverage to anyone, but where is the limit. #That is actually the debate. #The republicians are playing the game and the Sociocrats want to move the goal posts.

Sure they want to deny it. If not then there wouldn't be such an intense and concerted effort to convince people that a national health care (which would beneofit the middle class) . The very fact that a person like yourself uses a term like "Sociocrats" to describe people who support the idea of health care is quite revealing. In other words dumb inept socialist liberal types want national health care but smart conservative know better. In reality I there are many conservative republicans who favor national health care. I have met quite a few years ago when I was working in finance. many conservatives felt it would make sense and would be quite feasible to institute a national health plan.

Quote[/b] ]
If you nationalize health care, the per capita costs will increase many, many times. #So if that is your worry, you are avocating a hugh increase funded by people like you and me.

This is not true. Many analysis have shown that per capita costs need not go up and might even go down if we institute a national health care plan.
Even some of my own homespun analysis have hinted that costs need not skyrocket. Foremost we already pay a much higher per capita cost for health care here in the USA than in countries that do have national health care. #There is a tremendous amount of monetary waste in administrative costs, etc. in our present system. reducing or eliminating these expenditures can be one of many means by which we offset the cost of national health care. There is also the prospect of fewer bankruptcies, less overall debt, fewer unpaid emergency room visits and numerous other factors that can indeed keep costs down. Such has been poroven true in other countries that have implemented national health care programs and have actually REDUCED per capta costs rather than increased them. Unless the plan is poorly implemented and sloppily planned there should be no signiificant cost increases.

Quote[/b] ]
What was bad about the bill is the Sociocarts want to expand it to adults, which they have in certain places and take control so they can mandate what treatment you receive rather than let you choose. #No one respects something given free, it is only when it costs something do you respect it and care for it.

That is the old, if we give em all health care they'll abuse it. That argument has been kicking around for years. I donl;t have time to address it at length at present. Soewhere else I posted a ling that adresses that argument in depth.

Quote[/b] ]
#You want the govenment in charge of your health care? #I really don't think so.

No health care system is perfect and that includes national health care. Yet the vast majority of industrialized countries do have health coverage and it works quite well. Everyone has health care, people don't have to worry about not being able to afford to get sick as they do here.

Quote[/b] ]
The answer might be if you are low income, get more education and, as a result a larger paycheck so you can afford it. #Give up the toys, Iphones, cell phones, fast food every night, beer, whiskey, drugs and buy a used car rather than a new one and keep the number of cars to one rather than two or more. #Smaller TV sets, no surround sound, boat, one computer rather than multiple installations, pagers, designer clothes, shoes, glasses, fancy hair dos, fake fingernails, body piercings, tattos and so much more the low income people squander their fund on.

Boy oh boy. You started off good talking sense and now you regress into a Rush Limbaugh stereotype diatribe. I am dissapointed. Stereotyping low income people as squandering all there money on booze drugs, and all sorts of bling. instead of paying for their health care. #Not to mention that people who work for a living should be able to enjoy many of the luxuries you mention. But many have given lots of them up already. The reality you avoid is that many of the very same people who are being clobbered by high health costs and lack of insurance are the very people who got an education, worked hard, bought a home, paid property taxes, raised kids, educated them, got them started in professions, sent their kids to serve, paifd their dues, made vast contributions to their country, made sacrafices and gave things up, #and helped grow the middle class dream. Now these same people are saddled with the high and ever rising cost of living and are now finding out that they cannot afford to get sick or for a family member to become sick. #I don't know what the exact cost of living is where you live but in most of populated areas where the majority of the jobs are to be found #like New York , Boston, LA, Frisco, Chicago, etc. the cost of living is very high. Giving up a month of cable TV or switching from DSL to dialup ain't gonna pay for a lengthy stay in the hospital. Stereotypes of low income people as lazy, living in sin, luxury, dope and bling ain't gonna change the reality of who is loosing their home or going bankrupt or, perhaps simply doing without medical treatment.

I have a better idea. Let's put the national health care plan up to a vote. Let the people decide. If they vote in favor of a health plan then let's make one up and give it to them. if they vote no then lets put it on the back burners, see how things go, and if need be roll the idea around in a few years.

KC4RAN

10-19-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,14:17)]I have a better idea. Let's put the national health care plan up to a vote. Let the people decide. If they vote in favor of a health plan then let's make one up and give it to them. if they vote no then lets put it on the back burners, see how things go, and if need be roll the idea around in a few years.
1) ..."and if need be roll the idea around in a few years" - When's the last time you heard of a government office or program being cancelled without it being some sort of political war? The goal of government, like any other organization or organism, is to expand and perpetuate itself. Income tax to pay for WW2?

2) It's times like these that I'm glad I live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

W5JO

10-19-2007, 08:45 PM

Boy you just won't see the light. I have never seen a government program that provided efficient, quality service and never seen a needy person that didn't demand more than someone who works for it.

And I have never seen a Sociocrat analyst that didn't promise costs would go down for a new government program. Kind of like hiring a wino to decorate your home.

Incidentally I have been exposed to over 30 years of health care. I know some one who was in hospital adminstration for those years. The tales she can tell about the demands of the needy. That is why I am so adamant against it. I also have a good friend in the UK who recently had the pleasure of spending 3 days in the hospital after waiting 3 months for admission. His story of the conditions and quality of treatment would curl your toenails.

No thanks, if you want social healthcare, vote for it in NY and in 5 years we will review.

W5JO

10-19-2007, 08:47 PM

W5JO

10-19-2007, 08:48 PM

W5JO

10-19-2007, 08:58 PM

KB9YCO

10-19-2007, 10:07 PM

I think the main idea that is being missed in all of this is that it need not be a government run facility or health care system per se, there just needs to be a system in place that allows some money to go toward having people be insured when they need it.
I am sure this was said elsewhere in this thread (I haven't had the stomach to stumble through all the left versus right R versus D crap), but I can't believe that one of the richest countries in the world, that wastes all kinds of money on completely meaningless things, cannot find some way to subsidize some form of health care that doesn't leave people in need without any help at all. It works in other countries that aren't 'socialist'. To me that has nothing to do with all the left/right and conservative/liberal rhetoric that gets mixed in, it has to do with being a humane country that takes care of it's own.

n2ize

10-19-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote[/b] (W5JO @ Oct. 19 2007,13:58)]Boy you just won't see the light. #I have never seen a government program that provided efficient, quality service and never seen a needy person that didn't demand more than someone who works for it.

And I have never seen a Sociocrat analyst that didn't promise costs would go down for a new government program. #Kind of like hiring a wino to decorate your home.

Incidentally I have been exposed to over 30 years of health care. #I know some one who was in hospital adminstration for those years. #The tales she can tell about the demands of the needy. #That is why I am so adamant against it. #I also have a good friend in the UK who recently had the pleasure of spending 3 days in the hospital after waiting 3 months for admission. #His story of the conditions and quality of treatment would curl your toenails.

No thanks, if you want social healthcare, vote for it in NY and in 5 years we will review.
Quote[/b] ]
Boy you just won't see the light. #I have never seen a government program that provided efficient, quality service and never seen a needy person that didn't demand more than someone who works for it.

Depends what you consider efficient. I can list many efficient government programs. But there is no point in bothering because from your perspective anything that costs any amount of tax dollars (except military and the Iraq war perhaps) you would probably consider inneficient.

As far as "needy" people go that is also relative. We are all "needy". The health care issue revolves around not just the "needy" (as in poor) but also around the middle class who have educated themselves and have worked hard and are still struggling to access health care. As far as never meeting a "needy" person who isn;t a leech I have met plenty who aren't.

Quote[/b] ]
And I have never seen a Sociocrat analyst that didn't promise costs would go down for a new government program. #Kind of like hiring a wino to decorate your home.

This statement disqualifies you as a bona fide person to have a serious discussion with. Until you can accept the fact that health care is an issue touching everyone, republicans, conservatives, democrats and liberals alike how can i expect to have a serious debate with you ?

Quote[/b] ]
Incidentally I have been exposed to over 30 years of health care. #I know some one who was in hospital adminstration for those years. #The tales she can tell about the demands of the needy. #That is why I am so adamant against it. #I also have a good friend in the UK who recently had the pleasure of spending 3 days in the hospital after waiting 3 months for admission. #His story of the conditions and quality of treatment would curl your toenails.

And there are countless stories about the failure of our health care system that would curdle your blood and curl your cingers and toenails and your hair as well. As I pointed out, no health care system is
perfect. Search deep enough and you'll find all sorts of horror stories. At the same time I can ask my French girl friend about the health care system in her country of origin and she will convey many good stories about how the system has served her, her family, friends, co workers, neighbors, etc. without many of the nightmares we face here. And she will also cite some not some unplesasant stories about some of the failings and shortcomings of the system as well. If every you have the time take a random sampling of French or German citizens and survey them asking whether they would be prefer our health care system to theirs.

Quote[/b] ]
No thanks, if you want social healthcare, vote for it in NY and in 5 years we will review.

I think I have done an excellent job of discussing the need for a health care system. I also think the evidence is quite abundant and clear that most Amerivcans would have far more to gain than to lose. More and more Americans are rapidly growing tired of our present system. Some form of dramatic change in the way health care is handled in this country is enevitable. Like it or not national health care is one viable option that Americans are going to be taking a closer and closer look at now and in the years to come.

n2ize

10-19-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 19 2007,13:35)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,14:17)]I have a better idea. Let's put the national health care plan up to a vote. Let the people decide. If they vote in favor of a health plan then let's make one up and give it to them. if they vote no then lets put it on the back burners, see how things go, and if need be roll the idea around in a few years.
1) ..."and if need be roll the idea around in a few years" - When's the last time you heard of a government office or program being cancelled without it being some sort of political war? The goal of government, like any other organization or organism, is to expand and perpetuate itself. Income tax to pay for WW2?

2) It's times like these that I'm glad I live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
And, does that mean you don't have government that serves people ? Isn;t the goal of corpoirate America to grow at all costs ? So how is that going to better serve us ? Answer, it won't, it hasn't in the past and it won't today. The primary reason we have a middle class is because government played a key role. Had we left everything up to the so called "free market" as was the case during the mid 19th century to early 20th century we likely would not have had much of a middle class to speak of.

AC0H

10-19-2007, 11:56 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 19 2007,17:48)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 19 2007,13:35)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,14:17)]I have a better idea. Let's put the national health care plan up to a vote. Let the people decide. If they vote in favor of a health plan then let's make one up and give it to them. if they vote no then lets put it on the back burners, see how things go, and if need be roll the idea around in a few years.
1) ..."and if need be roll the idea around in a few years" - When's the last time you heard of a government office or program being cancelled without it being some sort of political war? The goal of government, like any other organization or organism, is to expand and perpetuate itself. Income tax to pay for WW2?

2) It's times like these that I'm glad I live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
And, does that mean you don't have government that serves people ? Isn;t the goal of corpoirate America to grow at all costs ? #So how is that going to better serve us ? Answer, it won't, it hasn't in the past and it won't today. The primary reason we have a middle class is because government played a key role. Had we left everything up to the so called "free market" as was the case during the mid 19th century to early 20th century we likely would not have had much of a middle class to speak of.
More socialist revisionist tripe.
Without those nasty corporations we wouldn't have nearly the standard of living we do now. Before you start throwing more ridiculous 1950's lefty cow patties can you explain why everybody and their brother wants to get in this country if "corporate america is ruining the middle class"?

Grow up hippy.

n2ize

10-20-2007, 12:12 AM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Oct. 19 2007,16:56)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 19 2007,17:48)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 19 2007,13:35)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,14:17)]I have a better idea. Let's put the national health care plan up to a vote. Let the people decide. If they vote in favor of a health plan then let's make one up and give it to them. if they vote no then lets put it on the back burners, see how things go, and if need be roll the idea around in a few years.
1) ..."and if need be roll the idea around in a few years" - When's the last time you heard of a government office or program being cancelled without it being some sort of political war? The goal of government, like any other organization or organism, is to expand and perpetuate itself. Income tax to pay for WW2?

2) It's times like these that I'm glad I live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
And, does that mean you don't have government that serves people ? Isn;t the goal of corpoirate America to grow at all costs ? #So how is that going to better serve us ? Answer, it won't, it hasn't in the past and it won't today. The primary reason we have a middle class is because government played a key role. Had we left everything up to the so called "free market" as was the case during the mid 19th century to early 20th century we likely would not have had much of a middle class to speak of.
More socialist revisionist tripe.
Without those nasty corporations we wouldn't have nearly the standard of living we do now. Before you start throwing more ridiculous 1950's lefty cow patties can you explain why everybody and their brother wants to get in this country if "corporate america is ruining the middle class"?

Grow up hippy.
Woah ?? Slow down there. Nobody is talking against corporations. Nobody said corporations are ruining the middle class. This is not a "DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISMENT" rally. We are talking about the problems with our current health care system and the option of nationalized health care.

Suggestion... go back and reread the thread. When you can tell me something other than "socialism" and "hippies" I;d be glad to discuss it. Otherwise it's not worth wasting my time.

KC4RAN

10-20-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 18 2007,16:07)]To me that has nothing to do with all the left/right and conservative/liberal rhetoric that gets mixed in, it has to do with being a humane country that takes care of it's own.
"It's own"... and millions from Mexico, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Cuba, China, Vietnam, and any of another few dozen countries you can name.

KC4RAN

10-20-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,16:48)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 19 2007,13:35)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,14:17)]I have a better idea. Let's put the national health care plan up to a vote. Let the people decide. If they vote in favor of a health plan then let's make one up and give it to them. if they vote no then lets put it on the back burners, see how things go, and if need be roll the idea around in a few years.
1) ..."and if need be roll the idea around in a few years" - When's the last time you heard of a government office or program being cancelled without it being some sort of political war? The goal of government, like any other organization or organism, is to expand and perpetuate itself. Income tax to pay for WW2?

2) It's times like these that I'm glad I live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
And, does that mean you don't have government that serves people ? Isn;t the goal of corpoirate America to grow at all costs ? #So how is that going to better serve us ? Answer, it won't, it hasn't in the past and it won't today. The primary reason we have a middle class is because government played a key role. Had we left everything up to the so called "free market" as was the case during the mid 19th century to early 20th century we likely would not have had much of a middle class to speak of.
The point was that there's no such thing as a "Let's try it for a while" part of government. Once a program comes into being, all it ever does is grow.

As for the 'free market', it is through the market that labor unions derive their power. Let's get rid of that ability to choose, let's force all labor unions into standard contracts. Let's create standard job categories and titles that work across industries, based on how demanding the job is. But remember, we have to be fair, so the different jobs can't have too much of a difference between pay grades.

All employees in unions will be subject to this new program, and all union jobs will now fall under this new categorization system. The government will decide when you get a promotion or a raise, when you can change jobs (if ever), and will approve every aspect of former union employment.

The government will now perform the function that contract negotiations used to serve. All 'labor conditions' will be mandated, from standards of employment to approved breaks. This would be the ultimate guarantee for the permanence of the middle class!

Hey I think this is a great place to try the socialization process! It could happen faster than the socialization of medicine, and everyone needs a job. We'll just try it out here on the union jobs for a few years, and then come back and see how it's doing.

Whatcha think?

KB9YCO

10-20-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 19 2007,20:11)]Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 18 2007,16:07)]To me that has nothing to do with all the left/right and conservative/liberal rhetoric that gets mixed in, it has to do with being a humane country that takes care of it's own.
"It's own"... and millions from Mexico, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Cuba, China, Vietnam, and any of another few dozen countries you can name.
As long as they are legal citizens paying taxes like the rest of us. Hey, even the allegedly liberal Hillary Clinton's plan for health care denies it to illegals. I personally have no tolerance for illegals, if you want to work and live here then be a part of the system that we all have to (sometimes grudgingly) be a part of.
So no, as a real liberal, while I believe in personal freedoms and less government, as any real liberal would, I don't think that you further exacerbate the problems and expense by including people that are already violating the law and not paying into the system. If they are in urgent need dying on the steps of the hospital that is one thing, but if they are just coming over and expecting a free ride that is something completely different.

W4BCR

10-20-2007, 02:03 AM

Most of the people who need this insurance refuses the option to buy insurance at work, so they can party, drive a nicer car and live in a better shanty. I think the money would be spent better on the kids by increasing the size of DEFACS, and investigating the homes and incomes of everyone who applies. You might find a lot of Escalade and Lexus type vehicles in the driveway, and no proper food in the kitchen.

W5JO

10-20-2007, 03:07 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 19 2007,09:37)]This statement disqualifies you as a bona fide person to have a serious discussion with. #Until you can accept the fact that health care is an issue touching everyone, republicans, conservatives, democrats and liberals alike how can i expect to have a serious debate with you ?
I have a social security card that I have had since 1954 that says I am a bona fide person. #Not only that the education I earned I paid for it myself, no help from the government (my parents were too rich to apply and too poor to help). #But I made it with determination and a refusal to marry and have kids until I could afford them.

I also know many like me.

As for your excellent job of discussing, you have not related a personal experience nor have you provided and proof that a system you propose will work, except for your French girl friend.

I have a friend who son though that living in Germany would be the cat's meow. #After 5 years he came home to work with his Austrian wife because of high costs, no ability to rise in the ranks at work and the poor health care system. #He tells me that the French system is no better and we all know what kind of system Mexico has. #

By the way, have you visited a socialized hospital in Mexico. #Care provided by the government? #I have and it isn't pretty. #

So you want to talk bona fidies, pony up? #I don't want your type of social medicine, one policy for all.

KC4RAN

10-20-2007, 06:13 AM

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 18 2007,19:49)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 19 2007,20:11)]Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 18 2007,16:07)]To me that has nothing to do with all the left/right and conservative/liberal rhetoric that gets mixed in, it has to do with being a humane country that takes care of it's own.
"It's own"... and millions from Mexico, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Cuba, China, Vietnam, and any of another few dozen countries you can name.
As long as they are legal citizens paying taxes like the rest of us. Hey, even the allegedly liberal Hillary Clinton's plan for health care denies it to illegals. I personally have no tolerance for illegals, if you want to work and live here then be a part of the system that we all have to (sometimes grudgingly) be a part of.
So no, as a real liberal, while I believe in personal freedoms and less government, as any real liberal would, I don't think that you further exacerbate the problems and expense by including people that are already violating the law and not paying into the system. If they are in urgent need dying on the steps of the hospital that is one thing, but if they are just coming over and expecting a free ride that is something completely different.
Someone in DC needs to wake up and start listening to people like you and me on this issue, and stop burdening the states and the nation as a whole with all of these demands for free service. And making it "free" via a national healthcare system doesn't change a thing.

Either they're within the system (meaning they're here legally and contribute the same thing everyone else does), or they're just within the border. Today we treat anyone within the borders.