View Full Version : SCHIP Veto stands
KB1KIX
10-18-2007, 06:10 PM
Nahhh, I just believe in paying for my own childs insurance.
I brought him into the world, it's my responsibility.
Linkster (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/18/schip/index.html)
Jonathan
WA3RA
10-18-2007, 07:07 PM
I agree...it is my responsibility to make sure that my child is insured.
There are some folks that can use (and deserve) help to insure the kids...
I emphasize KIDS. If you are out of high school, you should be capable of dealing with insurance...most colleges have a program where you can get reasonably priced group rates through the school...
The piece of tripe that Congress tried to slip through extended the limits to AGE 25, and to families making up to FOUR TIMES the 'poverty level'. Sorry...if you are making over $84000 a year, give up the smokes and buy insurance for the kids yourself, damnit!!!
I want my kids and grandkids to have a healthy future of freedom and prosperity.
KIX
http://i21.tinypic.com/oar715.jpg
Not for kids.
n2ize
10-18-2007, 07:22 PM
Quote[/b] (WA3RA @ Oct. 18 2007,12:07)]I agree...it is my responsibility to make sure that my child is insured.
There are some folks that can use (and deserve) help to insure the kids...
I emphasize KIDS. If you are out of high school, you should be capable of dealing with insurance...most colleges have a program where you can get #and to families making up to FOUR TIMES the 'poverty level'. Sorry...if you are making over $84000 a year, give up the smokes and buy insurance for the kids yourself, damnit!!!
Quote[/b] ]
reasonably priced group rates through the school...
The piece of tripe that Congress tried to slip through extended the limits to AGE 25,
Actually it raises the age from 19 to 21.
Quote[/b] ]
#and to families making up to FOUR TIMES the 'poverty level'. Sorry...if you are making over $84000 a year, give up the smokes and buy insurance for the kids yourself, damnit!!!
Actually in most states it comes to 300% or 3x the poverty level.. Thus for a family of 4 that comes to $60,000 or about $15,000 per person. Considering the rising costs of medical care, the rising cost of living the idea of increasing the thresholds from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty levels, etc the SCHIP expansion proposals were quite reasonable and not the atrocity that conservative think tanks told people.
To make matters worst SCHIP was working, providing health care to many American children. SCHIP was accomplishing just what it was intended to do, to protect poor and middle class families from severe debt and/or bankruptcy, and to assure proper care is available to families with children suffering from illnesses.
The atrocity people are faced with now is that families may loose coverage placing children who are ill in serious jeopardy. It is outrageous that this administration can act so irresponsibly. Once again, the American middle class has been stabbed in the back by the administration.
n2ize
10-18-2007, 07:25 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,12:21)]KIX
http://i21.tinypic.com/oar715.jpg
Not for kids.
Hah... I love it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
KB1KIX
10-18-2007, 07:28 PM
The bill was flawed.
Especially the tobacco taxes.
Why should an entire industry (OK at least the local shops) be forced to close their doors for this bill?
As a guy that spends 3 or 4 hours a day in a shop, I can tell you they can't survive a 3.00 per cigar tax hike!
And that's just one segment of this ludicrous legislation.
Jonathan
W4HAY
10-18-2007, 07:29 PM
Quote[/b] ]Democrats are working overtime criticizing President Bush for vetoing their proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), trying to gain every possible ounce of political leverage.
Demonstrating the failure of the media to cover the facts in this debate, a Capitol Hill reporter recently asked a House Republican leader how Republicans could possibly vote against a bill entitled the "State Children's Health Insurance Program." "The better question," responded the Republican, "is why would any responsible member of Congress vote for a bill based solely on its title?"
The Democrats' SCHIP proposal perverts the program's original purpose, expanding it to provide tax dollars to cover already insured, middle-class children and adults rather than uninsured, low-income children. The debate should be focused on helping Americans get the health care they need.
*****
The president's proposal targeted those who do not have insurance available through their employer. This is precisely the group targeted by SCHIP. Yet, the same Democrats who are attacking the president now over his SCHIP veto declared his proposal "dead on arrival."
*****
These choice-focused plans put the patient in charge, not some government bureaucrat. Choice-focused plans will drive down cost and drive up quality. They would create no new government bureaucracy because they aren't government administered programs like SCHIP.
*****
People who are empowered take responsibility for their own wellness and make their own choices, will demand the best service and price, and be healthier.
We can do better than SCHIP. And we should.
Offering The Uninsured A Choice (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=277509796291478)
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,15:22)]Quote[/b] (WA3RA @ Oct. 18 2007,12:07)]I agree...it is my responsibility to make sure that my child is insured.
There are some folks that can use (and deserve) help to insure the kids...
I emphasize KIDS. If you are out of high school, you should be capable of dealing with insurance...most colleges have a program where you can get and to families making up to FOUR TIMES the 'poverty level'. Sorry...if you are making over $84000 a year, give up the smokes and buy insurance for the kids yourself, damnit!!!
Quote[/b] ]
reasonably priced group rates through the school...
The piece of tripe that Congress tried to slip through extended the limits to AGE 25,
Actually it raises the age from 19 to 21.
Quote[/b] ]
and to families making up to FOUR TIMES the 'poverty level'. Sorry...if you are making over $84000 a year, give up the smokes and buy insurance for the kids yourself, damnit!!!
Quote[/b] ]
Actually in most states it comes to 300% or 3x the poverty level.. Thus for a family of 4 that comes to $60,000 or about $15,000 per person. Considering the rising costs of medical care, the rising cost of living the idea of increasing the thresholds from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty levels, etc the SCHIP expansion proposals were quite reasonable and not the atrocity that conservative think tanks told people.
To make matters worst SCHIP was working, providing health care to many American children. SCHIP was accomplishing just what it was intended to do, to protect poor and middle class families from severe debt and/or bankruptcy, and to assure proper care is available to families with children suffering from illnesses.
The atrocity people are faced with now is that families may loose coverage placing children who are ill in serious jeopardy. It is outrageous that this administration can act so irresponsibly. Once again, the American middle class has been stabbed in the back by the administration.
And let's not forget our wonderful Compassionate Conservatives. I wonder how the people who put them in feel now? Oh, and please, KIX doan need no steenkeen fax to stand in the way of a good bait fest.
Notice how you haven't noticed that oil is at a new record just in time for winter. So, the lie wasn't about WMDs, it was about oil paying for the war. So is wheat and many other bakery products. Wait until the YLs and XYLs get withdrawal when the buck doesn't go as far at the bakery. It's going to be a long ugly winter. Pass the Kool-aid.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,15:25)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,12:21)]KIX
http://i21.tinypic.com/oar715.jpg
Not for kids.
Hah... I love it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yeh, but remember the brain in that pic is NOT to scale.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
n2ize
10-18-2007, 07:44 PM
Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Oct. 18 2007,12:28)]The bill was flawed.
Especially the tobacco taxes.
Why should an entire industry (OK at least the local shops) be forced to close their doors for this bill?
As a guy that spends 3 or 4 hours a day in a shop, I can tell you they can't survive a 3.00 per cigar tax hike!
And that's just one segment of this ludicrous legislation.
Jonathan
Okay, at least you're honest. It's better that some kids die from lack of health care rather than have to pay more for a smoke.
n2ize
10-18-2007, 07:45 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,12:30)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,15:22)]Quote[/b] (WA3RA @ Oct. 18 2007,12:07)]I agree...it is my responsibility to make sure that my child is insured.
There are some folks that can use (and deserve) help to insure the kids...
I emphasize KIDS. If you are out of high school, you should be capable of dealing with insurance...most colleges have a program where you can get #and to families making up to FOUR TIMES the 'poverty level'. Sorry...if you are making over $84000 a year, give up the smokes and buy insurance for the kids yourself, damnit!!!
Quote[/b] ]
reasonably priced group rates through the school...
The piece of tripe that Congress tried to slip through extended the limits to AGE 25,
Actually it raises the age from 19 to 21.
Quote[/b] ]
#and to families making up to FOUR TIMES the 'poverty level'. Sorry...if you are making over $84000 a year, give up the smokes and buy insurance for the kids yourself, damnit!!!
Quote[/b] ]
Actually in most states it comes to 300% or 3x the poverty level.. Thus for a family of 4 that comes to $60,000 or about $15,000 per person. Considering the rising costs of medical care, the rising cost of living the idea of increasing the thresholds from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty levels, etc the SCHIP expansion proposals were quite reasonable and not the atrocity that conservative think tanks told people.
To make matters worst SCHIP was working, providing health care to many American children. SCHIP was accomplishing just what it was intended to do, to protect poor and middle class families from severe debt and/or bankruptcy, and to assure proper care is available to families with children suffering from illnesses.
The atrocity people are faced with now is that families may loose coverage placing children who are ill in serious jeopardy. It is outrageous that this administration can act so irresponsibly. Once again, the American middle class has been stabbed in the back by the administration.
And let's not forget our wonderful Compassionate Conservatives. #I wonder how the people who put them in feel now? #Oh, and please, KIX doan need no steenkeen fax to stand in the way of a good bait fest.
Notice how you haven't noticed that oil is at a new record just in time for winter. #So, the lie wasn't about WMDs, it was about oil paying for the war. #So is wheat and many other bakery products. #Wait until the YLs and XYLs get withdrawal when the buck doesn't go as far at the bakery. #It's going to be a long ugly winter. #Pass the Kool-aid.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
heck, it's okay. As long as KIX doan have ta pay more for a smoke.
KB1KIX
10-18-2007, 07:46 PM
Absolutely - what gives us the right to tax that segment of the population, over another.
It isn't right.
Why don't we just add the tax to fuel for instance?
Oh, I know, because then EVERYONE will have to pay.
If you're going to try to pass legislation like this, then don't just tax a segment of the population that, for the most part, won't require the services.
Tax something where everyone pays.
Income tax, gas, sales tax (heck, try a GST/VST like in Canada).
Why is it that we don't try to tax across the board?
Jonathan
KB1KIX
10-18-2007, 07:49 PM
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 18 2007,15:44)]Okay, at least you're honest. It's better that some kids die from lack of health care rather than have to pay more for a smoke.
Thats the rhetoric that makes you lose your argument.
Shift the argument from the fact that kids can get ER healthcare and shift the responsibility from the parents.
Figures, libs can't argue facts and data.
Go for emotion, it makes you feel better at night that you're a better person.
Jonathan
This country is going to hell and socialism in a hand basket. What the hell happened to all you guys in the 40's, 50's and 60's, when virtually no one had health insurance. All writers on this site survived without it.
K2WH
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Oct. 18 2007,15:55)]This country is going to hell and socialism in a hand basket. What the hell happened to all you guys in the 40's, 50's and 60's, when virtually no one had health insurance. All writers on this site survived without it.
K2WH
Bill, before the Reagan incentives to spur medical development in the 80s, most of these procedures didn't cost as much as the budget of an Eastern European Country either.
Things do change and they have.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,08:57)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Oct. 18 2007,15:55)]This country is going to hell and socialism in a hand basket. #What #the hell happened to all you guys in the 40's, 50's and 60's, when virtually no one had health insurance. #All writers on this site survived without it.
K2WH
Bill, before the Reagan incentives to spur medical development in the 80s, most of these procedures didn't cost as much as the budget of an Eastern European Country either.
Things do change and they have.
I agree things change, but don't you find it at least a little suspicious this push for near-socializing medicine coincides with the rising Presidential star Hillary?
I think this is the first salvo by her and her cronies in the congress to kick start her inititives before her inaugeration.
K2WH
P.S. Call me paranoid but I beleive anything one can imagine, no matter how far out there is actually happening or being planned in DC.
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Oct. 18 2007,16:03)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,08:57)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Oct. 18 2007,15:55)]This country is going to hell and socialism in a hand basket. What the hell happened to all you guys in the 40's, 50's and 60's, when virtually no one had health insurance. All writers on this site survived without it.
K2WH
Bill, before the Reagan incentives to spur medical development in the 80s, most of these procedures didn't cost as much as the budget of an Eastern European Country either.
Things do change and they have.
I agree things change, but don't you find it at least a little suspicious this push for near-socializing medicine coincides with the rising Presidential star Hillary?
I think this is the first salvo by her and her cronies in the congress to kick start her inititives before her inaugeration.
K2WH
P.S. Call me paranoid but I beleive anything one can imagine, no matter how far out there is actually happening or being planned in DC.
I'd tend to doubt that. She gets tons of money from the Medical Lobby these days as do many other Democrats. It's another reason why I'm now Independent.
K0RGR
10-18-2007, 08:33 PM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Oct. 18 2007,12:55)]This country is going to hell and socialism in a hand basket. #What #the hell happened to all you guys in the 40's, 50's and 60's, when virtually no one had health insurance. #All writers on this site survived without it.
K2WH
That may be a big part of the problem here.
I had health insurance as a kid.
Dad made $75 a week in 1957, which was a pretty decent wage then. But, he had to split it 50/50 with his ex-wife. Fortunately, he worked for the phone company, so he had medical insurance. With 5 boys, I don't think we'd have made it, otherwise. New shoes were a big treat, and so was anything on our table that we didn't grow ourselves.
But, many people in this country weren't so fortunate, and understand the need to stop buying food if somebody gets sick or hurt. It's the American (and pretty much ONLY the American) way. If you get sick or hurt, it's your own fault, unless you can find somebody to sue and get rich quick.
n2ize
10-18-2007, 08:37 PM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Oct. 18 2007,12:55)]This country is going to hell and socialism in a hand basket. #What #the hell happened to all you guys in the 40's, 50's and 60's, when virtually no one had health insurance. #All writers on this site survived without it.
K2WH
You should review your history. It was during the 40's 50's and 60's that health insurance grew and became more and more popular. More and more jobs offered health insurance. And many people purchased private insurance plans. It was also during these decares that the middle class of America grew and became more and more robust. People had secure jobs, outsourcing and offshoring was a rarity, people had insurance coverage for their families, It was the era of the middle class. And even where people weren't insured medical costs were far less expensive. Medical procedures did not drive people into the level of debt and bankruptcy as they do today. When I was dying in the hospital from a severe respiratory infection at the age of 1 year old my father was able to pay for the hospital expenses, the treatment, and round the clock private nurses who stayed with me day and night. And he was able to pay for it even though he was a young dad just starting out and my mom didn't work then, Given that same set of circumstances today there is no way my dad could have afforded such care out of his pocket. Now just imagine someone who's child has a far more serious long term disease.
During the 80's and 90's (think Reagan years) health costs soared. The days of paying out of your pocket for health care, especially in the case of serious illness, are gone. People need insurance and far too many don;t have access to it.
It's funny I always hear the conservatives talk about socialism, i.e. the socialism of FDR, the socialism of labor unions, the socialism of health care, etc. Yet it was this very 'socialism" that gave us a strong middle class. It is the Reagan/Bush/Bush (and to an extent Clinton) dismantling of this "socialism" that is turning the middle class from "ROBUST" to "BUSTED".
Bush and his fellow chimpublicans surrender any pretense at being on the moral high ground, accepting the right of government to loot some families for the benefit of others.
After acquiescing that government looting is good, then they argue about the amount of theft. When this is done for the benefit of the protected and coddled medical lobby, it is sickening.
Truly Bush is making America in his chimpublican image.
http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/Chimpublican.gif
KB1KIX
10-18-2007, 09:03 PM
Nahhhh. liberals just don't get fair politics.
As long as it doesn't affect them personally..... tax the hell out of it.
It's OK, I know libs don't understand the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/democrat1s.jpg
Jonathan
W4BCR
10-18-2007, 09:12 PM
A large number of the people with no insurance have choosen not to purchase it, so they can afford nice cars (also probably not insured), and nice homes (also probably not properly insured). I think the neodems are just courting voters with this bill. Does anyone here not have insurance for their child? My guess is probably not.
w2amr
10-18-2007, 09:21 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,12:21)]KIX
http://i21.tinypic.com/oar715.jpg
Not for kids.
I thought I smelled something burning.
Remember, it was a republican congress which brought you SCHIP. The demotards couldn't have cared less till some monkey tried to make political hay with it. So, the number of poor children without health care has gone up by a factor of 7 in the last 10 years?
Not a chance, even if you factor in rising costs.
This was nothing more than an attempt by the libby's to get a foot in the door for socilaized health care, or, just plain cynical, election politics.
n2ize
10-18-2007, 11:28 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Oct. 18 2007,16:01)]Remember, it was a republican congress which brought you SCHIP. The demotards couldn't have cared less till some monkey tried to make political hay with it. So, the number of poor children without health care has gone up by a factor of 7 in the last 10 years?
Not a chance, even if you factor in rising costs.
This was nothing more than an attempt by the libby's to get a foot in the door for socilaized health care, or, just plain cynical, election politics.
The way I see it is that republicans played the so called "bluff" (which wasn't really) on the backs of children. We should have socialized medcine in this country. perhaps this veto will be the straw that brings it to reality.
KC4RAN
10-19-2007, 12:31 AM
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,17:28)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Oct. 18 2007,16:01)]Remember, it was a republican congress which brought you SCHIP. The demotards couldn't have cared less till some monkey tried to make political hay with it. So, the number of poor children without health care has gone up by a factor of 7 in the last 10 years?
Not a chance, even if you factor in rising costs.
This was nothing more than an attempt by the libby's to get a foot in the door for socilaized health care, or, just plain cynical, election politics.
The way I see it is that republicans played the so called "bluff" (which wasn't really) on the backs of children. We should have socialized medcine in this country. perhaps this veto will be the straw that brings it to reality.
The way I see it, the Democrats knew up front that the President wouldn't sign a bill with such a large increase. They were told that, in so many words.
The Democrats went ahead and submitted the bill anyway, knowing that it would be vetoed. If they succeeded, it's a political win because they got "more money for the chil'rens". If they failed, they made the President look like a child hater.
Of course, at no time were the Democrats actually thinking of the children... only the political gains they could make on the backs of those children.
Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Oct. 18 2007,17:21)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,12:21)]KIX
http://i21.tinypic.com/oar715.jpg
Not for kids.
I thought I smelled something burning.
It actually started behind that and 3' lower.
Quote[/b] (WA3RA @ Oct. 18 2007,14:07)]I emphasize KIDS. If you are out of high school, you should be capable of dealing with insurance...most colleges have a program where you can get reasonably priced group rates through the school...
I had college health insurance. It is expensive and covers very little. Thankfully I got married and I now have my wife's excellent union negotiated health insurance. But I shudder to think of what students have to use as their only option.
Quote[/b] ]The piece of tripe that Congress tried to slip through extended the limits to AGE 25, and to families making up to FOUR TIMES the 'poverty level'. Sorry...if you are making over $84000 a year, give up the smokes and buy insurance for the kids yourself, damnit!!!
Ha ha. I am just killing myself here. You live in Scranton, PA. Just wait until everyone from new york and new jersey move over there and drives up the cost of living like it is now here. Then you will see how far $84k/year goes.
Really, for a family of four in a state like NJ, $84,000 per year household income is barely enough to live on. But the problem is that you guys don't look at localized conditions. Factor in the falling US dollar too.
w2amr
10-19-2007, 08:01 AM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,17:44)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Oct. 18 2007,17:21)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Oct. 18 2007,12:21)]KIX
http://i21.tinypic.com/oar715.jpg
Not for kids.
I thought I smelled something burning.
It actually started behind that and 3' lower.
Maybe his fair set his balanced on fire.
w2amr
10-19-2007, 08:57 AM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 18 2007,17:31)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,17:28)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Oct. 18 2007,16:01)]Remember, it was a republican congress which brought you SCHIP. The demotards couldn't have cared less till some monkey tried to make political hay with it. So, the number of poor children without health care has gone up by a factor of 7 in the last 10 years?
Not a chance, even if you factor in rising costs.
This was nothing more than an attempt by the libby's to get a foot in the door for socilaized health care, or, just plain cynical, election politics.
The way I see it is that republicans played the so called "bluff" (which wasn't really) on the backs of children. We should have socialized medcine in this country. perhaps this veto will be the straw that brings it to reality.
The way I see it, the Democrats knew up front that the President wouldn't sign a bill with such a large increase. They were told that, in so many words.
The Democrats went ahead and submitted the bill anyway, knowing that it would be vetoed. If they succeeded, it's a political win because they got "more money for the chil'rens". If they failed, they made the President look like a child hater.
Of course, at no time were the Democrats actually thinking of the children... only the political gains they could make on the backs of those children.
Just another step in the neo-cons quest to destroy the republican party. So far they are doing a great job. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
KG4CGC
10-19-2007, 10:07 AM
Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Oct. 19 2007,04:57)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 18 2007,17:31)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 17 2007,17:28)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Oct. 18 2007,16:01)]Remember, it was a republican congress which brought you SCHIP. The demotards couldn't have cared less till some monkey tried to make political hay with it. So, the number of poor children without health care has gone up by a factor of 7 in the last 10 years?
Not a chance, even if you factor in rising costs.
This was nothing more than an attempt by the libby's to get a foot in the door for socilaized health care, or, just plain cynical, election politics.
The way I see it is that republicans played the so called "bluff" (which wasn't really) on the backs of children. We should have socialized medcine in this country. perhaps this veto will be the straw that brings it to reality.
The way I see it, the Democrats knew up front that the President wouldn't sign a bill with such a large increase. They were told that, in so many words.
The Democrats went ahead and submitted the bill anyway, knowing that it would be vetoed. If they succeeded, it's a political win because they got "more money for the chil'rens". If they failed, they made the President look like a child hater.
Of course, at no time were the Democrats actually thinking of the children... only the political gains they could make on the backs of those children.
Just another step in the neo-cons quest to destroy the republican party. So far they are doing a great job. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Of course Bush himself was a big help too.