With the clock ticking, Dems send SCHIP to Bush

Yes, Virginia, there is a Democratic Congress. See, they sent up another hot-air-filled balloon for the President to puncture. In the meantime, what are they doing about the nation's problems? Funding for the troops, nothing; Out-of-control violent crime in America's streets, nothing; Tax relief for citizens, really really nothing; Protection of the country from terrorists, nothing but nothing. On the other hand, doing nothing is what the Democrats do best.

"Protection of the country from terrorists, nothing but nothing."

Not like President Bush who wants to protect us from Terrorists by slashing counter-terrorism funding for first responders.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22046131/

Why are the Republicans so weak on terror?

Out-of-control violent crime in America's streets, nothing;

I just attended a meeting this week about drug and gang activity in our area. This REPUBLICAN administration has cut funding for law enforcement activities to stop these problems, year after year. Just ask any law enforcement officer who risks their life every day on the street.

The SCHIP bill would give people making $83,000 a year free government insurance. We need this bill like another hole in our heads.
President Bush veto this bill and tell the Jackasses to shove it. Jerry White, Springfield, IL P.S. They know he's going to veto it why are they sending back for another veto. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over again when it failed the first time.

And meanwhile:

California
Beginning next month, California might have to cut 66,000 children per month from the state's Healthy Families health insurance program if Congress and President Bush do not reach an agreement on federal funding, Leslie Cummings, Healthy Families director, said, KQED's "The California Report" reports. Healthy Families is California's version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Cummings said an alternative to dropping coverage would be to maintain current enrollment levels with the expectation that funding eventually will be approved. However, that option could mean the state would have to completely end the program next spring if additional federal funding does not come through.

Officials will meet next week to make a decision (Goldberg, "The California Report," KQED, 11/27).
That's President Bush "trying to remain relevant" by kicking poor children out of their health insurance plans. Nice.

AJF,

Obviously you have never prepared a budget and you run thru scenarios. This is just a scenario.

Jimmy,

Let California fund their own kids. If it is so important to you, let California taxpayers fund it. I do believe the S in SCHIP does stand for STATE.

Jerry,

You should welcome government sponsored health care. It might help fix all those holes you have in your head.

Some conservatives have described it as a step toward a national health plan.
-
Which is so evil, it must be aborted in the womb. Imagine, children having access to health care. Even Jesus would call that the work of Satan, er, I mean Hillary.

Bruce Y,

Imagine children having responsible parents?

If the parents are incapable of providing health insurance, should the gov't also step in and feed the little darlings also?

I wonder whether HIV will be discussed in the context of SCHIP? New U.S. HIV infection total increases by 50%, per CDC figures. This is startling news.

Bloomberg News reports: The government’s estimate of annual new HIV infections is likely to rise “as much as 50 percent,” say patient advocates who are pressuring officials to speed the release of the new figures.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said new technologies and statistical analyses show that 50,000 to 60,000 people were infected with the virus in 2005, said Walt Senterfitt, an epidemiologist with the Los Angeles health department and a former CDC adviser. The agency has used an estimate of about 40,000 annual infections since 2001. See,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHWY4xaj7iPQ&refer=home

It is interesting to note that world health officials decreased their estimate of the number of people infected, worldwide, with HIV by 6 percent to 33.2 million last month

President Bush, citing Scriptures and his faith in religious volunteers to help wage the world fight against AIDS, hailed the work that $15 billion of U.S. aid has supported in sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world.

That's right,take care of your kids and quit looking for govt.handouts for insurance and so forth.

Now over to you Big T.

Crazy Duck,

Stopping the spread of a contagious disease vs gov't funding of health care for the middle class. I guess I can see how a gov't educated fool could get the two confused.

The real problem here is that our health care system relies on the private market, which prices people out of health insurance.

The question then, is what do we do about this broken private market. SCHIP is one answer.

If real, comprehensive health insurance (not high deductible, catastrophic coverage that does not cover basic things like dental and preventative medicine) was available and affordable to everyone, I don't know any parent that would not take it for themselves and their children.

This is what SCHIP is, and why states are looking for federal support to continue to expand public programs to fill in the gaps left by our broken private
market.

If the parents are incapable of providing health insurance, should the gov't also step in and feed the little darlings also?
Posted by: Terry
-
So essentially, what you're saying is: the poor should just shut up and die.
I bet you consider yourself a Christian.

If the parents are incapable of providing health insurance, should the gov't also step in and feed the little darlings also?

Posted by: Terry | December 1, 2007 3:04 PM

Terry, were you abused as a child? Your hostility toward children is disturbing.

The answer is : Yes, if the parents cannot provide food for their children, the government should step in so the children do not suffer from malnutrition or starvation.

BruceY and AJF,

If the parents are incapable of feeding the children, yes the gov't shold step in. However, what the expansion of SCHIP is calling for is to give health insurance to the middle class, most of whom have private insurance already.

Therefore, if you assume that it is the gov'ts job to provide health care fopr the middle class' kids, then why shouldn't it be the gov'ts job to feed the middle class' kids?

No I wasn't abused as a child, I only spent one year in public schools.

Its time for you two freeloaders to get off the wagon and start pulling the wagon.

However, what the expansion of SCHIP is calling for is to give health insurance to the middle class, most of whom have private insurance already.
-
Wrong. SCHIP only fills the gap between what their insurance or income doesn't cover and the exhorbitant price of our healthcare system. I guess you think that a family should sell their home and all their belongings, giving up everything they own in order to pay for medical expenses.

Actually, that's not a guess.

Who could be against the SCHIP bill? It was written in accordance with the true American spirit: "Find a way for someone else to pay your expenses." Everyone just loves Santa Clause, except for those from whom he must steal in order to be able to give away so much. That is the true nature of this bill, yet another tax-and-spend scheme, using the poor little children as political shields. What descent human could oppose a measure to insure their health? The authors of this offensive chose, as a funding source, a group which they believe would not have much of a defense, those who manufacture, sell and consume tobacco. Congress would not even dare to consider financing a measure benefiting children with taxes on such things as baby food, diapers, children's clothing, juvenile furniture or toys. Never in a million years could we count on something that fair happening in the land of the free and the home of the brave!

BruceY,

I don't think a family should sell the house, but perhaps they should cancel their cable subscription, internet subscription, cell phone service, dining out, downsize their cars, ... Until they do these things, don't tell me they need a gov't subsidy, since it is a matter of priorities - right? Because, if the gov't provides this subsidy, they truthfully are subsidizing cable, internet, cellphone, etc...

Hope I didn't lose you.

Hope I didn't lose you.-
-
You never had me. Same for Marshall.
Maybe one of you can explain something to me. Where does this utterly loathesome contempt for your fellow human beings come from? How can you be sure you will never find yourself in a tight situation with your own kid's life in the balance because you aren't rich enough to pay for medical care that cancelling a hundred subscriptions wouldn't cover?
You show more concern for tobacco companies that have killed millions with their products than for the children of your fellow Americans.
Where does that hate come from?

Brcuey,

I don't loathe my fellow human being - but I do believe my fellow human being should be able to fend for their basic necessities. At times, folks need a short term safety-net, that is fine; but when the safety-net becomes a hammock thru a life-long gov't program, you have created dependancies - an addict.

Why is you libs think in one is against a massive gov't program, then one has a "loathesome contempt for your fellow human being"? Do you really believe that compassion for one's fellow human being can only come from the gov't?

I could find myself in that situation where my family might not health insurance. If I did, I would make sure I had catestrophic health insurance by eliminating household expenses such as cable, internet, cell phones, downsize our cars, eliminate dining out, etc...

Where did I mention tobacco products? If the tobacco products are bad to one's health (wish I think they are), then why doesn't Congress (now led by the dems) outlaw the cigs? The reason, the dems are more addicted to the tax money, then anyone is addicted to cigs.

Do you follow?

"I could find myself in that situation where my family might not health insurance. If I did, I would make sure I had catestrophic health insurance by eliminating household expenses such as cable, internet, cell phones, downsize our cars, eliminate dining out, etc... "

And what do you do when your kid breaks an arm or gets a serious case of the flu? Your catastrophic insurance won't cover that Terry. What do you do when you take the kid to the doctor and are told that since you don't have insurance to cover the visit, you'll have to pay upfront and you don't have the cash. What are you going to tell your kids then? Are you going to tell them that they must suffer because of your failures?

I could find myself in that situation where my family might not health insurance. If I did, I would make sure I had catestrophic health insurance by eliminating household expenses such as cable, internet, cell phones, downsize our cars, eliminate dining out, etc
-
Have you been paying attention? In some cases, it doesn't matter if you have insurance. The GOP courts have ruled in favor of the insurance companies recently in denying benefits to Katrina victims. In the movie Sicko, NY firefighters had to go to Cuba to get medical help because their "catestrophic"(sic) insurance didn't cover illnesse due to defending your country.
And what do you do if your kid needs a $600,000 operation but your insurance won't cover it? Think it doesn't happen, then think again.
If you think you can pay for it by cancelling your cable TV, then you are really confused.
And yes, I do expect the government to care for its citizens. I don't mind paying taxes for things like health care. I don't like paying taxes for war.

AJF,

I do what most Americans do - pay the doctor. Unlike most public educated people, I plan for the rainy day. I don't live paycheck to paycheck since I don't live an extravagant lifestyle. I think I could cover a broken arm or serious case of the flu.

AJF, unlike you I don't sit on my brains all day.

Terry-

My gosh, you are delusional. You could never find yourself in that situation? Many people have thought that and found themselves precisely there. But you're so smugly convinced of your superiority that you can't even contemplate the situation.

I hope you never become experience a financial crisis for your family's sake. You are completely unprepared to deal with the very real situations that develop as a result. Your elitist ego would simply shatter under the strain.

Too bad your private education didn't teach you anything about empathy, compassion, or humility.

AJF,

I would put the odds at over 1000:1 that our family would not find myslef in that situation because my wife and I have PREPARED our family's finances so we would not be in that situation.

My "elitist ego"? That's cute. Trust me I'm a shot and beer guy, not merlot. My "ego" would not crack under the strain.

Just what is you contributution to the American economy? I notice you post items on here 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Do you have a sugar daddy?

My religious education taught me about charitable giving (time and resources). I just don't believe the gov't should have a monopoly on being "the charity".

Terry-

It doesn't matter what you drink, when you presume to judge everyone who has less material prosperity than you as being more deserving of that fate than you, you are an elitist and you fit that bill completely.

Did your religous education teach you to judge the poor? Did your religious education teach you to take care of yourself first? Did your religious education that the rich are blessed?

What religion is that Terry? Not one I ever heard of.

AJF,

My religion taught me to help the poor.

Now try answering some questions.

Did your religion, if you have one, teach you that the ONLY method of helping the poor is thru a big ineffective gov't program?

Once again:

"Just what is you contributution to the American economy? I notice you post items on here 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Do you have a sugar daddy?"

Terry-

When did I ever say that Government should be the only way to help the poor?

You are the one with the absolute position. Did your religion teach you that government should never help the poor?

Why won't you directly answer my three questions?

"Did your religous education teach you to judge the poor? Did your religious education teach you to take care of yourself first? Did your religious education that the rich are blessed?"

Funny on how you question my time here, when you're here at the very same time. What do you do to make the world a better place Terry? Hedge funds?

AJF,

Yes, No, and No.

I am on vacation today from my financial analyst position.

All you ever advocate is for higher tax rates on the most productive of society. This will not generate economic growth, which generates your precious tax revenues.

Now - just what is it you do for a living? Trust fund baby? College student? Retired Union guy?

Your religion teaches you to judge the poor? Really, please enlighten me about this religion of yours Terry?

You see, I come from a faith backgoround that teaches me to judge no one, least of all the poor. I was taught to follow the teaching of a man who said :

"Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now,
for you will be filled."

My spirtual guide doesn't call us judge the poor, he call us to emulate the poor.

Hah, I was pretty darn close. A finacial analyst? Have you ever produced anything of real value in your life? Have you created a single thing to make peoples lives better? You consider yourself the most productive part of society and you produce NOTHING. You contribute NOTHING to economic growth. The most humble construction laborer produces more than you.

I'm a self employeed architect. I produce things of value to society. I don't just leach off other peoples creations like you. Your whole existance is a tax on society.

AJF,

As an architect you are part of the chain that produces things (wouldn't the professional term be buildings) of "value to society". BTW, I've done the construction laborer gig before and realize the hard work they do.

Now for your economics lesson little grasshopper, so get out your pocket protector and pay attention.

The building that those constryctions built based upon the drawings you provided was probably financed thru capital arranged from a finacial analyst. You see, it's financial analysts like me that determine the economic viablity, thru NPV and IRR calculations, of your blueprints. So you see, if it wasn't for finacial people like me that provide the capital for blueprints of yours, you would probably still be at mom and dad's drawing on your etch-a-sketch.

As far my production to society, I will tell you that projects I have worked on have generated income for my employers well over $100MM.

Hope that didn't fly over your head. If you took a business class in college, please go back and get a refund from the institution because you didn't learn squat.

As an architect, you work for greedy land devlopers?

Do you sell you blueprints for a profit? What is the ROI on your business?

Face it Terry, You are a bean counter. You produce even less than those government programs you so deplore as producing no wealth. You provide no capital. You merely count other peoples capital.

That $100M, your employer would have made $100M plus what ever it is you make if they had never hired you because you add nothing of value to the process. You merely quantify what the really productive people create.

You are not the "most productive of society". You are amongst the least productive. Rather than being a government bureaucrat, you are a corporate bureaucrat.

No wonder you snear so much at the rest of the world. You need to make yourself feel important and productive somehow,as you sit in your cubical, crunching numbers and examining the finances of those who actually do something, don't you?

I know this all sounds harsh, and I normally wouldn't say this stuff, but you are such an elitist delusional jerk, that its about itme someone showed you your real place in the grand scheme of things. Below government workers. Below most hard working folks making the minimum wage.A simple, powerless corporate drone.

Wake up Terry.

AJF,

You have just showed off your true ignorance of economics. If I, and other "bean counters", weren't producing wealth, would we be getting the salaries we were. Also, when was the last time you saw an architect run a Fortune 500 Company (an organization that produces weatlth). Many a CFO has gone on to the CEO position.

You never did answer, what is your business's ROI?

Ask your accountant if he doesn't produce wealth.

Do you work for the "greedy" land developers?

You lack of knowledge is just pathetic

."If I, and other "bean counters", weren't producing wealth, would we be getting the salaries we were."

Terry last time I checked Government Bureauracrats make nice salaries too. Does that mean they create wealth? Does that make them "them most productive members of society"? Private injury attorneys make tons of money, Do they create tons of wealth?

"Also, when was the last time you saw an architect run a Fortune 500 Company (an organization that produces weatlth)."

Completely irrelevant. Architecture has never been structured in companies of that scale. Are YOU a CEO of a fortune 500 Company? Because we are talking about your personal usefulness to the economy.

"You never did answer, what is your business's ROI?"

None of your business.

"Ask your accountant if he doesn't produce wealth."

Hoepefully she's not as delusional as you are as to her superiority to the rest of the working world.

"Do you work for the "greedy" land developers?"

I try to avoid it as much as possible. They tend not to pay their bills very well. It's not worth the hassle. It's all those useless finacial analysts that gum up the works I think. They just make the developers more inefficient.

Now go back to your beans, and pretending like you actually produce something other than reports.

AJF,

We finally agree on something - gov't bureaucrats and trial lawyers don't produce wealth.

Unfortunately for you, your knowledge of finance/economics is about the same as mine is of architcture.

I produce report (pieces of paper) that basically determine the approva;/disapproval of projects (such as buildings). No different than the piece of paper that comes out of your office. Does that creat wealth? No. It's the construction laborers that really create things, not the architect.

You just have the vision of the design, but w/o folks likes me that move capital to these projects, you will be designing Cuba style hosuing complexes.

Ask your accountant if she produces any wealth for her clients? Does she produce any wealth for you?

As a successful architect, how do you feel turning over about $12K of income for social security every year? How about that 2.9% of you income to medicare? And how about that 35% income tax bracket you are in? Does the AMT effect you? Or are you a good lib and just turn that money of to the gov't bureacrats with a smile on your face?

Happy drawings.

Terry-
Do you make the decision on what projevcts get approved? Nope. You just push paper.

You are no different than the government bureaucrats you criticize. No different at all. Your hate for them is simply self loathing. Everything you hate about your life you project on them.

You're really too sad a case to argue with any longer. I hope someday you come to terms with what your business life has become. I hope someday you find the joy that comes from producing something of lasting value.

AJF,

Wrong on your first statement.

I guess the questions I asked were a little to difficult for you to answer?

I hope someday you learn how a capitalistic society works and be greatful you live in one.

Have a nice day.