Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program.

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And people have figured out that they can vote themselves more of other people's money if they attach some sappy emotion to the issue. In this case it's "for the children" - don't you want children to be healthy? Don't you want seniors to be healthy? etc etc etc. It's as plain as day.

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

the slippery slope argument is so old and retarded.

There was a day in this country in which the government provided healthcare for no one.

Did the system we now have in place jump into appearance in one day or did it take many years and many different programs for it to happen?

There was a day when you and the backward few weren't the only ones swinging from trees.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well investing in the education and well being of the children is definently the best thing any country can do, these children are the future of your nation, how anyone can be against doing their best for them is beyond me.

Yeah, except this isn't about the poor children as they are already covered. This expands it to incomes WAY above what anyone considers poor. The existing program can be adjusted but this EXPANSION is a stupid waste of $ and does nothing except shift the responsibility to everyone instead of the parents.

 

[jonks]

"So obviously, the president has a better idea [on screen: Bush saying, 'I believe the best approach is to put more power in the hands of individuals. By empowering people and their doctors...']. Okay, I'm just going to stop him right there. ... I think I figured out the disconnect here. I think I figured out the problem. 'Empowering people and their doctors.' See, he thinks the uninsured have doctors." --Jon Stewart

 

[Jaskalas]

I?m curious, wouldn?t this have covered the illegals?

 

[Moonbeam]

As a fundamentalist Christian I am fully prepared to sacrifice my child if God asks me to.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well investing in the education and well being of the children is definently the best thing any country can do, these children are the future of your nation, how anyone can be against doing their best for them is beyond me.

Yeah, except this isn't about the poor children as they are already covered. This expands it to incomes WAY above what anyone considers poor. The existing program can be adjusted but this EXPANSION is a stupid waste of $ and does nothing except shift the responsibility to everyone instead of the parents.

Considering that you have a completely different system than us, does this expand to all uninsured children as it should or what?

I'm not sure if i get this right but uninsured minors would be minors not guaranteed health care? Is that right? WTF kind of third world country wouldn't want their minors to have guaranteed health care no matter what?

I'm not American so you have every right to tell me to shut up because this doesn't concern me, but what i do have the right to until someone of greater authority than you tells me not to is to state my opinion and call things as i see them, it's possible that i am wrong and with evidence to the contrary i don't have a problem changing my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well investing in the education and well being of the children is definently the best thing any country can do, these children are the future of your nation, how anyone can be against doing their best for them is beyond me.

Yeah, except this isn't about the poor children as they are already covered. This expands it to incomes WAY above what anyone considers poor. The existing program can be adjusted but this EXPANSION is a stupid waste of $ and does nothing except shift the responsibility to everyone instead of the parents.

Considering that you have a completely different system than us, does this expand to all uninsured children as it should or what?

I'm not sure if i get this right but uninsured minors would be minors not guaranteed health care? Is that right? WTF kind of third world country wouldn't want their minors to have guaranteed health care no matter what?

I'm not American so you have every right to tell me to shut up because this doesn't concern me, but what i do have the right to until someone of greater authority than you tells me not to is to state my opinion and call things as i see them, it's possible that i am wrong and with evidence to the contrary i don't have a problem changing my opinion.

We are not a third world country. We are just a country in which a huge proportion of our citizens think like third world people. They are too emotionally poor to take care of anybody else's kids.

They allow everything to go to hell in a hand basket so somebody can come along with a bandage and get enough votes to patch the system.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well investing in the education and well being of the children is definently the best thing any country can do, these children are the future of your nation, how anyone can be against doing their best for them is beyond me.

Yeah, except this isn't about the poor children as they are already covered. This expands it to incomes WAY above what anyone considers poor. The existing program can be adjusted but this EXPANSION is a stupid waste of $ and does nothing except shift the responsibility to everyone instead of the parents.

Considering that you have a completely different system than us, does this expand to all uninsured children as it should or what?

I'm not sure if i get this right but uninsured minors would be minors not guaranteed health care? Is that right? WTF kind of third world country wouldn't want their minors to have guaranteed health care no matter what?

I'm not American so you have every right to tell me to shut up because this doesn't concern me, but what i do have the right to until someone of greater authority than you tells me not to is to state my opinion and call things as i see them, it's possible that i am wrong and with evidence to the contrary i don't have a problem changing my opinion.

Well, that would explain why you don't understand. We are not a socialist nation but there is a faction(liberals) who are trying to take us there. This is just another step in the direction of gov't mandated/provided/run healthcare. Expand it a little at a time so nobody can say "no" because of the heart strings being pulled. It's utter crap. Our Federal gov't isn't charged with being responsible for everyone's healthcare.

 

[Genx87]

Bush finally does something right in office.

This idea we need to expand this program to include people who are in a wage bracket they dont need this is a blatent power grab. Republicans should be embarassed to vote this through.

And of course it is paid on the backs of cigarette users. People who are typically lower income and lower class of society. It is amazing how happy that makes democrats in this country. The party for the poor passing legislation on the back of a habit typically consumed by the poor.

btw when the cigarette users are gone how is this program going to be funded?

Oh oh oh let me guess? Tax the rich? What simpletons.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well investing in the education and well being of the children is definently the best thing any country can do, these children are the future of your nation, how anyone can be against doing their best for them is beyond me.

Yeah, except this isn't about the poor children as they are already covered. This expands it to incomes WAY above what anyone considers poor. The existing program can be adjusted but this EXPANSION is a stupid waste of $ and does nothing except shift the responsibility to everyone instead of the parents.

Considering that you have a completely different system than us, does this expand to all uninsured children as it should or what?

I'm not sure if i get this right but uninsured minors would be minors not guaranteed health care? Is that right? WTF kind of third world country wouldn't want their minors to have guaranteed health care no matter what?

I'm not American so you have every right to tell me to shut up because this doesn't concern me, but what i do have the right to until someone of greater authority than you tells me not to is to state my opinion and call things as i see them, it's possible that i am wrong and with evidence to the contrary i don't have a problem changing my opinion.

Let's just cover everybody, then? Will that make you and the other socialists happy?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster
I smell something...

Considering where your head is this is no surprise.

So sig worthy..

OMG, I.....must......RESIST!!!!! :laugh:

 

[nageov3t]

is "socialist" the new "nazi" in terms of internet arguments?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: loki8481
is "socialist" the new "nazi" in terms of internet arguments?

Maybe to those who shy away from the term yet support/propose those types of policies.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: loki8481
is "socialist" the new "nazi" in terms of internet arguments?

Maybe to those who shy away from the term yet support/propose those types of policies.

but you keep using the "S" word like it's a bad thing

it's odd that the party of jesus would be against this... he was a total commie.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any legal citizen would have to go without health insurance for any reason.

Hey Loki, I changed it a bit.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any legal citizen would have to go without health insurance for any reason.

Hey Loki, I changed it a bit.

would this bill have provided health insurance to illegal immigrants?

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: CPA
Let's just cover everybody, then? Will that make you and the other socialists happy?

That would make me pretty happy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
don't you want children to be healthy?
Don't you want seniors to be healthy? etc etc etc.
It's as plain as day.

Yes it is "as plain as day" that Republicans want the young and old block that can't vote anyway, dead.

Very sad indeed for a once mighty and looked up to nation.

 

[jonks]

Full article at http://www.factcheck.org/bushs..._health_insurance.html

Bush: Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.

In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year. That's already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase... So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation "would" result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible. It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation.

In fact, the vast majority of the children who stand to gain coverage under the proposed legislation are in families making half of the figure Bush gave. A study just released by the Urban Institute estimates that 70 percent of children who are projected to benefit from either the Senate or House bills are in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $41,300 for a family of four). Our several calls to the White House press office to pinpoint exactly what the president meant by the $83k remark were not returned.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: loki8481
would this bill have provided health insurance to illegal immigrants?

Nope, just wishful thinking

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well investing in the education and well being of the children is definently the best thing any country can do, these children are the future of your nation, how anyone can be against doing their best for them is beyond me.

Yeah, except this isn't about the poor children as they are already covered. This expands it to incomes WAY above what anyone considers poor. The existing program can be adjusted but this EXPANSION is a stupid waste of $ and does nothing except shift the responsibility to everyone instead of the parents.

Considering that you have a completely different system than us, does this expand to all uninsured children as it should or what?

I'm not sure if i get this right but uninsured minors would be minors not guaranteed health care? Is that right? WTF kind of third world country wouldn't want their minors to have guaranteed health care no matter what?

I'm not American so you have every right to tell me to shut up because this doesn't concern me, but what i do have the right to until someone of greater authority than you tells me not to is to state my opinion and call things as i see them, it's possible that i am wrong and with evidence to the contrary i don't have a problem changing my opinion.

Well, that would explain why you don't understand. We are not a socialist nation but there is a faction(liberals) who are trying to take us there. This is just another step in the direction of gov't mandated/provided/run healthcare. Expand it a little at a time so nobody can say "no" because of the heart strings being pulled. It's utter crap. Our Federal gov't isn't charged with being responsible for everyone's healthcare.

Well you might like it, but these minors are a part of the future of your country which was my only point.

If taking care of the future for my country makes me a socialist, then i'm most definently a socialist. People who don't give a crap, i wouldn't call them conservatives or capitalists, i'd call them egocentric pieces of shit.

I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

Yeah, i'm pretty much as capitalistic as they come but looking towards the US system i don't see it as a good solution, i see it as a complete and utter failure.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

See the problem is Americans want stuff but they dont want to pay the taxes for it.

You want Universical Healthcare? Well its going to cost a pretty penny. Who is going to pay for it? You and I?


Im sorry but its immoral towards this nation to propse universal healthcare, knowing full well we can even fund the healthcare for seniors. Universal healthcare, atleast as current proposed by the leading Dem candidates for President, do NOTHING but change the payor from a private entity to the government(though the person that ultimately pays for it stays the same for the vast majority of people, you and I). This would only further cause budgeting problems.

Medicare + SS = majority of budget as we speak. And projected to be 70% of the budget not to long from now.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: loki8481
is "socialist" the new "nazi" in terms of internet arguments?

If you were not a fascist, you'd not be asking this question!