SCHIP Veto Override Fails

The attempt to override President Bush's veto of the bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program failed today, falling 13 votes short in the House.

I criticized the bill's cigarette-tax financing last July. In August, Ron Bailey explained why it was a step toward (further) socialized medicine. Yesterday I asked why SCHIP exists in the first place.

Comments

DangerMan | October 18, 2007, 2:29pm | #

Gentlemen, Prepare For Hyperbole!!!

Taktix® | October 18, 2007, 2:38pm | #

I am pleasantly surprised that lawmakers actually had to balls to shoot down something that has the words "Children" and "health" in it.

Bravo!

Jamie Kelly | October 18, 2007, 2:42pm | #

Woot! Fuck the kids!
Love it!

ed | October 18, 2007, 2:48pm | #

I would not condone "fucking" the kids. That's vulgar.


Eat the kids!

Jesse Walker | October 18, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Isn't it time we recognized that any program with word "chip" in it advances the New World Order? Sure, SCHIP might sound nice in the abstract, but just wait til you get an S-Chip implanted in your skull -- see who's laughing then.

Same goes for the V-Chip, the Clipper Chip, and possibly the potato chip, unless it's being offered on the state or local level.

Dan T. | October 18, 2007, 2:51pm | #

This is indeed good news for those who resent children.

mitch | October 18, 2007, 2:52pm | #

The right thing to do, but could be ouchy come election time. And won't this bill look like small potatoes once Hillary is in office?

ed | October 18, 2007, 2:56pm | #

Too bad abortion is not a retroactive choice for Dan T's mommie.

joe | October 18, 2007, 2:57pm | #

Wow. I stand in awe of Jesse Walker.

Abdul | October 18, 2007, 2:58pm | #

It's nice to see a small victory against expanding government, but I can't believe the GOP chose this hill to die on. The 2008 attack ads just write themselves.

Dan T. | October 18, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Too bad abortion is not a retroactive choice for Dan T's mommie.

Yes, Reason is for Free Minds - as long as you freely choose to march in lock step...

joe | October 18, 2007, 3:00pm | #

Ever see the Simpson's episode where Bart runs for class president?

At one point, there's a shot of Martin, his opponent, holding a sign reading "A Vote for Bart is a Vote for Anarchy!" We then pan to a shot of Bart, holding a sign reading "A Vote for Bart is a Vote for Anarchy!"

Same thing here. The Republicans tell us, "This is just the first step in the Democrats' plans to implement universal health care."

To which Democrats reply, "This is just the first step in the Democrats' plans to implement universal health care."

joe | October 18, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Abdul,

They chose this hill because their base - read, primary voters - was infuriated by their support for Medicare Part D.

Dan T. | October 18, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Abdul,

They chose this hill because their base - read, primary voters - was infuriated by their support for Medicare Part D.

That's one theory. The other theory is that they are full of pure, unadulterated evil.

BakedPenguin | October 18, 2007, 3:06pm | #

This is indeed good news for those who resent being forced to pay for other people choosing to have children.

There. Fixed that right up for ya.

P Brooks | October 18, 2007, 3:09pm | #

This is indeed good news for those who resent *having their pockets picked for politically motivated unnecessary programs to benefit other people's* children.

Jamie Kelly | October 18, 2007, 3:11pm | #

This is indeed good news for those who resent children.

"This is indeed good news for those who resent _____________"
Fill in the fucking blank, Dan T., and then take your nappy-poo, you infant.

Razerwolfe | October 18, 2007, 3:11pm | #

"The other theory is that they are full of pure, unadulterated evil."

Puts on coat of evil, pours out a well shaken Margarita (not from mix) and does a happy dance of spite.

Jason | October 18, 2007, 3:11pm | #

Dan T. Writes "this is indeed good news for people who resent children."

What a fatuous comment.

This is good news for people who resent others coming with a hand out to pay for their own obligations.

For people who resent expanding government and the concomitant diminution of individual liberty.

Jamie Kelly | October 18, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Dan T. thinks that every time his insufferable logic becomes roadkill on this site, he's victimized by "free minds."
Dan T. wets the bed.

joe | October 18, 2007, 3:20pm | #

"The other theory is that they are full of pure, unadulterated evil."

The Chinese place I order from lets me pick one item from Column A, and one from Colum B.

Russ R | October 18, 2007, 3:28pm | #

How can you have "pure, unadulterated evil" if "adultery" is considered evil?

Unadulterated evil can't be pure.

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2007, 3:30pm | #

To be fair "ed" didn't exactly refute Dan T.'s logic, which wouldn't have been that hard to poke some holes in. Then again, Dan T. got a hurt look on his face and pointing his finger right past this guy named "ed", complaining: "Reason hit me."

Alice Bowie | October 18, 2007, 3:35pm | #

It's not socialized medicine. The providers are still private.

I'd still rather cover the kids between Medicaid and Middle Class (those who can afford healthcare).

Alice Bowie | October 18, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Rather Pay for Kids Health in America...than Kids Death in Iraq, Iran, and all of the other places the republicans would like us to invade.

Alex B | October 18, 2007, 3:47pm | #

It’s a sad day in America when we can waste trillions in a failed foreign war but won’t provide health care for our children. This is a national disgrace, Shame on the Republicans.

Dan T. | October 18, 2007, 3:54pm | #

It’s a sad day in America when we can waste trillions in a failed foreign war but won’t provide health care for our children. This is a national disgrace, Shame on the Republicans.

Let's be fair - it's only been hundreds of billions wasted.

And it's For the Oil, after all.

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Rather Pay for Kids Health in America...than Kids Death in Iraq, Iran, and all of the other places the republicans would like us to invade.

Me, too. Of course, I'd rather see assistance for poor kids done at the state or county level. Or, better yet, without government and all the ensuing politics being involved at all. And I'd rather see government assistance limited to only those who need it, rather than sucking everybody into universal government health care.

Jason | October 18, 2007, 4:00pm | #

Alex,

How about we do neither. Your silly emotional arguments are wasted. I provide healthcare for MY children. I don't have any others that I am aware of. Feel free to open your wallet and stroke a check to those families to pay for their insurance if that is your desire.

But you really don't like benevolence (that is too costly) do you? No, you would rather have benevolence by proxy. The national disgrace is that people bring children into the world they have no intention of supporting.

Go read Michael Cannon's blog entry on SCHIP at CATO-at-liberty.

ed | October 18, 2007, 4:00pm | #

Wait a minute. I thought W was irrelevant, given the cataclysmic reversal of fortune for Congressional Republicans last year. You know, when every one of them was defeated because of The War, enabling the Dems to run roughshod over all our cherished liberties? Was it all a dream?

Freedom | October 18, 2007, 4:03pm | #

Yes, Reason is for Free Minds - as long as you freely choose to march in lock step...

As though anyone has shut you up. Get a life.

Children's Health Denier | October 18, 2007, 4:18pm | #

MUA HA HA HA HA HA!

I have defeated you again, S-CHIP! Now all children everywhere will die of preventable diseases, and my minion smokers will continue to enjoy low tax rates on their dirty dirty habits, while they make everyone sicker by smoking in our common, public air! *touches pinky to lips*

hehe...heheheh...hehehHAHAHAHAHAHA... BUA HA HA HA HA!!!

Rhywun | October 18, 2007, 4:18pm | #

I for one freely admit to resenting children. Can't stand 'em.

ed | October 18, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Get him! He's got a "laser"!

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 4:24pm | #

I'd say the veto override failure demonstrates that don't quite have the blank check on their "for the children" routine that they have long counted on.

They have played and overplayed that for so long that it's starting to wear thin when they go over the top on it as they've done with this one.

The children propped up to shill for their bill in those weepy TV commercials were, in fact, already covered by the SCHIP program as it exists now and the dems knew full well that Bush would not have vetoed a continuation of the existing program.

The Dems show no sign of having learned this though, judging by Pelosi's idiotic remarks after the vote about how "the children are our future" and "everything we do is about the children", etc. etc. - blah blah blah.

They have used that tactic for so long, they don't know what to do except keep repeating it whether it works or not.

R C Dean | October 18, 2007, 4:25pm | #

I can't believe the GOP chose this hill to die on.

There aren't many left after this one. I mean, once you've put solidly middle-class families on the dole, its pretty much game over.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 4:26pm | #

make that "the Democrats don't quite have the blank check" in the first line of my prior post.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 4:32pm | #

"It’s a sad day in America when we can waste trillions in a failed foreign war ..."

Better get your math straight.

Whether the Iraq far is "failed" or not - there has yet to be "trillions" spent on it.

For that level of wasted goverment spending you have to go to programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Now there, you're talking TRILLIONS.

Dan T. | October 18, 2007, 4:38pm | #

For that level of wasted goverment spending you have to go to programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Now there, you're talking TRILLIONS.

Yeah! And all these programs have done is kept millions from suffering, dying early, and living in abject poverty. Thanks to social safety nets, there's no rioting in the streets and we've avoided another Great Depression.

What a waste!

Reinmoose | October 18, 2007, 4:39pm | #

Funny how prices stay the same no matter how much you subsidize an industry, isn't it Dan T?

prolefeed | October 18, 2007, 4:42pm | #

I'd still rather cover the kids between Medicaid and Middle Class (those who can afford healthcare).

No one's stopping you from digging into your own pocket to cover other people's kids, Alice. But keep your hand out of my pockets ... well, maybe not. Depends on what your hands are doing there ...

Dan T. | October 18, 2007, 4:43pm | #

Funny how prices stay the same no matter how much you subsidize an industry, isn't it Dan T?

Hmmm...for some reason I suspect a gallon of gas would be more than $2.80 if the government didn't subsidize the hell out of it.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 4:49pm | #

"Yeah! And all these programs have done is kept millions from suffering, dying early, and living in abject poverty. Thanks to social safety nets, there's no rioting in the streets and we've avoided another Great Depression."

Actually what those programs have done is steal trillions of dollars from the people who earned it and to whom it rightfully belonged in order to hand it out to people who didn't earn it.

And, of course, the "social-safety nets" had nothing to do with ending the Great Depression - or preventing another one - or lessening the probability of "rioting in the streets" from what it had been before any of those programs were ever created.

Dan T. | October 18, 2007, 4:50pm | #

No one's stopping you from digging into your own pocket to cover other people's kids, Alice. But keep your hand out of my pockets ...

Yes, remember that it's only okay to take people's money in order to protect others' "property rights". But not their children.

Dan T. | October 18, 2007, 4:52pm | #

Actually what those programs have done is steal trillions of dollars from the people who earned it and to whom it rightfully belonged in order to hand it out to people who didn't earn it.

Quite an assumption - how do you know who has "earned" money and who hasn't?


And, of course, the "social-safety nets" had nothing to do with ending the Great Depression - or preventing another one - or lessening the probability of "rioting in the streets" from what it had been before any of those programs were ever created.

Spare me - check out the conditions of countries that have social safety nets versus those that do not.

prolefeed | October 18, 2007, 4:52pm | #

For that level of wasted goverment spending you have to go to programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Now there, you're talking TRILLIONS.

Yeah! And all these programs have done is kept millions from suffering, dying early, and living in abject poverty.

Ummm, no, that was thanks to capitalism and technological advances.

Thanks to social safety nets, there's no rioting in the streets

Watts, among other places

and we've avoided another Great Depression.

The Great Depression was caused by FDRs brain-dead economic policies, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, and other government stupidity. Otherwise, we'd have had a normal, shortish recession. The remnants of those brain-dead policies and the statist stuff added since aren't the reason we haven't suffered another Great Depression. Rather, we can thank the resounding discrediting of the more extreme versions of socialism due to their bloody consequences, causing a slight leavening of political wisdom, for not suffering a repeat -- yet.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 4:56pm | #

This is bad news for people who want to spend tax money giving welfare to middle class people.

prolefeed | October 18, 2007, 4:57pm | #

No one's stopping you from digging into your own pocket to cover other people's kids, Alice. But keep your hand out of my pockets ...

Yes, remember that it's only okay to take people's money in order to protect others' "property rights". But not their children.

I'll take "private police forces" for a thousand, Alex.

Some of us here oppose all compulsory taxation, Dan. But nice snark at the miniarchists -- I'd say that was a twenty-percenter.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 4:58pm | #

"Hmmm...for some reason I suspect a gallon of gas would be more than $2.80 if the government didn't subsidize the hell out of it."

I'd suspect it would be less than $2.80 it the government didn't tax the hell out of it at the pump.

And tax the hell out of the oil companies via teh corporate tax. I seriously doubt that the oil companies are being "subsidized" on a net basis factoring in all the various taxes they have to pay to the government.

And of course there is the cost raising effect of government regulations regarding different blends of gas for different regions of the country and mandating switchting to ethanol from MTBE as a fuel addditive.

And the regulations hindering the construction of new refineries.

And the government restictrions on drilling for oil in ANWAR and off the coasts of Florida, etc.

It all adds up.

prolefeed | October 18, 2007, 5:04pm | #

Spare me - check out the conditions of countries that have social safety nets versus those that do not.

Were you referring to Cuba, Dan? Or maybe pre-collapse Communist Russia? Or Venezuela after another five years under Chavez? Or Zimbabwe? Or ...

Oh, wait, you were referring to the countries where the slow but steady growth of socialist handouts and ideology hasn't yet strangled the ability of capitalism to create prosperity.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 5:05pm | #

"Quite an assumption - how do you know who has "earned" money and who hasn't?"

Assumption?

There's no assumption to it, Dan.

Whoever acquired it via their own activities, be it a paycheck, or selling a product or service or trading stocks, bonds, etc. has earned it.

It's as simple as that.

A while back I heard a story on CNBC. There was a hedge fund called Amaranth that was speculating in natural gas commodity futures contracts. They bet wrong and lost so much money that they got wiped out.

There was anothter fund called Citadel that took the other side of that trade and made an enormous profit. The person at Citadel who was responsible for authorizing that trade got paid $1.8 billion as his share of the profit.

Neither your or anyone else on this earth is the least bit capable of proving that that person didn't earn every last cent of that $1.8 billion.

prolefeed | October 18, 2007, 5:11pm | #

Spare me - check out the conditions of countries that have social safety nets versus those that do not.

Oh, and from Michael Moynihan's 2:08 thread today: "I reviewed Götz Aly's book on the Nazi welfare state here."

Is it a Godwin violation if you're quoting someone else?

Reinmoose | October 18, 2007, 5:11pm | #

Funny how prices stay the same no matter how much you subsidize an industry, isn't it Dan T?

Hmmm...for some reason I suspect a gallon of gas would be more than $2.80 if the government didn't subsidize the hell out of it.

Nice try Dan... wait, no it wasn't.

You just made my point, thank you. The cost to the consumer of a gallon of gas is $2.80, but if you assume that the real cost of the gallon of gas is higher, you're generating artificial demand through price subsidization. If, in fact, we were reaching peak oil, you’d see the real cost of a gallon of gas continue to spike as it was subsidized.

I hope that was a deliberate attempt to be thick, because we're talking about industries where you subsidize the buyer (medicare, medicaid, student loans, etc.)
If you create artificial demand in large quantities, you get:
A higher likelihood of higher prices due to scarcity
A higher likelihood of higher prices due to ability-to-pay/willingness-to-pay

derrr

Reinmoose | October 18, 2007, 5:13pm | #

(and uh.. make those first two lines italicized.. I don't know why that didn't work...)

NAL | October 18, 2007, 5:18pm | #

The SCHIP program is a safety net. Expanding the SCHIP program to include the middle class is socialism. GWB gets a pat on the back from me for this one. I think that's only his fifth since taking office (2001 tax cut, invading Afghanistan, 2003 tax cut, ending steel tariffs (which he started, but still at least he corrected his mistake) and now this).

I won't go into all the times I wanted to punch him in the face.

joe | October 18, 2007, 5:26pm | #

Psst, hey, Gil. You might want to check the polls, and not just your gut, before mouthing off about politics.

SCHIP Issue Stays Afloat With Public
Although Congress seems unlikely to override (subscription) President Bush's veto of an expanded children's health insurance program today, new polls show that a majority of the public disagrees with the president's opposition to the bill.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll that provided respondents with a bare-bones description of the bill, 61 percent said they believe Congress should vote to override Bush's veto, while 35 percent said lawmakers should sustain it. Similarly, a CBS News poll has 81 percent saying they favor expanding the program to "some middle-class uninsured children," with 70 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats agreeing. When those who supported the expansion were asked if they would be willing to pay more taxes to fund the program, 74 percent said yes, including 68 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats.

About 4:1 support among the public at large, including better than 2:1 among Republicans.

What this shows is how out of touch the Republican establishment is with the American people, and even their own voters.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 5:29pm | #

joe-

Of course, free OPM (Other People's Money) is always popular. Whether is right or moral is another question.

joe | October 18, 2007, 5:29pm | #

No, wait I'm wrong.

Gil, you and every other Republican reading this need to call your Congressmen, and contact the campaigns of every Republican running for state and federal office, and make it clear to them that this a do-or-die issue.

What you need to do is create such a groundswell of support for anti-SCHIP politicians that every Republican in the country makes opposing SCHIP expansion the central issue of their 2008 campaign.

Go on, Gil! Don't be afraid! You've got your finger on the pulse of middle America!

carrick | October 18, 2007, 5:30pm | #

Polls indicate that 2 out of 3 people on the street can't recoginize the bill of rights when presented with a copy.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 5:30pm | #

joe-

In case you haven't noticed we have a huge deficit and debt. And you want to spend more? Doesn't this strike you as just a little bit irresponsible?

Especially since the money goes to middle class people, not the desperately poor?

joe | October 18, 2007, 5:36pm | #

Cesar,

I want to spend considerably less. Starting with the money pit in Iraq, and about a quarter of the military budget. This is small potatoes.

And no, I don't believe the economic hardship of not being able to afford medical care for one's children is confined to the desperately poor.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 5:41pm | #

Joe, polls never "show" anything - they merely contend something.

Many polls are mere propaganda pieces. And if CNN is involved in it, the likelyhood of it is about 99.9%

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 5:45pm | #

I want to spend considerably less. Starting with the money pit in Iraq, and about a quarter of the military budget. This is small potatoes.

About half the budget is filled with what are basically middle class entitlements. If you want to cut spending signifigantly, you can't stop with just the military.


And no, I don't believe the economic hardship of not being able to afford medical care for one's children is confined to the desperately poor.

How about the "economic hardship" of not being able to afford a decent education for The Children in our many failing public school districts? Oh, but vouchers our out of the question right?

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 5:50pm | #

I think there is a lot to be desired in this Sullum article.

First, it's not at all clear that the Founders would have thought that the Constitution allowed it to do all kinds of things that are not mentioned in it specifically. In fact, they did just that (Jefferson railed at the Federalists for this sort of thing) from the beginning.

Second, we are talking about KIDS here. These little persons cannot just exercise the libertarian magic of freedom of contract and get a better situation. If they have no good dumbass parents they suffer. Of course they will suffer anyway, but it's morally appropriate for a majority of people to decide that we as a nation will lessen that suffering, just as sure as it is ok for a majority of people to decide that we will spend money to rescue a kid trapped in a well. Are libertarians against that too? Hey kid, wait for private charity!

Third, one good reason to not let states experiment with this sort of thing is: Mississippi. Sorry, but national standards are better than some states, sometimes by a mile. We didn't let states "experiment" with slavery.

joe | October 18, 2007, 5:52pm | #

That's the spirit, Gil. No surrender!

I say, you lead with the indefinite commitment of 150,000 troops in Iraq, and THEN shift to cutting kids off of SCHIP.

Also, I do not wish to be thrown into a briar patch.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 5:55pm | #

It strikes me that pretty early on there was some debate about whether the government could do anything not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution (using the broad language of stuff like Neccesary and Proper, General Welfare, etc.,) or could only do those things explicitly granted it. The former won out.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 5:57pm | #

"poll that provided respondents with a bare-bones description of the bill"

Yeah I'll bet it did.

I wonder if the "bare-bones" description mentioned the fact that there are about 600,000 adults being financed by SCHIP.

Mike | October 18, 2007, 6:31pm | #

Why does Universal Health Care, bring out more anger than stuff like unauthorized wiretaps?

Jamie Kelly | October 18, 2007, 6:33pm | #

Why does Universal Health Care, bring out more anger than stuff like unauthorized wiretaps?

Maybe because of people who capitalize universal health care.

NAL | October 18, 2007, 6:44pm | #

I wonder if the "bare-bones" description mentioned the fact that there are about 600,000 adults being financed by SCHIP.

I wonder also if they mentioned that the current SCHIP funding level is not being cut, but that this veto was against expanding it to people who make up to $60K/year.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 6:46pm | #

If you make $60,000 plus a year and can't afford health insurance, something is seriously wrong.

SIV | October 18, 2007, 6:48pm | #

"Failed Wars of Aggression" are at least a Constitutional Function of Government.

Providing taxpayer funded insurance for upper middle class children (or any children for that matter is not.Even you Statist Socialist Scum should dissaprove of taxing poor people to pay for entitlements for the middle class.

bob | October 18, 2007, 6:52pm | #

I'm pleased that the override failed, but there was a bright side to the bill. The heavy tax on cigars would have brought those black market Cubans well within my budget.

SIV | October 18, 2007, 6:54pm | #

If you make $60,000 plus a year and can't afford health insurance, something is seriously wrong.

Don't forget the poster kid whose college educated folks "only make 45k a year" with all 4 kids in 20k a year private school, two SUVs and a 3/4 ton stretch cab dualie pickup truck, 200-500k + in real estate equity are already on the program because they are "poor enough".

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 6:57pm | #

Cesar-the figures I've seen have all been for a family of four (hence the "children" part), and for a family of four 60,000 ain't much (15,000 per person to feed, clothe, house, entertain, and yes, insure each).
So I still would like an answer to my question from the hard core libs, that kid trapped in the well, do we have to wait for private charity or can "government theft" money be used to fish him out? And if yes, then why can't we use the same to cure the kid from some painful or terminal disease?

ed | October 18, 2007, 6:58pm | #

The heavy tax on cigars would have brought those black market Cubans well within my budget

Whoa! Start messin' with my cee-gars and this means war! And Cubans are highly overrated, when they aren't outright counterfeits. Dominicans rule now. Castro fucked the once-glorious Havanas. Sad. But we can only hope that bastard will eventually die.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 7:00pm | #

I agree with SIV. If you can't afford health insurance for your kids, drop the extra SUV, plasma tv, etc. Lack of insurance for your kids is a matter of bad decision making, not lack of money.

"The Children" are the biggest trojan horse used by liberals and conservatives alike.

I may disagree with welfare for the poor but I can understand the alturistic motive. Welfare for the middle class is just plain socialism.

smoker with no kids | October 18, 2007, 7:01pm | #

Viva Bush!!!!

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 7:03pm | #

Cesar-you think the kids on this program have parents with SUV's plasma tvs and other luxury items? I heard on NPR today that 92% of those eligible were near the official poverty line. Also, in a great element of the state's experimenting, many states squandered their portion of the grants and now deserving kids can't get it, which was the impetus behind so many GOP governors getting on board.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 7:09pm | #

Near? $60k + is NEAR?

Also, in a great element of the state's experimenting, many states squandered their portion of the grants and now deserving kids can't get it, which was the impetus behind so many GOP governors getting on board.

Replace the state governments then. Why should the feds pick up the tab? They can squander the money some more and think "oh, if we waste it, the feds will come to the rescue!"

As for your argument that there was a lot of debate over whether or not the feds could do anything under the Constitution, that debate ended with the 10th Amendment. Read it sometime.

bob | October 18, 2007, 7:09pm | #

I can't argue with Ed on Cuban cigars. But the point is, wouldn't a 10$ per stogie tax push many consumers in the direction of a more "free market" oriented retailer? If so, the actual revenue from the tax would be less than projected.

I think we've seen some precedence in the wake of similar taxes on cigarettes.

x,y | October 18, 2007, 7:11pm | #

Why does Universal Health Care, bring out more anger than stuff like unauthorized wiretaps?

I can only speak for myself, but here goes:

1. I have nothing to hide, so I'm not personally worried about warrantless wiretaps. (Note that I'm not saying the government should be doing it, because I don't. Just that I'm not worried about it affecting me.)

2. I pay taxes and see the money confiscated from me under threat of fine or imprisonment being used for all sorts of idiotic things. SCHIP is one of many problems that affects me personally.

J sub D | October 18, 2007, 7:11pm | #

A few billion (35 over 5 years) isn't a lot relative to the entire federal budget. But it seems to this uneducated slob that a billion here, a billion there, it starts to add up to real money. In an annual household budget of 40K, a hundred dollars (0.25%) doesn't seem like much, but many have declared bankruptcy because they didn't pay heed to those hundred dollar expenditures. What is so goddam hard to understand here? It's like a family saying we can afford a Disney World trip this year. It's only $2,000, and we can put it on the plastic. Priorities matter and letting the people who create the wealth keep some of it should be near the top of the list!

SIV | October 18, 2007, 7:15pm | #

I agree with SIV. If you can't afford health insurance for your kids, drop the extra SUV, plasma tv, etc. Lack of insurance for your kids is a matter of bad decision making, not lack of money.

If the "poster parents"- the Frosts of Baltimore- had sent just one kid to public school with the unruly brown children they could have bought a Cadillac policy for the whole family(or in their case a Volvo SUV policy). Those people are already covered under the existing program.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 7:15pm | #

A few billion (35 over 5 years) isn't a lot relative to the entire federal budget. But it seems to this uneducated slob that a billion here, a billion there, it starts to add up to real money. In an annual household budget of 40K, a hundred dollars (0.25%) doesn't seem like much, but many have declared bankruptcy because they didn't pay heed to those hundred dollar expenditures. What is so goddam hard to understand here? It's like a family saying we can afford a Disney World trip this year. It's only $2,000, and we can put it on the plastic. Priorities matter and letting the people who create the wealth keep some of it should be near the top of the list!

QFT. Even a dollar more in the federal budget is a dollar too much.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 7:23pm | #

"Don't forget the poster kid whose college educated folks "only make 45k a year" with all 4 kids in 20k a year private school, two SUVs and a 3/4 ton stretch cab dualie pickup truck, 200-500k + in real estate equity are already on the program because they are "poor enough".

Exactly.

So there really was no point to the add pushing the Democrat's expansion plan. That kid didn't need it - he was already covered.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 7:27pm | #

Cesar-are you saying that the matter of what the feds can do under the constitution was settled with the 10th amendment? Cause you seemed to have missed out on about a couple hundred years of US history. That amendment is like a eunuch in a porn movie...

The debate about what the Constitution restricted and what it did not started right away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States#Opposition
Start there and go through about 200+ years of history!

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 7:31pm | #

So I never had heard of the Frosts until SIV brought them up, and my first thought was "from my experience SIV is a conservative tool that only reads what conservative tool sites tell him and makes little attempt to honestly explore issues, so there must be more to this than he thinks."
So I googled.
5 seconds later: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 7:36pm | #

"That's the spirit, Gil. No surrender!"

There's no need to surrender when you haven't lost.

"I say, you lead with the indefinite commitment of 150,000 troops in Iraq, and THEN shift to cutting kids off of SCHIP."


Although I am indeed anti-SCHIP, the Republicans aren't and I never said they were. They were against the Democrat SCHIP expansion bill - not the program itself. The fact is that Bush was in favor of increasing the program budget to provide additional funds to cover people who already qualify for the program.

The Democrats seem to think they can make this into a big campaign issue for the next election but they are dreaming if they think people are going to base their vote on this issue.

What will happen is that now there will be a compromise bill passed and the issue will be off the table by next November.

The Republicans will have plenty of other material to campaign on, what with Hillary floating a new massive government handout just about every day - like giving every child $5 K when they're born. The spending tab for all the stuff she's promised already is astronomical and the election is still over a year off. At the rate she's going, it'll probably exceed the GDP of the nation by election time.

SIV | October 18, 2007, 7:41pm | #

MNG,

"Swiftboating the kid"?
Why not link to a think progress piece?
Read it. They ARE eligible, with 200k + equity in the house. All four kids attend private school on "scholarship". How does that work anyways? They live in a neighborhood that feeds into bad Baltimore Public Schools yet all their kids are comped at an expensive private school?
Doesn't add up.Interesting that the defenders of this program don't answer the details of these welfare chiselers apparent wealth.

The Democrats go looking for a poster child and all they can come up with is a kid from a family of irresponsible upper middle class parents- Who is already covered under the existing program!

Bee | October 18, 2007, 7:42pm | #

So much small minded hate and resentment! It's sad to see so many of you filled with fear that you need to resent other people's children. Wake up, folks! You're all members of the same human race. You don't think something's out of balance when millions of kids are in families that can't afford health care while the health insurance industry is raking in record profits?!

SIV | October 18, 2007, 7:48pm | #

They are taking tax money from poor and middle class people to pay for insurance for fucking irresponsible slackers.There are still poor people in this country who would have to be literally starving before they endured the shame of going on welfare.

J sub D | October 18, 2007, 7:53pm | #

I have some predictions about what will happen when the U.S. citizen gets, or is subjected to, national health care.

1) Long lines in waiting rooms to discourage frivolous visits by the hypochondriacs and unemployable that have nothing better to do. This will not discourage them. It will, however, require productive citizens to take a whole day off work for a 15-30 minute visit with a doctor.

2) The procedures/treatments that HMO's attempted to rein in, (and were demonized for), will mostly, (> 90%), be disallowed by our unionized unaccountable public servants.

3) Layers of bureaucracy will be created to appeal these decisions.

4) Patients will age out of the system (die, that is) before final adjudication.

3) Doctor patient relationships will no longer be a health partnership. Rather the MD will TELL YOU what needs to be done, don't argue, it's free.

4) Life expectancy figures will continue to go slightly up, continuing a trend that is more than a century old. The life expectancy graph will NOT show a steep rise with national health care.

5) The above will happen, and worsen over time, whether the Republicans or Democrats wield power.

I am supremely confident that I'm correct in my predictions here. I'm waiting for the statists to start bitching about the national health care system. I'll be giving them the old "You made your bed ..."

J sub D | October 18, 2007, 8:11pm | #

I would ask that all of the national health care supporters reading this thread to do yourself a favor. Print out my 7:53 pm post. Please place it safely in your billfold. Carry it with you so you can show everyone how all those skeptics overreacted and cried wolf, but you knew they were wrong, the federal government was going to solve the problems with the system. And you have proof in your wallet! You can use it as ammunition for your next socialist crusade. No need to thank me.

joe | October 18, 2007, 8:11pm | #

Oh my God. Gil, make sure SIV is right there next to you, repeating the already-refuted Michelle Malkin story that even Mitch McConnell has denounced.

Hey, "Single Issue Voter," remember when you used to pretend to be offended and wronged when I called you a Republican shill?

Those were the days.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 8:24pm | #

"Oh my God. Gil, make sure SIV is right there next to you, repeating the already-refuted Michelle Malkin story"

Refuted by whom?

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 8:28pm | #

"So much small minded hate and resentment! It's sad to see so many of you filled with fear that you need to resent other people's children."

Who here said they resented other people's children?

What is resented is other people choosing to have children and then telling us we are obligated to chip in on the tab to support them.

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2007, 8:32pm | #

2) The procedures/treatments that HMO's attempted to rein in, (and were demonized for), will mostly, (> 90%), be disallowed by our unionized unaccountable public servants.

Can add to that: when Republicans are in power, they will push to disallow abortion procedures, contraceptive prescriptions, and family planning education. When Democrats are in power, they will push for all of these.

Tom | October 18, 2007, 8:32pm | #

There's a basic question that always lurks in the back of my brain with stuff like this.

So universal health care (or whatever) is Of The Essence. It's what we Need To Do. Okey doke. So why didn't we do it before now? What is it about 2007 that makes this so crucial? Are we just "smarter" now? Our ancestors were idiots who didn't know any better? Did we simply have to plow through some more important matters first, and those are all hunky dory now, and so we finally have time to dig in thar and get 'ir done?

That's what somebody needs to ask the Hillary Clintons of the world: Why are you so presumptuous as to think this needs to happen on YOUR clock? They didn't do it in 1907 or 1807 or 1707; why 2007? You're smarter than those dummies? You're more caring and compassionate than they were?

What is this pathetic worldview that sees life as nothing but a series of ever-emerging problems and crises that Need To Be Solved™? Just... ugh, for FUCK'S sake... just let things be for a while, just let life happen, just let go of the goddamned crisis mode, for just a little bit, please. PLEASE.

joe | October 18, 2007, 8:36pm | #

It's funny, reading conservative commentary on this. They think it's a stealth move to extend the government's role in health care into the middle class, as part of a secret campaing to bring about a system of universal coverage, under the guise of welfare for the poor.

But they're wrong. This isn't stealthy. This isn't secret. Some of you are throwing out the horrible, horrible charge "but these are middle class people!" as if you think it's some great revelation that will sink the bill.

Have you seen the Democrats throwing around the word "poor" a lot in reference to SCHIP? People understand that this is about SCHIP expansion - an upward expansion, a good way into the "working class," the "lower middle class," whatever you want to call it. Ordinary, middle class people realize that this is a fight over whether the government should help people pretty much like them.

SIV | October 18, 2007, 8:38pm | #

I have some predictions about what will happen when the U.S. citizen gets, or is subjected to, national health care.

I'll bet life expectancy goes down.See the story on the British National Health hospitals with outbreaks of fatal staph infection because the nurses aren't washing their hands?

joe,

I seriously considered that Malkin and others reports on the Frosts might be skewed a bit. I have seen no refutation of the bulk of the facts facts presented. Defenders of S-Chip expansion seem to rely on the "they are eligible" defense. I haven't seen anyone attack the kids in any way at all as the liberals contend.

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2007, 8:41pm | #

So much small minded hate and resentment! It's sad to see so many of you filled with fear that you need to resent other people's children.

I shouldn't have to point this out, there are different flavors of libertarians. Some flavors of libertarians don't have an objection to the idea of providing a safety net, others have strong objections.

joe | October 18, 2007, 8:42pm | #

I guess you can judge the credibility of the stories on your own. There's certainly no shortage of discussion of them on the internet, and throughout the media.

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2007, 8:43pm | #

joe forget vaguely-defined categories like "middle class", "lower middle class", "the poor". Do you want the government to help pay for health insurance for children whose parents can afford to pay for it themselves. If so, why?

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 9:06pm | #

joe-

So you're in favor of middle class people getting welfare checks for their children? Thanks for your honesty!

joe | October 18, 2007, 9:30pm | #

Mike,

No.

Cesar,

People receiving SCHIP don't receive checks.

As you can see, I'm perfectly comfortable discussing exactly what this is about, in neutral, precise, accurate terms. And you're not. You decided you'd be better of using loaded terms, even at the cost of honesty.

Why do you think that is?

prolefeed | October 18, 2007, 9:42pm | #

So I still would like an answer to my question from the hard core libs, that kid trapped in the well, do we have to wait for private charity or can "government theft" money be used to fish him out?

Nice strawman, Mr. Nice Guy. A kid trapped in a well is exactly equivalent to a 800% increase in government funding for a program that was originally sold as exclusively for "Teh Poor TM", and is now being considered for expansion into the middle class.

But, to get back to the kid thrashing around in the well -- I'm all for the private security forces and private fire departments and private citizen volunteers that would inhabit a more libertarian world getting little Timmy / Tammy out of a jam. Nice try, trying to make it out as if the choice was either the government tries to haul the kid out, or heartless libertarians sit around chuckling and letting him or her drown.

Same deal with the statist attempt to imply that if the government doesn't provide all health care, people will be dropping dead like flies -- and it only took those kind, caring statists 200+ years to getting around to caring enough to finally invent modern medicine.

joe -- popular doesn't always equal moral, right, efficient, advisable, or anything else virtuous or laudable. You would think that someone who gets regularly bitch-slapped here -- someone who would win no popularity contests here -- advocating what you (mistakenly) think are virtuous political beliefs would have a gut level feel for this concept.

Cesar | October 18, 2007, 9:48pm | #

joe-

Ok joe. Its checks of other people's money to insurance companies so middle class families can buy that new plasma tv or take a trip to disney world.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 10:32pm | #

Private security forces? What a joke. Maybe you did not know that the most victimized folks are also the poorest and often the most helpless (underage). There is little profit in providing people that have no money (and who ironically need it the most) police protection. This is a fantasy. Let it go.

Also, many poor areas can't get together the funds to have adequate fire and police protection. Even in OK areas more and more local governments are turning to paying the firemen.

So no, I don't see you chuckling as the kid drowns. Rather you are genuflecting to "freedom of contract" as everybody's life gets much, much worse.

We are talking about kids of course. THEY were not irresponsible with their money or lazy. But it is they who will suffer But suffer they must, so that we can feel we struck a blow against the "socialized medecine" that most civilized nations have without producing a Stalin and so that we may bow down to archaic readings of the Constitution, readings that were not followed even by the folks who wrote the darned thing...

SIV | October 18, 2007, 10:33pm | #

That money funding SCHIP could very well be taken from poorer people than those receiving the benefit. In a hypothetical scenario a single Mom renter, earning less than the Frosts and stuck sending her kid to crappy public skools, could be funding their childrens health insurance freeing funds to engage in more real estate speculation, buy more trucks and SUVs, and send their kids to more exclusive Private schools. Actually that isn't hypothetical, I bet the Republicans could find a poster single Mom wage-earner if they had any balls, but then it wouldn't shine too well on the entitlement those same Republicans passed.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 10:41pm | #

SIV-See, when you bring up some crazy assertion you've heard on Malkin (as you admit at 8:38), and someone posts a reputable news agency like Times refuting that assertion, it's a bit odd to go on arguing as if the assertion still held. Don't you at least feel bad for yourself that these guys can lead you around so very easily?

45-50,000 a year for a family of SIX? That's 7500 dollars a mouth. Champagne wishes and caviar dreams indeed!

Jason | October 18, 2007, 10:44pm | #

How is it moral to take money from my pocket that I use to support MY children to give to someone else?

What is more immoral, me not giving money to the feds to pay for someone else's children or the feds stealing from me to support children I had no role in bringing into the world?

What is my responsibility to them?

All of you:

If you wish to allow that gang of thieves and liars in DC a blank slate to do as they wish, what actions of theirs in the past 10 years has led you to the conclusion that they are equipped to honestly deal with the people?

SIV | October 18, 2007, 10:46pm | #

The above scenario is under the current system.

joe,

How about looking at the Democrat proposal:

A single Mom waitress who smokes a pack a day could be kicking in a weeks pay a year to fund health insurance for the kids of a family with more than 500k in assets and annual expenditures of 5 to 10 times her earnings.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 10:49pm | #

Jason
In the common law there is a defense known as necessity. It's been around for quite a while. Under it, if I saw a young child dying and I could get him to the emergency room only if I broke into your home and used your phone, I am protected from liability. Do you think that is nuts? I don't think so. And I think if a thief takes 20 bucks from you so that children can be saved then that is moral.

Before you get on your high horse I imagine that you think that we can "steal" each other's money to provide police protection for our private property and personage?

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 10:52pm | #

SIV-Again, if this family makes 45,000 a year as reported by the reputable news agency (you know, not owned and managed by folks quite active in right wing politics like National Review or Fox), then how in the world is that "5 to 10 times" your poor waitresses income? Does she make 4,500 dollars a year?

SIV | October 18, 2007, 10:59pm | #

MNG,

The Timepiece refuted nothing in Malkin's account of the facts.

The Frosts, and others eligible for SCHIP, have lifestyles not reflected in their purported taxable earnings. Did you see the fucking vehicles they own? Their real estate equity in two properties? 80k in annual private school tuition?

They aren't some cherry-picked outlier family dug up by Right Wing Republican Hate Machine SCHIP opponents. They are the original Democrat poster family for the program and they already qualify and benefit from it.

Real people,including those with far less financial resources and opportunities than the Frosts, are forced to fund their children's health insurance.

jason | October 18, 2007, 10:59pm | #

MRNG,

I am not on a high horse. And your emergency story is not an analog to confiscation to provide insurance. I know of no children who have died because of lack of insurance. So there is no analogy there.

I don't exactly know how I feel about someone stealing from me to provide for children who are not my responsiblity.

Police protection is also a fatuous analog to private medical coverage. Especially when you consider that the real crux of the debate (in my mind) is whether it is constitutionally permissible for the feds to be appropriating money for this. If you think that this is a good idea then lobby your state legislature, I am sure there are plenty of politicians who would have no problem with appropriating money to be spent on the "children."


I just really resent people bringing children into the world they have no intention of supporting

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2007, 11:03pm | #

Mike, No.

OK, that's cool. We don't really see it all that differently, then. I'm cool with a safety net for poor people, although I might nitpick about how it's provided. Your definition of "lower middle class" includes people who can't afford health insurance for their kids. I'd define anybody who couldn't afford basic expenses like that as "lower class". No big deal. It's just a definition.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:05pm | #

SIV-Are you that dense? The article says the kids are on scholarship. It mentions that the house they bought is in a neighborhood that gentrified. A house worth 200,000 is hardly extravagant for a family of SIX. The family has an income that provides 7,500 dollars for each mouth. That is terrible.

Show us their wonderful vehicles. I imagine they are "SUV's" as it is hard to fit six kids into a accent hatchback.

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2007, 11:05pm | #

There is little profit in providing people that have no money (and who ironically need it the most) police protection.

I'm sure you're right. Keep in mind, though, that historically the same demographic hasn't been served well by government-provided police, either. Basically, being poor sucks, by definition.

SIV | October 18, 2007, 11:08pm | #

MNG,

The Frosts expenditures greatly excede their purported taxable income.I suppose the school tuition could be a gift from the grandparents and the vehicles could be expensed through self-employment or business overhead. Whatever, their is a whole lot of cash flow not reflected in their stated income that could easily pay for insurance for the whole family.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:14pm | #

jason-whether you know them or not, hundreds if not thousands of folks die before their time in the US due to being uninsured (did you not get the 18,000 number thrown out in Sicko? Hell, half it or quarter it and it still proves my point and then some). And of course the neccessity defense, or moral duty, does not have to wait to mortal threat to kick in.

The guy "stealing" from you is the same guy who steals from you to protect you and his kids from criminals. And the same principal guides it, that human life is important, yes even more important than the non-aggresion principle or freedom of contract (see, without any human lives those things become pretty meaningless).

"the real crux of the debate (in my mind) is whether it is constitutionally permissible for the feds to be appropriating money for this." I don't think this is at all why Bush did this, nor has he said that. But even if we are talking about this theoretically, explain why a national government cannot address this?

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:16pm | #

"The Frosts expenditures greatly excede their purported taxable income."

How the F do you know that? Do you have their tax returns? Or did Malkin whisper that to you?

jason | October 18, 2007, 11:24pm | #

MRNG,

Are you addicted to the straw man?

Please attack an argument I make. I don't care about Bush's motivations I can't stand the man. If it werent' for his daddy he would be the all night clerk at the Crawford, TX Feed n Seed.

Michael Moore is not a reliable source in my mind.

Again, cities, counties, and states providing police protection from criminals (a quantifiable threat) is not similar to providing health care paid for at the federal level where there is no warrant or sanction for this action. That is my problem with this particular legislation.

Now, whether or not to provide this coverage at the state level (assuming there is no constitutional language to prevent it) is another matter, though I would still object and seek to live in a state that did not have similar confiscatory policies.

Article 10 of the constitution (along with article 1, section 8) are good places to start with for why the feds are not constitutionally permitted. That is a pretty simple theoretical statement.

SIV | October 18, 2007, 11:25pm | #

Show us their wonderful vehicles.


O.K.
via Malkin

The Frosts' wedding announcement was in the 1992 New York Times.Further support for my contention they are "upper middle class".

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:27pm | #

For fun, here is the Malkin spot on this:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/08/graeme-frost-and-the-perils-of-democrat-poster-child-abuse/

Didn't everybody here on H&R that was not a right wing shill already know that Malkin et al was a lying shill? But check this out.

1. "If Mr. Frost can afford a $400,000 house" Of course the time article demonstrates that it was assessed about 200K less.
2. "If business owners with half-million-dollar-plus homes and kids in expensive private schools" Of course the Time article says the kids are scholarshipped and the business was dissolved (notice the 100k price increase in the house)

A person would be a fool to get their "news" from such a source.

Jason | October 18, 2007, 11:28pm | #

um, that should be amendment 10 to the constitution.

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 11:28pm | #

"Ordinary, middle class people realize that this is a fight over whether the government should help people pretty much like them."

You don't speak for "ordinary middle class people" - or anyone other than yourself.

Government doesn't "help" anyone - what it does is redistribute wealth from people who earned to people who didn't.

And thus the real purpose of all this is the same thing the Democrats have been doing for over 70 years ever since the so-called "New Deal". It is to get as many people as possible on the receiving end of the redistribution and make them permanently dependent on it - and the Democrats - to keep the benefits coming their way.

Buying votes with other people's money. That's pretty much all it's about.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:32pm | #

Your link did not work SIV, but I imagine you mean this:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/
(again, what kind of fool trusts Michelle Malkin for information?)

What year did they have? Because my wife's ex has a BMW, but it's a 1999 and he got it cheap from an auction. A picture of the MODEL they have is pretty worthless, wouldn't you agree?

Gilbert Martin | October 18, 2007, 11:33pm | #

MNG, you opinions as to what is and isn't a "credible" news source is nothing more than that - your opinion and nothing more.

SIV | October 18, 2007, 11:34pm | #

Show us their wonderful vehicles.

fixed link


O.K.
via Malkin

Check out that sweeeeet Volvo
Middle Class libtards drive Subarus
these people are upper middle class
The Frosts' wedding announcement was in the 1992 New York Times.Further support for my

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:38pm | #

Sorry, but that's not just my opinion Gilly. Time is one of the more reputable news sources among the entire profession. Right wing guys jump to write for it when they can.

Jason-Ahh, but Moore need only be right about a tenth of what he claims for my point to be shown true...If even a tenth of his number is true, and if only a tenth of that applied to kids, then that is more kids than died from criminal homicide last year.

"The Frosts' wedding announcement was in the 1992 New York Times." That's right SIV, because only rich liberals read the New York Times (it has one of the highest circulations in the nation).

"Government doesn't "help" anyone - what it does is redistribute wealth from people who earned to people who didn't."
Sorry, you'll have to "earn" winning what people earn and they don't better than mere assertion than what transpires under the current system constitutes that. But, even accepting that, you're wrong: obviously the ones who get the redistributed wealth are helped, and thus government can help folks...

SIV | October 18, 2007, 11:41pm | #

Time quotes a spokesman for Harry Reid on the "scholarships". Malkin quotes a business tenant and longtime family friend that the Frost family pays cash via the grandparents.

I suppose Senate Majority Leader paid flacks are more reliable then their friends and neighbors.
Well to Time, Paul krugman and MNG anyways.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:41pm | #

Actually, I agree that the SCHIP expansion should NOT be paid for with a cigarrette tax. Those taxes are regressive and shortsighted. But, I think even an imperfect bill that does much good should go through...

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:44pm | #

Here is the EXACT quote from the time article:
"It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six."
Where is the Harry Reid attribution?

SIV | October 18, 2007, 11:44pm | #

Real "Progressive" of the government to take from the poor and give to irresponsible upper middle class slackers.

jason | October 18, 2007, 11:48pm | #

"Jason-Ahh, but Moore need only be right about a tenth of what he claims for my point to be shown true...If even a tenth of his number is true, and if only a tenth of that applied to kids, then that is more kids than died from criminal homicide last year."

I didn't think you actually made a point.

in your original post you said 18000 people, in your latest you say kids. Which is it?

I find it hard to believe that there are that many children that die from lack of insurance. More likely these deaths are related to horrible diseases or accidents but I would have to see what methodology was used to determine that the deaths were due to lack of insurance.

Again, my main arguments in this particular case is that the program is Federal and should not be and that the program is far beyond providing health insurance coverage for those children whose families can't pay.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-cannon_18edi.ART.State.Edition1.4200d6b.html

SIV | October 18, 2007, 11:52pm | #

Time left it out of their editorial.
Read the attribution of the quoted "fact" on Malkin. some dude named Manley who works for Harry Reid. Notice Time doesn't source the "scholarship" claim.

Libertarian disclaimers...blah...blah
In the context of our Statist society I don't really care in the short term small picture whether Government provides health insurance to the children of the poor. S-CHIP and it's proposed expansion is about providing it to those who can afford it themselves, as evidenced by the Democrats poster family.

Even way west in central time it is getting late so I'm outta here. Gotta get up and
Work for a living

Mr. Nice Guy | October 18, 2007, 11:52pm | #

SIV-Let's skip all the areas where you have no idea what you are talking about but are trusting the assertions of a known ideological fanatic (Malkin).

Let's just concentrate (for now) on this:
"irresponsible upper middle class slackers."
But it is NOT these people who benefit, it is their CHILDREN. Are the children irresponsible middle class slackers"?

Gilbert Martin | October 19, 2007, 12:20am |