Bush Vs. 12 year old

[madurobob]

I can't decide if this belongs in Politics or Humor.... and I almost didn't post it because its just too easy. But, what the heck.

Democrats Recruit a 12-Year-Old to Combat Bush (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=auNPne5QMRJU&refer=us)
A 12-year-old boy who received life- saving care through U.S.-subsidized health insurance will speak for Democrats tomorrow in their response to President George W. Bush's weekly radio address.

I still think our poor prez is outmatched, but its getting closer. I particularly liked this quote:
"The president doesn't have second thoughts'' - Bush press secretary Dana Perino

The hell you say!

[Oliver]

The comparison between "Bush Vs. 12 year old" is pretty
unfair since a twelve year old wouldn't get elected twice.
But this boys comments were pretty wise, I admit.

[bjb]

The comparsion between "Bush Vs. 12 year old" is pretty
unfair since a twelve year old wouldn't get elected twice.
But this guys comments were pretty wise, I admit.

You are mistaken. Bush didn't get elected twice.

[TragicMonkey]

a twelve year old wouldn't get elected twice.


There's only one way to test that hypothesis.

[SteveGrenard]

Bush is opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell research but if a child is already born he is willing to let a poverty stricken subset of them suffer and even die for lack of any way for them to get healthcare. This has got to be the worst hypocrisy this man has demonstrated yet. It is sick.

[TragicMonkey]

Bush is opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell research but if a child is already born he is willing to let a poverty stricken subset of them suffer and even die for lack of any way for them to get healthcare. This has got to be the worst hypocrisy this man has demonstrated yet. It is sick.

Cynthia Tucker once wrote a piece about how some politicians care deeply about babies, but only up til they emerge from the womb. After that, they can take a long crawl off a short pier.

[shemp]

I am actually surprised at the depth of the man's selfishness and stupidity. You'd think he'd realize that, in 18-20 years or so, the U.S. will need more cannon fodder. He is depriving future generations of thousands of war dead! WHY DOES GEORGE W. BUSH HATE FUTURE AMERICA!!?

[steverino]

... suffer and even die for lack of any way for them to get healthcare.

This argument is not logical, Steve. Every human suffers for one reason or another. We all have access to health care, food, shelter, jobs, and still we suffer. One can blame George Washington, and every president to follow him, if one wants to.

Also worth noting is that the American government is extremely generous with providing resources to the undocumented. There is no link between Bush's pro-life stance and the population crossing our southern border illegally. :rolleyes:

[Axiom_Blade]

We all have access to health care, food, shelter, jobs, and still we suffer.

You do know we're talking about the US here, right?
There are many Americans who are lacking some or all of these things.

[Wheezebucket]

Hey steve, wanna hook me up with access to that free food and health car? That'd be sweet, thanks. I could use a little of that shelter too, actually. Here I been working my ass off, turns out I just don't have the right phone numbers! Who knew you could build a life off poorly run & under-funded homeless shelters and dumpster diving?

Yes, these things technically exist in America. No, they are not necessarily easy for all Americans to get a hold of. Some of us will die from a lack of any one of the things listed above, and not for lack of trying.

[TragicMonkey]

Hey steve, wanna hook me up with access to that free food and health car?

A health car? Would it be like Fred Flintstone's, so you get exercise as you drive? Or would it just nag you if you stopped for fast food, and ask why you didn't eat a salad instead?

[Wheezebucket]

Man, I'd get nagged a lot if it was that second one. Let's go with the Flinstones car...only with a floor...and an engine...and gas/brake pedals. Mostly I just want it to look like it's made out of rocks, ok?

[The Painter]

Bush is opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell research but if a child is already born he is willing to let a poverty stricken subset of them suffer and even die for lack of any way for them to get healthcare. This has got to be the worst hypocrisy this man has demonstrated yet. It is sick.



From the article;

New Jersey, the most generous, enrolls uninsured children in families earning up to $72,000.

Come on, let’s be real. $72,000 per year is not poverty by any stretch.

[Axiom_Blade]

Come on, let’s be real. $72,000 per year is not poverty by any stretch.

So, what about the families that are making less than $72,000? Aren't some of them in poverty?

[The Painter]

So, what about the families that are making less than $72,000? Aren't some of them in poverty?

Duh! For incomes up to $72,000 to be included in this program, then it really has been expanded way way way beyond it's original intention. Maybe it should be vetoed. Here's a table on poverty.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml


A family of 4 it's $20,000 not $72,000 Keep the program with the people who really need it.

[SteveGrenard]

This argument is not logical, Steve. Every human suffers for one reason or another. We all have access to health care, food, shelter, jobs, and still we suffer. One can blame George Washington, and every president to follow him, if one wants to.

The argument was not about debating access or non-access to the items you mention, it was about hypocrisy. A lot of people voted for a religious, pious and holier than thou (he talks with god afterall) guy who holds life sacred and is opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell research because of this. If he prevails in making good his current veto threat there will be no funding for most of the items you mention that poor children cannot afford on their own. The State programs for these kids, even the generous ones, will grind to a halt but we shouldn't be legislating a veto for the whole country because one or a few states have different levels, in some cases based on local costs and formulas. So when that access you mention which exists now stops due to this veto and poor children suffer without access to health care, step back and tell me why Bush isn't a hypocrit?

Also worth noting is that the American government is extremely generous with providing resources to the undocumented.

They may be now although it could be debated. If the veto prevails you could no longer make this statement. Bush needs $33 million a day to prosecute his war and if he wants to hold fast on a tax increase he needs to do this. Gates just told him he underbudgeted for the next fiscal year and needs a mere additional forty five billion.


There is no link between Bush's pro-life stance and the population crossing our southern border illegally. :rolleyes:

I don't seem to remember saying anything about the population crossing our southern border but I will talk about it anyway.

In the context of hypocrisy there is a link so I disagree. The Latino illegal immigration problem is without doubt a major problem. Just as many millions of documented and undocumented emigres from Ireland, western and eastern Europe and Asia made their way here before. But my comments concern only the threatened veto for children's healthcare.Children who in some cases are poor but legal, and others who are the offspring of illegals but were born here and are citizens. If Bush had his way many poor women, including illegal immigrants could not obtain abortions but, as was said by someone else, as soon as their baby was born they would (if this veto pevails) be doomed. Bush is assuring this with this veto. And that makes him a hypocrit. And this is being polite.

[steverino]

Man, I'd get nagged a lot if it was that second one. Let's go with the Flinstones car...only with a floor...and an engine...and gas/brake pedals. Mostly I just want it to look like it's made out of rocks, ok?

How about this bus? I photographed it yesterday. Weird that it came up here, today.

[steverino]

How about this bus? I photographed it yesterday. Weird that it came up here, today.

Here:

[strathmeyer]

You are mistaken. Bush didn't get elected twice.

Please stop assuming we live in the same fantasy world you do.

[Wheezebucket]

Here:

Well that's not quite to my specifications, but it'll do.

[steverino]

Hey steve, wanna hook me up with access to that free food and health car? That'd be sweet, thanks. I could use a little of that shelter too, actually. Here I been working my ass off, turns out I just don't have the right phone numbers! Who knew you could build a life off poorly run & under-funded homeless shelters and dumpster diving?

Yes, these things technically exist in America. No, they are not necessarily easy for all Americans to get a hold of. Some of us will die from a lack of any one of the things listed above, and not for lack of trying.

Wheeze- A well-written post, I must admit.

I just say that since the creation of America, most of us have suffered without having our needs met, and have fallen through the net at some point in our lives. Look at our Seattle, with its overflow of homeless and hungry. We are perhaps the most progressive city in America, run completely by politicians sensitive to the needs of our diverse population. Yet still we suffer.

[articulett]

From the article;



Come on, let’s be real. $72,000 per year is not poverty by any stretch.

$72,000 a year in NJ with 4 kids IS close to poverty--certainly not enough to pay the $450 per person montly non-subsidized health premiums, I assure you--and those are the ones with the high deductibles.

[articulett]

Please stop assuming we live in the same fantasy world you do.

He lost the popular vote the first time--his daddy's Supreme Court put him in power... and there were questions about those diebold machines in the second vote...

[boloboffin]

Duh! For incomes up to $72,000 to be included in this program, then it really has been expanded way way way beyond it's original intention. Maybe it should be vetoed. Here's a table on poverty.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml


A family of 4 it's $20,000 not $72,000 Keep the program with the people who really need it.

So a family of four that makes $20,001 really doesn't need this program? Or maybe they just don't need health care coverage?

And why should this argument be about just New Jersey's standard, where the cost of living may be higher? Here in Texas, a family of four qualifies for CHIP when under $41,300 for the year. The people below the poverty threshold are eligible for Children's Medicaid, not CHIP. It's not about poverty anyway. It's about people who make too much for Medicaid and yet still can't afford health insurance for their children.

Furthermore, what is wrong with expanding the program?

[WildCat]

Furthermore, what is wrong with expanding the program?
I'd rather they allow health insurance as a deductible expense on federal income tax returns for those who buy their own, since those who get it through work don't have to declare it as income. This would make it easier for more people to afford it at the moderate income range w/o involving the government.

[TragicMonkey]

I'd rather they allow health insurance as a deductible expense on federal income tax returns for those who buy their own, since those who get it through work don't have to declare it as income. This would make it easier for more people to afford it at the moderate income range w/o involving the government.

Damn straight. I paid my own health insurance for two years. $175 a month, when I was making little the first year and nothing the second. Yet I couldn't even deduct it from my taxes. I should have just not had any, and gone to the emergency room whenever I needed something, and left the bill for the hospital to either write off or stick to the taxpayers.

It's stupid to have a system where it's more advantageous to the individual to be irresponsible with both their health and the taxpayer's money. The only thing that kept me from doing that was a sense of decency, and who has that anymore? Relying on people being decent when it's easier not to be is not a winning proposition in any sort of public policy. Might as well get rid of police and put everybody on the honor system not to commit crimes!

[corplinx]

Great. Just great. Now the two parties are going to try to "out-sympathy" each other by rolling out handicapped children out in support of bills in cheap political stunts.

WONT ANYBODY THINK OF THE FLIPPER BABIES!!!

[boloboffin]

I'd rather they allow health insurance as a deductible expense on federal income tax returns for those who buy their own, since those who get it through work don't have to declare it as income. This would make it easier for more people to afford it at the moderate income range w/o involving the government.

Why do you consider this an either/or choice?

[The Painter]

So a family of four that makes $20,001 really doesn't need this program? Or maybe they just don't need health care coverage?

And why should this argument be about just New Jersey's standard, where the cost of living may be higher? Here in Texas, a family of four qualifies for CHIP when under $41,300 for the year. The people below the poverty threshold are eligible for Children's Medicaid, not CHIP. It's not about poverty anyway. It's about people who make too much for Medicaid and yet still can't afford health insurance for their children.

Furthermore, what is wrong with expanding the program?

You're right it's not about poverty level, but if you look at my post you will see I was responding to someone who said it was. This program is about falling into the gap. Between 20,000 at 40,000, and not even all of them. Expanding it to 72,000 is ridiculous.



If you read the article it was to expand it to 6 million children. If you go by this response;

$72,000 a year in NJ with 4 kids IS close to poverty

This would include over 50% off the population of NJ.One state would eat up a lot it.

Furthermore, what is wrong with expanding the program?
Fine, shall it be expanded to people making less than $250,000

[bjb]

Please stop assuming we live in the same fantasy world you do.

If only you did....

we wouldn't even need this thread.

Anyway, my comment was meant as a joke, since the thread was originally intended to be humorous. It's always interesting to see how some people are so easily offended.

[boloboffin]

Fine, shall it be expanded to people making less than $250,000

Why not? Why not expand eligibility? If people can afford better health insurance than the CHIP program, and if their health insurance payments are tax-deductible as has been suggested, then they can apply or not as they wish.

I don't find providing adequate health care coverage for any child ridiculous. Of course, I don't find providing adequate health care coverage for any human being ridiculous.

[WildCat]

Why do you consider this an either/or choice?
Notice I said at the moderate income level - this is preferable (IMHO) than the government being directly involved in the health insurance for families making $75,000 for example.

[The Painter]

Why not? Why not expand eligibility? If people can afford better health insurance than the CHIP program, and if their health insurance payments are tax-deductible as has been suggested, then they can apply or not as they wish.

I don't find providing adequate health care coverage for any child ridiculous. Of course, I don't find providing adequate health care coverage for any human being ridiculous.

You've just included the 98.5% of the population. You've turned the program into exactly what it is not supposed to be. You don't want it to be for people who need help, you want it for everyone. Even if they can afford it on their own.

[ZirconBlue]

"The president doesn't have second thoughts'' - Bush press secretary Dana Perino

The hell you say!

You have to have thoughts before you can have second thoughts.

Man, I'd get nagged a lot if it was that second one. Let's go with the Flinstones car...only with a floor...and an engine...and gas/brake pedals. Mostly I just want it to look like it's made out of rocks, ok?

Bob Seger's already got a song for the ads!

[Professor Yaffle]

[Reading this thread makes me so glad we have the NHS here...]

[Charlie Monoxide]

If $72,000/yr is the max a family can earn in order to take advantage of this, how many of these families are going to be sub $72,000? All of them.

Children are resources. I see them as future payees into my social security. The sickly kids aren't very good earners.

I think that since this is a program initiated by the Dems (and liked by all), it is a good candidate for Bush's veto pen .....

Charlie (anything that makes Dems look good will be vetoed) Monoxide

[ImaginalDisc]

Shut up, borny! (http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20060801.html)

[FenrisWolf]

You've just included the 98.5% of the population. You've turned the program into exactly what it is not supposed to be. You don't want it to be for people who need help, you want it for everyone. Even if they can afford it on their own.

I don't see the problem with including 100% of the under-18 population.

Capitalism is about competition, but there needs to be a level playing field or it doesn't work very well. We already provide free education until age 18, mostly because of that belief in the need for a level playing field. I don't see why free health care until age 18 is any different -- being healthy when you start out your working life seems like a prerequisite for having an equal shot at doing well.

Rich people who don't like the free education their kids are entitled to send their kids to private schools. Rich people who don't like the free basic health care their kids would get under a 100% coverage system would probably buy private health care too.

I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes for this, and I don't even have kids. Tho, I'd prefer to tax the rich (say, top 5%) to pay for it.

[The Painter]

I don't see the problem with including 100% of the under-18 population.
(snip)

. Tho, I'd prefer to tax the rich (say, top 5%) to pay for it.

Yeah no problem when someone else pays for it.

You have all convinced me that Bush should veto this. You are taking a good program to help uninsured children and turning it into socialized medicine, that don't fly. You all got greedy.

[boloboffin]

You've just included the 98.5% of the population. You've turned the program into exactly what it is not supposed to be. You don't want it to be for people who need help, you want it for everyone. Even if they can afford it on their own.

Calm down.

[SteveGrenard]

Here’s a primer on the bill vetoed by Bush from NPR…..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685

President Bush has made good on his promise to veto a bill to expand a popular children's health insurance program, saying the bill could lead the nation toward a system of socialized medicine.

But backers of the measure, who are working to override the veto, say the president doesn't understand how the bill would actually work.


And neither, apparently, do a lot of others .....

[LostAngeles]

I don't know if she still has the records of how much she made, but from 1990-1995, my mother was raising two kids, one with asthma, in MA on an hourly wage of about $7.50/hr with a $750/mo rent on a 2-bedroom apartment.

I remember when either by a raise or by an adjustment of the line, we stopped qualifying for the Medicaid/care, whatever it was, because I remember seeing my mom try to hide in her room and cry because she didn't know how she was going to afford our doctor's visits.

Whatever MA had going at the time (which may have been SCHIP) covered us. I don't think my mom knew about it when she got the letter saying we'd crossed the income line.

It was a lot of those little programs like that that helped keep us afloat since what basically happened was, "You work. No state aid." A fuel assistance program paid for our heating bill in the winter so we could have Christmas, day care vouchers so Mom could go to work. No child support (thanks Dad).

In 1995, she managed to get the Section 8 housing voucher and we moved to a much nicer little row house. Now that she had more money free, she could relax, went back to school, and now has an A.A. and teaches pre-school. She's planning on going to get her Bachelor's so she can teach grade school.

This is the kind of stuff that saved our bacon growing up. Because of these additional safety net programs, we had food, water, heat, health care, and a roof over our head. At the same time, I had classmates and neighbors with parents that sat on their ass, collected the government checks, mooched off the elder members of the family (some of whom also collected government checks) and had nicer things than us. Mom acknowledged that yes, she could do that, but she still couldn't afford living like that, not to mention it sets a bad example for us.

The SCHIP veto bothers me about as much as welfare cheats bother me. They both **** the people who are working and struggling and trying to make it by. The kids covered by SCHIP are poor, working-poor, and middle-class. Their parents can't afford health coverage and they make too much to qualify for the state aid and oftentimes they can't afford to quit their jobs and just live off the state.

I'd be less bothered if it wasn't for the lack of a veto-proof majority.

Seriously.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.