House passes SCHIP funding with strong support.
House passes SCHIP funding with strong support.
An overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House voted 265-159 tonight to pass the popular and successful Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. The support fell just short of the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush’s expected veto of the bill. Speaker Pelosi called on Bush to “dig deeply into his heart” before depriving millions of children of health insurance:
I’m reminded of the Bible tonight, and I speak with all of the sincerity and all of the hope to President Bush in the hope that he will change his mind. To dig deeply into his heart and think about the children in America who don’t have healthcare. Because if not, I think that the President is giving new meaning to the words, ’suffer, little children.’ Suffer, little children, if your parents can’t afford health insurance.
Watch it:
Roll Call vote here. The Gavel has more from today’s floor debate.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
159 Responses to “House passes SCHIP funding with strong support.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Not enough vote's to override a veto so it really doesn't matter, now does it?
After all were only talking about children here.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:04 pmChimpy has no heart. Everybody knows that.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:10 pmHot dang! My ultra-neocon Rep. Dave Reichert voted Yea.
The last time this came up for a vote, he took the Bushit track and voted Nay.
Yes... this is about 25 or so House Republicans short of override (there are 67 Senators who are on board)... but that means there is work to do!
Just remind the Republicans that this will DEFINITELY be an albatross around their necks in next year's elections.
If the Dems are not willing to do that... then this will be yet another opportunity wasted by Speaker Pelosi.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:14 pmI'd love to see the roll call on this vote. Who could possibly go home and tell their constitents they voted against it?
September 25th, 2007 at 10:14 pmLet's not just bash ol' George here. The Republican's in Congress share just as much blame for not passing this bill and making sure the chimp can't veto it.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:14 pmIn Washington last month, the White House renewed George W. Bush's war against children's health care that dates back to his days as Governor of Texas. Just two weeks after the House and Senate each approved major expansions of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), the Bush administration announced draconian new eligibility rules that would trim thousands of low income children from the rolls. But unlike his Texas two-step when he claimed credit for a program he fought tooth and nail, this time George W. Bush isn't running for anything.
For the details, see:
September 25th, 2007 at 10:38 pm"Bush Repeats His Texas War on Children's Health Insurance."
when spending $300 million a day on iraq, the "$5 billion is much more reasonable than $25 billion" argument loses all credibilty.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:50 pm...Who could possibly go home and tell their constitents they voted against it?
Comment by David B — September 25, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
my guy, for one... john SHIMKUS...
the guy who covers up for pedophile congressmen...
and he promised a self-imposed "term limit"... which meant he
September 25th, 2007 at 10:51 pmshouldn't have run in 06... and the foley thing barely made a dent...
...
Jake D.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:53 pmI got a bridge to sell ya!
Hang your head in same, the 8 democrats who voted "no":
Boren
Castor
Etheridge
Hill
Kucinich
Marshall
McIntyre
Taylor
Watson voted "present" for the democrats
Carson, Delahunt, and E. B. Johnson were dems who didn't vote
September 25th, 2007 at 10:54 pmregarding the flase $83,000 talking point:
"The president’s understanding of our bill is wrong . . . I urge him to reconsider his veto message based on a bill we might pass, not something someone on his staff told him wrongly is in my bill."
September 25th, 2007 at 11:05 pm—Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Bush can't dig deep into what he doesn't have and he wipes his ass with the Bible.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:07 pmFrom Dennis Kucinich's Website -
Washington, Sep 25 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), issued the following statement after voting against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) conference report today:
“I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children,†Kucinich said. “This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.
“Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress’ responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.
“HR 676 guarantees full health care coverage for all children. When considering a universal health care proposal, HR 676, the Medicare for All bill, is the only health care plan that addresses three important issues: quality, accessibility, and cost. HR 676 stands alone in an increasingly crowded field of efforts to provide health care coverage to all,†Kucinich said.
Kucinich voted for the original House-passed version of the bill because it contained language to grant health coverage for legal immigrant children. However, in today’s bill, this language was omitted.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:10 pmThis doesn't make sense, if they already have private coverage why would they apply for SCHIP?
AND doesn't Bush make 500K a year and get government healthcare??
September 25th, 2007 at 11:16 pmWhy didn't they at least tie this to the Iraq War funding bill that they are cravenly going to pass next month?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:17 pmJake sez 'real conservatives'. lol.
If this bill qas for spending billions on wars and bombs \/\/ would have no problem with it. BTW Jake, how much do you 'real conservatives' plan to spend in the welfare queen state of Iraq?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:21 pmHey Jake, if you make 500k a year should you get free healthcare?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:22 pmThe rest of the world looks at US as foolish idiots.. the only industrialized nation that can not come up with a decent plan to give all access to health care. Instead we spend 1/2 of our tax dollars to the pentagon = war and 1/3 of what we pay to insurance companies go for profit instead of care. Bush will veto this.... we may even strike Iran while the world watches with disbelief and disgust.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:31 pmJake D.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:35 pma question for you:
Why is it we are the only industrialized nation that can not figure out how to give affordable health care to all? I asked that question to Jason last night ...no answer.
Regarding healthcare, the more in public insurance, the more efficient the pay system and collective bargaining can be.
Really. I'm serious. The healthcare insurance industry does NOT keep health care costs down. They used to sell HMOs' focused on preventive care, but found that the vast sums of waster occur when individuals have a serious problem (cancer, etc).
Now every doctors office hires a staff to decipher insurance payment rules. Insurance companies have enormous staff to manage complicated payouts (and for the most part do it badly - I know from personal excperience this year). THe overhead is HUGE......and still there are no practical limits on healthcare if you are insured. -> the drug companies have doctors in their pockets as well and push antibioitics and expensive alternativess to livestyle changes or just facing the fact that when you get older at some point your sex drive is going to drop.
YES. the more people getting off of private healthcare and toward public -Federal or State insureance = the better.
Face it. Personal heathcare insurance is too damned expensive. Company offered healthcare is being phased out or down because of cost. AND it depends on being employed (as children are not).
Federalized or State run Insurance is a prety good answer. Now the Amish have a collective system (close to true socialism or communism) that seems to work, but Federal seems like the best Amreican solution.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pmFrankly, I'm thinking that Cigna should be paying me a check this year for straightening out billing issues. I'm not saying they are all their fault, but you would think that there should be mechanisms where the insurance company and hospital and docots offices would have stream lined to communicate discrepancies. Instead, they just end up billing the patient for coverd charges and leaving them to rectify the mistake (by design!).
The government seems more competent than insurance providers do.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pmJake D.
a question for you:
Why is it we are the only industrialized nation that can not figure out how to give affordable health care to all? I asked that question to Jason last night …no answer.
Comment by had enough — September 25, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
Indeed...hell, we put a man on the moon for the first time nearly 40 years ago; a feat that would be a walk in the park today, with all the technical advances, if we ever decide to go back again. I don't buy the argument that there are too many problems with other nations' health plans; if for nothing more than to show the world what we are truly capable of, we should be able to fix the "problems" with the other plans and offer a world-class program.
One of the editors of our local paper on Sunday once again decided to interject politics into his Tech column...this time, universal healthcare. He took a shot at Hillary by saying that she wants the government to require everyone to buy into healthcare. He said that the government doesn't have any business requiring Americans to buy anything. He must despise the fact that he has to pay $25 for a marriage license and is forced by state government to purchase auto insurance. This is the same guy who said that tax cuts are good because it results in politicians spending less money due to lower revenues coming in.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:53 pmThe constitution doesn't specifically provide for Federal Insurance-.......but it doesn't preclude it either.
Work for Bush or and Insurance agency Jake?
Federal Govt. sure as hell does provide good health care for elected representatives. It also provides safety net quality care for vets.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:55 pmJake you should read the recent Consumer Reports article on Healthcare and you'll get some idea of what bad options people have to pick from in private and Employer based healthcare.
They also rank the companies service history.
TO me it's either natinalize healthcare or revamp (regulate) the current "for profit" system. Most states have passed or considered limited tort and it hasn't affected the health industry costs one iota.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:03 amDon't ask Jake, folks - he's from the Ebenezer Scrooge wing of the heartless miser party. They'll spend any amount of money on earth to kill someone else's kids, but not a dime to put a cast on an American kid's broken leg.
You don't need any understanding from anyone here, Jake, you need to ask for some from the Lord, you poor, hateful soul.
p.s. The General Welfare clause is more than enough justification, not that it would change your greedy mind.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:03 amHe took a shot at Hillary by saying that she wants the government to require everyone to buy into healthcare. He said that the government doesn’t have any business requiring Americans to buy anything.
Hillary has her nerve.. she is bought by the insurance companies.... won't this plan benefit them. I wish the corporate mainstream media would allow Kucinich his deserved coverage.... instead the MSM and righties keep cramming Hillary down our throats... they have our primary candidate picked for us.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:04 amWasn't actually expecting any meaningful answer from the feller.
I just needed a target for my diatribe.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:07 amComment by Eargy Earp — September 25, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
My wife and I are currently involved in trying to figure out why a couple of hospital visits haven't been paid by our insurance company (Aetna-owned SRC). As it turns out, the hospital informs us that Aetna will not accept claims that are filed electronically. The hospital has tried filing several times, and Aetna rejects them. Reps at the hospital now tell us that Aetna will only accept claims sent via mail. Now get this...hours before being advised of this, I was on the phone with an Aetna rep and was telling her about the problems we were having. I asked if they accepted claims electronically or if they should be mailed in; she said that very few doctor's offices and hospitals submit claims via mail, and that most submit via electronic means. Not a word about Aetna refusing electronic submissions.
On top of this, in a recent visit to the hospital, my wife is informed that our insurance cards are not valid. She is then told that yes, they are valid, but neither she nor my daughter are listed as dependents on my account. Talk about a fcking mess.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:08 amYeah. I don't like Hillary either.
Too much bought by industry in general.
Also, listening to her Bogarting the Sunday news shows last week, I almost think that the Iraq war will be longer and more costly with her than with some Republican candidates (?!)
Shocking.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:11 amJake - Trillions for Iraq, but not the money to insure poor kids? You are one twisted dude. Reading your comments here, it's obvious that you have either an unhealthy obsession to please GW Bush or you're a troll clown. You really can't be expected to be taken seriously.
I cannot believe one emotionally crippled man can dictate the welfare of millions of Americans. For any other person in this country, signing this bill would be a no-brainer. Bush obviously hates this country...just like Jake and the other apologists that defend this phony who may have the title, but will never have the moral authority or respect of the vast majority of Americans.
Go ahead George, veto it, smirk, and give the American people the proverbial finger. Please complete the destruction of the Republican Party that you have personally guaranteed.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:13 amComment by Bad Eye — September 26, 2007 @ 12:08 am
Sorry to hear of your troubles.
We are going to switch to my wife's insurance company through her work. Perhaps well have better luck there. But I have this feeling it's a crap shoot.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:15 amDon’t ask Jake, folks - he’s from the Ebenezer Scrooge wing of the heartless miser party.
He could not properly answer my question anyway of Why are we the only industrialized nation that can not figure out a way to give all access to health care.
These righties post here, want to talk around the issues but can not answer simple questions such as:
*What is the difference between a preemptive strike and terrorist attack?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:17 am*What does success mean in Iraq?
My questions continue to remain unanwered.
"On top of this, in a recent visit to the hospital, my wife is informed that our insurance cards are not valid. She is then told that yes, they are valid, but neither she nor my daughter are listed as dependents on my account. Talk about a fcking mess."
I hear you Bad Eye....our local family doctor has outsourced the billing function to some nameless company that can't keep track of our HCP...my wife is going nuts trying to deal with these people. Our Dr's office doesn't want to deal with the 'for profit' system that is in the business to maximize profits and minimize costs - our access to healthcare. I think this system will eventually implode on its greed.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am"Trillions for Iraq, but not the money to insure poor kids?"
what's even worse is that those kids and their kids and their kids' kids will also have to pay down those trillions of dollars of debt.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:20 amnational defense is IN the Constitution, so I have no problem with the feds spending TRILLIONS in Iraq
Well, Jake, nice try, but we are not in Iraq for our defense but for regime change. When are you going to stop proffering old debunked talking points?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:26 amWhat is it with Jake (who was banned from the Washington Monthly site for his ridiculous posts) quoting the constitution these days. He's all for Bush shredding the constitution when it comes to our civil liberties and rights, but since the Constitution didn't mention health care for all Americans, he's against it. What a dimwit. And this guy expects us to believe he was once an Attorney. In your dreams Jake.
Kucinich has had economists run the numbers on Medicare for all and has found that it would cost us 1/3 what we are paying now for health insurance in this country. This would include better coverage (no more fighting with a doctor if you really need the care), and doctors would be paid a fair rate for their services. It is very sad that we are the only industrialized country that thinks health care is a privilege and not a right.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:26 amAnd let me tell you about the fun we had with my prescription plan. After signing up for a new insurance plan at the end of 2005, several months later my daughter had to have some prescription medicine. I find out that my prescription plan is not active, and it may take up to 4 weeks after signing up to activate. (I am 2 days away from eventually finding out my daughter has walking pneumonia.) I call the insurance company, and they do an "emergency activation" on the insurance card so that I can get a covered prescription.
This was nothing compared to what I went through when I first signed up for health insurance. I was working for a temp agency and my wife had quit her job to attend school part time and to help take care of her terminally ill father. She was able to carry insurance for about 2 months after quitting. After that, I signed up through the temp agency. I filled out the paperwork and submitted it, and was advised that coverage would begin when the premium was first deducted from my paycheck. I waited 3 weeks...nothing. I called the temp agency and was informed that I had to write on the insurance application that there was a "change in family circumstance" (i.e. my wife losing coverage) since I was enrolling before the annual open enrollment period. Keep in mind that there is no specific place on the form that inquires about this; I have to find a blank space somewhere on the form to include this info. I ask the person at the temp agency why they didn't tell me this in the first place, and he replied that they didn't know about it either and was just learning about the procedures.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:27 amWhen are you going to stop proffering old debunked talking points?
Comment by Xisithrus
Never, he's a one trick pony. The best way to deal with Jake is to ignore him. I really wish this site would ban him like the Washington Monthly did. That's a pretty neat site. People actually discussing ideas, no trolls there at all. There are some conservative posters, but they are there to share ideas, not to throw out stupid 9th grade taunts and repeat tired old talking points.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:29 amThe US is the only developed country in the world that has this problem. In all the others, EVERYONE is insured and they pay one half or less of what we do. And that includes dental, optometric, behavioral, and sometimes long-term nursing. And there is no deductible nor co-pay nor pre-existing condition nor problems with same sex spouse.
Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who favors what the rest of the developed world has. Consumer Reports says it would save us $250 billion every year, administratively alone.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:32 amWell then Jake, according to your defense argument, we should not be repairing Iraqs infrastrucure, IE Electric, water, sewage...
September 26th, 2007 at 12:34 amWe are going to switch to my wife’s insurance company through her work. Perhaps well have better luck there. But I have this feeling it’s a crap shoot.
Comment by Eargy Earp — September 26, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Good luck, my friend. Unfortunately, it seems that many of the problems boil down to ignorant customer service reps that don't know what they are doing, a problem that we all experience in not just the health care industry. They are poorly trained and/or just don't give a damn about what kind of job they do. And in many cases, management just looks the other way. Trust me...I've been on the rep side of things for many years. Sadly, in many occasions it's the reps who treat customers poorly that end up getting the pat on the back and the awards related to job performance.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:35 amHow many Americans do these companies employ and pay dividends to?
Comment by Jake D
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. If our government can all ow the shipping of our blue collar jobs overseas with no qualms, why should we care about people working in the health insurance industry losing their jobs so that every person in this country can have the health care they deserve? Besides, many of the "worker bee" types will be picked up by the government to administer to the new program. It's all those poor CEO's who will be crying all the way to the bank with their million dollar bonuses.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:35 amAnd there are people in the US afraid to leave a lousy job, because they would lose their healthcare. This doesn't happen in any other developed country. Nor do their veterans have to travel 250 miles to a special VA hospital. Their vets can go to any doctor.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:35 amSo Jake - what did you do to get yourself banned from the Washington Monthly site? Inquiring minds need to know.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:38 amAnd Jake we see that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, created by congress, those GSE's [government subsidized] are part of this financial sub-prime bubble collapse.
Is that defense?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:38 amIn the US, there is a massive unnecessary bureaucratic layer that does not exist in any other developed country trying to figure out what medical procedure you can have or cannot have and who pays what percentage of what.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:38 amWe rebuilt Japan and (West) Germany after WWII in order to advance our OWN national security. Next canard?
Comment by Jake D
You really are that selfish and self-centered aren't you. We can do anything we want, whether it be immoral or illegal, as long as it benefits our country. And then when it comes to this country, your philosophy is "I got mine now fu(k you". You are a prince among men Jake. I feel very sorry for you. And I feel even more sorry for the people who live around you.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:40 amWe rebuilt Japan and (West) Germany after WWII in order to advance our OWN national security. Next canard?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
And who were the people that sold Adolph the things he needed for war? How was that good for our national securuty?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:41 amIn the US, there is a massive unnecessary bureaucratic layer that does not exist in any other developed country trying to figure out what medical procedure you can have or cannot have and who pays what percentage of what.
Comment by Keith
You are correct. In the industrialized nations that have universal health care, if your doctor says you need something, you get it. There is no heartless profiteer sitting between you and your doctor to decide that the treatment you need is too expensive and might hurt their bottom line, so they deny you the health care you need.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:42 amIf there are 2000 health insurance companies (there was not too long ago) each one with a gold or silver plan and each one with self, self plus spouse, and entire family-----------then that is twelve thousand different plans to go through whenever someone wants medical care. It is a nightmare for the doctor or hospital to figure out who gets billed for what. This only happens in the US. No other country would operate like this.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:43 amP.S. Xisithrus — this thread is about S-CHIP, -Jake
Its not about defense either, but that didn't stop you now did it?
Fine, if you cant answer THAT then. Move the goal post.
The Constution speaks of the public good. Is not this for the public good?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:44 amComment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 12:43 am
I never said it was free and I never said that anyone's wages would be affected. I said administratively alone. This does not include doctors, nurses, techs. I know my way is better because it is what every other developed country in the world has. It is not some wild hypothetical theory. I lived in London for twelve years.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:46 amwell, when you tell people they can have as much as they want for free, you will get shortages. Canada is the perfect example. You can die waiting for medical treatment up there.
Comment by ron
This is total BS. I have several friends who live in Canada and none of them have to wait for treatment they need. You probably won't get in to see the doctor in a week if you need elective surgery that can wait. But if it is something that needs to be taken care of NOW, you get it NOW.
So, go away Ron and spout your Right Wing talking points somewhere else. The people on this site are not stupid like the people over at redstate.com that believe anything someone tells them as long as that person is a Republican. Lemmings don't do well here and are definitely not welcome.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:47 amSorry to spill my heart out here, folks, but something's got to be done about the healthcare in this country, from the simple things such as poor customer service, to the high costs. ($600+ for a 20 minute procedure involving an ultrasound of my gallbladder is just too much). I know that that is an obvious comment. It's disheartening and frustrating, as you all know (well, many of you).
I'm off to bed. May you all sleep well tonight. Will see you back here tomorrow.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:47 amIt is $270 million per day for Iraq and it is based on a study done by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel-prize winning economist) and Linda Bilmes (Harvard professor of finance).
In 2006, they said cost would be $2.2 TRILLION. This is before we knew of the surge and should be raised.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:49 amSo Jake, why don't you answer my question about what got you banned from the Washington Monthly site. Or am I, gasp....on your ignore list?
I sure do wish that someone could come up with blogging software that would allow you to enter a name or some other text and when the blog found that name or text in a post, it simply deleted it. That would allow me to never have to see Jake's name again and to never have to read anything he wrote or anything that someone wrote in response to him. Wow, a world without Jake the Flake. What a dream. Maybe I'll mosey over to the Washington Monthly.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:50 amAnd who were the people that sold Adolph the things he needed for war? How was that good for our national securuty?
Comment by Xisithrus — September 26, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Ummm... is the answer "Bush's grandfather"?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:52 amHealthcare systems that Hillary and Edwards are proposing COST about $100 billion every year.
System that Kucinich proposes SAVES $250 billion every year.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:53 amIf this health care is soooo good, why do I get so many Candian pts who pay out of there own pocket?
Comment by ron
Because you are a liar. Isn't the internet wonderful. We can pretend to be lawyers and now we can pretend to be doctors.
BTW, did I tell you that I won the Nobel prize for literature? It's true, really it is.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:54 amanswer the question above -Jake
think the Heritage Foundation wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back onto the gold standard too. You want to discuss all that?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Why would I need to answer that? Do I agree with what you THINK the heritage foundation wants? If you dont know the answer to your own question why answer it?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:54 amIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†has a question whether calling someone a “dimwitâ€, “selfish and self-centered†is a personal attack, or not, please let me know.
Comment by Jake D.
The truth hurts, doesn't it Jake.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:55 amI woork in the medical feild and see more of whats real and whats not.
Comment by ron
You work in the medical field doing what, emptying bedpans?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:56 amBTW, did I tell you that I won the Nobel prize for literature? It’s true, really it is.
Comment by bilbobaggins — September 26, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Psshaw... that's NOTHING! I'm the ONLY Astronaut-Brain Surgeon General in the history of the country!
September 26th, 2007 at 12:56 amIf this health care is soooo good, why do I get so many Candian pts who pay out of there own pocket?
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007
Why do so many people in the US goe to canada and mexico to purchase their prescription drugs?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:57 amGood night folks. Sleep tight and ignore Jake and Ron. Let them play pattycake with each other.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:57 amOh, one last point. How many people die every year in the USA because they are denied care they need by their for-profit health care company? How many people die each year because they have no access to medical care at all. My bet is that it's a lot more than die each year in Canada because they had to wait for something.
Now I am off to bed.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:59 amDon’t worry about them, ron.
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 12:59 am
This poster is a fraud. No interest in the truth, no interest in debate. Who ever it is, they can't even keep their own age straight, and don't know the differnce between basketball and football.
Yer... a... FRAUD!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:00 amthey are only children, and most likely will vote Dems in the future, so lets just let them die, who needs to worry about the health of kids when corporate profits are to be made. [snark] as if I needed to do the snark thing.
Buck Fush
September 26th, 2007 at 1:01 amJFK’s father helped Hitler as well.
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Iran contra surely didn't make us more secure today now did it?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:02 amHere is an analysis of 34,000 respondents from Canadian healthcare users.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-XIE2006002.htm
According to a study I have seen before, the US waiting time is more than Canada's.
But nowhere is it written that we must take Canada's system. We can take any system in the world and then make improvements on it. I have a vote in a democracy, but I do not have a vote on the board of directors of Humana or Blue Cross.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:04 amI see now why 'real conservatives' only care about the unborn...it doesn't cost them anything more.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:06 am18,000 die every year in US due to no healthcare.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:06 amThere aren’t 10,000 nuclear warheads pointed at the U.S., are there?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Who needs those when they have airplanes?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:09 amComment by Xisithrus — September 26, 2007 @ 1:06 am
But, in the US, many of the unborn die because their mother has no healthcare. Where are the compassionate conservatives then?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:09 amJFK’s father helped Hitler as well.
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Comment by Xisithrus — September 26, 2007 @ 1:02 am
He was wrong to do what he did, and he wasn't nearly as deep in the Nazis' hip pocket as prescott, who had his assets confiscated.
CONFISCATED!!!! Tsk... tsk...
Yer... a... FRAUD. Ya can't even keep yer own age straight!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:10 amWhere are the compassionate conservatives then? -Keith
In an airport stall apparently....
September 26th, 2007 at 1:10 amAs I said, once you answer my question . . .
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Which question, exactly, are you referring to?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:11 amHow many die in China (not including forced abortions)? You also never answered whether China and Cuba are “developed†countries?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 1:09 am
Yet another dishonest question from Jerk D, a strawman, if you will. The conversation isn't about China or Cuba. Your question is irrational and dishonest, but hey, yer Jerk D, that's all you ever do! ;-D!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:12 amPrenatal care (and premature births) can cost quite a lot.
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Does that mean your for or against it?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:14 amI must have been thinking Constitution Party instead ; )
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Thats why I didn't answer that question. =)
September 26th, 2007 at 1:16 amThe governers of FLA and MA have implemented this free market system and behold- competition brought prices down.
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Well, it's clear that grammer 'n spellin' ain't necessery ta work in yer field! ;-D!!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:18 amXisithrus:
“Have you stopped beating your wife?â€
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
I never started.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:18 am“Have you stopped beating your wife?â€
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Surely you didn't think I'd fall for that?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:19 am“Have you stopped beating your wife?â€
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 1:15 am
My goodness... what an ugly, irrational, dishonest question. The mere asking of it implies that Xisithrus has been doing this. What... a... smear! Such a good little GOOPer, Jerk D is!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am"... to the extent Iran-Contra helped speed up the downfall of the U.S.S.R..."
Huh? WTF is this gibberish??? An apologist for criminal behavior that also gave aid to known enemies of the US and terrorists?
Simply... PUTRID "reasoning"...
September 26th, 2007 at 1:22 amto the extent Iran-Contra helped speed up the downfall of the U.S.S.R., we are indeed safer; 10,000 nukes could have done quite a bit more damage -Jake D
And how many nukes ended up on the black market?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:23 amComment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:19 am
And if your grammatical and spelling skills are supposed to be evidence of this, ya got a point! ;-D!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:23 amI don't believe China and Cuba are included in the developed countries in the world. That is a total change of subject.
The US is 40th in the world in life expectancy. If a very poor country like Cuba has healthcare nearly as good as the US, then there is something wrong with the US.
The following are the top countries in the world in standard of living (not necessarily correct order): Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Holland, France, Germany, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Australia, Japan, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Britain, Spain, New Zealand, Greece, Singapore, Slovenia, Korea, Czech Republic.
They all have single-payer, universal, government-run healthcare. They would not want the US system.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:24 amTo the extent Iran-Contra helped speed up the downfall of the U.S.S.R. -Jake D
Yet here we are in Afghanistan today..with a Taliban resurgence no less.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:25 amAre you O.K. with TRILLIONS to secure those nukes?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 1:24 am
Yet another irrational comment that has no meaning.
Try making a "point"... you might find it refreshing, even novel.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:26 amWhat are the tax rates in each of those countries?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Probably DIFFERENT in each country. ANOTHER meaningless question.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:27 amI don’t know. Are you O.K. with TRILLIONS to secure those nukes?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Are we going to spend trillions and attack every country with Boeing Jets?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:29 amThey have a high stand or living AFTER THEY PAY THE *&^%$#@ TAXES.
Yes, a Dane earning $30 an hour might pay 40% taxes, but he has a hell of a lot better life than an American paying 20% taxes on $5.15 per hour.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:30 amTo the extent Iran-Contra helped speed up the downfall of the U.S.S.R. -Jake D
The idea was to speed up the downfall of Saddam.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:31 amthat should be : high standard of living.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:31 amWhat is the range of tax rates in those countries? Do you think the U.S. public will agree to even the lower end of that range here?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 1:30 am
Still nonsense.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:31 amThe healthcare system that all these countries have does not COST
it SAVES. For the US, it would save $250 billion each and every year.
People would rather have their taxes go up $80 per month if it wiped out their $200 per month healthcare bill.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:34 amat the ratio of $ per student, and they always would outperform the public schools on national tests.
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007
I always here this argument, but the private schools tuitions are quite high. And if you did privatize the school system it would likely cost more and the quality of eductaion would drop.
Besides, who is Neil Bush gonna sell his Excite! program to?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:36 amDo you know what it costs to go to Oxford or Cambridge a year for a British citizen? $1,000 per year---unless your parents cannot afford that---and then it is free. While in the US, only the rich can afford to go to college.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:37 amand they always would outperform the public schools on national tests.
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Good lord! Did you even graduate from school? Ya can't even spell, laddie!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:37 amIf you tell people they have unlimited healthcare- costs will soar
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:37 am
Dishonest analogy. No way to prove or disprove, hence MEANINGLESS.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:38 amFEMA was quite good under Bill Clinton. It was Bush that destroyed it. These dozens of countries that have universal coverage could switch to our plan if they wanted to. They do not want to. They are not as crazy as conservative americans
September 26th, 2007 at 1:39 amIf you tell people they have unlimited healthcare- costs will soar
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:37 am
NO NO NO, doctors must approve the procedures. Patients don't get anything they want. We are not talking hypothetical theories. Germany has had this system since the late 1800's, for instance.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:41 amNow this is interesting, George passes the NCLB act and then brother Neal profits from that.
How is this conservative? Norquist wants to drown the gorilla in the bathtub and his boss is feeding him bananas!!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:42 amComment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:41 am
If you look at overall stats for the entire USA, more and more, college is becoming a privilege for the top 50%.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:43 am(you know, the same government that brought us FEMA ; )
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 1:36 am
You mean, the wildly INCOMPETENT FEMA brought to us by "America's CEO" ** cough... cough**, or the sucessful FEMA BushCo inherited and deliberately destroyed?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445.html
"... Which makes it all the more difficult to understand why, at this moment, the country's premier agency for dealing with such events -- FEMA -- is being, in effect, systematically downgraded and all but dismantled by the Department of Homeland Security."
September 26th, 2007 at 1:44 amHillary is not for single-payer. Her system COSTS. Do you even read what I type?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:44 amOh, great, so after Hillary gets socialized medicine through, then it’s going to be “free†secondary education too? Why stop there? Why not free graduate schooling? Free cars and boats? Free T.V.s and computers? Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007
Just call it privatizing. You know like they privatized the military, it still comes out of the taxpayers pocket and really not any better or cheaper than before.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:44 amWhy not free graduate schooling? Free cars and boats? Free T.V.s and computers?
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 1:39 am
And yet again, w/ the irrational, meaningless comment. My goodness, Jerk D comes across like an hysterical little girl who goes completely to pieces when presented w/ something she doesn't like.
Hanky, little girl?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:46 am....is becoming a privilege for the top 50%.
Comment by Keith — September 26, 2007
All that education so they can get a job in a service industry saying, "May I take you order?"
September 26th, 2007 at 1:46 amit still comes out of the taxpayers pocket and really not any better or cheaper than before.
Comment by Xisithrus — September 26, 2007 @ 1:44 am
It's actually worse. More expensive, less effective. Blackwater goons?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:46 amDo you even read what I type?
Comment by Keith — September 26, 2007 @ 1:44 am
Of course not! Jerk D has NO interest in facts, or meaningful debate.
Jerk D isn't even a real person.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:48 amWhy not free graduate schooling? Free cars and boats? Free T.V.s and computers? Comment by Jake D
Why not free beer! Oh wait thats a college republican thing. My bad =)
September 26th, 2007 at 1:50 amIsn't the topic supposed to be about preventing little sick children of working parents from having healthcare?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:51 amIf you specialize in something other than liberal arts- you will do fine
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:47 am
Community college... community college... hmmm... Oh... My... God!
In Canada and the United States, a community college, sometimes called a county college, junior college, technical college, or a city college, is an educational institution providing higher education and lower-level tertiary education, granting certificates, diplomas, and Associates' degrees. The name derives from the fact that community colleges primarily attract and accept students from the local community, and are often supported by the local community
"THROUGH PROPERTY TAXES"!!!!
You benefited from an education whose cost was underwritten and subsidized by public funds!!!! What n F-in' PHONY you are!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:52 amso what is your education and what job do you have?
Comment by ron
I am trained on hydraulics, pneumatics, electrical systems, flight control systems, avionics systems, I do IT work, I have done drafting [homes], I do plumbing, I do car repairs, I've done drywall, acoustical ceilings, I used to put firesprinkler systems in builidngs, appliance repair....
September 26th, 2007 at 1:55 amI guess its time to go to bed when the responses are not clever anymore Comment by ron — September 26, 2007
Aww, did I hit a tender spot?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:57 amBush says he studies the Bible.
So I wonder what he thinks of the parable of Lazarus the beggar. who died starving to death at the gates of a rich man,
Lazarus went to heaven and the stingy miser went to hell.
And was tormented by fire so badly that he asked Father Abraham to let Lazarus dip his finger in water and touch the miser's tongue.
I wonder how Bush squares with that.
Of course he IS a MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL.
So there is THAT...
September 26th, 2007 at 1:58 amHow am I a phony?
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:57 am
Because you rag on and on about govt programs, but your education cost you less due to the fact that local govt underwrote part of the cost. You take aid from the govt, whether you're man enough to admit or not, which I doubt you are, and then turn around and criticize others for wanting govt help. You're a liar, an hypocrit, and a phony!
Another "Republican" tough guy, my *ss...
GOOD NIGHT!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 2:00 amHow am I a phony?
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:57 am
Because you benefited from the same type of social spending you are more than willing to deny others.
To be consistent with yourself, you should have purchased your education with prices set by the "free markets" -you know, the same ones you avoided by getting education from publicly-funded community college.
That contradiction is what makes you a phony. What is the problem? Are people here typing too fast for you?
September 26th, 2007 at 2:02 amBush says he studies the Bible. -AG
I have my doubts about this.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:04 amAs a mater of fact, Ron, to be perfectly consistent with your position, you should be advocating the dismantling of the community college system, so people have to pay prices set by the "free markets".
September 26th, 2007 at 2:04 amComment by Xisithrus
thanks for being civil in your response, I appreciate it
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007
Your welcome, I am generally civil person. GN Ron.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:06 amShort version of Ron's babble: Social spending is wrong, unless I need it, of course.
Even shorter version: I've got mine. Screw you.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:07 amwhy not leave it up to individual states to fund this health care for all- wisconsin is doing it or trying.
Comment by ron
September 26th, 2007 at 2:09 amIt has to be universal.. equal in all states to avoid a mass influx of population from one area to another for health care. Why is it our country is the only industrialized country that can not figure out how to provide health care for all?
Comment by had enough — September 26, 2007 @ 2:09 am
People mostly get their news from TV. The TV won't say how extremely efficient and cost-saving single-payer healthcare is.
TV will have people on giving horror stories about single-payer. TV gets many millions of dollars from the current system.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:12 am> he Constitution does not permit FEDERAL health insurance for all.
Ah yes.... Jake, the stanford law graduate. Exactly what amendment are you referring to there jakey? The imaginary Jaketeenth Amendment?
You keep making these claims, perphaps you can cite the relevant provisions of the constitution that support your claims.
>I just dispute that the FEDERAL government
>was granted the power to provide health care
> insurance for that.
Every conceivable thing the federal government could do is not enumerated in the constitution, moron. The constitution is mostly a list of things the government cant do. Pray tell, tell me where it says that former soldiers (who are currently private citizens) and senators can get free healthcare but "common folks" can't?
> We rebuilt Japan and (West)
> Germany after WWII in order to
> advance our OWN national security.
Theres so many things wrong with that statement, i dont know where to begin....
1) what exactly danger would japan have posed to us if we left it in ruins?
Heck, if they got taken over by China, maybe Japan would now be letting us borrow as much money is China is, to help finance your crusade to give Iraqis the right to be as islamic as they wanna be.
2) Do you think the constition allows the government to do ANYTHING other than national security?
3) Do you think having mobs of starving americans roaming the streets is good for national security? Do you think a plauge sweeping through our country that disables a large portion of citizenry, including soldiers, would have an adverse affect on national security? Your an idiot. You think arming saddams former henchmen (ie. terrorists) is good for national security, but making sure plauges and mass starvation doesnt sweep through our streets isnt?
everytime i think you've said the stupidest thing possible, you never cease to amaze...
September 26th, 2007 at 6:49 amThe Bush war on the working poor and lower middle class continues unabated! Class warfare has been waged unremittingly by this administration for the last seven years. Jake repeats the $5 billion mantra--Repugnant talking point.
How many children should go uninsured while we pour billions every week into the Iraq rat hole which Jake's idols lied their butts off to get us into so Dubya could have his revenge on Saddam, Dick could make up what he cost Halliburton in his disastrous asbestos settlement, and all the cronies make huge war profits?
September 26th, 2007 at 7:01 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Enumerated_powers
Section 8: The Congress shall have power to.... provide for the common defense and general welfare.
Let me say that again.. PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
So tell me jake, in what warped world do you live where "health care for all"
wouldnt fall into the category of "general welfare" ?
Please give me examples of "providing for the general welfare" if you dont think healthcare is an example of such? (notice they make this is a distinct category from "common defense", which you seem to think is the only thing government should do)
September 26th, 2007 at 7:02 am" . . . in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare . . ."
September 26th, 2007 at 7:04 amThe Constitution does not permit FEDERAL health insurance for all.
Comment by Jake D. — September 25, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
And the "lawyer" Jake continues to ignore Sunshine Anthracite and the Commerice clause, settled by the Supreme Court.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:28 amjake thinks "promote the general welfare" means "promote the general welfare of other countries"
and apparently he thinks "provide for the common defense" means "promote the general welfare of other countries for our national security"
September 26th, 2007 at 8:27 amIt's been awhile since I've been here. I see its still the Jake D Show.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:52 amAsk any Canadian if they'd give up their health care number to participate in the U.S. system. The answer is always, "no."
September 26th, 2007 at 8:53 amI'm a Canadian and it has to be said that the waiting times in Canadian hospitals are longer then they should be. It's mainly a funding issue... not enough machines for the population. Speaking for myself, I've never waited long for any service I've needed but I'm only 45 and don't use the system much. I don't see a lot of abuse of doctor services from the people I know, most avoid doctors much like dentists. It's nice that when you need help you have help and the decisions made are made on the basis of your needs, not the profitability of the decisions. I would never choose to switch to an American style healthcare system. Not in a million years. As for taxes, we do pay more taxes in Canada then the U.S. Mind you we've also had a fiscal surplus for the last 10 years and we're headed for another this year. Taxes are a necessary evil, your govt can't just continue to rack up the bills and ignore the payments. Our personal taxes max out at a rate of about 52%. A family that earns $100k can/will pay an average rate of about 35%. Nothing is perfect but I think our system works about as well as is possible. Just look at what the U.S. pays for prescription drugs vs. what a Cdn. pays and you'll get a good idea of what you're getting for your money. It's all about big business making money in the US these days.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:57 am"Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who favors what the rest of the developed world has. Consumer Reports says it would save us $250 billion every year, administratively alone."
Comment by Keith — September 26, 2007 @ 12:32 am
And this is precisely why Bush and the Repubs are against medical care for all. That ANNUAL $250 billion savings will affect BigPharma's bottom line.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:58 amComment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Who does LASIK surgery for a couple hundred? The lowest (and latest) cost I've seen was in an ad in our local paper on Sunday...$699 per eye. That's a far cry from "a couple hundred."
September 26th, 2007 at 9:00 am>your govt can’t just continue to rack
> up the bills and ignore the payments.
ours can. one of our two major political parties has been thoroughly brainwashed by the myth of american invincibility, and the ridiculous notion that incurring debt has no consequences. why only recently, their leading contender for the 2008 presidential rate explained that he'd offset one tax cut with another... minus plus minus equals plus.. thats double plus math fer ya...
September 26th, 2007 at 9:07 amKeith:
I would not rather have my taxes go up $80 per month if it wiped out my $200 per month healthcare bill and forced me into a GOVERNMENT system (you know, the same government that brought us FEMA ; )
Comment by Jake D. — September 26, 2007 @ 1:36 am
Ummm...FEMA was fcked up by the Bush administration.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:08 am> Who does LASIK surgery for a couple hundred?
Ron does. He takes footstamps and whataburger coupons.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:08 amIn my career, I have held positions as Assistant to the Director of a health plan in San Francisco; data analyst for a marketing and strategic planning firm for the health care industry; and as an educational coordinator for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. This experience has led me to one general conclusion: competition and the profit-making ethos in the provision of healthcare ultimately INCREASES costs, leads to consolidation of services, and decreases the availability and quality of affordable health insurance. I was "in the business" when managed care first began taking root in this country, as a "cost containment" practice. I knew it wouldn't work, and it hasn't. I said it then and I will say it again...the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies should be nationalized.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am> I work as an mri tech
Ah yes, so your "patients" are actually M.R.I. machines? hahahah. Using the terms patients to try and make yourself sound like your doctor.
Idiot. The people who use the machines you service are about as much your patients as people who sh@t in the toilets plumbers fix are the plumbers "business partners".. hahah.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:19 am>the same government that brought us FEMA ; )
you mean bush's government? last I checked, clinton didn't ignore warnings of natural disaster and leave it all in the capeable hands of a guy whose previous job was getting horses horny...
September 26th, 2007 at 9:22 amRon does. He takes footstamps and whataburger coupons.
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — September 26, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Heh. I've got some coupons from the local grocery store for a free half gallon of ice cream and a gallon of milk. I'm sure we could work out some kind of trade...
September 26th, 2007 at 9:30 amRepublicans think children are just for buggering.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:30 am>I’ve got some coupons from the
> local grocery store for a free half
> gallon of ice cream and a gallon of milk.
I'm sorry sir, but "dairy" is a little too close for to "fairy" for Ron's taste. He only takes coupons for manly, non-gay innuendo things like "beef".
Can't you see Ron + Jake getting all misty eyed and dreamy when the president of Iran was talking about a land without gays?
September 26th, 2007 at 9:39 amAll...
Several of you have referenced Dennis Kucinich in this thread. I am reminded of a post on crooksandliars.com from a guy who was contacted by a research firm taking a poll on the Dem candidates. You'll love this:
My New Hampshire phone rings (caller ID 000-000-0000 WTF?)and I pick it up out of curiosity. “This is (talking like a magpie so I haven’t got a clue what the name of the company is) Research. Would you like to be part of a poll for the Democratic presidential primary candidate?†I agree and the woman rapidly reads the list of candidates. “Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and Richardson.†I say, “Kucinich.†The woman on the phone says “Who?†I say, “Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich.†I hear coaching in the background - apparently the call is being monitored. “I’m sorry, but Dennis Kucinich is not on our list. Is there anyone on the list I gave you who you would vote for?â€
Note that Mike Gravel wasn't on the firm's list either.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:41 amWell I live in a bigger city- its not uncommon to see 399 per eye advertised, which in the long run is cheaper than getting glasses
Comment by ron — September 26, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Nope...not a bad price at all.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:28 amJake: "JFK’s father helped Hitler as well."
Like so many of the things Jake posts, this is an outright lie. Joe Kennedy didn't like Jews and he may have had ambivalent feelings about what Hitler had done in Germany. But it is a lie to say that he "helped Hitler." Why does Jake insist on lying on these boards?
But, really, few issues get today's conservatives more fired up than the idea that we would give more healthcare for children in this country. And, this issue is a great one because it reveals the ugliness of current conservative thought. Ron and Jake: fight the good fight. You keep crusading AGAINST childrens' healthcare. It simply continues to remind people of how ugly both of you are.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pmJake: "I would not rather have my taxes go up $80 per month if it wiped out my $200 per month healthcare bill and forced me into a GOVERNMENT system (you know, the same government that brought us FEMA ; )"
A lie by distortion. FEMA ran great under Clinton, who had the intelligence to hire a disaster management expert instead of a crony.
Jake comes on these boards every day and lies through his teeth. His lies are as easy to rebuke as shooting fish in a barrel. Still, sometimes I wonder if it isn't just ignorance and stupidity at work here.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pmJake: "The Constitution does not permit FEDERAL health insurance for all."
Again, a lie. In this case, though, it does seem more like ignorance. The preamble does, after all, include the words, "provide for the general welfare."
I think it's a combination of lying AND ignorance, a very bad combo.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:55 pmron: "I just showed you that you dont need to go to a 4 yr university to be successful. If you specialize in something other than liberal arts- you will do fine"
ron, you're just wrong about that. There are tens of thousands of highly trained engineers and programmers who have been replaced with outsourcing to India or have been replaced by green-card immigrants who will work for much less money.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:57 pmJake: "the President looks forward to signing a clean extension of SCHIP later this week. This extension will keep the program running while the President works with Congress on a responsible, bipartisan SCHIP bill he can sign on behalf of the poor children SCHIP was designed to help."
Again, just a balls-out lie. Jake might as well be standing there with Dana Perino.
I suggest that everyone who is on Jake's imaginary "ignore list" continue to catalog and expose his many lies and distortions. Since you're already on his "ignore list" he can't respond without looking like the fool he is. And, of course he sees the repudiations because there really isn't an "ignore list."
September 26th, 2007 at 1:06 pmJake: "I have no problem with the federal government providing health care for elected representatives or vets."
A snapshot of Jakes values: healthcare for congresspeople and senators? Fine. Healthcare for our nation's children? No.
There are few ways to describe how ugly Jake's positions are.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:10 pmJake: "Why not free graduate schooling? Free cars and boats? Free T.V.s and computers?"
When he's not lying, he's busy crafting slimy strawman arguments... and all in service to preventing children from getting healthcare. Jake, is Hannible Lecter on your "heros list?"
September 26th, 2007 at 1:13 pmJake: "If anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†has a question whether calling someone a “dimwitâ€, “selfish and self-centered†is a personal attack, or not, please let me know."
Yes, these are personal attacks. Wow, I was able to respond in spite of the fact that I'm on the "ignore list." Poor Jake. His "ignore list" doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. It's a product of his delusional mind.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:16 pmron: "you are the idiot, engineers fix mri scanners, I am the one who does the scans, but unless you are in the medical field I guess you wouldnt know that."
Gosh ron, I'm not in the medical field, but I did know that. What gives?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pmRon, veterans' healthcare suffers from a lack of funding. The VA, our example of socialized medicine runs with an overhead of about 3 to 4%. It was proposed in the late 18th century by Thomas Jefferson and, as such, represents historical, core American values.
It just needs more funding. It had sufficient funding through the 70's and had a resurgence during the Clinton administration. Republicans want to gut it. So, if you have a problem with the VA, look to your own party for answers.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:59 pmThe problems with Walter Reed Hospital were due to privatization and the resulting staff shortage.
Here on the Central Coast of California, veterans have to go over 200 miles south to the L.A. VA hospital or over 200 miles north to the San Jose VA hospital. If we had single-payer healthcare, they could go to a hospital here---they wouldn't have to go to a special hospital. And with what the rest of the developed world has, there is no in network nor out of network.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:06 pm