Right Wing Gleefully Smears Two Yr-Old SCHIP Recipient Bethany Wilkerson
Right Wing Gleefully Smears Two Yr-Old SCHIP Recipient Bethany Wilkerson
Yesterday, TrueMajorityAction released an ad of 2-year old Bethany Wilkerson, who was born with a serious heart problem and received health insurance through the SCHIP program. Today, the Wilkerson family will appear with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to rally support for increased funding of the SCHIP program.
Like the Frost family, the Wilkerson family has already become the subject of right-wing attacks. Michelle Malkin — whose baseless smear campaign against 12-year old Graeme Frost was deemed too bogus for even Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — is now trying to rally the right against Bethany.
Heralding the arrival of a “new toddler-aged human shield,” Malkin writes that “the Wilkersons made a choice” — a seeming reference to the fact that Malkin now believes she has the license to attack the Wilkersons for their public support of SCHIP. “We need more ‘partisan bickering,’ not less,” added Malkin.
Malkin’s not alone in her rage. In a piece entitled “Meet the New Frosts, Same As the Old Frosts,” the National Review’s Mark Hemingway attacks the Wilkersons as irresponsible parents:
While the debate around the Frost family at least initially centered around their relative wealth, the issue really at hand is one of bad behavior. […]
For Dara and Brian Wilkerson, the fact that they don’t have health insurance is less about falling through the cracks than the decisions they’ve made.
Hemingway claims that Bethany’s mother, Dara, “voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was ‘unmanageable,’” to “take a job at a restaurant with no health insurance.” He mourns the fact that the Wilkersons “went on to have a baby anyway.”
Dara Wilkerson released this statement responding to the attacks on her choice of employment:
We have seen the statement about my previous employment and here is what we have to say: I left my previous place of employment years before Bethany became part of our lives. I am a hard working woman. I have worked at Snappers Sea Grill for over 6 years. It is a good work environment and I am a loyal employee. My husband and I were blessed with Bethany two years ago and we are even more blessed to still have her with us today.
So according to this “pro-life” right-wing logic, the Wilkersons should have sacrificed having a daughter in order to stay in an “unmanageable” job.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Malkin gleefully reports that the family voluntarily gave up a job with benefits but WHY should this have to be part of the employment equation? Nobody likes it except insurers and they have no place in a decent society.
Libby 4004
October 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pmLiberal Skeptic Blog
http://www.liberalskeptic.com/pc_url_3084336
The FAMILY VALUES Repukian Scum have NO VALUES, NO MORALS, NO ETHICS, and this is exactly what we expect from the Neanderthal Subhuman scum.
Buck Fush
October 16th, 2007 at 2:15 pmRepublican Motto: Life is precious until you’re born. Then it’s OK for you to suffer and die because of the choices your parents make.
F’ing idiots!!!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pmSomeone should CLEANUP Malkin on aisle four.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pmThese are the same people that bash working families for sending their kids to daycare. Identifying irony is not a strong suit for conservatives and their minions.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pmI am confused!
What happen to Terry Shivro and how these same people went on a witch hunt in favor of the Pro-life! Federal Government got in the middle of State government and then congress exploited the family and the governor Jeb stuck foot in mouth?
Pro life = Health care for all!
So, whats the deal? Make the case…
McConnell should just resign and stand in line with the others from his party!
This is a moral issue, so if you are pro-life thats fine, but how can one be so if health care is out of touch to obtain life?
The far extreme nuts have nothing else to do but slam people/children/disabled who want to live in a healthy world. But, in order to be healthy (like Terry Shivero) and have all those machines and people attending to her daily needs, you need health insurance…
Make the case people! Pro-lifers is fine, but health insurance is the key!
This is not about them verus us, make the case with the pro life issue!
Thats the fire to fuel this flame!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pmThe poor may no longer have children. The far right are against parenthood.
Unbelievable.
So if you’re against having babies, against keeping them healthy and also against immigration, aren’t you sort of against America having a population?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:21 pmI guess these idiots didn’t learn their lesson. Oh well, the more they scream, yell and bash, the more Republicans leave the fold. Soon the only people left on the right will be Billo, Malkin, Coulter and their ilk.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:21 pmSo if you’re against having babies, against keeping them healthy and also against immigration, aren’t you sort of against America having a population?
Comment by Bullsmith
No, they are against America having a population that doesn’t look exactly like them.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:23 pmThe reich-wing’s hate and distaste for children is quite disturbing.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pmMichelle Malkin is one seriously sick and twisted human being. Her place in Hell is waiting for her.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pmThe right wing acts as though the American people do not have a right to become part of the political process, and that if we have the audacity to do so we must also expect to become the target of their gestapo-like smear tactics.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pmThe Republicans are on auto-self destruct.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pmDaryll, will I see Malkin in Hell?
I sure hope so…supporting torture while torturing all of us daily with anti-kid freak talk is really pissing me off.
Is Michelle Malkin Mighty Aprhodite?
I’ll see you both in Hell; we’ve got some things to ‘catch up on’.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pmmalkin is trying her best to give a coulter a run for her money as America’s biggest cunt.
Who will the next “America’s Biggest Cunt”? This latest reality show debuts next season on Fox.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI agree with all the previous comments. The right wing arguments against these people and this program are ridiculous.
However, I must say that much of the pro-SCHIP publicity, like this ad, strikes me as badly-formed. They need to more effectively communicate their case and change minds. This latest ad is high on drama and emotion and thin on information. (The comparison to the cost of Iraq is excellent, though.)
The fact that the right wing can so immediately throw up their own rhetoric and sound credible (to their audience) is a sign that the pro-SCHIP message could be better. The goal should be able to shut these people up with an unassailable message, not invite more rhetoric and attempt to “mop up” afterwards.
Frankly, showing a family running and playing on a beach, as if on some dreamy vacation, evokes, for me, expensive hotels, vacation time, and other luxuries which are out of reach to working class people — and it makes the Wilkersons seem priviledged. This is not a criticism of the Wilkersons, it’s a criticism of the marketing message, and its ability to persuade the unpersuaded. I’m not convinced it’s effective.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pmThere’s nothing “right” about those people attacking the weak and poor.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pm15, My vote for ‘ABC’ is Bill O’Reilly.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pmThe Republicans and the Right have FINALLY found someone their own size to pick on.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pmLibs, undeterred by the immorality of pushing innocent victims to fight their battles for them, have lobbed a toddler into the fray.
Rush Limbaugh has been informing his listeners about this tactic, explaining that you are only trying to convince those who NEVER listen to Rush and other conservative pundits that conservatives are just mean, as well as trying to undermine the relationship between those who DO listen to all these pundits, and the pundits themselves.
Americans are far too sophisticated to continue to be swayed by these tactics, and while you used such tactics to force a win in 2006, your failure to succeed at anything in the past 2 years will kill your chances in 2008.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThis is actually funny now. We have to get it down to the point where they will go after unborn fetuses and then their heads will finally explode like in Scanners.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmAll’s fair in love and political retribution. If you’re wondering if the attitudes espoused by so-called conservatives about these young children says anything about the way these people treat their own children: It does.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmMaybe Malkin thinks they should have had an abortion when they realized they were pregnant without health insurance? She’s pro life now?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pmWhen the GOP finally makes it’s last spin around the crapper and slides out of existence down the sewer, nobody will be around to care what Michelle Mal-content has to say. When she’s working the back alleys, s@cking off former Fox News employees for groceries to feed her disallusioned, hate-filled children, maybe then she will realize the dour need for some of these Government sponsored programs that she has demonized lo these many years…well one can dream, can’t one? A slightly more palatable visual image than the Abu Graib/Republicon pyramid idea from a previous thread, no?
“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”
“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
H. L. Mencken
October 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pmLord these people are sickening.
The Wilkersons shouldn’t have had a kid? How - abstinence? Even in a marriage? They aren’t advocating birth control are they? Perhaps they should have had an abortion because the mother wasn’t making enough money/benefits?
It’s this weird logic - absolutely protect the fetus because it has a soul, but condemn the parent because she got pregnant without being rich. Now that the kid is actually born, why she can go to hell too for all they care, the sooner the better.
It’s appalling that cruelty like this is actually celebrated among people who call themselves “moral.”
October 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThis, is your rightwing. Know them, broadcast them, let all of those Americans who do not want an America based on purest evil, see them.
Because this is why if the Democrats will win in 2008.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pmI am sooooo sick of these hateful vermin! They want to take away anyone’s right to choose whether or not to have children, to decide to terminate a pregnancy that they can’t afford, yet when the expecting parents go ahead and have the child, they get cursed for ‘having a child they can’t afford’. Just makes me want to break something,
I say this jokingly but is not funny. I live in a very read state in the southeast - GA. We are suffering the worst drought on record, and I’m beginning to believe God does have a sense of humor. All of these Republicans - who hate everything that I believe God stands for - are getting a dose of reality. When we’re all very thirsty, dirty and fighting over water, I wonder how sanctimonious and self righteous they’re going to be when explaining to their constitutents that this has all been due to us lefty sinners. They honestly just don’t get it. I wonder if they ever will.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pmMalkin will easily be Olbermann’s WPITW. Maybe even in perpetuity.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pmDara admitted to me that she and Brian had been talking about having children since before they were married. She further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was “unmanageable.†From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health insurance
That does sound like poor personal choices to me.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm1. My partner and I want to have a kid
2. Quit job with good health care for one with no health care
3. Have a kid
Republicans = P.A.G.A.N.
People
October 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pmAgainst
Goodness
And
Normalcy
stefan
The rightwing was never the moral choice. You want moral you vote left - and I have become convinced that it will always be that way because the rightwing argument, conservatism itself, is evil.
How else can you explain the fervor the rightwing attacks the weak? The fear they hold that somebody might actually stand up for the innocent?
How else do you explain all of that empty moralising over the right to life held by an embryo, and the joy with which they watch as people, real people, suffer?
The rightwing’s morality is simply an excuse for them to lambast others. There is no call to help others in the rightwing ideology, there is no call to make the government of service and accountable to the people in the rightwing’s ideology.
There is no good in conservatism itself.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pmI guess “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” should be amended to include “except in cases where you have heath insurance”
October 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pmI just can’t wrap my mind around all of this. So the bottom line is this, if you want to have a family you better have a lot of money and health insurance. Otherwise, too bad for you.
What’s next a wealth test to see if you should be allowed to have children and if you fail…
October 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pmWait a minute. Michelle Malkin and her husband also willingly gave up employment with health benefits, finding themselves shopping for insurance. How can that become the R’s talking point without her being implicated in massive hypocrisy?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pm“That does sound like poor personal choices to me.
1. My partner and I want to have a kid
2. Quit job with good health care for one with no health care
3. Have a kid
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 2:42 pmâ€
The kid came years after the job change. This is called a conflation, and it’s a rhetorical device used by the dishonest, and defeated.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pmThat does sound like poor personal choices to me.
1. My partner and I want to have a kid
2. Quit job with good health care for one with no health care
3. Have a kid
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
You’re right, we should let their child die becacuse they weren’t as fiscally responsible as possible. I’d be surprised if this turn of events actually happened as the National Review claims anyway.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pmWe all know what Squegeeboo would do. Stay in the job she hated, with healthcare, and blog all day. Right squishy?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm“No, they are against America having a population that doesn’t look exactly like them.”
Except that the Frosts and this new family do look exactly like them. These are exactly the demographic Reagan brought to the Republican party. And now they’re under assault for, sin of all sins, getting married and having children.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmI am still confused why the socialist are bringing folks that are currently using the program to washington to fight for rich people that the socialist want in the program. Aren’t these people already covered by socialised medicine anyways? Why are you using them? Maybe go to your local country club and ask some of those folks to come to Washington and beg to be on our governments back.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmSo squish, she’s now suddenly pregnant, should she get an abortion because she doesn’t have healthcare? How does that figure into your pro-life extremism?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmRemoveBush
So by YOUR expectations, unless the Parents are RICH they should abstain from having kids????
No. By my expectations, if you want to have kids, don’t do something like quit a job that has health care, that you can use for your family, with out first getting another job that has health care.
This just points out WHY we need National Healthcare.
Because stupid people will place themselves in positions where they, or their families, need it?
When people have to work 3 and 4 jobs to get by, they will NEVER be able to have kids (By your standards).
October 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmShe was working 1 job and getting by. Then she quit it.
Jeebus H. Chrisco!
Does the right ever have any children?
October 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmOr do they only care about the zygote?
Attacking a child for utilizing a program that saved her life?
WTF is wrong with the right???
Save the embryo and kill the Mother! -Republican’t healthcare
October 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pmSo according to this “pro-life†right-wing logic, the Wilkersons should have sacrificed having a daughter in order to stay in an “unmanageable†job.
hell yes! abort the thing before it comes abegging to me for help.
what we call this is just another freeloading fetus with its stubby little paw in my pocket.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThe poor may no longer have children. The far right are against parenthood.
Comment by Bullsmith — October 16, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Close, Bullsmith, but not exactly right.
The poor can CHOOSE to have children or they can CHOOSE to live poor. It’s all about CHOICES now. And porr people must be made to suffer for their choices. Otherwise they’ll never learn how to make GOOD choices.
At least, I think that’s how it goes…
Oh, and since they’re right-wngers, the ONLY way the poor can choose not to have children is to not have sex. Ever. With anyone.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pm#28 - what are you suggesting? They deserve poverty for not being able to afford health care? The child isn’t welcome in the world? Only rich people should have kids? All “good” people make the right choices (by other people’s standards) all the time?
Who the hell are you to decide what the right choice was for them was? Oh, right, you guys think only rich people are able to make rational choices because - they’re rich!
If the Wilkersons are like any rational people - and nothing outside of the Right’s vomiting says otherwise - they make choices based on what’s in front of them. If a job is “unmanageable” are you going to decide - based on no information at all - what the right choice was? Perhaps the new job means she’s better able to care for her kid - and after all she WAS able to get health insurance which is the whole freaking point.
It really boils down to, who cares about the kid? It’s clear where you stand.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmMaybe we should start evaluating every politician’s “need” for govt paid healthcare eh? How poor do they have to be to qualify? Oh right, the sky’s the limit for them. Yeah, that makes sense.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmerock
we should let their child die becacuse they weren’t as fiscally responsible as possible.
Well, at least they’d learn the lesson for the next one. But the argument here is about expanding the program, not shutting it down. The program that already did what it was supposed to, so your argument is false before it even got started.
I’d be surprised if this turn of events actually happened as the National Review claims anyway.
The National Review is always correct. Always, 100%.
republicans hate facts
October 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pmSo squish, she’s now suddenly pregnant, should she get an abortion because she doesn’t have healthcare? How does that figure into your pro-life extremism?
I’m only personally pro-life, if I’m not involved I don’t care what they do. So if she wanted to get an abortion, I’d have no issue with it.
yeah, just keep on smearing the children right up until the ‘08 elections… may these comments haunt your party now and forever…
October 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmOh, and since they’re right-wngers, the ONLY way the poor can choose not to have children is to not have sex. Ever. With anyone.
-Comment by ralph the wonder llam
Agreed. And Conservaturds can have sex with anyone. But it’s poor sex.
‘
October 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmNo. By my expectations, if you want to have kids, don’t do something like quit a job that has health care, that you can use for your family, with out first getting another job that has health care. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
So you believe people shouldn’t quit any job with healthcare, just because years down the road they might have kids? Who’s going to work the jobs without the healthcare, and should they never have kids? Wow, you’re such an extremist elitist - we can all see your attraction to the party of greed and classism!
Because stupid people will place themselves in positions where they, or their families, need it? Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Your parents obviously did, what’s your point? That because someone makes a decision you consider poor, their children should have to pay the price? Why don’t you just go Jonathan Swift on them, and sell the kids by the pound in the meat market like a good little fascist?
She was working 1 job and getting by. Then she quit it.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
And as she already stated, that job was unbearable. You believe people should work unbearable jobs? That they don’t have a right to seek employment elsewhere?
You really are a completely selfish obscene extremist!
Jesus gave out healthcare to all, what do you give out? Vile hatred for anyone that makes a choice you don’t like! f’you!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmDRxJ
What is wrong with them is simple. They are evil. It is the only answer left, that they are what we would term evil.
Look at squeegee there, arguing that they deserved to watch their child die because she left a horrible job four years prior to the child even being born, and thus lost out on its excellent healthcare.
This is evil.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pmyeah, just keep on smearing the children right up until the ‘08 elections… may these comments haunt your party now and forever…
Comment by Pete Bogs — October 16, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
The concern for children the wingnuts bloviate about, stops in the womb! They’re just uncaring, unfeeling, hateful, selfish hypocrites!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pmThe Republicans are absolutely correct. You must be totally responsible for whatever happens to you. Those who are incapable of earning a sufficient living to cover all medical costs (or insurance to guarantee no costs beyond their means) must die if they become sick. It was their choice not to succeed. Those who are physically disabled or lack sufficient intelligence to secure sufficient income or wealth ought to die.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pmComment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
I’ll just assume (and pray) that you’re joking about the National Review.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pmWhat happened to personal responsibility? Aren’t we supposed to plan for our families so that we can properly nurture and support our own children? Supporting children is not limited to food, clothing and shelter. This includes providing a safe environment, health care and education. Why is it hard for liberals to understand that the choices we make have consequences? It seems that the liberals’ ultimate argument is “So I screwed up. So now it’s my neighbors’ responsibility to support me and my children. “. I wonder if there is anything in the constitution to back this up.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pmCome to think of it Ralph, I’d rather have sex with a Llama than L. Craig.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pmLook at squeegee there, arguing that they deserved to watch their child die because she left a horrible job four years prior to the child even being born, and thus lost out on its excellent healthcare.
This is evil.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 16, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Yes it is! The GOP is evil, thank goodness most Americans have finally come to realize this!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pmThe Reublicans today are not fiscally responsible and they should clean up their corruption before even thinking of looking over the fence.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pmstefan
what are you suggesting? They deserve poverty for not being able to afford health care?
They were able to afford health care, the mother HAD health care. She then quit her job, with health care, for one with out health care.
Perhaps the new job means she’s better able to care for her kid
Clearly not. Seeing how as she went from being capable of caring for a child, to needing state support to care for her child.
she WAS able to get health insurance which is the whole freaking point.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pmYes, state supported healthcare, that is payed for with other peoples tax money, as opposed to her own health care, that she used to have, that she payed for herself.
The program that already did what it was supposed to, so your argument is false before it even got started.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
I think the premise of the ad & many responses is that the program is successful (as evidenced by this family) so it should be expanded. It makes more sense to me then the govt’s take on the Iraq war being so successful it should be “surged”. And the cost of this program are minuscule compared to the Iraq war while the benefits are huge. To ignore that is akin to saying that the cost of the war is to be borne on the backs of children. Which, funnily enough, is what’s really happening as the debt grows higher & higher & will be passed on to your children/grandchildren. So maybe a veto of this program is consistent with the Republican mantra of spend now, pass on the debts to the kids.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:00 pmHow can that become the R’s talking point without her being implicated in massive hypocrisy?
Newt Gringich
David Vitter
Larry Craig
Rush Limbaugh
Those are just off the top of my head. It’s the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ party.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:00 pmIt seems that the liberals’ ultimate argument is “So I screwed up. So now it’s my neighbors’ responsibility to support me and my children. “. I wonder if there is anything in the constitution to back this up.
Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
So you believe because the parents made choices you feel are bad, the child should have just been allowed to die as a lesson to them?
Wow, you are an evil, vile person!
There’s also such a thing as ’societal/community’ responsibility, which is just as important as individual responsibility! It’s what separates us (well some of us) from animals!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:00 pmFor 6 years and counting the Christian Religious Family Values have put themselves above others. Bush’s base are those Republicans who go to church and those hired must be Republicans, Christians and follow the Pastors orders of Family Values.
What happen? When the Brain left so did Religion. Are the base now in church praying to who? The GOP Law Makers are freely attacking kids so even trying to have sex with them. Vitter gives the church 100,000 of taxpayers money and he’s forgiven and continues to hire prostitutes. What’s going on here. Republicans attacking children and saying children should never have been born. Is the Supreme Court listening to their party as they continue to fight to keep woman’s rights and abortions in law. Will the Republican Christian Family Values base now say what child can live and who will have to die? Please tell me what is going on in America because it wasn’t this way 7 years ago. Has Satan been sitting in the White House because this really sounds like his work.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pmRightOfAttila
We do have a duty to look after our children.
And this is something you do not understand because as a rightwinger, you do not understand true responsibility, you only understand self-righteousness.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pmIf you are a poor working class couple who doesn’t meet economic guidelines established by Stalkin’ Malkin and her allies you must
1. Practice abstinence
and if you screw that up
2. Surrender any children to adoption
This is your penance for being poor.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pmWhat happened to personal responsibility? Aren’t we supposed to plan for our families so that we can properly nurture and support our own children? Supporting children is not limited to food, clothing and shelter. This includes providing a safe environment, health care and education.
Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Personal responsibility? You mean like going to jail for illegal drugs (Rush), didn’t happen. Or facing the responsibility for being gay (Craig), didn’t happen. Or going to jail for having sex with minors (Foley), didn’t happen. Should I continue?
The wingnut hypocrisy is the same old tired rant! Do as I say, not as I do! Ignore my failure to honor personal responsibility, you poor people though must do that or we’ll let you die!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pmWe do have a duty to look after our children.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 16, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Um, no. While the Republicans are a religious type of folk, and believe that God loves the children, they assume that does not include the children of Arab descent, non-Americans or Democrats. God’s love for people is like GWB’s loyalty to people… they are both only concerned with their base. So this kid can die rather then get govt healthcare. There’s not enough money to pay for the politicians’ healthcare and that of kids. Get real eh?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWhat happened to personal responsibility? -ROA
I think George callls it an emergency expenditure
October 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pmPersonal responsibility? You mean like going to jail for illegal drugs (Rush), didn’t happen. Or facing the responsibility for being gay (Craig), didn’t happen. Or going to jail for having sex with minors (Foley), didn’t happen. Should I continue?
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 16, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
How could you leave out the poster boy for personal responsibility, Scooter Libby?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:05 pmSo Squegeeboo, let’s for the moment assume I agree with you. The Wilkerson’s are dunderheads for having a child without having proper health insurance. Just like every other person in this country who has a child without a great-paying job with health benefits, a home with a manageable mortgage and at least 20Gs in F.U. money to get them through the lean times (layoffs, home repairs, televangelism donations, what have you). If you can’t afford a child, you shouldn’t have a child, no ifs and or buts about it.
Let’s assume, for the moment, I agree with that.
Why should those children suffer any more than they have to?
After all, it’s bad enough they have dunderheads as parents. They’re born with 2 strikes agianst them. They’ll spend their formative years being raised by morons who will have to consult a manual before they can teach their child how to tie a shoelace or wash a dish. Do we really want to saddle the most disadvantaged in our society with no means of health insurance, too?
And imagine if a child like that were in an accident? The dopey parents will probably try to heal broken bones with band aids and a shot of whiskey. Skull fractures will be handled with a new hat! Won’t someone PUH-LEEZE think of the children?
I dunno, doesn’t sound particularly Christian to me, especially if anyone out there considers him or herself to be pro-life.
So if you ARE pro-life, kindly STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
And if you’re NOT pro-life, kindly STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm54: Maybe you can ask ex-Rep. Foley, Sen. Craig, Ted Haggard and all the other Grand Old Perverts about “personal responsibility”.
P.S. Strawman cleanup to Aisle 54.
P.P.S. The choice your parents made in having you, shows a complete lack of understanding the consequences.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pmI actually like this debate. Here we have Republicans wanting to punish children for the perceived sins of their parents. That sin, of course, being poor or lower middle class. Go for it, pubbies. You won’t see the White House or control of Congress for another generation, at least.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pmWhy can’t someone just make an ad which says:
“The opponents of SCHIP think that your children only deserve health care if you have a job which pays it for you. If you are self-employed, if you are an entepreneur, if you have been laid-off, then you deserve nothing — even if you have paid taxes for you entire adult life.”
Everyone here has the argument down fairly well. So why can’t this be put to SCHIP opponents directly?
The fact is that health care is incredibly expensive without a subsidy (either from your employer or the government). Why? Because health care is now a for-profit industry of massive proportions. So, for those who advocate personal responsibility: It sounds great in theory, but only if the system is fair. What will you say if you are laid-off and then you child has an accident which requires a $100,000 procedure?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pmrepublicans hate facts
Jesus gave out healthcare to all
Jesus could also cure people with just a touch.
Who’s going to work the jobs without the healthcare, and should they never have kids?
People starting out in the working world take jobs with out healthcare, then you work your way up. You don’t go back down.
You believe people should work unbearable jobs? That they don’t have a right to seek employment elsewhere?
Until you find a better job, yes, you should work in your job, unbearable or not. She can seek employment elsewhere, but she took a step down.
You really are a completely selfish obscene extremist!
Because I expect people to make smart, rational decisions instead of relying on the gov’t to bail them out when their poor choices come back to haunt them? How is that selfish?
That because someone makes a decision you consider poor, their children should have to pay the price?
Losing your health care coverage is a choice everyone should consider poor.
sell the kids by the pound in the meat market like a good little fascist?
Well that depends, whats the current going price? Are they good stock, or too stringy?
erock
October 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pmI’ll just assume (and pray) that you’re joking about the National Review.
I read the National Review and a book of the Bible every night, it’s how I get all my news. (so, yes, I was joking)
It seems that the liberals’ ultimate argument is “So I screwed up. So now it’s my neighbors’ responsibility to support me and my children. “. I wonder if there is anything in the constitution to back this up.
Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
maybe not in the constitution, but I believe this book Christians profess to love so much called “The Bible” might have something in there about helping those who are less fortunate, like some character named “Jesus” did. Dunno, Could be a typo.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pmif only bethany were a teeny, tiny, little embryo…
October 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pmYou know, I’m getting the sense that, to people like RightofAttila, Malkin and the NRO crowd, ANYONE who has been helped by SCHIP is slime and deserves to be spat on and left by the side of the road.
Doesn’t it seem that way sometimes?
I mean, really, who could possibly serve as a good example of the usefulness of SCHIP? Any of the righties here wanna take a crack at that?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pmBy the logic used by Right of Atilla and Squegeeboo, there should be no police force or justice system.
For example I can hear them saying- “You walked down a dangerous street at night and got robbed? Or raped? Guess you learned your lesson. Don’t ask the rest of us to pay for cops and judges and jails to protect your sorry butt. You made a stupid decision. ”
The best thing I can hope for is these selfish cowards keep saying this stuff in public. They’re fundamentally anti-social and it shows.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:10 pmmaybe not in the constitution, but I believe this book Christians profess to love so much called “The Bible†might have something in there about helping those who are less fortunate, like some character named “Jesus†did. Dunno, Could be a typo.
Comment by slappy magoo — October 16, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
sorry slappy. conservatives only use the bible as a hate reference. love, charity and brotherhood are all purged with white out.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pmDoes this witch Michelle Malkin have paid Health Insurance? Maybe she shouldn’t get it paid by her employeer, after all she makes enough to shop for her own. And maybe she has a pre-existing condition that no Insurance for Profit Company would touch, then I guess then she should just go crawl in a cave and die. Do Politicians deserve Health Insurance that WE PAY FOR, no I believe that they make enough to go get their own, and if they have ill health and can’t get any, well TOO BAD, go crawl in that cave and DIE.
The Repukian Talking Points make NO Sense what so ever, what hateful pricks they are.
Buck Fush
October 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pmDave C
October 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pmIt makes more sense to me then the govt’s take on the Iraq war being so successful it should be “surged†And the cost of this program are minuscule compared to the Iraq war while the benefits are huge.
Well, that is something I’m gonna have to go ahead and agree with you on.
Can someone tell me where all this good-paying jobs with health care benefits are? Any of you righties?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pmBullsmith,
I shudder to think how they feel about public libraries “can’t buy a book? Don’t bother learning how to read, and you won’t know what you’re missing.
Social Security? Don’t get old!
State Highways? Where are you going? You’re POOR!
But they love America.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pmAt this point, finding more smearproof cases to out-smear the smearers is wasting time. Getting to the root of the argument, such as countering the GOP claims of a problem with the long-term funding of SCHIP, should be the agenda.
What’s happening now is a tit-for-tat tennis match between the supporters and detractors of the bill. Those smearing the personal stories presented by SCHIP advocates are actually just countering the Democratic agenda. If you asked Mitch McConnell or Michelle Malkin whether they care if the funding passes, they probably dont. They see every effort to interfere with legislation as a battle, and every successful standoff a victory.
Sadly, I don’t think intelligent people on this site have the capacity to recognize it as such. Sending more pathetic examples of SCHIP beneficiaries doesn’t counter the arguments posed by those actually voting for the bill. Remember, conservatism is about fiscal accountability. Their dispute of the current legislation, though likely rooted in lobbyist back scratching, is rooted in the tax allocation to fund the expanded coverage.
Why not prove or disprove their argument? Why not try to solve the actual problem? More sick kids isn’t going to make a tax increase any more attractive. I expect more from the progressive movement’s greatest minds.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:15 pmComment by Bullsmith — October 16, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Actually the ultimate responsibility like policework (and the military) they leave up to their govt. They don’t mind skipping that responsibility as evidenced by the number of Republican able bodied men/women that cheer on the troops from they LazyBoys.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:15 pmwow - they’re really afraid of health care for families and children.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:15 pmDara Wilkerson should have had an abortion! If you can’t afford the kid, then don’t have it. Either that or get yourself some wingnut welfare from Faux and Murdick.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:15 pmComment by Squegeeboo
People who are as hateful as you seem to be are obviously very lonely and unloved.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:17 pmRemoveBush
Insurance = SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
No, because socialized medicine doesn’t allow you to opt out. Current insurance is more like gambling. You can choose to not participate and play the odds that any injuries you get will be minor enough that you’ll come out ahead. Or you can play the odds that any medical needs you end up with will be larger then you can afford so your insurance pool will cover it.
Someone should not be FORCED to work at a job they may not be happy with just because it offers health insurance!
Well with that logic, someone should not be FORCED to work at all. I’d personally be much happier spending my days at home, playing video games. But if I did that, and everyone else who wanted to did that who would pay the gov’t to support me.
In one breath you scream that if they wanted to work they could find a job. When they do, you scream that they should have found a better job.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pmShe had a better job, that she couldn’t cope with, so she quit it and went to a worse job. (at least in terms of monetary reward/benefits) This argument isn’t valid in this thread. Not only was she employed, she voluntarily reduced her level of employment (at least in terms of monetary reward/benefits)
Guess what Malkin.. some jobs are Unmanageable. Kinda like the one you just quit because you couldn’t manage it. What a jerk
October 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pmAPEC not OPEC
People who are as hateful as you seem to be are obviously very lonely and unloved.
When did a belief in personal responsibility and an over usage of sarcasm make a person hateful?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pmCandyce
The sad truth is, that poor people tend to vote against their own interests. The Blue states are wealthier, and actually contribute more in tax dollars then the red states.
Indeed, of the ten states which get the most out of the federal government, seven of them are Red. If you take the 2004 results, all of them were Red.
Of the states which actually contribute to America, only three or four out of the seventeen are red. The rest are deep blue.
And yet, the blue states are the ones which stand up for the little guy, and the red states, the poorer states of America, the tax burden of America, are the ones which vote Republican.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:21 pmIt pisses me off to have foot the bill for McConnell’s socialized government health program.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:22 pmShe had a better job, that she couldn’t cope with, so she quit it and went to a worse job. (at least in terms of monetary reward/benefits) This argument isn’t valid in this thread. Not only was she employed, she voluntarily reduced her level of employment (at least in terms of monetary reward/benefits)
Comment by Squegeeboo
Sounds like you may be stuck in an unmanageable job. Life is to short for that. Jobs usually arn’t unmanageable, the people are.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pmWhen did a belief in personal responsibility and an over usage of sarcasm make a person hateful?
Comment by Squegeeboo
just now
October 16th, 2007 at 3:24 pmHow many of you think we ought to cut off McConnell’s 100% socilaized gov’t health program?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pmAPEC not OPEC
just now
Darn, must have missed that memo.
Sounds like you may be stuck in an unmanageable job
October 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pmMaybe, but I’m happy with it most of the time. Thanks for your concern though.
Aren’t they just so amazing in their temerity?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pmCheapskate toe-tapping repubs would rather let a two year old die than pay for her doctor.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pmMemo to rightwing noise machine: knock yourselves out, idiots. It only emphasizes how out of step with America the GOP is, and exposes the rightwing noise machine as vicious, small-minded, thugs.
Oh, and say good-bye to electoral victories in 2008, dumbasses:
“A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.â€
“Eighty-four percent of those polled said they supported expanding the current [CHIP] program […] Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the health insurance issue […] 62 percent said the Democrats were more likely to improve the health care system.â€
http://query.nytimes.com/ gst/ fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9e06e7d71631f931a35750c0a9619c8b63
October 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pmSick, sick, sick. Let’s beat up babies now, shall we, reichers?
Poor little kid had the colossal NERVE to actually BE BORN!!! And her mother actually DARED to quit a horrible job - how *could* she!! Whatever made her think that she had the right to quit her job???
What cheek! What a couple of uppity poor people — to *think* they should be allowed to have …CHILDREN!!
The peasants are revolting!!!
/sarc off
October 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pmSqueege, you are one feisty fellow, today!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pm“No, because socialized medicine doesn’t allow you to opt out. Current insurance is more like gambling. You can choose to not participate and play the odds that any injuries you get will be minor enough that you’ll come out ahead. Or you can play the odds that any medical needs you end up with will be larger then you can afford so your insurance pool will cover it.”
To complete the analogy, The Casino would have to eat every huge bet that didn’t pay off.
Hospital Emergency Rooms are required to treat individuals in need of urgent medical services regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. If they have no insurance/can’t pay the hospital has to eat the cost.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pmSqueegeeboo
What you are arguing in favour of is removing the free market aspect of the labour market, by giving places with decent health insurance an unfair edge over smaller operations.
What the leftwing proposes with socialised healthcare (And I do not shy from the term because historically it is one of the few socialist states actually did okay on,) ironically would have the effect of liberalising the job market - by allowing smaller employees to get and retain better staff through superior working conditions to the larger employees, even if they can’t provide superior pay.
Or is a free market only a good thing when it benefits the rich?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pmSqueege, you are one feisty fellow, today!
Comment by Wilco
Squeege is a man?? Never would have guessed.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pmRemoveBush
The point was that you are making it out like what she paid into insurance was what was going to cover these medical costs. They do not.
Weird, I thought the point I was making was that she used to have health insurance, but she no longer did, due to her choice to quit that job. Which is a poor choice of actions.
So the HEALTHY IS PAYING for the SICK, just like in your “evil†socialized health care.
The healthy people who are all opting to pay for health care. As opposed to the tax payers who are told they WILL pay. That, once again, is the difference you seem to be glossing over.
So by that, if I have a boss who is forcing me to do things that I feel are wrong and make me feel uncomfortable then I just have to “suck it up�????
October 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pmNope, I believe the proper American course of action in that case is to sue the **** out of the jerks.
But you seem to be comparing someone quitting a job(s) for a worse job(monetarily/benefits again), or deciding not to work, because they don’t like their job(s), to a job where an illegal activity is happening which makes a person not like their job. I believe that would be an apple and oranges comparison.
Perhaps it was not a job that she felt like getting up everyday to go to work for?
I think thats why they call them jobs instead of hobbies, not everyone gets to have a job they love, at least in the short term.
A person has to feel good about going to their job, othewise, as I stated, they don’t do their jobs properly.
So, once again, if there are no jobs you feel good about, the gov’t should just support you? Where is the incentive to work?
The Wilkerson family didn’t offend the GOP by favoring SCHIP: many GOP citizens and members of Congress favor SCHIP; for God’s sake, Chuck Grassley is no lefty! It is the White House than stands in the way of SCHIP, and the Wilkerson family’s true offense was embarassing George W. Bush, an unforgivable crime according to the Cult of Bush, and that is why they are being publicy pilloried.
It is very stupid for the the Bush Cultists to demonize universal health care when its favored by 60-70% majority. Watching the GOP noise machine attack CHIP is like watching a zombie walk into a buzz saw.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pmSqueege is a man?? Never would have guessed.
Comment by APEC not OPEC
I do believe so. But that may be based mostly on the fact he’s a Evil Dead/Army of Darkness fan. I’ve only met one woman who is.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:40 pmComment by Squegeepoo
And here I thought Guiliani had gotten rid of all the squeegee men…
October 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pmI do believe so. But that may be based mostly on the fact he’s a Evil Dead/Army of Darkness fan. I’ve only met one woman who is.
Comment by Wilco
Ha! My mind drew a picture of a fat women ragging on all her co-workers in the company lunch room.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pmAnd here I thought Guiliani had gotten rid of all the squeegee men…
Comment by lefty
ROTHLMAO
October 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pmWilco
Squeege, you are one feisty fellow, today!
Thanks, at least I’m being good in this thread.
criticalthinker
I would rather die, than have to have a mind which cannot grasp what makes us act as caring humans and not as uncaring animals!
Ah, but if you didn’t have that mind, you wouldn’t mind, so you would live happily. Sort of like a person with out a conscience not realizing they are doing wrong.
Bruce Gorton
What you are arguing in favour of is removing the free market aspect of the labour market, by giving places with decent health insurance an unfair edge over smaller operations.
I can see how my argument sounds that way, so allow me to expand on that using a simplified example: If you have one job, paying 40k a year, with health care, and you quit that for a job paying 40k a year, with out health care, I feel that is a poor decision. If you were to quit it for one paying 45k a year with out health care, and could then get your own healthcare for 3k a year, that would be a good decision, because you are up 2k a year.
allowing smaller employees to get and retain better staff through superior working conditions to the larger employees
That could happen, or, you could see a large enough hit in tax increases to hurt smaller businesses. This could happen because currently most larger companies offer healthcare, so most of the tax increase for those businesses (or employees depending on exact implementation) would be absorbed by the business (or employee) no longer paying into health care. Meanwhile, smaller businesses would now have to chip in towards that health care, which might have an effect on pay level for their employees.
Also, I tend to have an issue with lazy people milking the system.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pmOr is a free market only a good thing when it benefits the rich?
No, it is also good when it benefits me.
Why are so many even discussing the mother leaving a job that offered healthcare insurance for another that didn’t?
How is this relevant?
Do you all have any idea how many employers there are that don’t even offer any type of healthcare insurance? Do you realize that costs are climbing so fast that many more employers are being forced into dropping it?
Not all of us can work at unionized GM.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pmBy the way…… Someone should not be FORCED to work at a job they may not be happy with just because it offers health insurance! They should at least enjoy their job, or they may not do their best in that job…….
I once worked for a company where everyone hated their job. The only reason why most of them were there was for the health insurance. Quite a few of my co-workers were alcoholics and many had health issues related to the stress of their jobs. If they could have found a comparable or better job, almost everyone in that company would have done so. So our Right Wing Loon Squeeze thinks that all those people should have to stay in that job, and suffer the consequences of working in a job they hate, in order to be able to qualify for having children. Now with parents in miserable jobs they hate, how happy do you think that child will be?
And you will notice that our resident Loon never answered the question about what would he have had her do, have an abortion. For all we know, this child was not planned. Birth control is NOT foolproof. So Squeeze, if a poor or working poor mother finds herself pregnant, would you rather she have an abortion or take her chances that her child will be born healthy and not need medical care?
My bet’s on Loon Squeeze not answering that question.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pmAPEC not OPEC
Ha! My mind drew a picture of a fat women ragging on all her co-workers in the company lunch room.
I hate you so much right now.
Not actually, that’s a pretty funny mental image, but Wilco is correct, I’m a guy.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pmComment by APEC not OPEC —
I think he’s one of the more reasoned posters here. It’s just sometimes his positions are a little right of center, so he gets villified.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pmAnother day another nail for the GOP. The nimrods are coming out in droves like roaches.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pmPossibly male.
But definitely NOT a man.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:48 pmI hate you so much right now.
Not actually, that’s a pretty funny mental image, but Wilco is correct, I’m a guy.
Comment by Squeg
Sorry, that was mean. Although I must admit, I do have a problem with big fat women. Don’t know why, just do.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI just wanna point out again what a great job Pelosi and Reid are doing gob-smacking the White House on health care. It’s an issue most Americans care deeply about, and GOP members of Congress, if they want to keep their jobs, are gonna have to split with the White House on this. That’s a first, and it bodes well for the Dems’ effort to reign in Bush’s Iraq fiasco.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pmSquegee doesn’t realize it, but s/he’s making a de-facto argument for universal health care.
Squegee insists that this woman leaving a job that provided health care was a poor choice. Squegee has no other facts to support this conclusion, but proposes that since the woman left he health care, it was a bad choice.
If not having health care is always a bad choice, then why not make sure all workers (ie taxpayers) must have insurance?
Actually it’s far less logical or humane, but what Squegee is arguing is that people have the freedom to make bad choices and if they do we, as a society, should punish them and their sick children, because Squegee believes “personal responsibility” should be applied to two year olds.
And Squegee’s telling others how to be a good parent?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pmbilbobaggins
My bet’s on Loon Squeeze not answering that question.
I did answer that question, here it is again:
October 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pmNow with parents in miserable jobs they hate, how happy do you think that child will be?
Business is business, and personal life is personal life. If you hate your job, you leave it when you leave work. Just like if you love your job. You leave it when you leave work. It should have no bearing on your children.
Under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, it enumerates the powers of congress. This section contains:
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So that’s why we have the police, military, and national guards. In the meantime, I’m still waiting for you liberals to show me where in the US constitution is says that every person is a ward of the state and it is the goverment’s responsibility to provide citizens with everything they want and need inlcuding universal health care.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:53 pmSquegeeboo
Taxes are based on profit, are percentage based and progressive besides. If you, like most small businesses in their early phases, aren’t making a profit it shouldn’t effect you at all, or you are making a small profit, the higher taxes shouldn’t hit you too hard anyway.
The larger companies benefit because the taxes for them, would still be lower then if they paid for health insurance and the smaller companies benefit by having access to means of getting better employees (As I said, via better working conditions. There is more to life then money, after all.)
October 16th, 2007 at 3:53 pmCheapskate toe-tapping repubs would rather let a two year old die than pay for her doctor.
Comment by gunsnbibles
And a point they are missing is that if this family didn’t have SCHIP, their doctor would not have been paid in the long run. This is another example of a family, if they had “good” health insurance, who probably would have ended up in bankruptcy anyway. There really are no “good” health insurance companies (other than probably the health insurance our representatives get) who come close to paying all the bills on a major illness like this child had. Her doctor and hospital bills were probably close to a million dollars. If the family had private health insurance and they couldn’t pay the co-pays and the parts of treatment the health insurance company refused to cover, they would have been forced into bankruptcy and the doctors and hospitals would have been stiffed in the end. Apparently this doesn’t bother the Right Wing Loons.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:53 pmThey should try to get Bethany on Bill Orally’s show so he can scream at a 2-year old for being “far left”, “vicous” and “despicable”.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pmIn the meantime, I’m still waiting for you liberals to show me where in the US constitution is says that every person is a ward of the state and it is the goverment’s responsibility to provide citizens with everything they want and need inlcuding universal health care.
Umm… so? Another diversionary argument. Who ever said it was a Constitutional right, screech-monkey? I said two out of three Americans favor universal health care. Deal with it. We already have functioning government mandated and funded health care members of Congress, for veterans, for the poor and the elderly, so all the screeching about “socialistic†medicine is just noise that serves only interests of the for-profit health insurance business.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pmSo that’s why we have the police, military, and national guards. In the meantime, I’m still waiting for you liberals to show me where in the US constitution is says that every person is a ward of the state and it is the goverment’s responsibility to provide citizens with everything they want and need inlcuding universal health care.
Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Well, we can’t help it if you have poor reading comprehension! I already answered this question for you - little girl! First we aren’t talking about being a ward of the state - that’s a rhetorical conflation device used by those incapable of honest debate on the issue. As for the right of the government to provide universal healthcare insurance, that right is the same right they have for providing universal retirement insurance (social security). It was addressed by the supreme court decades ago.
look it up little girl, and stop whining. It makes you look like a selfish spoiled little brat.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm“For Dara and Brian Wilkerson, the fact that they don’t have health insurance is less about falling through the cracks than the decisions they’ve made.”
Serves them right for choosing to be poor in an America during the Bush administration.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pmBruce Gorton
Interesting, but I see a few flaws:
October 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pmTaxes are based on profit, are percentage based and progressive besides.
What about larger companies like the American Auto makers? If I recall correctly they are one of the largest employment sectors in the US, but have no profits, so they pay nothing?
The larger companies benefit because the taxes for them, would still be lower then if they paid for health insurance
If smaller companies are paying nothing, or nearly nothing, and their employees are now covered also, how are the larger companies paying less than they once did?
Business is business, and personal life is personal life. If you hate your job, you leave it when you leave work. Just like if you love your job. You leave it when you leave work. It should have no bearing on your children. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
You obviously have limited work experience! What a naive and stupid post.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pmI did answer that question, here it is again:
I’m only personally pro-life, if I’m not involved I don’t care what they do. So if she wanted to get an abortion, I’d have no issue with it.
Comment by Squegeeboo
Sorry, that didn’t answer my question. My question was what would YOU have her do, not what is your opinion about abortion.
I am asking you that if a woman finds out she is pregnant, even though it was not planned, do you think she should have to get an abortion rather than have the baby if she doesn’t have health insurance?
October 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pmI’m sure the irony here is lost on all the right-to-life crowd who want to force people to have all these children which they could not afford to raise and pay healthcare bills for. So they will “save” them as fetuses and leave them to die out in the cold if their parents are homeless or can’t afford insurance.
What a fcked up country we have here.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:00 pmStrawman cleanup to Aisle 125.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:00 pmRightOfAttila
1: The point to there even being a Congress, a Senate and a President elected by the people, is that they do the people’s will. I mean, this why you aren’t under a monarchy here after all.
And 2, its in the first paragraph of the document you twit:
The Constitution of the United States of America
October 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pmWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Arguing with those that have no sense of empathy is futile.
They’ll care only when they’ve become down-trodden themselves. And then, they’ll scream and puch their way to the front of the welfare line.
Happens all too often.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pmWhat about larger companies like the American Auto makers? If I recall correctly they are one of the largest employment sectors in the US, but have no profits, so they pay nothing? Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
They have no profits? Really? Are you sure?
stupid post.
The larger companies benefit because the taxes for them, would still be lower then if they paid for health insurance
If smaller companies are paying nothing, or nearly nothing, and their employees are now covered also, how are the larger companies paying less than they once did?
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Smaller companies pay the price of sick employees, lowered productivity and other costs. Also, your complaint reflects how the ‘market’ can’t solve this problem, as 50 million potential customers are being left without a product the ‘need’. That’s exactly why this insurance exists!
Thanks for proving the point, even though you did it unintentionally!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pmI’m only personally pro-life, if I’m not involved I don’t care what they do. So if she wanted to get an abortion, I’d have no issue with it.
Comment by Squegeeboo
That still doesn’t answer the question. Do you believe that parents SHOULD have an abortion if they don’t have health insurance? What if they can’t afford the abortion, what should they do?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pmSo the Wilkerson’s have a problem, not an uncommon problem either and by the Repugs way of thinking there options are limited. Can’t get pregnant because you go straight to Hell if you choose to say goodby to the zygote. Can’t use any kind of birth control, because preventing zygotes is as bad as passing them.
Straight sex then is too dangerous. What to do, what to do…?
That explains the Repugnicunt Toe-Tapping penchant. Anonymous sex in a bathroom stall with someone who can’t possible become pregnant is the answer. Come on Wilkerson’s get a clue here.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pmlook it up little girl, and stop whining. It makes you look like a selfish spoiled little brat.
Comment by republicans hate facts
Since this person (and squeeze) is a selfish brat, that’s the only way they can look. Our resident loons have an egocentric view of the world and that is that they are the center of the universe and everything revolves around them. They know what is right and that’s all there is to it. They sound a lot like the Moron in the Whitehouse.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm