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
311 Responses to “Right Wing Gleefully Smears Two Yr-Old SCHIP Recipient Bethany Wilkerson”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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 pmSquegeeboo
If they aren't making a profit, then pretty much. The owners might be paying taxes based on their income (Dividends, salaries etc...) but if the company isn't making a profit it doesn't pay tax.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pmAtilla
Where in the constitution does it say the government shall not in any case help provide medical help for the sick or wounded? Where is it prohibited? The Constitution doesn't specifically proscribe many things the government does, that doesn't make them unconsitutional.
And since you're busy hiding behind the constitution as if its some kind of excuse for not helping the sick, how do you feel about the 4th Amendment? It sets a very clear standard of probable cause for invading the privacy of Americans. Do you support that standard?
The right wing uses the Constitution the same way they use the bible these days- with a line-item-veto.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:04 pmWait, I think this could work out well. After the demographic implosion caused by tens of millions of uninsured couples going childless, we can more than make up any shortfall in the workforce with Mexican immigrants and refugees from Iraq. Of course, they'll all have low paying jobs without health insurance, so the cycle will start anew, but by then we can take in refugees from Iran. And after that China!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pmSince 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.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 16, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
There are two types that always drift to GOP extremism. The spoiled, and the abused (often the same person). Squish is definitely and truly of the 'spoiled' variety! She probably has never gotten her hands dirty in her life! How much you want to bet she's cheating her employer out of her salary right now?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pmSquishy probably doesn't know that 64% of the healthcare system is already government run! Poor little girl!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pmTo state the obvious: universal health care will inevitably arrive in America. It will occur when corporate interests who favor it (i.e., automakers, service industries) outweigh corporate interests that oppose it (i.e., insurance companies). It’s about saving America’s competetiveness in world markets, and eventually even the GOP will come around.
We already have functioning government mandated and funded health care members of Congress, for veterans, for the poor and the elderly, so all the squawking about “socialistic†medicine is just noise that serves only interests of the for-profit health insurance business.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pmSqueege, Squeege, Squeege...
Why do you believe healthcare should be provided for profit?
Do you realize that people who do not have access to health insurance/proper healthcare wind up becoming even bigger "drains" on society due to the fact that their health may prevent them working etc.?
Why would you want to have a nation that is divided into classes based on health?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:07 pmThe right wing loons (little squeegee included) also fail to realize that their taxes go up to help subsidize the emergency rooms that are treating all the non-insured, who use it as their family doctor.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:08 pmNot to mention the uninsured postpone going to the doctor, thus increasing the medical costs of something that could have been treated earlier, causing a further strain on our hospitals and raising taxes more.
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? Comment by Squegeeboo
Good point, and did you know, Loon, that the American automakers are starting to pressure the government for universal health care? They recognize that with the enormous amounts they have to pay for the health care of their employees, they can't be competitive with companies like Toyota.
Toyota opened a new plant a couple of years ago. Originally they wanted to open it in the USA, but they ended up opening it in Canada because they realized they couldn't be competitive if they had to pay the huge health care costs for their employees.
BTW, how did the cost of health care get so high? Back when Harry and Louise were warning us of the dire consequences of universal health care (be careful what you wish for, because they ended up in doing what they said would happen) the cost of health care premiums was half or less than it is now. And, the health care industry is bringing home record profits like our oil industries. So, they are covering less and paying less so that they can pay their stockholders and themselves more. That's how the cost has become so high and unobtainable by many.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pmSqueege! They're getting personal now!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pmThis really is fun to watch.
I thought Squeege was a man. Must be a "girly man".
October 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pmUmm… 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.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 16, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
What's that they said about the 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner? Not because you're in the majority it means you can get away with murder. That's why we have the Bill of Rights (which includes right to private property). And I bet you that even a greater percentage of Americans would like to have a free vacation home, free $100,000 /year living allowance, free pet insurance, govt. paid vacations, free lap dances, etc. But is it right to demand these things? If it is, what are you basing that claim on. You liberals suggested here that we conservatives allow govt. police and military expenditures but not universal health care. So I gave you you the reason why it is the goverment's role to provide police protection, military protection and the services of the judicial system. In the meantime, I still don't see an equal response from you with your claim for universal health care. Could it be that there's none?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pmThese right wing, Republican, fundamentalists never cease to amaze me. The depths they will sink to in order to make an argument where they have no factual argument to make is beyond pathetic. THEY are beyond PATHETIC. They are truly the lowest life forms on earth, and to call them sub-human would be a compliment. They are heartless, soulless talking heads with no shame. As a matter of fact, there really are no words strong enough to describe the level they have sunk too. It truly is PATHETIC!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pmhelena, uninsured generally don't go to their doctor, per se. Most of the time it's to the emergency room. Lots of doctors refuse to see uninsured patients because most uninsured patients don't pay their medical bills.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:13 pmHospitals, however, have to see any patient that walks in. They are legally bound to stabilize the condition. Not a doctor's office.
criticalthinker
Thanks for pointing out that you do not have a CONSCIENCE, because now it is easy to see why you post the “illogical†things that you do.
Hey, anytime, just trying to help you understand my decision making process.
republicans hate facts
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?
Well first, I think they should be practicing safe sex in such a way as to not put themselves into the position of deciding on an abortion or not. Secondly, unfortunately this is one of the cases where poor decisions puts proponents of personal responsibility in a corner, because from a theoretical view point, they should be forced to live with their decision, but from a moral stand point you can't force their poor decisions on their children.
So here is what I would do, I would let them make the decision to keep the child or not, and keep current levels of gov't support there, but slap all sorts of red tape around it. In the hopes that they will try their best to be in a better position for the next child, so they won't have to repeat the bureaucratic mess they have already gone thru, and that they will let their friends and family know how much trouble it was, so they will also try not to be in such a position.
I know it's a horrible position, but it's really the only one I can support. I just can't make myself OK with all sorts of gov't handouts, esp. when the woman has already made bad financial decisions to be where she is now.
Bruce Gorton
October 16th, 2007 at 4:13 pmIf they aren’t making a profit, then pretty much. The owners might be paying taxes based on their income (Dividends, salaries etc…) but if the company isn’t making a profit it doesn’t pay tax.
OK, so that means that already, one large sector of American industry is basically exempt from paying into the system, which places a larger burden on the rest of the people paying in, unless I'm missing something.
Here's another question for our black-hearted Loons. What would you do about the people in this country who can't get health insurance?
I'm over 50 and have a pre-existing condition from a work related accident years ago. When I was between jobs I applied for health insurance and was turned down by every private health insurance company I applied to.
So, should I just have to die because I couldn't find a health insurance company who would insure me? And how would that be my fault since you seem to think that anything bad that happens to people is always their own fault.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pmWhat’s that they said about the 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner? Not because you’re in the majority it means you can get away with murder. Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
BAHAHA, that's your excuse? Because you believe that we don't have a right to 'tax' the rich? Typical!
That’s why we have the Bill of Rights (which includes right to private property). Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
And the right to levee taxes!
And I bet you that even a greater percentage of Americans would like to have a free vacation home, free $100,000 /year living allowance, free pet insurance, govt. paid vacations, free lap dances, etc. Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Yet, you still can't distinguish what people need (food, water, shelter, healthcare, security), from what they want!!! Poor little loons!
But is it right to demand these things? Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Stupid strawman.
If it is, what are you basing that claim on. Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
If healthcare isn't a basic need, what are you basing that claim on?
You liberals suggested here that we conservatives allow govt. police and military expenditures but not universal health care. Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
That's right. Both are basic needs, and one could easily that health care is even more of a 'need' than the military!
So I gave you you the reason why it is the goverment’s role to provide police protection, military protection and the services of the judicial system. Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Yes, because it promotes the general 'security', just as healthcare supports the general 'welfare'.
In the meantime, I still don’t see an equal response from you with your claim for universal health care. Could it be that there’s none?
Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Sure you do, you just have a closed mind, big mouth, and are bent on ignoring 'facts' while posing strawmen. Typical crazy wingnuts...
October 16th, 2007 at 4:16 pmThe right wing loons (little squeegee included) also fail to realize that their taxes go up to help subsidize the emergency rooms that are treating all the non-insured, who use it as their family doctor.
Comment by helenahandbasket — October 16, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
And their family dentist. The Wife worked in the registry area of a local hospital over the summer, and you'd be amazed at the number of people who would come in with a toothache, see a doctor, and be given some Tylenol and sent home. When asked why they didn't go to the dentist, they said they didn't want to wait several days for an appointment.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:16 pm156: WrongofAttila: Where does the Constitution prohibit child labor? Or allow regulation of the securities markets? Or provide for federal inspection of our food? Or allow regulation of polluters?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pmMaybe you should get out of your home school and take a Constitutional Law course. Either that or move to Burma, where the junta would accept your views with open arms.
I gave you you the reason why it is the goverment’s role to provide police protection, military protection and the services of the judicial system [...] I still don’t see an equal response from you with your claim for universal health care.
Then I guess you missed Bruce Gorton's post at #137.
Your Constitutional argument is garbage. Show me where universal health care is banned according to the Constitution, or shut yer whiny mouth.
Pelosi and Reid sure are slapping the crap out of the White House on this iasue. What makes it pure gold is that for every anti-healthcare wingnut like yourself, there's a longtime GOP voter abandoning the Cult of Bush to vote Democratic in 2008. Cool.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:20 pmWell first, I think they should be practicing safe sex in such a way as to not put themselves into the position of deciding on an abortion or not. Secondly, unfortunately this is one of the cases where poor decisions puts proponents of personal responsibility in a corner, because from a theoretical view point, they should be forced to live with their decision, but from a moral stand point you can’t force their poor decisions on their children. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
So then you believe that parents should have an abortion if they're poor, and 'suffer those consequences'? Wow, you are a selfish little spoiled girl!
So here is what I would do, I would let them make the decision to keep the child or not, and keep current levels of gov’t support there, but slap all sorts of red tape around it. In the hopes that they will try their best to be in a better position for the next child, so they won’t have to repeat the bureaucratic mess they have already gone thru, and that they will let their friends and family know how much trouble it was, so they will also try not to be in such a position. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
So you want to 'punish' them, and maybe even deprive them of needed services in order to make them suffer for getting pregnant?
Wow, you're sick!
I know it’s a horrible position, but it’s really the only one I can support. I just can’t make myself OK with all sorts of gov’t handouts, esp. when the woman has already made bad financial decisions to be where she is now. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
So you believe that she and her children should be 'punished', because you disagree with her decision to keep a child? What a hypocrite!
Bruce Gorton
If they aren’t making a profit, then pretty much. The owners might be paying taxes based on their income (Dividends, salaries etc…) but if the company isn’t making a profit it doesn’t pay tax.
OK, so that means that already, one large sector of American industry is basically exempt from paying into the system, which places a larger burden on the rest of the people paying in, unless I’m missing something.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
What if the company is 'hiding' its profits, the way most companies do? Using loopholes, etc.? Companies earn billions of dollars that show up as profits on their shareholder sheets, yet show zero profit to the government in a legalized form of stealing.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p16s03-cogn.html
It's called tax-shelter loopholes!
You really are utterly ignorant of the real world, aren't you squishy?
Let me guess, immigrant parents? Vietnam? China?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:21 pmrepublicans hate facts
The spoiled, and the abused (often the same person). Squish is definitely and truly of the ’spoiled’ variety! She probably has never gotten her hands dirty in her life!
I love that having parents who have taught me to make the right decisions in life makes me 'spoiled'. It doesn't matter under what means I grew up, how many jobs I've worked, or anything else. Because I believe in personal responsibility, and am against gov't hand outs, I'm a GOP extremist.
How much you want to bet she’s cheating her employer out of her salary right now?
I have spent a bit to much time on TP today, just like some of you have.
helenahandbasket
fail to realize that their taxes go up to help subsidize the emergency rooms that are treating all the non-insured, who use it as their family doctor.
Nope, I'm aware of the drain uninsured place on the system, in regards to ER and preventive treatment, and have no solution to offer.
APEC not OPEC
October 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pmI thought Squeege was a man. Must be a “girly manâ€.
I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok...
RightOfAttila
It is their right to demand those things. As per Amendment 1. The thing is, the government doesn't work for free and it has the right to raise taxes to pay for those things should enough people vote for them.
Therefore people don't vote for those things because it would cost them more in taxes then they are willing to pay.
The difference with universal healthcare is that it is not more then the majority of Americans are willing to pay, it is in fact cheaper then the current option, which while the most expensive in the world, is ranked only slightly better then Cuba's healthcare.
Also, health insurance isn't an asset, its an expense. It therefore doesn't fall under the right to property because, well, it isn't property.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:23 pmSqueege, you're being accused of mandating abortion based on a statement you made to the exact opposite! Shame on you, Squeege. You're better than that. *Theoretically* better, I guess!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pmrepublicans hate facts
So then you believe that parents should have an abortion if they’re poor, and ’suffer those consequences’? Wow, you are a selfish little spoiled girl!
I have yet to say, even once, that they should have an abortion.
So you want to ‘punish’ them, and maybe even deprive them of needed services in order to make them suffer for getting pregnant?
I don't want to punish them, but you can't have a carrot without a stick, and sadly, sometimes the stick needs to be applied.
What if the company is ‘hiding’ its profits, the way most companies do? Using loopholes, etc.? Companies earn billions of dollars that show up as profits on their shareholder sheets, yet show zero profit to the government in a legalized form of stealing.
So you're against Bruce's version of how to pay for socialized health care? What's your proposal for it then?
Let me guess, immigrant parents? Vietnam? China?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pmNope.
Wilco
October 16th, 2007 at 4:27 pmSqueege, you’re being accused of mandating abortion based on a statement you made to the exact opposite! Shame on you, Squeege. You’re better than that. *Theoretically* better, I guess!
Sorry, I'll try and obfuscate more, maybe that will help clarify my position.
#156- You've already made a very clear argument for universal health care. It is the exact same reason as that for police protection, and military protection. It is to protect the health, and well being of Americans. As for your explanation of why we should have the protection of the judicial system, you show your complete ignorance of the Constitution. The judicial system is in place for the same reason as the Executive, and Congressional branches of government. They are ALL CONSTITUTIONALY MANDATED dumb ass! If only one of you right wing morons would pick up a copy of the Constitution, and actually read it! You do know how to read, don't you?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:27 pmI wonder if there is anything in the constitution to back this up.
Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
And I wonder if there's anything in the Constitution that requires hospitals to provide basic health care when a person comes in to the emergency room and does not have any way to pay for any service rendered? How many people die of heart attacks in your local emergency room each year because the hospital refuses to help them?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:30 pmSqueege,
October 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pmI appreciate your apology.
How does a squeegee poo, anyway?
168: Let me guess: You're about 19. You live in a small city, probably in Kentucky or Ohio. You make most of your income by playing the markets and/or buying and selling on ebay. You don't have children. You have no interesting life experiences.
How's that, so far?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pmSquegeeboo
That's the shape of it on the company level.
But, it isn't as bad as it looks, there is something you are missing, and that's the taxes being paid by the people the company pays. The company isn't paying any taxes, but its employees are. And if you have a sales tax (VAT in SA for example) there is probably something being paid over on a transaction level.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:33 pmWhat's amazing is how terribly wrong the Right is on this. The more it goes on the deeper the hole they dig for themselves. All logic, common sense, morality, decency, intelligence - it all goes out the window in their hateful, vile rush to condemn a two-year old girl. It couldn't be more stark, and yet we know they'll do it again at the next opportunity.
There are so many times we've gone around like this, but usually the Right makes up a bunch of baloney to get outraged at, and thinks they've scored points. This time the facts couldn't be more clear even to them and they are STILL behaving that way.
It can't really be about insurance, or choices made, or morals, or even right vs wrong. I think the previous posters are right - how DARE this little girl embarrass their side even if their side is vividly wrong; she - and those who would protect her - must be destroyed.
I honestly don't have words to describe how vile they are.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pmI have yet to say, even once, that they should have an abortion. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
So then you believe that if parents accidentally get pregnant, they should still be 'punished', and their children denied healthcare even when life threatening? Those are you only two options, little girl!
I don’t want to punish them, but you can’t have a carrot without a stick, and sadly, sometimes the stick needs to be applied. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
A 'stick' is punishment. Meaning you lied.
So you’re against Bruce’s version of how to pay for socialized health care? What’s your proposal for it then? Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Not at all, you just said that those companies don't have profits to tax, I pointed out you were wrong. They do. They're just hidden in tax shelters, brought to you by GOP corrupt politicians!
Let me guess, immigrant parents? Vietnam? China?
Nope.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Hmm... You have a decidedly Malkin attitude. It's the most obvious guess for how such a vile, twisted child could come to be.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pmhelenahandbasket
How’s that, so far?
Middle sized city roughly 1 million metro, farther east, older than 19 (but under 30), computer programmer, only market interests I have are what I've started putting into my 401k, and no kids.
So not a great guess, but not a bad guess either.
Wilco
October 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pmHow does a squeegee poo, anyway?
Very carefully.
Squeege, you’re being accused of mandating abortion based on a statement you made to the exact opposite! Shame on you, Squeege. You’re better than that. *Theoretically* better, I guess! -
Sorry, I’ll try and obfuscate more, maybe that will help clarify my position.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Your position is clear. You're cheap, and want people punished that do things you don't like. You believe corporations should be permitted to avoid paying taxes. That parents shouldn't have kids unless they're wealthy. That people should have abortions so their 'poor' bloodlines don't get passed on.
Yep, that's very third reich of you!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:36 pmI has not been stated anywhere that the Wilkerson's were financially unprepared for the birth of a child. What it does say is that when their child, Bethany, was born w/ a serious heart defect SCHIP was applied for and obtained by them. Not only did Bethany receive the care she needed to stay alive, but the Wilkerson's were spared the crushing dept. this care would have placed on them.
Squegeeboo you are a loathsome tool.
And, I would add that Bethany looks absolutely adorable.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pmI didn't think Squeege thought they shouldn't get healthcare, but that it shouldn't be really easy for them to get the government to pay for that health care.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:38 pmThere's plenty of free health care to be had at hospitals. If people only knew how to take advantage, that is.
Middle sized city roughly 1 million metro, farther east, older than 19 (but under 30), computer programmer, only market interests I have are what I’ve started putting into my 401k, and no kids. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
So you're a 20 something brat, that has a whitecollar degree, probably paid for by parents that spoiled you and left you no debt to speak of, and now have a job that lets him j@ck off at work, cheating your employer of the wages paid to you, yet who hates others that are working their butts off while you play? Yep, spoiled brat, just as I said.
So not a great guess, but not a bad guess either. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
So you're the white spoild child of middleclass family version of Malkin. Close enough. That explains everything. Let me guess, in Texas? Florida? Red state nowhere?
How does a squeegee poo, anyway?
Very carefully.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
And apparently all over hard working Americans and the poor! Heartless selfish people like you truly belong in the GOP!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pmApparently a
Bruce Gorton
And if you have a sales tax (VAT in SA for example) there is probably something being paid over on a transaction level.
Interesting, so whats your take on a national sales tax to replace the income tax?
republicans hate facts
So then you believe that if parents accidentally get pregnant, they should still be ‘punished’, and their children denied healthcare even when life threatening? Those are you only two options, little girl!
What now? I never said anything about denying healthcare, I even said they should be able to get what the state provides currently, just to make sure there is a beuracracy in place. When did it suddenly become just 2 options? I thought the right was the side that didn't understand gray.
Not at all, you just said that those companies don’t have profits to tax, I pointed out you were wrong.
They don't. They are claiming billions a year in losses. Most(if not all) companies use tax loopholes to help themselves, but even with those, some companies are still sinking ships. The majority of the American Auto Industry is an example of some of those sinking ships.
A ’stick’ is punishment. Meaning you lied.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pmNo. I'm aware a stick is punishment, and it may need to be applied. That does not mean I want it to be applied. You said 'want to punish', I don't want to punish anyone, but sometimes it's necessary.
Did you formerly post as republicans are the fear and smear party, or something really close?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pmTo attack a TWO YEAR OLD CHILD for ANY reason, net alone for having been born with a bad heart, only goes to show the morons making the attacks HAVE NO HEART!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pmHey - let's get Jesus out here and ask Him what He thinks of all this compassionate conservatism and "personal responsibility"!
I'm sure He'd agree that Bethany should have been left to die because her mother quit her job or didn't have an abortion because she had no health insurance.
Thou shalt not mess with profits!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pmrepublicans hate facts
probably paid for by parents that spoiled you and left you no debt to speak of
My college debt seems to disagree with you. If I remeber correctly it's something like 2x the average college debt.
yet who hates others that are working their butts off while you play?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:45 pmI don't hate others who are working their butts off. Why do you keep on trying to apply attributes to me that I haven't displayed?
Interesting, so whats your take on a national sales tax to replace the income tax? Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
It places an undue burden on the middleclass - that's also what the GAO and CBO both found. They don't fix the problem, they make it worse. The handful of eastern european countries that have gone with this model have seen a huge expansion of the wealth gap, and several are discussing replacing it with a progressive tax.
So then you believe that if parents accidentally get pregnant, they should still be ‘punished’, and their children denied healthcare even when life threatening? Those are you only two options, little girl! republicans hate facts
What now? I never said anything about denying healthcare, I even said they should be able to get what the state provides currently, just to make sure there is a beuracracy in place. When did it suddenly become just 2 options? I thought the right was the side that didn’t understand gray.
So then you finally disagree with Malkin and the GOP on this issue. Nice of you to finally admit you are wrong! Maybe there's hope for you - I know doubtful!
You believe there should be bureaucracy (if you can't spell a word, don't use it) in place to prevent them from getting necessary healthcare for a sick child? Wow, that's perverse!
They don’t. They are claiming billions a year in losses. Most(if not all) companies use tax loopholes to help themselves, but even with those, some companies are still sinking ships. The majority of the American Auto Industry is an example of some of those sinking ships. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
And GM says it's because we don't have universal healthcare! But for the years they were doing great (until Bush destroyed them with the Iraq war), they were in fact hiding billions in profits from taxes. Most people use tax shelters, but most people also pay lots of 'required' taxes on our wages - something companies don't do!
No. I’m aware a stick is punishment, and it may need to be applied. That does not mean I want it to be applied. You said ‘want to punish’, I don’t want to punish anyone, but sometimes it’s necessary.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
So you contradict yourself again! You said you don't want to punish people, then you say you do, which is it? Either you believe people should be punished for having kids, or for not having an abortion, or for having an abortion or for not having kids, which is it? Stop contradicting yourself - or continue if you want to continue to show how inconsistent and hypocritical the GOP values are! Your choice!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pmRemoveBush,
October 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pmtax payers, of course. I'm simply pointing out a fact. I'm not at all arguing it's at all better than SCHIP. We're barely discussing SCHIP at this point, to be honest.
I have no problem with SCHIP or expanding its funding. I do have a problem of mandating its additional funding without tying it to a funding solution.
SCHIP has its niche, from what I understand, and it does a great job.
And the program I'm referring to is the Health Care Assurance Program, it's based on annual income, and many hospitals will write off bills for people who make several times poverty level income. In return, the hospital gets increased funding from the government, though a fraction of what they write off.
But with SCHIP you tend to see a better doctor, get better treatment, etc.
My college debt seems to disagree with you. If I remeber correctly it’s something like 2x the average college debt. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Then you can thank the government for providing you, what you refuse to provide sick children! Or should we also make those student loans 'more bureaucratic' so you don't have to suckle off the tit of the government?
Hypocrite!
I don’t hate others who are working their butts off. Why do you keep on trying to apply attributes to me that I haven’t displayed?
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Sure you do! That's why you want to deny or discourage healthcare among those that need it! Hate (greed induced) is exactly your problem!
Ironically, you're setting with financial aid that wouldn't have been possible without the government! And here you are whining about people making choices you disagree with!
See, it's just as easy to say you should have never attended school if you didn't have the money to pay for it! It was irresponsible of you! Why would you do something that requires government handouts like that?
Hypocrites!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pmTell me squish, how much money have you cheated your employer out of today for the time you didn't work? You are such a hypocrite!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pmBush is going to kill the entire S-CHIP program, leaving poor Bethany to die in the streets?
Ummmm, no... If the program was continued as-is, Bethany would continue to receive health care through S-CHIP -- BECAUSE HER PARENTS QUALIFY!!!
The issue (and the reason for the veto) is that most people don't think the federal government should be paying for health care for those that can afford insurance policies already.
So, the Wilkersons aren't exactly a great example of how the GOP and Chimpy W. McBushitler are a bunch of "meaners".
The Dems need to find a Bethany who's 24 years old and whose parents make $75k combined.... but, I have a feeling that wouldn't sell that well, eh?
Better to get a poor, photogenic two year old with a tragic story that isn't a good example of what you're trying to do, but did I mention she's photogenic and has a tragic story?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:53 pmrepublicans hate facs
October 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pmBy calling Squeege a hypocrite in post 191, are you suggesting the government give medical debt loans?
So Squeegee, since you're under 30, you'll may still be alive when the g.o.p. finally regains the majority in the 2048 elections.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pmThe issue (and the reason for the veto) is that most people don’t think the federal government should be paying for health care for those that can afford insurance policies already. Comment by stwendeler — October 16, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
If they could readily afford it, wouldn't they already have it? Your conflation is irrational.
So, the Wilkersons aren’t exactly a great example of how the GOP and Chimpy W. McBushitler are a bunch of “meanersâ€. Comment by stwendeler — October 16, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
But you are!
The Dems need to find a Bethany who’s 24 years old and whose parents make $75k combined…. but, I have a feeling that wouldn’t sell that well, eh? Comment by stwendeler — October 16, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Really? Says you? Tell me, isn't a 24 year old an 'adult'? Why would you expect their parents to help them? What if the parents refuse? Your post is just completely stupid! Where do you get this 24 year old figure anyway? How much money is this 24 year old earning again?
Better to get a poor, photogenic two year old with a tragic story that isn’t a good example of what you’re trying to do, but did I mention she’s photogenic and has a tragic story?
Comment by stwendeler — October 16, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Yes, and she uses a government insurance that you wingnuts fought the passage of, and still don't believe should exist!
And lots of other people struggling to get insurance (there are FIFTY MILLION OF THEM) need help. Healthcare is a necessity, not a nice to have. Why do you wingnuts insist on pretending otherwise? It just shows how ill equipped to be human beings you truly are!
October 16th, 2007 at 4:57 pmAnd Squeegee, I guessed within 500 miles your location, within 5 years, your age and that you are single. I was only wrong about how you earn a living.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:59 pmI am right, however, that you have had no interesting life experiences.
By calling Squeege a hypocrite in post 191, are you suggesting the government give medical debt loans?
Comment by Wilco — October 16, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
The student loans (subsidized), along with grants, and subsidies to the universities are all forms of government aid. It's being hypocritical to be a recipient of one government aid program for something 'optional' like education, and compare that to government aid on a necessity like healthcare! Or did you miss that?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:59 pmSqueege, you said you are a lumberjack! You are a hypocrite!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pmrepublicans hate facts
So then you finally disagree with Malkin and the GOP on this issue. Nice of you to finally admit you are wrong! Maybe there’s hope for you - I know doubtful!
When did I admit I was wrong? Or are you saying wrong as in the GOP position on the issue, and attributing it to me?
Stop contradicting yourself
I do not think I have contradicted myself anywhere in this thread. You keep on making assumptions and guesses and applying party doctrine to my views, so that could be where you are getting the idea that I contradicted myself. Take my posts for what they are, and not as my subtle nuances on the GOP position, and maybe that will help.
And GM says it’s because we don’t have universal healthcare! But for the years they were doing great (until Bush destroyed them with the Iraq war)
Wow. Just wow. GM, and the other American Auto-makers have been doing poorly for a long time. Longer than just the Iraq war. While they have had some ups and downs, they have been in general decline since at least the 80s.
(if you can’t spell a word, don’t use it)
Oh lord, I spelled a word wrong. I'm sure if I look over your posts, I won't find any grammar or spelling mistakes at all. Do you really need to resort to such petty attacks?
So you contradict yourself again! You said you don’t want to punish people, then you say you do, which is it?
When I say want, this is the definition I am using:
Want - To desire greatly; wish for:
When I say need, in this context, this is the definition I am using:
Need - Necessity; obligation
Now I know in some cases, need can be in-addition to want, however in this case it is separate. I hope, but doubt, that clarifies my position for you.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pmreps hate facts,
October 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pmyou're the only one talking about people not receving health care. Anyone who walks into a hospital will be treated. Whether government aid for health care is a "necessity" is debatable. And that's what's happening here. Debate. It's jut not too civil on your part.
Remember, conservatism is about fiscal accountability...REALLY?
what about the billions of missing $ in Iraq, where is the accountability?
what about thousands of guns going to people who kill our soldiers in Iraq? where was any accountability on that?
what about our pres. signing EVERY budget bill prior to Jan 07?
Where was his fiscal responsibility then?
When the cons start showing some fiscal accountability...oh nevermind, that won't happen. You can gripe about tax and spend liberals, but at least our children and grandchildren won't be paying for Schip as long as we'll be paying for our foolish war that is NOT making us safer anywhere.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pmSo I will ask again, Loons, what would you do about the millions of Americans who can't get private health insurance because they are over 50 and have a pre-existing condition? Should they be left to fend for themselves. And how is that their fault?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:07 pmrepublicans hate facts - I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
Bethany has received coverage under S-CHIP already. Bethany would continue to receive coverage under S-CHIP because her parents already qualify as being poor and under the maximum income cap.
Bethany is not a good example of why the cap should be expanded from 45k/year to $80k a year because her parents are under the 45k/year cap.
Do you understand?
Bush didn't veto the extension to kill S-CHIP. He vetoed the expansion of the program to include individuals up to the age of 25 whose parents make up to $80,000 per year.
Comprende?
Oh, and since you're so interested in the "facts" lemme share some facts with you RE the uninsured from the US Census figures:
There are 45 million uninsured today
25.2 million (or 56%) live in households that earn more than $50k/year (8.5 million (or 19%) of that number have a household income that's greater than $75k per year).
14.85 million (or 33%) are currently eligible for existing government insurance, but are not enrolled.
The remaining 5 million (20%) are illegal immigrants.
Let's see... why don't we get the 33% of those who are currently eligible enrolled before we go expanding the program?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:09 pmrepublicans hate facts
Then you can thank the government for providing you, what you refuse to provide sick children! Or should we also make those student loans
Those loans are something I will be paying back. The cost of the Health care the family received is something they will not be. That is a huge difference and invalidates your comparison.
See, it’s just as easy to say you should have never attended school if you didn’t have the money to pay for it! It was irresponsible of you!
Not at all, it betters me, and allows me to give back more to society than if I had not gone to school.
helenahandbasket
So Squeegee, since you’re under 30, you’ll may still be alive when the g.o.p. finally regains the majority in the 2048 elections.
I'll be having a party, want to come? RSVP soon.
And Squeegee, I guessed within 500 miles your location, within 5 years, your age and that you are single. I was only wrong about how you earn a living.
Not single, just no kids. The withing 5, and the 500 miles could be wrong, under 30 gives you 10 years, and the east puts some of the south east out of that range, but still, like I said, not a bad guess.
I am right, however, that you have had no interesting life experiences.
I've had a decent amount for my age. I'd like to have more, but working on the finical aspects currently, then I'll try and look into other ones.
Anyways, I'm heading home for the day, it's been fun.
Wilco, and a few others, thanks for the laughs.
republicans hate facts, and a few others, thanks for the party line rhetoric.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:09 pmGod, these scumbags never stop.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pmSquegeeboo
Before you change over to the "Fair" tax standard, you need to be in a position to do it, complete with savings enough to tide you over the chaotic transition period that will inevitably happen.
Even a change to a much simpler tax system would have this chaotic period.
America right now, to my mind is not in such a position. You are too beholden unto countries like China, to really be ready for any sort of a switch.
Right now, what you need is to raise taxes and pay off that debt. It is a hard measure, and an unpopular one, but the long term benefit is getting free of debt and into a position where you can examine how to improve your tax system.
Though I am a proponent of the progressive tax system (Including the concept of taxes being raised on profits) I feel that America's tax system is overly complex and needs simplifying. A lot of tax loopholes need closing, and closing these loopholes might mean not having to raise taxes otherwise.
One of Reagan's successes (Much as though I feel he was a mediocre president) happened to be that he reviewed taxes on the basis of closing loopholes in his second term. This needs to be done on a presidential, congressional and senatorial level every few years and I don't honestly think it has been done since Reagan.
Tax law gets cluttered and messy over a period of time. That messiness needs clearing up every now and then and I think that is a major part of what is going wrong with America's current tax system - that it is simply too complex and is starting to look overwhelming.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pmThe other elephant in the room here is education. We have socialized education (basic education guaranteed for everyone, paid by government) and nobody is freaking out about that. Why should health care be so different? There is a recognized benefit to society for its members to be both educated and healthy.
If you are going to argue that universal health care is The End of The World, you are going to have to explain why universal education is not.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:12 pmSo Squeege - why won't you answer the question I asked? Could it be because you don't have an answer that suits your closed-mindset?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:13 pm#202 Au contraire Lisa FTW ...
Since President Bush took to the offense after 9/11 there have been far fewer random attacks on US soil (& ships) here and abroad. And if President Clinton had had the guts to go on the offensive and take out Bin Laden when the he actually had the chance 9/11 probably never would have occurred.
Oh, never mind, you really don't want to see the facts ...
October 16th, 2007 at 5:13 pmWhen did I admit I was wrong? Or are you saying wrong as in the GOP position on the issue, and attributing it to me? Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
First you said that the parents should be responsible, and that they should be punished for their decisions. Then you admitted that the Insurance did what it was supposed to do, and help the parents. That's admitting you were wrong, and criticizing Malkin that disagrees with you. I can understand how your shifting position didn't register with you.
I do not think I have contradicted myself anywhere in this thread. You keep on making assumptions and guesses and applying party doctrine to my views, so that could be where you are getting the idea that I contradicted myself. Take my posts for what they are, and not as my subtle nuances on the GOP position, and maybe that will help. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Actually you have, several times. First you said you didn't want to punish, then you said you did. Among the many contradictions!
Wow. Just wow. GM, and the other American Auto-makers have been doing poorly for a long time. Longer than just the Iraq war. While they have had some ups and downs, they have been in general decline since at least the 80s. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
You mean, since the war started?
Yeah, 3 BILLION in US profits shows a company that's struggling!!!
(if you can’t spell a word, don’t use it)
Oh lord, I spelled a word wrong. I’m sure if I look over your posts, I won’t find any grammar or spelling mistakes at all. Do you really need to resort to such petty attacks? Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
It's not a petty attack, it's advice to help you. If you want to be taken seriously, don't use words you can't spell. Any decent english teacher would have taught you that in secondary school!
So you contradict yourself again! You said you don’t want to punish people, then you say you do, which is it?
When I say want, this is the definition I am using:
Want - To desire greatly; wish for:
When I say need, in this context, this is the definition I am using:
Need - Necessity; obligation
Now I know in some cases, need can be in-addition to want, however in this case it is separate. I hope, but doubt, that clarifies my position for you.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Need is necessity, so you feel the 'need' to punish people? That's pretty perverted! You really are a sick little girl!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pmThe difference with universal healthcare is that it is not more then the majority of Americans are willing to pay, it is in fact cheaper then the current option, which while the most expensive in the world, is ranked only slightly better then Cuba’s healthcare.
Also, health insurance isn’t an asset, its an expense. It therefore doesn’t fall under the right to property because, well, it isn’t property.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 16, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Bruce, you're missing my point or perhaps I didn't explain this well enough. My reference to "right to property" is in response to a previous post where the claim is that because 2/3 of all Americans want universal health care therefore it should be the right thing to do. Assuming that's true, mere majority rule doesn't make it right and hence the reference to the "4 wolves and sheep who'll vote to decide what to have for dinner".
As to your suggestion that health care in America is just slightly better than Cuba, can you therefore explain why it is that people from other countries would prefer to have their critical surgical procedures done here in the US and not in Cuba? Don;t believe everything you hear from Michael Moore.
#156- You’ve already made a very clear argument for universal health care. It is the exact same reason as that for police protection, and military protection. It is to protect the health, and well being of Americans. As for your explanation of why we should have the protection of the judicial system, you show your complete ignorance of the Constitution. The judicial system is in place for the same reason as the Executive, and Congressional branches of government. They are ALL CONSTITUTIONALY MANDATED dumb ass! If only one of you right wing morons would pick up a copy of the Constitution, and actually read it! You do know how to read, don’t you?
Comment by dr7854 — October 16, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
dr7854, Let me get this straight. Your position is that the US constitution specifically states that the goverment must provide police protection, military and the courts, therefore this is a mandate for universal health care? I think it is you who need reading lessons. Also, an SCHIP programs that provides free health to 25 year old bums goes towards the "protection of the health, and well being of Americans"? Even Comrad Stalin would have something to say about that.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pmTwo last things:
bilbobaggins
I believe I have answered it, several times now. If you do a ctrl-f for squegeeboo you should be able to search through all my posts, if I haven't, bring it up in tomorrows thinkfast, I'll answer it then.
and
Bruce Gorton
Thanks for the info.
Now I'm really out. Night all.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pmYes, because our public education system is just so f-ing amazing. I mean, our elites continue to send their kids to the public schools. And all we ever hear from the education bureaucrats is that they need more money... mo' money, mo' money, mo' money. And they demonize Bush despite the fact that the federal budget for education has more than doubled.
Heck, even those committed to socialized medicine like the Frosts don't send their little Graeme to the Baltimore public schools. Even if the tuition is paid for or discounted, if they were truly committed to the wonders that are socialized *fill in the blank*, why aren't they sending him to Baltimore public schools?
So, how does point to public education support your argument again?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pmbilbobaggins
I believe I have answered it, several times now. If you do a ctrl-f for squegeeboo you should be able to search through all my posts, if I haven’t, bring it up in tomorrows thinkfast, I’ll answer it then.
No, you never answered the first question and you never answered the second as to what you would do to people who can't get health insurance because of age and a pre-existing condition.
That's an easy one but you don't seem to be able to answer it.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThen you can thank the government for providing you, what you refuse to provide sick children! Or should we also make those student loans
Those loans are something I will be paying back. The cost of the Health care the family received is something they will not be. That is a huge difference and invalidates your comparison. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
But you won't pay back the grants, subsidies and underwriting to your interest that the government is paying! These are all examples of how the government is 'aiding' you, just as it is aiding those that need health insurance! It's AID, all you're whining about is that the aid is different - but in reality it isn't! You probably went to a state school, how much government money do you think was given to you? Probably more during your four years than this family will receive in healthcare subsidies!
See, it’s just as easy to say you should have never attended school if you didn’t have the money to pay for it! It was irresponsible of you!
Not at all, it betters me, and allows me to give back more to society than if I had not gone to school. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
And saving the child's or young adult's life and ability to work doesn't better them? Wow, you're nuts!
helenahandbasket
So Squeegee, since you’re under 30, you’ll may still be alive when the g.o.p. finally regains the majority in the 2048 elections.
I’ll be having a party, want to come? RSVP soon. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Don't forget to borrow Rudy's dress, so you can come as a full fledged partisan!
And Squeegee, I guessed within 500 miles your location, within 5 years, your age and that you are single. I was only wrong about how you earn a living.
Not single, just no kids. The withing 5, and the 500 miles could be wrong, under 30 gives you 10 years, and the east puts some of the south east out of that range, but still, like I said, not a bad guess. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Still misses the point. You're a boring, selfish, petty person with no real life experience, that cheats their employer while complaining about others. Sad, hypocritical, typical GOP.
I am right, however, that you have had no interesting life experiences.
I’ve had a decent amount for my age. I’d like to have more, but working on the finical aspects currently, then I’ll try and look into other ones. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
The evidence of your posts argue the contrary.
Anyways, I’m heading home for the day, it’s been fun.
Wilco, and a few others, thanks for the laughs.
republicans hate facts, and a few others, thanks for the party line rhetoric.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
You're welcome, I'm glad that I could give you a place to post your 'party line rhetoric', in the meanwhile, it was nice to expose what a lazy, pathetic, milker of the system you are. Keep up that GOVERNMENT SUCKLING, while you BETTER yourself at the expense of others! HYPOCRITE!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pm#209 Speaking about Hillary health care are we?
There simply aren't enough predators in the world to knock off the truly stupid ...
There are very few benefits in socialized / government backed anything including education and health care. Private schools do a much better job of teaching children then their public counterparts and they do it for a whole lot less money.
Hillary health care will put the country into a severe depression due to the drain it will cause on almost every level with any corresponding boost the to economy.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pmreps hate facts,
you’re the only one talking about people not receving health care. Anyone who walks into a hospital will be treated. Whether government aid for health care is a “necessity†is debatable. And that’s what’s happening here. Debate. It’s jut not too civil on your part.
Comment by Wilco — October 16, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Wilco - sure they'll get "treated." For what *that's* worth.
I'd like to ask you, though, if you recall the woman who died on the floor of the emergency room at a large hospital here in Los Angeles - she hemorrhaged to death from a perforated ulcer, by the way, vomiting blood - while waiting for that "treatment" you so cavalierly mention as such a wonderful alternative to SCHIP or single payer health care....
How would you feel if that woman was your mother? Send HER to the emergency room and let her wait HOURS for treatment...
October 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pmbilbobaggins
Q1: Personally I am pro-life. So I have answered it.
Q2: I suppose I don't normally think in terms of pre-existing conditions or age, but perhaps Medicare/medicad could be expanded to cover such gaps, however that is just a quick response, and I may have a better answer later, if I do, I will post when I get home.
And now you've made me contradict myself, because I keep on posting. But totally, for really real, I'm gone this time.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:23 pmThere simply aren’t enough predators in the world to knock off the truly stupid … Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
That explains you!
There are very few benefits in socialized / government backed anything including education and health care. Private schools do a much better job of teaching children then their public counterparts and they do it for a whole lot less money. Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
BAHAHA, really? Where do you get those statistics from? Oh wait, you don't have any, that's just one of those things "everyone knows" (code for MADE UP!)
Hillary health care will put the country into a severe depression due to the drain it will cause on almost every level with any corresponding boost the to economy.
Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
No, the housing crash is going to put us in a severe depression! Something "everyone knows". You wingnut extremists are too funny to laugh at!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pmHillary health care will put the country into a severe depression due to the drain it will cause on almost every level with any corresponding boost the to economy.
Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Too late, dear. We're already going into a depression from your Dear Leader's out of control spending and ridiculous tax cuts.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pm*crickets chirping*
October 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pmAs a financial aid advisor, I know parents are supposed to pay the kids' educational costs until they are 24. Students cannot apply without their parental income information unless they are already supporting their own kids, married or a military veteran.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pmIt does seem strange that a person would take advantage of this government sponsored program, but complain about another government sponsored program that doesn't help them. It's ok if it helps you, and only you?
There simply aren’t enough predators in the world to knock off the truly stupid …
There are very few benefits in socialized / government backed anything including education and health care. Private schools do a much better job of teaching children then their public counterparts and they do it for a whole lot less money.
Hillary health care will put the country into a severe depression due to the drain it will cause on almost every level with any corresponding boost the to economy.
So, if everything you say here is true, then how do they do it in socialized countries like Sweden? The government pays for pretty much everything there out of the taxes they pay. And their health is better, their education is better, their economy is more stable, and their people are happier.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pmRightOfAttila
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
For a more recent article on how America's healthcare ranks. It is not a question of whether you believe Moore. It is a question of whether you believe researchers that have actually looked at the question seriously, it is about whether you believe Moore's source documents.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pmQ1: Personally I am pro-life. So I have answered it. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Which means you support legislation to prevent abortions, which is why we pointed out you were a hypocrite for wanting to punish people that got pregnant! If you don't believe you have a right to push those 'values' on others, then you're pro-choice! Or didn't anyone ever explain that to you?
Q2: I suppose I don’t normally think in terms of pre-existing conditions or age, but perhaps Medicare/medicad could be expanded to cover such gaps, however that is just a quick response, and I may have a better answer later, if I do, I will post when I get home. Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Duh, medicare is socialized medicine, so you contradicted yourself again!
And now you’ve made me contradict myself, because I keep on posting. But totally, for really real, I’m gone this time.
Comment by Squegeeboo — October 16, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Of course you contradicted yourself, GOP values ARE CONTRADICTORY!
You want people to not have kids unless they are wealthy, you don't want them to have an abortion, but you want them to be punished if they have the kids! Yep, that's GOP 'values' - PURE CONTRADICTION!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pm#213 Remove Bush
Hmmm, see what I mean about not wanting to face facts? I suppose you forgot about the attacks on the USS Cole and on the the embassies in Africa and on the Marine Barracks!
Did you simply fail to understand the term "abroad," did you simply choose not to recognize those other attacks or were you simply being obtuse?
We need more predators to weed out the simple ...
October 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pmWhat a wimp. Michelle Malkin can't even pick on someone her own size. She had to go after a 12 year old boy and now she's attacking a 2 year old girl. She doesn't have the brains to attack someone her own age. Hey, Michelle, suit up and join our troops in Iraq.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:27 pmGOP is going to make an ad with a poor, elementary school kid. He's going to complain about how the Democrats and the teachers unions are condemning him to a life in the underclass with no hope of escape because they won't allow his mom to put him in a school that actually expects him to achieve, learn to read, learn the fundamentals of mathematics, and go to college.
Since a child will be saying these words, you won't be able to attack the policy position he's advocating....
mmmmmkay?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pm#213 Remove Bush Hmmm, see what I mean about not wanting to face facts? I suppose you forgot about the attacks on the USS Cole and on the the embassies in Africa and on the Marine Barracks! Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
That #213 isn't remove bush. Those aren't attacks on the US, those are attacks abroad against the US military/government presence. If you count those, then there have been more attacks. As our military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and our allies in England, Spain, etc., are also being attacks as proxies of US territory.
Did you simply fail to understand the term “abroad,†did you simply choose not to recognize those other attacks or were you simply being obtuse?
We need more predators to weed out the simple …
Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
No, you need to stop trying to be obtuse with your descriptions. Because the statistics show you're wrong. But you try to slice the terms to pretend otherwise.
Well, considering you are a GOP hack, you are surely a 'predator', but most likely of little boys!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pmCon10tious
Read my link, and recognise that of the countries surveyed, America is the only one with a privatised healthcare sector. Your argument just went down the toilet.
Oh, and how about these the facts on 9/11? Happened under Bush. With a Republican Congress and Senate. You guys don't want to face the facts so you blame liberals, who don't even really have much in a say in the party that came second in that race.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pmI'm sorry, is anyone advocating eliminating public education entirely? No. Right now we have a decent system, which has some problems. But people have a choice between public and private education. Participation in universal health care is not mandatory -- nobody is proposing that. We're talking about creating a system that guarantees health care to everyone, and we believe that it's in the best interest of society that everyone contributes. I don't have children, but I pay taxes which pay for the public education system, because I know I don't want to live in a country full of uneducated people.
There is always going to be a debate about the quality of our public education system, but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we're better off without it completely, or that by having it all this time we've somehow been evil socialists. That's the point.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:34 pmI don't think you can hold up the public education system as a model example of how government ownership of a task has worked out well. If you want to compare ranking on education, you'll see that we're falling far behind and spend more than any other country.
again, how does public education demonstrate that public medicine will be a success?
Why not just enroll the 33% of the 45million who are currently eligible for government health care coverage (but who choose not to enroll) before we expand S-CHIP to cover people w/ household incomes up to $80k?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:38 pmRemoveBush
And not only that, but those attacks didn't cost America any alliances, like some I could mention.
If anything, terrorists have been far more successful under Bush.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pm#228 Bruce Gorton
Oh please don't stop quote the paragon of lies MSNBC on anything; too much pseudo information being published as the truth by that particular media outlet!
Most of that report can be discredited within the first couple of statements.
Sure the US has a higher infant mortality rate than other countries, primarily because doctors try to save riskier children whereas other countries simply don't count those cases.
And obviously US health care is more expensive than those other countries because US doctors routinely screen for so much more than doctors in other countries, its like comparing apples and oranges.
It's a shame that you don't go beyond the wild accusations and really do a little bit of investigation on your own.
Ahhhhh, but there's the rub, nobody here seems to like or is familiar with facts!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pmOh, and how about these the facts on 9/11? Happened under Bush. With a Republican Congress and Senate. You guys don’t want to face the facts so you blame liberals, who don’t even really have much in a say in the party that came second in that race.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 16, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Lets not forget that the first WTC bombing, the Embassy bombings, and the Afghan training camps that trained the 911 bombers were all the work of a CIA agent named Ali Mohammad. And the GOP protected him from prosecution and even had him freed when he was caught in Canada trying to bring an Al Qaeda operative into the US.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pm#228 Bruce Gorton
Oh please don’t stop quote the paragon of lies MSNBC on anything; too much pseudo information being published as the truth by that particular media outlet! Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Well it is a very wingnut friendly outlet, but that doesn't change the facts on this topci.
Most of that report can be discredited within the first couple of statements. Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Only if you avoid reality.
Sure the US has a higher infant mortality rate than other countries, primarily because doctors try to save riskier children whereas other countries simply don’t count those cases. Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Stupid comment. If they didn't try to save them, they'd die! You're insane!
And obviously US health care is more expensive than those other countries because US doctors routinely screen for so much more than doctors in other countries, its like comparing apples and oranges. Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
If that were true, then it would show up in the US having fewer deaths as more would be caught - also NOT TRUE!
It’s a shame that you don’t go beyond the wild accusations and really do a little bit of investigation on your own. Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Projection.
Ahhhhh, but there’s the rub, nobody here seems to like or is familiar with facts!
Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Projection. Just because YOU aren't familiar, don't put that on others!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:44 pmnice throwing out facts that get ignored!
TTYL!!!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:45 pm#236, tsk, tsk, tsk! What a loathsome troll.
Can't carry on a calm intellectual discussion without resorting to cussing and other vulgar stupidities.
Please tell me you're not someone in a position of responsibility or authority, that you don't manage anyone else or worse, that you are a parent! For it would be a truly awful to think about the tyrannical nature of any of those relationships ...
October 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pmAlso, let’s not forget that Clinton captured those that were identified as being part of that attack anc put them on trial……
Can Bush say the same about OBL??????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 16, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Actually that's only partly true. The real culprit (Ali Mohammad) was protected by our current nominee for attorney general. They were afraid that the other people involved would go free if he was implicated, as they could claim it was entrapment. He prevented them from going for the entrapment defense!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm#236, tsk, tsk, tsk! What a loathsome troll.
Can’t carry on a calm intellectual discussion without resorting to cussing and other vulgar stupidities. Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Tsk, tsk, tsk, what a loathsome troll you are indeed (you know what that term means - right - of course not!)
Your stupidities and attack on people is vulgar - we all agree - troll!
Please tell me you’re not someone in a position of responsibility or authority, that you don’t manage anyone else or worse, that you are a parent! For it would be a truly awful to think about the tyrannical nature of any of those relationships …
Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Blah, Blah, Blah, the wingnut that wants to kill children, is lecturing on parenting! Typical wingnut hypocrisy.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pmstwendeler
Okay, I am going to point where you are going wrong.
Bush's plan (No Child Left Behind) is lambasted because it is poorly thought out, purely managed and generally, like most of Bush's initiatives (Including aid intended to fight AIDS in Africa) is a case of simply throwing money at the problem.
The reason why America's education is falling behind is simple: You have things like creationism getting into your biology classes. You don't have an up to date syllabus, you a syllabus that had the world laughing at you back in the era of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Your school administrators are spending too much time arguing with religious fanatics that want their school to be all about Jay-sus, and not enough time educating your students. Furthermore, your whole culture is being geared against information by the rightwing and its constant accusations of bias.
Throwing money at these problems isn't going to work - what is needed is a basic cultural shift away from blaming ones teachers and ones textbooks and towards gritting ones teeth and studying. And this means just little bit more work, then upping the budget.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:50 pmBush’s plan (No Child Left Behind) is lambasted because it is poorly thought out, purely managed and generally, like most of Bush’s initiatives (Including aid intended to fight AIDS in Africa) is a case of simply throwing money at the problem. Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 16, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Lets not forget that in order to mislead the public, that they've lowered the testing difficulty to pretend as though it has improved things! Like all things GOP, it's completely dishonest at it's core!
Throwing money at these problems isn’t going to work - what is needed is a basic cultural shift away from blaming ones teachers and ones textbooks and towards gritting ones teeth and studying. And this means just little bit more work, then upping the budget.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 16, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Actually money is the biggest part of the problem. The infrastructure is crumbling, the resources, tools and materials need serious updating. The teachers are underpaid, overworked, and often undertrained.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:52 pmI don’t think you can hold up the public education system as a model example of how government ownership of a task has worked out well. ... again, how does public education demonstrate that public medicine will be a success?
The point of the healthcare-education comparison was to debunk the very shrill and simple-minded argument that universal healthcare is, on its face, "socialized medicine" and therefore evil.
The quality of our current education system is a worthwhile debate to have, but you cannot say that its present failures prove that it should disappear. Would you say otherwise?
We have many successful models of universal healthcare to choose from -- so I have no reason to think that a flawed public education system would somehow prevent us from having a beneficial universal health care system. I am trying to move beyond this ridiculous argument that universal health care is "socialist" or "un-American".
October 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pmnice throwing out facts that get ignored!
TTYL!!!
Comment by stwendeler — October 16, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Still waiting for that citation! You 'guessing', doesn't mean that those people qualify for this program. Remember, there are several factors that merit qualification!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pmCon10tious
I give you facts, you claim media bias. There is nothing I can argue against that because it means your stance is meaningless. In other words, you just lost the argument because you failed, to even present an argument.
In other words I think you are just stupid.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pmCon10tious
I give you facts, you claim media bias. There is nothing I can argue against that because it means your stance is meaningless. In other words, you just lost the argument because you failed, to even present an argument.
In other words I think you are just stupid.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 16, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
It is stupid, ignorant and willfully incapable of learning. Yep, that's a GOP 'values voter'.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pmIt is always the same, the more poignent the message, the more savage the attack. Jesus got off easy - God knows what the current administration would have done to him.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:57 pmI just had to comment on this;
Since a child will be saying these words, you won’t be able to attack the policy position he’s advocating….
mmmmmkay?
Comment by stwendeler
WRONG! We can attack the policy position the child (preferably a cute one, cause who wants to listen to an ugly child) advocates. But nobody want to do that in this case. They just want to attack the child.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:58 pmUmmm... hate to say it, but that's not the fundamental problem in our schools, since there are only a few districts that have this issue. We have a structural problem and I agree that throwing money at the problem isn't the solution. (Who'd a thought that a Lefty would make such an argument!?!)
If they textbooks had any meaningful content, it'd be one thing. If the teachers taught our kids anything, that'd be another thing.
Kids in Belgium take the public funding with them, creating competition between schools. Why won't the Left allow this in the US? Try watching this YouTube video and tell me that the problem with our schools is that they're spending too much time fighting off right-wing kooks. talk about an idiotic argument! Of course, you won't watch the whole thing, b/c your mind is made up; You visit this leftist echo-chamber and get your idiotic thoughts reinforced by other unintelligible goofs, who cannot comprehend what others write or construct a simple sentence on their own.
I think an ad with a poor kid trapped in a crappy school with teachers who don't care about him would be really persuasive and effective for the GOP.
And since we can't even question any policy prescriptions that a child makes, you'd have no ability for a rebuttal!
Wouldn't that be great? Or is that really what our politics have devolved to? If a child says something, we must listen (regardless of whether they know what the hell they're talking about or whether they're actually emblematic of the public policy they're advocating).
October 16th, 2007 at 5:59 pmrepublicans hate facts
The administration is top-heavy and to much of the budget goes towards pet projects. Its not about just upping the budget, its about effectively managing what is there, and that is where Bush has gone majorly wrong in just about everything.
Being leftwing isn't just about upping the budget, its about demanding the budget gets managed so that upping it actually makes a difference. What is needed in America right now is to get the basic right, and to do that, you cannot afford to have to constantly fight the same battles over and over again with the nuts, and you need decent admnistrators.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:00 pmMarginalize the segment of the population you don't like... force them into a declining standard of living. Then say that the poor have no right to reproduce.
A "kinder, gentler" genocide.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:00 pmno one is attacking the child... they're attacking the Dems' shameless use of a 2 year old, who already qualifies for an existing program, to shill for an expansion of that program to people who would likely afford coverage.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:01 pmComment by stwendeler
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
October 16th, 2007 at 6:02 pmshut up
stwendeler
There is a difference between questioning someone position, and what you rightwingers have done to these kids and don't pretend you don't see it.
The trouble with you righties is you don't see the ripple effect your pundits have on your culture. Kids watch Fox, they get told by guys like Limbaugh that their school is teaching them liberal nonsense what do you think happens?
And this is a constant barrage by the right. The media is liberal, the judiciary is liberal, scientists are liberal, the education system as a whole is liberal, books are liberal etc... and with all of this you are surprised that your education system is collapsing? That your students are falling behind?
October 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pmstwendeler
And nobody called for the Frosts to be destroyed on a blog that was later rewarded with a presidential post either hey?
October 16th, 2007 at 6:10 pmI actually don't think anyone wants to "attack the child". However, I don't see the problem with bringing out a legitimate recipient of a program as an example of its benefits. I don't agree with the right wing impulse to describe this as "shameless exploitation" or "political theater". Isn't this just good old American marketing? The child really benefitted, and the child says so. Seeems fine to me, and it's been going on for decades (centuries?) without much protest.
Now, if you bring out a child to say how great the Iraq war is, that's different. That's more exploitative, because (probably) the child doesn't have much personal reason to advocate for that.
I see it's a fuzzy line, but in the present case, I just don't get the outrage. In fact, the right wing "outrage" here is much more political theater, I think. And you can certainly question the parents' provenance, but again, in this case I don't see anything to be upset about. The problem is that the right wing attack machine has been quite selective with its facts (e.g. freaking out about the private school tuition without noticing the scholarship).
October 16th, 2007 at 6:12 pm#230,
October 16th, 2007 at 6:24 pmdo you not remember that REAGAN was POTUS when the marine barracks were bombed?
And need I remind you that the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attacks were apprehended, convicted and are in JAIL? Can bush even come close to saying he can catch Osama?
no one is attacking the child… they’re attacking the Dems’ shameless use of a 2 year old, who already qualifies for an existing program, to shill for an expansion of that program to people who would likely afford coverage.
Comment by stwendeler
Actually, they are attacking the child's family. Did you think it was shameless for Bush to use the "snowflake babies" as a backdrop when he vetoed stem cell research?
And they are not expanding the program to people who can likely afford coverage. They are trying to expand it to more families who have jobs with no health benefits who can't afford to pay $1,000+ for private health insurance for their family.
All the lies you rightards have told about SCHIP have been debunked and since 80% of the people in this country think the program should be expanded, I guess it's just you 20% that are still drinking that kool-aid.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:30 pm261 - Bruce: you forgot to mention that all "libruls" are evil commiepinkosocialist terrorist lovers who hate Amurca.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pmWhy not add a tax such as the Medicare Surtax (which no one can explain what it is for ) to our payroll taxes...specifically for healthcare. Then anyone with a job is paying into the fund and NO ONE can say they are paying for their neighbors.
Also, you know there are free beaches to frolic on, doesn't have to be an expensive vacation thing.
Good grief, who can fortell that a child will be born with an health problem ? Children are getting cancer from very healthy parents and the expenses for treatment can overwhelm TWO working parents.
Again, add the health tax along with the Medicare surtax, problem solved.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:45 pmBruce,
That same study finds that the UK and New Zealand has better healthcare. But people in the UK are now pulling their own teeth. See this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,2191204,00.html
As for New Zealand, my mother, 2 sisters and a brother live in NZ. Their quality of health care really sucks. A couple of years ago, my sister who was 37 at that time felt a lump in her breast. She consulted a doctor and was told that she has to wait 2 months before she can get a biopsy done. We all had to pitch in so we can pay a private hospital to get a biopsy right away. Good thing we did because the doctor said that a breast cancer, if it develops at an early age, tends to be more aggresive. Who knows what would have happened to my sister because of that 2 months of waiting. My other sister and my mom already pay for private health insurance. I can't see that as better than our system - only more expensive.
The truth is that yuou can manipulate any study to fit any pre-ordained conclusion.
If people think that these programs (SCHIP and universal health) are so great, then why not do this:
For people who are in favor of these programs, they enrol in the program and pay for the program themselves. They can solicit tax free contributions from people who would like to donate to their programs. For people like me, we can opt out of the programs and not be taxed to pay for them. I will then be responsible for my own healthcare.
But I goes this would go against the liberal objective of getting other people to pay for their healthcare right?
October 16th, 2007 at 6:54 pmAlso, you know there are free beaches to frolic on, doesn’t have to be an expensive vacation thing.
Yeah, I know that -- it's just a marketing thing. I was questioning the "mood" of the message, whatever that means. I want the message to succeed, so I have a habit of nitpicking those kinds of things.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pmBruce,
That same study finds that the UK and New Zealand has better healthcare. But people in the UK are now pulling their own teeth. See this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ medicine/ story/ 0,,2191204,00.html
As are many Americans. What part of 50 million Americans didn't you understand?
As for New Zealand, my mother, 2 sisters and a brother live in NZ. Their quality of health care really sucks. A couple of years ago, my sister who was 37 at that time felt a lump in her breast. She consulted a doctor and was told that she has to wait 2 months before she can get a biopsy done. We all had to pitch in so we can pay a private hospital to get a biopsy right away. Good thing we did because the doctor said that a breast cancer, if it develops at an early age, tends to be more aggresive. Who knows what would have happened to my sister because of that 2 months of waiting. My other sister and my mom already pay for private health insurance. I can’t see that as better than our system - only more expensive.
Sorry but you are an unreliable witness. So what about the 50 million Americans that can't go see a doctor in this country, who's going to pitch in for them? Once again this doesn't prove the NZ system is worse, in fact she was going to get treated, and it sounds like she probably lives in a rural area of New Zealand - right? They also spend a fraction of money on healthcare we do, and yet we STILL HAVE 50 MILLION PEOPLE THAT ARE WORSE OFF THAN YOUR SISTER!
If people think that these programs (SCHIP and universal health) are so great, then why not do this:
For people who are in favor of these programs, they enrol in the program and pay for the program themselves. Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Most people do pay for SCHIP, or didn't you know that it is a SUBSIDIZED program?
They can solicit tax free contributions from people who would like to donate to their programs. For people like me, we can opt out of the programs and not be taxed to pay for them. I will then be responsible for my own healthcare. Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Ok, can we opt out of not paying for the war? I will then be responsible for my own warmaking - deal?
But I goes this would go against the liberal objective of getting other people to pay for their healthcare right?
Comment by RightOfAttila — October 16, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Hypocrite.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:03 pmmy favorite part of hemingway:
yes, mark.
i've always wanted to leave my job with insurance and follow my dreams at Snappers Sea Grill, but people are depending on me and i can't let them down damnit.
what a clueless well-insured jackass.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:04 pmI think an ad with a poor kid trapped in a crappy school with teachers who don’t care about him would be really persuasive and effective for the GOP. Comment by stwendeler — October 16, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Please do! And we'll be happy to point out that the GOP has restricted school funding - help yourself! And we can do it without attacking the kid or his parents once! See what it looks like to be an adult? I know you've had few people in your life that could model that behavior, but that's what it looks like!
And since we can’t even question any policy prescriptions that a child makes, you’d have no ability for a rebuttal! Comment by stwendeler — October 16, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Sure you can, I demonstrated how to do that!
Wouldn’t that be great? Or is that really what our politics have devolved to? If a child says something, we must listen (regardless of whether they know what the hell they’re talking about or whether they’re actually emblematic of the public policy they’re advocating).
Comment by stwendeler — October 16, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Well the politics of the GOP devolved decades ago. But that's because your positions are indefensible for sane rational people, so you have no choice!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:06 pmActually, they are attacking the child’s family. Did you think it was shameless for Bush to use the “snowflake babies†as a backdrop when he vetoed stem cell research? Comment by bilbobaggins — October 16, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Ouch! That one stung! How much you want to bet the GOP loons don't get their hypocrisy! And I remember how we went after those babies and their families - oh wait, we didn't!!!!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:08 pm#242 Bruce Groton
What was the old saying, " A mind is a terrible thing to waste..."
Of course they die which increases the infant mortality rate. DUH! The other countries simply don't even attempt to save the high risk infants the ones who will most likely will die, they simply let them die. SO (slowly for the cheap seats) since the live births by definition only include healthy infants they achieve an much lower infant mortality rate. DUH!
This is old news easily confirmed and tedious to explain those who prefer the to stick their head in the sand. So is the idea that US doctors scan / look / test for more diseases, more illnesses. Go and at least do a little bit of investigation beyond MSNBC.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:08 pm#273
Bush's veto was against embryonic of stem cell research made sense when you consider that embryonic stem cells have yet to lead to anything, whereas adult stem cell research has.
Whooops, more facts to ignore ....
October 16th, 2007 at 7:10 pmI predicted the smearing of this baby by these sorry-assed morons last night.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:11 pm#276
Come on Zooey, shouldn't people be held accountable for making poor choices? What if everyone was simply handed everything, like say the USSR where alcoholism is so rampant because, gee, socialism / communism doesn't work! Capitalism at least lets those with a whiff of ambition achieve some success. It may not be perfect, but its a damn sight better then the alternatives!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:16 pm#277
You are seriously off topic. Wanna talk about why you and your kind feel the need to smear this family?
October 16th, 2007 at 7:20 pm#276 Come on Zooey, shouldn’t people be held accountable for making poor choices? Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
You tell me? When are we going to impeach Bush and Cheney?
What if everyone was simply handed everything, like say the USSR where alcoholism is so rampant because, gee, socialism / communism doesn’t work! Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Or the Bush family!
Oh, didn't you hear, Russia is capitalist now, and alcoholism is even more rampant that before! Wow, guess capitalism isn't the issue!
Capitalism at least lets those with a whiff of ambition achieve some success. It may not be perfect, but its a damn sight better then the alternatives! Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
What does capitalism have to do with providing healthcare? You actually going to say 'insurance' is capitalism? Sorry to inform you but it's nothing more than legalized gambling!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:24 pmOf course they die which increases the infant mortality rate. DUH! Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
That's a contradictory statement.
The other countries simply don’t even attempt to save the high risk infants the ones who will most likely will die, they simply let them die. Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
If that were true, then the other countries would have the higher mortality rate - so you just debunked yourself! HYSTERICAL!
SO (slowly for the cheap seats) since the live births by definition only include healthy infants they achieve an much lower infant mortality rate. DUH! Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
You referring to other countries 'aborting' fetuses that aren't going to be healthy? If that were true, those other countries would have higher abortion rates - they don't!
This is old news easily confirmed and tedious to explain those who prefer the to stick their head in the sand. So is the idea that US doctors scan / look / test for more diseases, more illnesses. Go and at least do a little bit of investigation beyond MSNBC.
Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Once again, if that were true, then more people would be healthier and fewer would die - the opposite is true!
Up is really down for you poor ignorant sods!
Go educate yourself, these posts sound really stupid!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:27 pm#277
You are seriously off topic. Wanna talk about why you and your kind feel the need to smear this family?
Comment by Zooey — October 16, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
That's easy. Because for a brief second some of them had a feeling other than 'hate', 'fear' and 'greed', and they simply didn't know what to do with it other than turn it into hate for others making them feel that way! This is an expression of the GOP's ultimate fear of being human, which might turn them into responsible citizens - and they can't have that!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:28 pmSquegeboo: regarding message 108 in this thread…
You fail to articulate reasonable arguments, as you clearly fail to articulate the issues in play.
"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."
You know no more than I of the particulars of their financial situation. It may well be that she quit a job that—while offering some employer paid health insurance—may have paid less money overall than the job she took offering no health benefit, but with higher aggragate wage and tip income. There is no information as to the wage rate of either job, nor the number of hours worked, and the gross and net income earned. You cannot argue from a point of supposition. You simply do not know enough about the particulars to form or expound an informed opinion.
"The healthy people who are all opting to pay for health care."
You're either poorly informed, or a moron. The healthy people are NOT all opting to pay for health care. Conventional group health care plans, to which an employer generally contributes, have been priced out of the reach of many—if not most—wage earners and the employers who pay them. As an employer, it is clear to me that you have no clue!
"…I believe the proper American course of action in that case is to sue the **** out of the jerks."
What? The rabidly anti-letigious, tort reform representative of the right is saying an aggrieved employee who finds work conditions unbearable should sue? Okay - you are a moron. And, have staked out a position that is entirely inconsistent than that of your conservative brethren.
"… if there are no jobs you feel good about, the [gevernment] should just support you? Where is the incentive to work?"
What the %^&*? Who suggested that?
A struggling family, who—something like 18 to 27 months AFTER one wage earner (of two, by the way) has left a job offering unspecified health benefits leaves for another job which does not—finds that they are going to have a child. And, this child is born with a congenital heart defect, a condition that AT THE MOST would have been covered by private insurance to the tune of whatever the insurance underwriter deems to be 80% of what is usual, customary, and reasonable [generally, approximately 50% of the actual cost] for such care. You have a problem with the government stepping in to cover the cost of such an unforseen, catastrophic condition? Fine: you are stupid and heartless. Seriously.
May you someday yourself experience such an unforeseen emergency, knowing that despite the fact that you apparently hate us for doing so, we'll all step up and contribute to your care!
My company, in which I am an S-corporation participant and therefore an owner, once offered health care coverage for all employees AND their dependents, paid for 100% by the employer. After watching premiums TRIPLE in a five year period, while deductables rose from $100.00 per year per covered party to $ 1000.00 per year, we made a business decision to drop coverage entirely. We had no alternative. We had been priced out of the market, to a degree that we could not absorb the continued rising costs and diminished benetits. From an employer point of view, there is no such thing as 'affordable health care' anymore.
And why is that? Primarily because of the catastrophic rise in premiums required to pay the outrageous expenses of insurance executives, the mind-numbingly complex reimbursement provisions for health care providers, a generalized lack of regulation on the part of the government, and the need to meet the expectations of Wall Street and the investor community. Care extended to illegal immigrants, and fees paid to settle malpractice claims barely register in the equation.
Doubt that? Maybe you should investigate the issue. Someone no less conservative that the Texas State Insurance Commissioner assigns primary blame for rising insurance costs over two decades to the investment choices made by insurers and the return they earn on their bond portfolios. The uninsured, those who flood emergency rooms, illegal immigrants and those who commit fraud—while presenting a challenge to controlling costs—are inconsequential in the larger picture. Of course, the insurers don't want you to know that: mismanagement and greed are difficult to explain to plan beneficiaries.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:35 pmComment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Hello....?
***crickets chirping***
October 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pmSo according to the wing nut logic, if you've made "poor decisions" and find yourself in need, you deserve no assistance whatsoever. How downright creepy, contemptuous, and asinine!
October 16th, 2007 at 8:39 pm...
i hear this couple even talked about having children
before they were married...
dis-gusting... imm-oral...
(snark)
October 16th, 2007 at 8:52 pm.
QUICK, CAN YOU THINK OF ANYONE ELSE WHO'S LEFT AN "UNMANAGEABLE JOB LATELY?"
Perhaps someone who left just this week? How about "The Seether" Malkin? Didn't she quit on The O'Lieley Factor a day or two ago? Did she evaluate her health insurance options before doing so? If her new situation is now insurance-inferior, has she publicly criticized herself for making that choice? If not, why not? Behold the Ho-Ma.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:03 pmOnce again the Right proves that it believes in a "right to life," and no "right to living."
October 16th, 2007 at 11:13 pm"So according to the wing nut logic, if you’ve made 'poor decisions' and find yourself in need, you deserve no assistance whatsoever. How downright creepy, contemptuous, and asinine!"
Comment by Nix36
"Poor decisions" means not being born into the LSC (Lucky Sperm Club). If you were too lazy to pull yourself up by your own flagellum, it's your own fault.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:53 pmO Bigass is right. Mrs Wilkerson should have had an abortion.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:11 amEspecially since she left the job 4 years before Brittany was born.
wingnuts are stupid, mean, venal petty morons. that's all there is to it. No facts, except the ones they make up, no souls, no morals. What a waste of carbon.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:18 amStupid-assed trolls live in Woulda Coulda Shoulda Land, and have never made a single "poor decision."
Just look at this country, and this administration. One shitty decision after another. Shitty REPUBLICAN decisions.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:22 amSure, give up the superior job, by all means. Never let personal responsibility stand in the way of pumping out more kids…barfly will pay for ‘em. Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 17, 2007 @ 12:03 am
Superior? By what measure? If you believe that a crap job with insurance that is unmanageable is better than a manageable job without health insurance - then you're exactly the sort of white, elitist 'hole that has managed to destroy the GOP nicely!
October 17th, 2007 at 12:44 amWhat is all this talk about the Wilkersons being irresponsible?
Fact is, they had insurance. It's called the SCHIP. That is exactly what it was designed for, and they used it exactly in the way it was intended.
That the right-wingers have a temper tantrum when someone who needs help gets it, doesn't mean the Wilkersons did anything wrong. They didn't. They played by the rules, and used a program that was meant to benefit people like them.
And that is really why the right-wingers like Malkin keep having angry fits: They are viscerally opposed to anything that might show government can work, and can provide solutions.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:36 amOf course they die which increases the infant mortality rate. DUH! The other countries simply don’t even attempt to save the high risk infants the ones who will most likely will die, they simply let them die. SO (slowly for the cheap seats) since the live births by definition only include healthy infants they achieve an much lower infant mortality rate. DUH!
And you are basing this claim on...?
This is old news easily confirmed and tedious to explain those who prefer the to stick their head in the sand. So is the idea that US doctors scan / look / test for more diseases, more illnesses. Go and at least do a little bit of investigation beyond MSNBC.
Comment by Con10tious — October 16, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Any news source I would link you to, would instantly be derided as being liberal - because you are intellectually dishonest and cannot bring yourself to change your position when the facts go against it. Indeed, your only means of countering the report is to claim that MSNBC is biased, not that the report is untrue.
It is pointless for me to continue arguing with you because of that basic dishonesty on your part, particularly given your prediliction for making things up (Such as the first part of your post.) When you are prepared to argue honestly, and not prove the old maxim that if you take away the right's ability to lie you take away their ability to argue, then I will discuss things seriously with you.
Until then I will treat you as you are, a lying scumbag whose primary objection to universal healthcare is that is works.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:55 am>Sure, give up the superior job, by all means. '
The job she gave up is ONLY superior if she or her family had serious future health issues. Beleive it or not some people live thier whole lives without any serious medical issues, then they just drop dead. Thus, to those people, the health benefits a job provides would be close to meaningless. Pray tell, oh Clairvoyantfoot, how is someone supposed to look into a mirror and know everything which may or maynot befall them? If your wife didnt make bad choices why isnt she still with her original husband? Wasn't she smart enough to find one who woudln't die or drink or do whatever he did that caused the breakup? Sounds to me like if your wife made the supposed smart, foresightful choices you condemn others for not making, you'd be alone in your trailer park with a jark of lube and your stepkids would have more than a knawed up Ken doll for a daddy. .
Do you agree that people who get divorces have made mistakes in judgement just like people who don't have buy the insurance they need have made?
You republicans crack me up... please explain why you beleive in parachutes in airplanes.. why should we waste money on parachutes when smart people would have known better than getting on a plane that was going to crash?
Or do you believe in parachutes in airplanes?
October 17th, 2007 at 5:25 am> GOP is going to make an ad with a poor, elementary school kid.
> He’s going to complain about how the Democrats
> and the teachers unions are condemning him to a life
> in the underclass
> Since a child will be saying these words, you won’t
> be able to attack the
> policy position he’s advocating…. mmmmmkay?
whwhahahahahahah!!!. dude! you MUST truly have very little education if you truly beleive that the educational experience you receive in HIGH SCHOOL is going to determine where you end up in life.
no one would attack a kid who was saying this garbage, they'd just laugh and shake their heads like I am... "poor kid.. he thinks his life is going to revolve around what the teacher told him about the moby d1ck novel he read in 10th grade"...
high school, (public,OR private) provides almost ZERO useful academic knowledge. anyone who claims otherwise is incredibly naive about the concept of education. at most,you learn some pre-requisties that are as easily learned in your first year of high education if need be.
at most, its a learning/growing/socializing experience that home-school people miss out on. missing out on this often uncomfortable rite of pubescent passage tends to instill many homeschooled people with a bizarre combination of socially awkwardness and unfounded arrogance.
i myself hated my high school experience but dont regret it, as it was a learning experience, not involving book learning but simply involving figuring out a bit about the way people and the world works...
and when you move on to higher education, the difference between public universities and private universities is one more of form than function. i have spend substantial time in both, and can honestly say that with either public or private universities, its what you make of them. nothing more, nothing less...
for you to even assert that your high school experience is determinative of where you will end up in life tells me you probably dont have much education past high school yourself. if anything, id say your high school experience is INVERSELY determinative of where you end up in life? you ever heard of "al bundy syndrome"?
so, A) no one is going to be doing anything but laughing at the kid in your amusing little commerical, and B) no is certainly going to be attacking him for his parents making the wrong decisions and not having enough money to save for the apparent necessity of his private school education. if dems and republicans roles were switched, you can bet the kid in your hypo would be getting mercilessly pounded for his parents poor choices..
we arent like you.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:47 amHemingway 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.â€
why do the opposition not take the right to task on this core issue. the right claim the support small government because that means less interference by the state. but this does not mean less interference. they seem quite content for private companies to dictate how people should live. "your insurance doesnt cover new children, therefore dont breed" or "your child is too ill, and will cost too much"
i dont think there is any better argument for universal healthcare.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:18 amSee how STUPID your premise is???
The govt. is there for the GOOD of the NATION, not the INDIVIDUAL!!!!
Comment by RemoveBush — October 16, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
I myself think that we shouldn't be in Iraq any longer. So I guess I can join you in opting out of that one. But unfortunately, the police, military, courts/justice system, are all constitutional mandates so there's not much we can do about those. Universal health care is NOT a constitutional mandate. And don't worry about the roads in my street. I can assure you that it was the tax dollars from my community that paid for them, not yours. If your intention is to help the 50 million (assuming that's true) uninsured, you can go to your nearest hospital, pull out your checkbook and write the fattest check you can. Just tell them that the money is supposed to help pay for the charity cases. Trust when I tell you that they will take your money. And considering how good you liberals are at organizing yourselves for anti-America rallies, you can easily get together and do this all at the same time. That will surely help. But I doubt if this is what you want to do. Your generosity only goes as deep as someone else's pockets. Why don't you admit it? You just want someone else to pay for your own healthcare.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:17 amWHAAAA WHAAAA WHAAAA!!!!
Poor little Republican……. He has so much HATE for the human race that he needs to be sent out into space where he can be all by himself like he wants to be……
Comment by RemoveBush
This is the best arguement you can manage? This is proof-positive why it's a waste of time to engage you people in debate. At the end, you'll just whine and cry. I don't hate the human race. The majority of the human race who are decent and work hard, I admire. It's only free-loading bums like you that I hate.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:34 amRightOfAttila
1: It is not for the public to make a case that healthcare is constitutionally mandated it is for you to make a case that it is constitutionally forbidden. In short your argument, up until this point has been irrelevant.
2: I have already posted the first paragraph of the US constitution once. Do you want me to do it again?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:45 amYou don’t even know me……
Yet YOU can sit there and JUDGE EVERYONE, that IS HATING EVERYONE!!!!
I don’t know what SCHOOL YOU went to, but that is what it comes down to…..
Someone who does not know a person or people who has already determined what type of people they are……
Hitler would have been PROUD to have you in his Nazi team…..
GOOD JOB, Hiel Hitler!!!
Comment by RemoveBush
Oh, the Hitler card - that is such an old trick comrade. You don't need to know the school I graduated from. You only need to know that it's not the College of Free-Loaders where you got your degree with Summa Cum Laude honors. So it's judgemental when the insults come from a conservative/Republican but when it comes from a liberal like you it's "compassionate"?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:51 amRightOfAttila
Oh, and talking about free loading bums...
Of the 17 states that actually come out as paying more in federal taxes then they get back? only 3 or 4 of them are Red states.
On the opposite end of the scale? 7 out of the 10 worst offenders when it comes to being a tax burden on the rest of the union happen to be, you guessed it, red states.
So if I was you I would be very careful about talking about "Freeloading bums" boetjie.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:51 amRemoveBush
Calm down and click the link
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22659.html
October 17th, 2007 at 10:03 amBruce,
Thank you for making an intelligent argument worthy of a decent response. While the statistics you point out to in the tax foundation web-site are interesting and credible, I don't think they are enough for you to conclude as to who is getting a disproprotionate share of gov't spending. Does it make a person a free-loader just because he lives in a state that receives more in federal spending, regardless of how much taxes he pays? The argument also goes the other way. Can you say that a person from CA (a state that pays more than what it receives from the Federal givt.) isn't free-loading even if the person doesn't pay any taxes, avails of SSI, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. ? Florida is a good example. It takes in a disproprotionate share of SSS and Medicare spending because it has a disproportionate number of retirees. As you may well know, a lot of Florida retirees spent most of their productive, tax-paying years in other states. So their home states get creditted with their tax dollars, but Florida gets credited for the SSS and medicare spending.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:44 amRightOfAttila
First, to deal with your point:
What your argument can easily be stated as is, the red states (Like Florida) are taking up the very benefits that they whine most loudly against paying for.
Now for my point:
Those blue states are made up of the people who are paying those taxes are voting blue. That blue vote is a reflection of the will of those people, who are paying for America as a whole.
The blue state voters are more liberal then the Red state voters and they are not only, on average, paying their way, they are funding the very states that accuse them of being free-loading bums.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pmOkay, let me rephrase that:
If the idea that liberals are a bunch of free loaders was accurate the states which contribute the most to the US would be the red states.
On tax figures, the opposite is true. Indeed the blue state voter, is actually in general, paying far more towards America then the red state voter. This is because, liberals, in general, aren't freeloading bums but conservatives with their concept of government done on the cheap are.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pmBruce,
So your definition of a free loader is one who resides in a state that takes in more federal tax dollars than that state contributes, regardless of how much taxes they pay and regardless of how much govt. services they consume. My definition of a free loader is one who depends on govt. for his needs/wants. I'll leave it up to the readers here to decide whose definition is more accurate.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:50 pmDoes Malkin realize she's using Pro-Choice arguments to argue against S-CHIP and then calling it Pro-Life (aka Anti-Choice)?
You can't have it both ways. Either you are "pro-life" and love them baybeez so damn much that you want to swim in an ocean of diapers so you outlaw abortions and provide care and assistance for all children until adulthood OR you are not, in fact, pro-life, but are, in fact, pro-fetus, and will only help babies until approximately six seconds after they begin to cry. From there on you don't care what happens. So which is it, Malkin?
Meanwhile, on the left, we want to give parents a choice when to bring life into the world and then give them assistance with things like medical bills, so that the kid can actually have a home to grow up in and a college fund, instead of inheriting mommy and daddy's billion dollar debt to the insurance, drug, and hospital industries, growing up in a cardboard box on a street corner.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pmRightOfAttila
No, I am saying that the blue states as a whole, aren't the freeloaders dependent on federal handouts here.
If the majority of the people in blue states were freeloaders, the blue states, which are majority liberal (Hence being blue states) would be the ones that are draining America dry.
Instead it is the opposite because a state's colour on the vote map reflects its vote, and reflects its voters.
Thus your charge of calling liberals free loaders, as reflected by tax dollars, as reflected by who is actually getting the federal government handout, is simply wrong.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pmatilla,
by any definition of "freeloader" private companies and corporations are by far the worst offenders.
but you will hear no politician on any side of these argument bring up such uncomfortable truths.
the rights problem is that it wont admit that its all for federal handouts, as long as it goes into the pockets of people who already have too much instead of those who have too little.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pmBruce,
I think you're missing the fact that the tax burden is not shred equally among the voters. While it is true that a blue state may share be a"donor" state to the federal coffers, it doesn't necessarily mean that blue voters are. Here's an excerpt from a study in the tax foundation website with the link.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/2286.html
"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy."
This means that low income groups, although their votes would count the same (one-to-one) as the high income group, do not share the same tax burden. It is stated in that study that high income groups shoulder a far higher percentage of the tax burden. Now the question is, how do the people who pay for the most taxes vote? Here's a link and an excerpt from the Pew Research web-site.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/593/haves-have-nots
"Families in the top income-tiers are both heavily Republican and,
understandably, more likely to look with favor upon the nation's
larger economy and their own place within it. "
So it says there that the high income group, who bear most of the tax burden are heavily Republican.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pmSo it says there that the high income group, who bear most of the tax burden are heavily Republican.
no it doesnt.
the highest earners may pay the most taxes, but that is not the same as carrying the most tax burden as a group. far from it. plus when they say "high income", that ranges from $60 to 100K and beyond. Its fairly poor resolution which conceals the bonanza time for the mega earners, whose tax contribution probably doesnt follow any linear pattern of distribution.
The reality is the middle classes always bear the main tax burden for any nation, through sheer weight of numbers. And this study has put the upper middle class as the high earners, but thats just not true. the real high earners cover only a few percent at the very top, and they do not bear the nations tax burden.
its alchemy which masks the fact that the highest of high income earners in comparison bear the least tax burden of all groups considering the money they make, by hiding them in with the middle classes.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:28 pmRightOfAttila
The unemployed are statistically less likely to vote then the employed further, the unemployed as a population group, are about 7.4% of the population in the absolute worst American state for unemployment.
In Michigan, a blue state and I am not going to lie about it, 50.7% of the population voted in 2006.
So, assuming that the unemployed continued with their national characteristic of about 51% of them voting, that would mean they accounted for about 3.774% of the 14% trouncing the Republican got.
Now if you are wondering where I got that 51% from:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf
To quote it:
(Oh, and a hint, you can use this against people who claim a massive turnout is always good for the Dems, 2004 more people voted then on 2000, and the election went the other way.)
In other words, the unemployed are not a big enough population group in and of themselves to win or even particularly influence elections. Particularly if you note how the higher income brackets tend to vote more regularly.
Taking voting patterns into account, the top 5% actually account for a little bit more of the vote then the unemployed 7.4% (About 3.85% if you take a conservative 77% turnout, while the unemployed account for 3.774%.) And that is assuming all of the unemployed vote the same way.
So the blue states, which are funding the red states, are not being won by having high unemployment rates. The unemployed are not a big enough population given their voting patterns to even particularly influence the elections much.
Its not the bums voting against you in those states attilla, its the people with jobs, taxes and money voting against you too.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pmBruce,
It seems you're just taking the number of unemployed from the equation and making the assumption that all who are employed contribute to federal taxes the same way. Let me point out to you the IRS figures for 2004
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls
You'll see there that the bottom 50% of taxpayers account for only 3.3% of income taxes. That means that the other half of tax payers shoulder 96.7% of the tax burden. The bottom 75% account for 15.14% of taxes which leaves the burden of 84.86% of all taxes on the top 25%. Based on CBO figures for 2001,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5324&type=0&sequence=0
the average salary of the top 20% of income earners is $182,700 and the next quintile is $75,600. These two upper quintiles account for 83.8% of the federal taxes, and 96.8% of all income taxes, paid in 2001 . Based on the pew research that I gave you earlier, these are the two groups that heavily vote republican.
Bruce, you can put any spin you want on your computations but these are offical gov't figures.
It seems we have veered to far away from the original spirit of this thread so this will be my last post. I'm sure you will stick to your position as much as I would stick to mine. I enjoyed our exchange as you have been a gentleman all through out. That's very refreshing compared to the usual bad-mouthing that I read here (including some from me but only in retaliation). For that I salute you.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pmROA and Bruce (et al.): Thanks for making your respective cases with real data and rational discourse. We need more of that these days.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:36 amThere is one more thing to point out though: Blue states are the ones whose median income exceed the national average while red states go the other way.
So what I am disputing is the government figures when applied to the blue states because...
As can be shown the voting doesn't bare it out. If it was a case of higher incomes leading to greater likelyhoods of people voting Republican, you wouldn't see this:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/05/median_income_d.html
Because there is a definite tendency amongst the higher income states to vote blue.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:41 amO.K., I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of this commentary, except for the name-calling stuff. (What is it with you twenty-somethings?).
But let's get back to the original problem here--affordable healthcare.
Squeegeeboo, you are young and inexperienced. Let me give you some examples of how the system works.
When I was a young, healthy twenty-something, I finished college and went out in the world, and very responsibly signed up for health insurance. A month later I had appendicitis. My insurance agent was r-e-a-l-l-y unhappy! After all, I was the perfect demographic for a sure bet.
Years later, I was laid off of a job with health insurance. I dutifully signed up for a policy on my own. I paid five months of premiums. I suddenly had a health crisis. The insurance company refused to pay for my surgery because it was a "pre-existing condition"--an assessment based on nothing, since I and my doctor knew nothing about my having this "pre-existing condition" and I had never had any diagnosis or treatment for such. The company said that you had to be in their plan for SIX months before they would pay for pre-existing conditions. Paying my medical bills without my insurance company's help wiped me out.
O.K., years go by. I am a stay-at-home mom with kids. My husband is laid off. We are allowed to keep his health insurance policy for eighteen months if we pay the hefty premium. We do, but at the end of 18 months, we have to scramble. He is now self-employed. We are offered a deal for the self-employed which is pretty good. Only problem--they decide I am uninsurable based on my past health history. So, they will cover my husband and kids, but not me. Now, what?
Fortunately, I live in a state that has a special health insurance policy for the uninsurable. But now my family is paying premiums for TWO health insurance policies. And not the greatest coverage.
In the end, my husband was able to retire out of the Alaska state system early and get health insurance coverage for the rest of our lives because he happened to live there and work for the state during the oil boom decades ago. Sheer luck.
Now, think about this, Squeegeeboo and Rightof Attila. Is there any sense to how this system works? What is the rationality of having health insurance tied to a job? Do you realize that we and South Africa are the only two places in the world that tie health insurance to a job?
Why must we scramble everytime we change jobs or are laid off or we want to start a business or when we first leave home? Why can't we have a policy that we keep all of our lives that is affordable and gives decent coverage?
This is the result of having a system that is profit-driven. Keep out the old, keep out the people with less than perfect health, keep out the women of child-bearing age. It is ridiculous. Too much worry and anguish and frustration is spent dealing with this system. And too many people are unable to switch jobs or create businesses or do whatever because they cannot afford to lose their health insurance policy. And many lose their insurance anyway when they are laid off or when their companies can no longer afford insurance premiums.
How can you think this is a good way to run a society?
Yet you blithely carry on about personal responsibility!
Another thing--you blame people for not moving constantly upward, or for not having a better paying job. (Just wait until you get laid off of your white collar job when you are middle-aged.) I have this argument all the time with the Republican-minded. They boast that they decided to become doctors or lawyers or whatever offers the highest-paying jobs and that everyone else is at fault for not choosing the same career path. Well, if we follow that logic, we would have an entire population of doctors, and then what? Who would ring up your groceries? Who would sell you clothes? Who would take your garbage away? Who would harvest your food? Etc. Etc.
You need all those "little people" to help you enjoy your rich life. You'd be miserable without them. Society wouldn't work without the diversity of labor and skill set. Instead of sneering at them and belittling their contribution, get a clue. They work as many hours or more as everyone else, doing things that need to be done. Is it too much to ask that they are accorded some security and peace of mind?
Why make life so hard when you can apply your brains to come up with simpler, more rational approaches?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:20 amThis really sounds like early 20th-century eugenics--only those rich enough for health insurance should decide to have children. Next we shall be unable to marry, whether straight or gay, if we can't afford our own health insurance!
I admit I can't quite understand what is driving all these nutcases over the edge of insanity, unless it's their terror at losing the next election, or their shame over their obvious hatred for their fellow men and women.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:03 amp.s. For more comments on the state of the world by yours truly, see historyunfolding.com
David Kaiser
October 18th, 2007 at 9:03 amSM: That is a fine and memorable post. Let's face it, when one has debates, one needs to have just the right points and just the right examples to be persuasive. You've explained the problems with the state of U.S. health care perfectly -- so you might have helped me and others persuade someone else down the road. Thanks.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:12 pmThanks, Thinkerton. Too bad I didn't put it in earlier. Seems like yesterday's crew have moved on to other things.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pm