And I have to disagree, but when the dialouge gets diverted to personal attack, as it ALWAYS does, (read my 1st posting on this subject), then it does become the issue. Whether we want it to be so or not.
Yeah, it's a distraction from more substantive arguments about the program itself and about American health care in general. But these repeated smear tactics against ideological foes of these people do not deserve to stand unchallenged and uncommeented on. Otherwise they'll just go on and on and it'll be like giving these people license to swiftboat and steamroll anyone they happen to disagree with.
But you can't let it distract you from the real issues. Address it, but don't neglect what this is really all about. You started this mode of conversation. You posted the article and continued to harp on it without discussing the real issue. Yes, G-man took the bait and gnawed on the bone like a rabid dog; but you're the one who put it out there to begin with. Could it be because discussing the smear tactics of the far right is easier than coming up with reasons why the program should be expanded to families with the disposable incomes to pay for their own insurance policies or who more than likely, with that high of incomes, have jobs that provide those benefits for them at a reduced cost? It's all smoke and mirrors. You led the conversation away from the real issues to turn this into another "The conservatives are evil/no the liberals are evil thread". We don't need anymore of those. Trust me. We gots plenty. The people on the right who attacked this family are shitheads. The Democrats who trotted out this kid to garner sympathy and launch a campaign of false insinuation against the President and his reasoning for vetoing the bill are shitheads too. None of that affects the real issue at hand.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
You started this mode of conversation. You posted the article and continued to harp on it without discussing the real issue. Yes, G-man took the bait and gnawed on the bone like a rabid dog
Me?
In the middle of a debate between whomod, Ray and WB, all I did was ask how questioning the father's veracity was the same as attacking the kid.
I then followed up with two posts, only after you and Ray talked about my post, in each case making points very similar to yours.
Ray went after it too, yes, as did others. I'm sure they'll keep harping on about it and avoid the issue if we let them. I was just making a point that you did follow that carrot instead of ignoring it and just discussing the plan as you are, of course, the main point of contention with Whomod and Ray at the moment. Also, I did not see your last post as I was typing mine while you posted it.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Well, with all due respect, Doc, my point doesn't seem all that different than the post you made, in which you pointed out that Bush's veto really wouldn't affect this family anyway. In either case, we were both questioning the validity of their premise vis-a-vis this particular family.
And, in any event, that certainly doesn't seem like I "gnawed" on the issue "like a rabid dog."
You're a Republican (evil) and G-man (gay and evil). This is a sick little kid; therefore, being the Republican G-man, you should naturally be ripping the flesh off his carcass with your teeth as you dry-hump the rest of the corpse.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
let's just say the so far unproven accusations that the family makes 80,000 is true. does that really negate the hardship of paying for major medical costs for 2 children after a major accident?
Even with a pre-existing condition, you can get insurance, just at a higher cost. If you're pulling down 80g's a year, you can afford that cost. You will have to sacrifice luxury, but which is more important?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
That's your way of once again saying that you don't want to discuss the policy itself and whether it should cover people making $80,000, isn't it, Ray?
No, there hasn't. Nor have I said there is, but there also isn't proof that he's making $80,000 a year either. So he and his family fit into the current requirements for the program they used and isn't getting cut, eliminated, or having it's caps reduced.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
The people on the right who attacked this family are shitheads. The Democrats who trotted out this kid to garner sympathy and launch a campaign of false insinuation against the President and his reasoning for vetoing the bill are shitheads too. None of that affects the real issue at hand.
Ad Campaign Criticizes Pro-Life Members of Congress for Voting against Children's Health Insurance
Washington, DC- Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.
The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio stations from Monday Oct. 15 to Wednesday, Oct. 17 as Congress approaches a critical Oct. 18 vote to override President Bush's veto of bipartisan SCHIP legislation.
"Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable," said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. "At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children."
The following members of Congress have voted against SCHIP, which provides high-quality health coverage to more than six million children whose families would otherwise be unable to afford insurance. Radio ads will air on local radio stations in their congressional districts.
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, Michigan
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan,
Rep. Tim Walberg, Michigan
Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio
Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi
Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Minnesota
Rep. Sam Graves, Missouri
Rep. Thelma Drake, Virginia
Rep. John Peterson, Pennsylvania
The script for the radio commercial reads: "I'm the mother of three children, and I'm pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation's number one moral priority. That's why I'm concerned that Congressman X says he's pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That's not pro-life. That's not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that's XXXXX."
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, and the Catholic Health Association have all urged Congress and President Bush to support SCHIP.
that one has got to hurt. Like I've said, this bill enjoyed bipartisan support. It seems all the veto is doing is further splintering what's left of the Bush base.
It's one of those mixed '"good news" on the heels of real misery' things to me of course but what I can't understand is why the ideological fear of potential "socialized medicine" overrides keeping what's left of your party's support.
I'm not a big pro-lifer. That's one of the reasons I gravitate toward Guiliani over some of the other GOP candidates.
With that being said, however, there's not really an inconsistency in a pro-lifer voting against the bill.
Prolifers believe abortion is murder. There is a big difference between being opposed to murder and being opposed to expanding a government funded health program.
The Wall Street Journal has a pretty even-handed editorial today on this whole program. While taking conservative bloggers to task for criticizing the Frost family (and Democrats for putting them in the spotlight in the first place), it points out that:
The Schip bill was not some all-or-nothing proposition: A continuing resolution fully funds the program through mid-November, so none of the 6.6 million recipients will lose coverage. And even if Washington can't agree by then, there will be another stopgap, because Schip might as well already be an entitlement. In truth, the Bush Administration endorses a modest expansion. A majority of Congress backs a much larger expansion. The controversy is over the role of government in health care.
The 10 million children that [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi cites are the sum of the current enrollees plus those who could join under the Democratic plan (which also has the support of some Republicans). Never mind that up to 60% of these children already have private insurance, which Schip would displace as it moves up the income scale. Only by Beltway reasoning could "not expanding" count as "denying" public assistance.
Despite all that, after his veto Mr. Bush repeatedly signaled a willingness to compromise and spend more than the $5 billion he would prefer to pump in--which is by itself a 20% expansion. His offer has been spurned flatout, and an override vote is scheduled for next week.
Mr. Bush's position recognizes that a subsidy like Schip is necessary is some cases because of government mandates and overregulation. Congress and the states consistently enact health-care policies that make insurance coverage more expensive, and then they wonder why people have trouble paying for it.
The employer-based insurance tax deduction is a wealth transfer to those who need it least--the most affluent, with the most gold-plated plans. It launders health dollars through a third-party bureaucracy that encourages people to spend, reducing access and raising prices for the uninsured.
On equity grounds alone, Democrats should support changing these incentives.
That they don't, or won't, suggests ulterior political motives, and that's where Schip comes in.
it's really unethical for you to change a thread title from that of its original poster in order to skew it to your view. also, repeating the same lame joke that has never once gotten a laugh is kind of retarded.
Actually someone else, I think it was whomod, changed it to something different the first time around.
Also, I'm not sure how changing it to the title of the editorial which, among other things, criticized the far right for attacking the Frost family is skewing things to "my" view.
Besides, Ray, let's face it. Given your complete hatred towards Bush, and tendency to blame him for EVERYTHING, it gets confusing keeping track of the real subject of threads you might title "Bush is evil".
In any event, thanks for this quote:
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
it's really unethical for you to change a thread title from that of its original poster in order to skew it to your view.
Bush vetoed the bill. Your problem is you don't want Bush held accountable for anything. But he vetoed the bill, this thread is about him and his actions and your attempt to justify them by attacking me and MEM.
and your little quote joke has never gotten a laugh, not even on its first use. yet you keep using it as a joke. doing something over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
The Wall Street Journal has a pretty even-handed editorial today on this whole program. While taking conservative bloggers to task for criticizing the Frost family (and Democrats for putting them in the spotlight in the first place), it points out that:
The Schip bill was not some all-or-nothing proposition: A continuing resolution fully funds the program through mid-November, so none of the 6.6 million recipients will lose coverage. And even if Washington can't agree by then, there will be another stopgap, because Schip might as well already be an entitlement. In truth, the Bush Administration endorses a modest expansion. A majority of Congress backs a much larger expansion. The controversy is over the role of government in health care.
The 10 million children that [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi cites are the sum of the current enrollees plus those who could join under the Democratic plan (which also has the support of some Republicans). Never mind that up to 60% of these children already have private insurance, which Schip would displace as it moves up the income scale. Only by Beltway reasoning could "not expanding" count as "denying" public assistance.
Despite all that, after his veto Mr. Bush repeatedly signaled a willingness to compromise and spend more than the $5 billion he would prefer to pump in--which is by itself a 20% expansion. His offer has been spurned flatout, and an override vote is scheduled for next week.
Mr. Bush's position recognizes that a subsidy like Schip is necessary is some cases because of government mandates and overregulation. Congress and the states consistently enact health-care policies that make insurance coverage more expensive, and then they wonder why people have trouble paying for it.
The employer-based insurance tax deduction is a wealth transfer to those who need it least--the most affluent, with the most gold-plated plans. It launders health dollars through a third-party bureaucracy that encourages people to spend, reducing access and raising prices for the uninsured.
On equity grounds alone, Democrats should support changing these incentives.
That they don't, or won't, suggests ulterior political motives, and that's where Schip comes in.
You responded with this:
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
All of which exists on a thread that you called "...Bush is just evil.."
I think the record adequately reflects who was trying to discuss the health program issue and who's been regularly engaging in the off topic attacks.
That last point (bolded) is the one I've thought since this whole thing began. The Democrats bring out this sad little boy, in an emotionally exploitative bypass of the real issue: Should the maximum income to qualify for the governmentprovided S-CHIP healthcare be a maximum of 60,000 (as it's been) or 80,000 (as the Democrats are pushing for) ?
WHAT??!!! This bill had bipartisan support!
It was voted for in the House with 220 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Hardly a majority of Republicans.
In the Senate, it passed with 50 Democrats and 18 Republicans votes.
Draw from that what you will. It's not a majority of Republicans, in either branch of congress.
That last point (bolded) is the one I've thought since this whole thing began. The Democrats bring out this sad little boy, in an emotionally exploitative bypass of the real issue: Should the maximum income to qualify for the governmentprovided S-CHIP healthcare be a maximum of 60,000 (as it's been) or 80,000 (as the Democrats are pushing for) ?
WHAT??!!! This bill had bipartisan support!
It was voted for in the House with 220 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Hardly a majority of Republicans.
In the Senate, it passed with 50 Democrats and 18 Republicans votes.
Draw from that what you will. It's not a majority of Republicans, in either branch of congress.
he said "bipartisan" not that a majority of the republicans supported it. so i guess only a minority of republicans isn't evil enough to try and block healthcare for children while funding a massively faulty war. and we know how you hate minorities.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
he said "bipartisan" not that a majority of the republicans supported it. so i guess only a minority of republicans isn't evil enough to try and block healthcare for children while funding a massively faulty war. and we know how you hate minorities.
Originally Posted By: WB
your often vicious misrepresentation of the facts, and of those you disagree with.
I think The Doctor asked that and I responded some time ago.
If you want to look at Government run health care there already is a model to look at, it's called Medicare.
And by all accounts, seniors are quite happy with it. So I don't understand where all the doom & gloom comes from.. Well, that's a lie actually, I know EXACTLY where it comes from.
As for the Graeme Frost story, The Frot parents came on Countdown yesterday to talk about the right wing slime machine.
One of the problems with wingnuts like Malkin and Limbaugh is that they never concede a point. They could have said, “OK, maybe the program helped this one kid but … blah, blah … socialized medicine … blah, blah, blah …”
But they can never give an inch. Ever.
That’s nuts!
There's a new S-CHIP ad out BTW since congress is going to try to overturn the Bush veto.
the family of the girl in the ad, The Wilkersons had THIS to say
Quote:
The Wilkersons said they are fully aware of the possibility that their finances and personal lives may be investigated by opponents of the SCHIP bill.
“We rent a house, we have one car that is a junker. Let them dig away,” Bo Wilkerson said. “I have $67 in my checking account. Does that answer your question?”
If the govt doesn't want to have universal health care then at least they should stop pretending to care about our health and let us do drugs and whatever we want.
If the govt doesn't want to have universal health care then at least they should stop pretending to care about our health
You are asserting a false premise, namely, that everyone agrees that socialized medicine is the best way to preserve our health. Many, in and out of government, care about the public health but believe that market based solutions do a better job of providing for that health than a "one size fits all" program run by bureaucrats and politicians.
No, I'm asserting that if the govt. truely gave a fuck about our health they'd do something as simple as shell out some cash to help those who are poor/desperate. I'm sure there are other ways...but universal health care seems like the best. How can it get better then giving everyone health care? Don't see it.
Giving everyone health care is just a short step away from making everyone dependent on the government for health care. History tells us that totalitarian regimes of any stripe get their start by becoming 'provider' societies. The primary difference is that far-right regimes secure the dependence of their citizens by promising intangibles like total security and national glory while leftist regimes do so by promising material things like universal healthcare and equal pay for everyone regardless of, well, anything.
Giving everyone health care is just a short step away from making everyone dependent on the government for health care. History tells us that totalitarian regimes of any stripe get their start by becoming 'provider' societies. The primary difference is that far-right regimes secure the dependence of their citizens by promising intangibles like total security and national glory while leftist regimes do so by promising material things like universal healthcare and equal pay for everyone regardless of, well, anything.
police, fire, ambulance. we already depend on the government for security. you dial 911 and expect it to be there and it is. that is government provided support that we're all dependent on in our daily lives for simple order and safety. fbi, cia, the army. we already have an expectation of protection from foreign threats and domestic problems. you go to sleep not checking the horizon at night because you're dependent on them for that support. fda, epa. you already have the dependency of going to the store and feeling safe buying food and medicine.
so if the government fails in any of those other jobs, why shouldn't they get you better? is a business trying to make a profit really better than an agency run by people who can be dismissed for any public fuck ups. and since they're held responsible for protecting us from unnatural death that can be prevented, why not keep you healthy?
the difference between private insurance and government provided insurance is that the government care is guaranteed. there's no profit margin for the government. no businessman deciding whether to treat you based on money. private insurance companies are worse than the government, they have more power.
You're overlooking an important factor by taking profit margin out of health care. It's been mentioned before. Who is compensating physicians and other health-care professionals in a socialized system? It virtually guarantees they won't be getting what they're getting now. And who's going to want to spend a decade in med school on student loans they'll have to pay back if they're getting rewarded with shitty government compensation?
You're overlooking an important factor by taking profit margin out of health care. It's been mentioned before. Who is compensating physicians and other health-care professionals in a socialized system? It virtually guarantees they won't be getting what they're getting now. And who's going to want to spend a decade in med school on student loans they'll have to pay back if they're getting rewarded with shitty government compensation?
well ideally doctors are in it for the job of helping people. i think the greedy ones generally go to cosmetic surgery and not the other more stressful fields. and i imagine if the system were paid for by the government there would be more government grants and scholarships for med school to compensate.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
police, fire, ambulance.
Ambulance services are actually carried out by private businesses. Whether it be run by a hospital or contracted out from a hospital to a private firm.
The rest are run by the local government. They're controlled more closely to home and adaptable to the needs of the communities they serve.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
we already depend on the government for security. you dial 911 and expect it to be there and it is. that is government provided support that we're all dependent on in our daily lives for simple order and safety. fbi, cia, the army.
Organizations that don't actually regulate people's lifestyles. They simply enforce the laws of the nation at large. These are organizations that most people won't ever even have to deal with in their lives. Can't say the same for insurance.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
the difference between private insurance and government provided insurance is that the government care is guaranteed. there's no profit margin for the government. no businessman deciding whether to treat you based on money. private insurance companies are worse than the government, they have more power.
You seem to still be under the false impression that health care doesn't really cost money. It does. As long as that happens, whether a business is running it or the government itself (i.e. HMO's) it will be run the most cost effective way possible when it comes to allowed treatments. It's better to let those who can afford to pay for it to do so out of their pockets while trying to help those who can't rather than having the government run everyone's insurance programs.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
You're overlooking an important factor by taking profit margin out of health care. It's been mentioned before. Who is compensating physicians and other health-care professionals in a socialized system? It virtually guarantees they won't be getting what they're getting now. And who's going to want to spend a decade in med school on student loans they'll have to pay back if they're getting rewarded with shitty government compensation?
well ideally doctors are in it for the job of helping people. i think the greedy ones generally go to cosmetic surgery and not the other more stressful fields. and i imagine if the system were paid for by the government there would be more government grants and scholarships for med school to compensate.
Will the government also pay for the doctors' malpractice insurance premiums? If so, this program is going to cost a shitload of money. If not, that's another reason for many doctors to pass on the recipients of government run insurance (as there are many doctors who do so now because they don't get much money from them) since it costs an arm and a leg to both become a doctor as well as stay one. Also, I can't help but notice that you continuely rely upon these ideals that may or may not be very well represented in modern society.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
the difference between private insurance and government provided insurance is that the government care is guaranteed.
Not true. In many, if not most, government run systems, there is a certain amount of de facto or de jure rationing of health care.
Quote:
there's no profit margin for the government. no businessman deciding whether to treat you based on money. private insurance companies are worse than the government, they have more power.
You are very naive if you really believe that bureaucrats won't look for ways to cut costs to curry favor with their superiors.
Furthermore, have you forgotten the golden rule, that is, "he who has the gold makes the rules?"
If the government pays for health care, there is a strong incentive for the government to regulate personal behavior, on the theory that said behavior costs the taxpayers more in health care. Which, on its face, might be appealing to you in that "nanny state" mentality sort of of way.
However, what behavior is deemed "costly" would probably be tied to whatever theories, medical and political, are in vogue at a given time. So maybe under a moderate to liberal administration the banned behaviors (see, eg, smoking) are ones who agree should be banned. But eventually the political pendulum will swing, as it always does. And then some behavior you enjoy (see, eg, gay sex) will be seen as inherently dangerous and worthy of regulation.
The power to tax and the power to spend is the power to regulate. Do you really want a centralized planner deciding what you, or others, can do with their bodies?
