Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
But naturally, the Democrats accused the Republicans of not caring about children. What a crock of sh*t. Typical of the Left, distorting the facts.
It is all they have. The truth doesn't look so good for them so they depend on lies and their supporters being too stupid to see through those lies.
BANNED MEANS BANNED, IT ALSO MEANS BYPASSING A BAN GETS YOU BANNED AGAIN USING THE RANGE---YOU ARE NOT WELCOME AND NEITHER ARE YOUR USELESS, THOUGHTLESS ROBOTIC LAPDOG COMMENTS---SPREE
Edited By Siteowner
I'm curious to know what Mark said...
Nothing as usual. Go to think progress or Daily kos and count on the fact that he mimics every word they say with no thought of his own.
He is an idiot that cannot address facts but just likes to see himself talk.
THE FACTS OF THE REAL REASONS WHY THE DEMOCRATS AND TRYING TO GET THIS BILL PASSED NEED TO BE PUT OUT ON THE AIRWAYS AND IN AS MUCH MEDIA AS POSSIBLE. I KNOW THIS AND OTHER BLOGS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT YOU AS WELL AS I KNOW THAT THE DEMS WILL BE SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS ABOUT HOW THE REPS AND THE PRES DON'T CARE ABOUT POOR CHILDREN. FOR SURE WE WON'T GET MUCH PLAY IN MSM CONCERNING WHAT REALLY IS GOING ON WITH THE VETOED BILL.
WE, ALL OF US NEED TO HAMMER THEM EVERY TIME THEY PUT UP PHONY BILLS AND OTHER IDEAS THAT WILL CAUSE THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER MAJOR GRIEF. WE NEED TO SHOW THE WORLD THAT THE DEMS AND LIBS DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE THEY JUST CARE ABOUT POWER AND GETTING RE ELECTED.
I like to read stupid Leftist comments because they never refute facts with facts, or any other valid counterpoint. Rather, they partake in character assassination and personal attacks. I actually think it's pretty funny. One guy on my site last week called me "potentially retarded."
Really, all it does is make THEM look bad.
Yes it does, but after he has proven our points on multiple threads dozens of times... he is irrelevant now.
This is so vile to me. On the Huffington Post they are SCREECHING that GW hates kids, but when confronted with Emanuel and Hoyers words, they run for the hills or start bashing me.
Libnuts are a very weird bunch.
Playing politics by trying to scare voters using their kids is a new low for liberals.
Wait a minute,
a new low??????
Have they ever been anything but dirty, sneaking low life snakes?????
LOL
Well, I have comments on the article, but my first thought is to wonder why ad hominem is so vigilantly defended against when it's anti-Bush or anti-Republican, but accepted when it's anit-liberal or anti-Democrat. How does it foster productive conversation to be calling anyone "libnuts" or "stupid" or "dirty, sneaking low life snakes"?
Anyway, on to the point: So far, all I've seen of this debate is rhetoric. The liberals holler about Bush "hating children", the conservatives make unsupported claims that the proposal will include families making $83,000 and nothing substantial or productive is said or done. Typical bullshit American politics.
So, some observations and opinions, in case anyone is open to such:
* How much of the supposed tax burden being placed on the American poor is made up of taxes on cigarettes?
* From what I've been able to tell so far, the $83,000 comment is inaccurate, and is based only on a New York incident in which the state appealed to try to get nonstandard coverage for a family whose income totaled $83,000 -- and that appeal was turned down. Most likely rightly so.
* It seems to me that the president's one-seventh proposal is only substantial if one buys into the idea that the "poverty line" is still a valid means of distinguishing between the poor and the financially secure. The current poverty level in the lower 48 is around $17,000 per year for a family of three, but I can tell you for a fact that making $18,000 or $19,000 per year is often NOT enough of an improvement to allow for good medical care for the children in these situations.
From what I understand, the SCHIP bill that was vetoed was written for those people in the lower brackets of the so-called "middle class", who make too much for assistance but too little to provide good health care for their children. Bush's one-seventh proposal would not even cover all the children who qualify under CURRENT standards.
Of course, the typically upper-class-minded find it difficult to discern these differences; to them, the poverty line is the poverty line, and everyone else is doing fine.
Jack thanks for your response but the you are speaking to the myths, we have shown the whole bill, perhaps you should go through it.
This bill that was just vetoed DOES provide for those that are on private healthcare now and allows them to join state funded healthcare....that is wrong.
The SCHIP bill was originally intended for low income families, period and that is what it should remain.
Now that it has been vetoed, they should split the difference moneywise, still allow more than 5 million over five years BUT disallow the ability of those over legal age and those that can afford private care.
Compromise.
Thanks for the civil response! =)
Okay, you say I'm "speaking to the myths" -- but can you show me exactly which part of the bill allows people who are on private healthcare to join federally-funded healthcare?
The $83,000 claim seems no less and no more "mythical" than the countering claim that this is derived inaccurately from a New York appeal that was not part of SCHIP at all, and that was denied anyway. So far I've seen no valid rebuttal of this response...
J~TH
Jack, we did show in the original post, fact vs Myth, so YOU show me where it LIMITS those to ONLY low income families since you cannot deal with the fact vs myth we posted. I have dinner to do, then I will see where you found that part.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d110:H.R.976:
Ok, Jack now that I have eaten, here is a hint for you before I go offline for the night
The Senate bill grandfathers in New York at a higher SCHIP match rate than the rest of the country – allowing SCHIP to cover children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 per year.
Go though the whole bill Jack, you will be surprised at the other things hidden in there under titles that are misleading.
The Senate bill states: "(B) - Exception - Subparagraph (A) [the limitation of the matching rate to the Medicaid rate for children whose effective income exceeds 300 percent of the Federal poverty level] shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State Plan Amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan."
The Senate SCHIP bill also grandfathers in New Jersey's program at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, which includes children in families with incomes of $72,000 a year.
Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ): "Corzine added that the state, which covers about 122,000 kids in its program, known as FamilyCare, 'will continue to provide health care to children in families with income up to 350 percent' of the federal poverty level – or $72,275 for a family of four. He also wrote that he is prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the new rules." (Christopher Lee, "N.J.'s Corzine to Defy New Health-Care Rules," The Washington Post, 9/14/07)
More tomorrow
night
I understand the $5 billion funding increase proposed by Bush would not cover the increasing costs of this program. All in all, with so many Americans not insured, or having to pay exorbiant, crippling amounts of their income towards insurance, what is so scary about government funded health care. I don't understand why gov't funded health care, especially for ALL children, is a bad thing.
Canada does this quite well, and you cannot say that Canada is doing poorly for it - in fact, just look at their dollar compaored to the US dollar...they don't seem to be suffering. Further Canada has posted a SURPLUS in their annual bidgets for the past 5+ years.
Thanks - I actually read that already, in your piece as well as others. But the refutation I've heard is that the $83,000 figure comes from a request from New York to cover children in some slightly higher-income households because of the state’s high cost of living -- but that the final Congressional agreement on the matte deniaed this request in order to put the poorest children “first in line” for benefits.
Where are the facts? Or is it all interpretation and rhetoric, two sides gnawing at the center? I've looked at the bill, and will continue to do so. But I've yet to see clear indication of the things that are claimed to be in it. This is why I was asking for specifics.
But since you don't seem inclined or able to give direct quotes of relevent elements, I'll go through it again...
J~TH
The New Jersey one is more in line with the tricks the politicians are trying to play. They do not have to write the figure IN the bill if they grandfather the law over and the state itself makes the determination.
That political gameplaying these politicians feel we, the general public, are not smart enough to catch on to because the majority is too lazy to read the bill, THEN follow up and actually read the articles and the laws of the particular state.
They count on the general public being too lazy, too uninformed and too stupid to do their own research.
The whole reason I didn't even write about the SCHIP program to begin with is because the same way I double check everything the politicians say, I also had to take the time to double check everything that was on the white house website.
I take no ones "word", so it took me weeks to actually address this subject.
Bottom line Jack, it isn't JUST the bill you need to go through, you need to do a word search on references back to the OLD SCHIP bill, then go to THOSE states and find their laws to be able to determine WHAT is being allowed in this bill.
It is a good trick, but one that those willing to do the legwork,will see through immediately.
Please, those in favor, define rich (so I know whose taxes should be raised and define poor (so they can get benefits). This may make things so much easier.
More importantly on overall health insurance. Why do people think the organization that can not run anything efficiently will improve healthcare in the US? Address the problem with the cost, not the lack of insurance.
nycmale, some people seem to think socialism is the only way to go...they also feel they do not need to explain it, they simply should be able to take over everything in our lives.
No matter which way anyone looks at any of the information, even up to the 83 thousand quote (which is the absolute largest number one can calculate from the numbers and which certainly does not apply to most of the people within 100 to 300% of the poverty level that this bill would really help) The Total number of US children in the US that have health insurance would be higher if this bill was passed, even accounting for private drop out and even accounting for decreasing employer insurance coverage.
I find it sad that our country cant 'afford' to insure our children. this bill was a step in the right direction... not in NATIONALIZING health care and all that rhetoric, but toward insuring our children. i think the strong bipartisan support of this bill says something about that.. more children with insurance means more children with a pediatrician and a medical home. More children with a pediatrician and a medical home mean healthier and happier children. This veto did prevent many US children from receiving health insurance they need. It is sad.
im not in the buisness of deceit and lying, im in helath care and want good things for the US and for US children. why do republicans have to write such ugly statements about dems and liberals? anyone who resorts to needing that kind of argument doesnt understand that that this world isnt black and white and that there are always good points and good people on both sides and that anyone of any substance digs deep to "be" and explore both points of view. I also find it amusing that this site isnt supposed to allow character bashing, yet i have to sift through this stuff to read the meaningful comments that are here.
cheers,
- billy
they depend on lies and their supporters being too stupid to see through those lies.
no thought of his own.
He is an idiot that cannot address facts but just likes to see himself talk.
Typical of the Left, distorting the facts.
DEMS AND LIBS DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE THEY JUST CARE ABOUT POWER AND GETTING RE ELECTED
stupid Leftist comments because they never refute facts with facts, or any other valid counterpoint. Rather, they partake in character assassination and personal attacks
Really, all it does is make THEM look bad.
Libnuts are a very weird bunch.
Have they ever been anything but dirty, sneaking low life snakes?????
they simply should be able to take over everything in our lives
This is ridiculous, I read the entire blog and I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong. The so-called FACTS you have spins more than a usual Bill O'Reilly show (or anything that mainstream media puts out, including so-called "liberal" CNN and BBC).
Even his buddy Orrin didn't think it was a smart move, in fact he said this:
Asked if he would support a veto override, Hatch didn't hesitate. "You bet your sweet bippy I will," Hatch said with a smile.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/
th...eto_threat.html
But I don't really want a response from you, I've read other blogs that you've put up and you're very arrogant.
"I've read other blogs that you've put up and you're very arrogant."
Thanks for taking the time to notice 
LMAOLMAO, they can't stand facts and notice she couldn't dispute one of them? How amusing.
Commenting by HaloScan
