Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
THEY FEAR MONGERED!
DAMN DEMENTEDRATS!
I don't know what they were thinking other than to try to get critics to shut up because they were hiding behind a child.
How cowardly can they get?
Why is it that when someone makes over two million dollars a year they deserve tax cuts, but a family of six making 45k deserves this kind of roasting?
The alleged 'discussion' is a thinly veiled partisan vituper-fest. Nobody stops to examine actual facts - scholarships, for example, may have paid for the school. This is a pretty low-road attempt to avoid having to actually justify a veto that looks pretty lousy from out here in the hinterlands.
Hairy Wolf...perhaps your fact-finding tour bus had a flat tire?
The facts have already been checked out.
Have a nice day.
Could have yes, the fact is, they used Marylands no asset law to enroll in a program that they made too much, under the existing rules, to be eligible for.
EXACTLY the problems that we said were in the bill to begin with and the Democrats by hiding behind this kid, SPOTLIGHTED that problem glaringly.
The veto was correct, the bill needed to be fixed, NOT expanded on.
Low income should mean low income...those that cannot afford health insurance, not for those that CHOOSE not to pay for their own health insurance.
I showed the wording of the bill as well as the example, just one of MANY, where the eligibility requirements can be gotten around.
Notice how you do not address those problems?
Because you cannot, the language is in the bill.. try to actually address the problems, which IF the politicians had done so...the bill would not have been vetoed.
Quit trying to place the blame on the president for insisting this language be changed so that LOW INCOME families could be covered instead of middle income families such as the Frosts.
That is what SCHIP was started for originally.
OH one last thing, thanks for proving what I said... the Family would not have been in the spotlight to begin with if the DEMOCRATS had not hidden behind a child and actually addressed the issues.
THEY put the childs family in the line of fire...we didn't.
What? It's ok to send the kids to war and kill them, but not ok to pay lot's of money to keep them healthy. Is that what all this shit is saying?? When did our children and kids become some political bullshit. These are children it doesn't matter that the family makes 100,000 a year they should STILL get health insurance. This is the very thing that is going to tear the USA appart this little pissing and moaning on how to spend money you people are sad and pathetic fuck-ups. What do we need another terrorist act to make us work together and bridge our differences because historically that is the only thing that CAN stop the bickering.
A discussion... Not name-calling.
Actual facts... not the Political Sci Fi channel's opinioneering.
Health care for kids... good.
Less health care for kids... bad.
DUH.
In 2006, 118,501 children and 101,919 adults in Michigan received health care from the S-CHIP program. Incredibly, this means that 46 percent of Michigan’s funding allotment intended to give poor children health insurance actually went to cover adults.
Health care for KIDS, not adults... DUHHHHHHHHHH
This hasn't been addressed but was EXPANDED... so quit trying to claim that the new bill is for kids, OR low income families when middle income families are able to enroll with state laws, BYPASSING the eligibility process as well as ADULTS being covered.
BAD BILL, admit the truth instead of trying to spin.
That its for low income kids would go over better if it was being used for ONLY low income...CHILDREN... not middle income, not adults.
It is a great thing the house does not have the votes to override the veto...maybe then they will have to go back and FIX it to make it do what it was intended to do in the first place.
Phillipe, only an idiot would wish for another terrorist act.
Secondly, sure everyone should have healthcare, but when a program is supposed to be for low income families, it is up to our politicians to see to it that THOSE are the families that are covered under it.
Time for people to understand that if you are working, you need to pay your own way, it is not up to the government to everything for us.
We're angry because adults got health care...?
Oh, right... "Are there no prisons... are there no workhouses...If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. "
What we need to do in the 'first place' is take care of the sick... or is that the kind kind of compassion that proves compassionate conservatism to be so much horsepuckey?
Merry %$@% Christmas.
Once again, you cannot address the ISSUE without distorting...a typical tactic, but it doesn't work here.
This bill is supposed to be for low income CHILDREN nd it is covering adults and middle income children...try to focus will ya?
Wanna discuss healthcare plans for adults...wait til they pass a bill for THAT then.
Right now, I know it is difficult to actually stay on topic, but TRY, it is part of our rules and guess what?
We enforce our rules on this blog.
Last warning.
Hiding behind children!? You mean, like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L...h?v=LWA052-
Bl48
>>It's ok to send the kids to war and kill them,>>
ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY
Average age of the military is 28. Were you still a
"kid" at 28? Or have you even reached that age?l
http://www.dogpile.com/
info.dogp...sarmystatus.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/Research...ty/cda05-
08.cfm
And we don't send them to be killed, but , the_enemy_ does kill them. We _do_ have an enemy, you know.
What's more, in spite of military men being killed because they're in a war zone, they still decide to re-enlist.
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogp...01s01-
usmi.html
Kids...! What an insult. At what age do you consider a person to be an adult, responsible for his/her decisions?
Obviously since they want a bill that allows 46% of the enrollment in SCHIP for the state of Michigan to be adults...they think the government should always be responsible for our decisions SueK.
>>What we need to do in the 'first place' is take care of the sick>>
Oh right...! move those goalposts! You're in favor of national health care, then? Like in Canada? Problem is, of course, Canadians who have an immediate need come to the US for care. If the US goes with national health care, a) where would all the doctors come from, and b) where would _we_ go for immediate health care? How about Great Britain where they're now cutting off health care for the obese or smokers? Limited resources, you know ... have to cut off those who don't follow the health rules...
Damn SueK, You should write a piece on this subject...I will happily post it for you.
Keep it up.
Kids only, then.
Ahh, the actual 'facts'? Not the trumped up reportage of entertainment journalists on the Political SciFi channel?
Let's see... Nice cabinetry - in the home of a professional woodworker... hard one to suss out. I have a nice set of web sites - does that make me rich... or is it possible that a dozen years in the web biz give me an edge in design?
$40k tuition - the school's website specifically states that they give financial aid to families up to $160k income.
Where is the balance of fact against rhetoric? Actual proof... not six repetitions of Malkin foaming at the mouth.
Once again, who said they were RICH? See, you cannot manage ONE POST without misrepresenting what is being said.
You cannot even BE honest...LOLOLOLOLOL
Until you can, you won't be commenting again.
Find me someone that said they were rich, email it to me, then perhaps you will be allowed to comment again.
See ya!
Hairy Wolf doth froth ignorance.
siwwy twolls.
twolls are tewwowists.
They cannot even manage one post without distorting what is said, misrepresenting other sites words and outright lying.
It is amazing and not ONE of them, yet, have been capable of admitting the Democrats put that poor kid IN THE SPOTLIGHT.
They hid behind that child as terrorists hide behind innocent men, women and children.
But lets not insist they actually address the points made...oh NO, how dare me ask that of them.
How amusing.
They are incapable of facing facts.
They are incapable of admitting any wrong.
They are incapable of honesty.
They are incapable of integrity.
They are incapable of accepting the consequences of their actions because in their puny minds, they do no wrong.
Is there an exact figure for the worth of this company of the Frost's? People are really ignorant about the benefits of incorporating and the loopholes it opens up for a person that runs their own business. For instance, I could incorporate, buy a Mercedes in the corporation's name, and deduct not only the cost of the car as an expense but also the DEPRECIATION as well against corporate income at tax time. I am not saying this is the case with the Frost's because I haven't looked into it, but I would say it is highly likely. Just a little lesson for those of you who want to take that whole 45k income at face value. People will always take advantage of LOOPHOLES. Like the LOOPHOLES in the original CHIP bill.
Lance, good point and as of now, I do not have a clue if anyone has looked into that.
The Democrats have put the Frosts in a very bad position though because of all the controversy surrounding them since the Dems have shoved them into the spotlight, people will be looking into those things.
Hey spree 
Just to be clear, I am not advocating any kind of repercussions for the Frosts. Even if I was, there probably isn't anything illegal in the whole matter anyway. Again, LOOPHOLES. I am just trying to show that there's a HUGE difference between the 45k a normal person makes and the 45k I pay myself as head of my hypothetical corporation. That 45k becomes so much MORE when I am not paying the Mercedes car payment/insurance out of my salary, doesn't it? Heck, since I am a woodworker, I could buy my house under corporate name, work in a shop in my basement and call it business property. Guess what? Now I am not paying a mortgage out of that 45k either! Wow, that 45k salary I make looks better and better, doesn't it?
Oh, I could get insurance through my corporation, and deduct THAT too, but why do that when I can get it from the government through another loophole? You guys can pay for it for me in your tax dollars. Thanks!!!
I can't wait to see what the Dems do next to top this gaffe.
Yanno, I thought that about MoveOn, then I thought the way they jumped on the media matters lies would make them stop and think before making any further moves...then they pull this..it is like they are so busy trying to distract from the "last" screw up, they are autopilot and not thinking at all.
I am sure their next gaffe isn't far along the horizon.
Their next gaffe will be equally inane and cause further free-fall into the Abyss of Obscurity.
No one of any substance listens to them anymore.
They have shot their wads these last few weeks and they have drawn blanks.
Snooper, you have such a way with words. I choked on lunch, thank you very much!!!
Glad to be of service.
Well thank you Snooper. I must be one of those people of substance, because I gave up reading their comments long ago. But I've read yours, suek -- and I loved them!
And Spree, you know you can't win the argument by using facts -- the libs have a built-in genetic fact suppressor.
Once in a while, one actually tries. That makes it worth it.
Hearts and minds.
And, if we cannot have their hearts and minds, we will have their heads!
"Health care for KIDS, not adults... DUHHHHHHHHHH"
I agree. Stupid pregnant women should NOT be part of this program. They're ADULTS! DUH! Go fend for yourself.
After you deliver the low birth weight baby that had no prenatal care because you couldn't afford it, if your income is low enough, we might insure your baby and try to make him/her healthy again.
Stupid Democrats. They have the NERVE! The GALL! To try to cover ADULTS! DUH!
If you cannot afford to take care of yourself and a child, then you have no business getting pregnant . It is called RESPONSIBILITY. Learn the definition!
Why should "I" pay for a women that doesn't have the common sense to to wait until she can afford to have a child and support said child.
Do you people even know what responsibility is?
idgits!
Spree. Sorry that I've jumped in here a little late. Looks like you and Snooper have got it covered.
It makes me sick that the Republicans are going after a child and not debating the facts, again. When will we stop these tactics? they are not Christian.
Why can't we debate the facts? Why can't we just present the facts to the American people?
The facts stand by themselves.
We do not have to tear people down to get a point across.
We are losing our way when we resort to tactics like this. Who are suppose to be the grownups here? It has been reduced to a school yard ,nasty fight, where the supposed winner is really the loser!
Diane, if you had looked at the previous postings on SCHIP we laid out the FACTS vs the Myth on multiple occasions... this isn't about "going after a child" no matter how you try to distort with the accusation, this is about proving that our fundamental points about the BILL were correct, there are families using what was meant to be only for lower income children, that shouldn't be.
Our original points were exactly that. Instead of addressing the problems in the original bill, the politicians wrote it, expanded on those problems, then trotted out a 12 yrl to hide behind because they KNEW they didn't fix the older problems.
Try to spin it any way you want but remember and try to be honest enough to acknowledge the DEMOCRATS shoved a 12 yr old boy in the line of fire because they were too cowardly to argue the fcats of the bill.
Just as terrorists hide behind innocents, the Democrats just did.
That was the point of the post so try to stay on topic although I know it is more convenient to try to distract with the "attack a child meme" and avoid the cowardly actions of the Dems in this.
So, let's see. The Frosts have six kids. They have a house that is valued highly now, but wasn't when they purchased it. They own a business, but the business has been such that their salaries are $45-50k a year. Oh, yeah, and they send their kids to school that would cost a lot of money, if their kids didn't have scholarships.
For those who don't recognize the facts, with six kids, $50,000 doesn't go far, especially not when two of them have special needs.
And sure, they could probably put their home at risk by paying for insurance out of home equity... but that's the point of the program, to keep striving folks from having to make choices like that. A lot of people could, conceivably, afford health insurance, but it would require them to make very difficult choices.
The state feels it has an interest in protecting children (and hey, maybe even their adult caretakers) from situations in which people have to make those choices. I think it's a wise and compassionate thing to do.
On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong; maybe true compassion is trying to insinuate that the Frosts aren't in a tough situation and deserving of some help, the kind of help created for precisely the kind of situation they're in. That protects us from Big Government spending $7 billion a year helping folks get health care. But it won't change the truth: the Frosts are in a tough situation, and are getting assistance, and so far, none of the evidence brought against them shows that they're undeserving of it.
As for the states creating exceptions, you may have heard that New York sought an exception to use CHIP money to pay for people up to four times the poverty rate. It was turned down by the Bush administration. The exceptions and amendments are not as easy to come by as one might think reading your post.
You are ignoring they have assets, quite a bit of equity in fact if they bought the home back in the 90's and now it is worth some $400,000, and the fact that Maryland does not means test no asset test to determine eligibility is the WHOLE POINT WE HAVE MADE ALL ALONG ABOUT SCHIP BEING POORLY WRITTEN.
As well as 46% of those using SCHIP in Michigan are adults... these issues are what should have been fixed, not expanded on.
OOOOPS.
Excuse the caps, my nails are too long.
Let me make one more point here. I personally believe the Democrats deliberately trotted out a 12 yr old boy to distract from the bill itself because they couldn't argue the points above.
The did it deliberately with full knowledge just as terrorists hide behind civilians with full knowledge that they will get caught in the cross fire.
And we fire for affect and it worked.
"If you cannot afford to take care of yourself and a child, then you have no business getting pregnant . It is called RESPONSIBILITY. Learn the definition!"
Exactly. Women without insurance should be responsible and simply have an abortion.
A baby delivery without insurance is about $12,000. And since they couldn't get prenatal care, lots of those are probably high risk pregnancies that would cost more than that. In either case, about $12,000 is easy for families with avg salaries around $45,000 to handle, just sell your house leeches!
Therefore, if we don't insure the mothers, we'll just up the abortion rate in this country. problem solved! Your tax dollars saved, at the expense of a baby. No worries.
And, if you don't smoke, this doesn't cost you a dime. Perhaps you forget that this is fully funded through taxes on cigarettes.
Your crusade against irresponsible leeches on society has paid off at the expense of a few babies' lives, a small price to pay. Or, if they actually irresponsibly deliver the baby, those babies won't get postnatal care, immunizations, or anything - that'll show those whores how to be pro-life responsible! Congratulations!
You should run for office, you're a policy wonk through and through.
46% of Michigan SCHIP recipients were adults program supposedly aimed at children...get your head out of your ass here and think of how stupid that is.
They have assets and equity, ever hear of that? Why should "I" pay their bills when they have those two things?
Quit beinga shill for a BAD policy and start insisting they pay for their own way...again, responsibility.
You may be willing to pay for them, but I am not.
Once again, if they cannot afford to have children they should learn to keep her legs closed.
You are irresponsible if you advise anyone to have kids they cannot afford and moreso to think that people with assets and equity should be paid for by the taxpayer.
Maybe you think everyone owes you and these folks but I do not.
I earn my money, I raised my child, I paid for it by working TWO jobs his whole life.
Or is working to support your family something else you are unfamiliar with?
You are a moron.
HEAR HERE!! Well stated Spree!
If you cannot speak to the issues with throwing the word FAG around in some pethetically childish attempt to insult me, you need to grow up before you can comment here---Spree
Edited By Siteowner
Trouncing trolls, line 1!!
Commenting by HaloScan
