RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,153640,00.htmlAMEN

From Rieckhoff's "opinion" piece:

quote:

Any member of Congress who claims to support the troops should have voted to override the President's SCHIP veto today.

Bull. This sort of statement is exactly why I question the impartiality of IAVA and Rieckhoff. If Democrats REALLY gave a damn about supporting wounded warriors and their families, they'd have brought this measure up independently or attached it to a bill that has broad bipartisan support.

Instead, they attach it to SCHIP as a bargaining tool to try and influence those opposed to the fundamental provisions of SCHIP to vote for it anyway and knowing full well that it would be vetoed. With some it worked but it is playing politics with wounded soldiers. Where's Rieckhoff's outrage about that? His silence is deafening.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
From Rieckhoff's "opinion" piece:

quote:

Any member of Congress who claims to support the troops should have voted to override the President's SCHIP veto today.

Bull. This sort of statement is exactly why I question the impartiality of IAVA and Rieckhoff. If Democrats REALLY gave a damn about supporting wounded warriors and their families, they'd have brought this measure up independently or attached it to a bill that has broad bipartisan support.

Instead, they attach it to SCHIP as a bargaining tool to try and influence those opposed to the fundamental provisions of SCHIP to vote for it anyway and knowing full well that it would be vetoed. With some it worked but it is playing politics with wounded soldiers. Where's Rieckhoff's outrage about that? His silence is deafening.

News flash - this bill did have broad bipartisan support - 44 House Republicans signed off on it. I looked at the people promoting SChip and discovered notorious "liberals" like Senator Hatch co-sponsoring it. I am personally sick of the meanspirited attitude of so many self-described conservatives in this country who would rather see our hospitals go bankrupt trying to treat completely uninsured children, who would rather see our uninsured children's parents delay seeking medical care because of the cost, who would rather watch hard-working American families go bankrupt or become slaves to their debt than give them a helping hand. This is about politics, alright, but it's not about the Democrats trying to make a statement on the backs of the military. It's about the so-called "compassionate conservatives", the ones who've never had to ask how they're going to pay that $10,000 hospital bill, refusing on the basis of their blind ideological faith to do what is right and indeed practical.

As for the problems of wounded warriors and their families, just how long are they supposed to wait until some bill with the purity you advocate comes down the pike? This is not the first time Democrats have sought to assist military families and been shot down by their Republican counterparts. Webb's amendment for dwell time was shot down. The attempts to investigate and correct the problems at Walter Reed and other places have been stymied by hard-line ideologues like Patrick McHenry of N.C., who keep yelling that the Dems are engaging in politics as if their own actions are pure and above reproach. This war has been going on for five years now, and it's only just now, thanks to the change in Congress, that anything is being done for our wounded warriors and their families, but even still the administration throws up roadblocks and obstructs at every point.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
From Rieckhoff's "opinion" piece:

quote:

Any member of Congress who claims to support the troops should have voted to override the President's SCHIP veto today.

Bull. This sort of statement is exactly why I question the impartiality of IAVA and Rieckhoff. If Democrats REALLY gave a damn about supporting wounded warriors and their families, they'd have brought this measure up independently or attached it to a bill that has broad bipartisan support.

Instead, they attach it to SCHIP as a bargaining tool to try and influence those opposed to the fundamental provisions of SCHIP to vote for it anyway and knowing full well that it would be vetoed. With some it worked but it is playing politics with wounded soldiers. Where's Rieckhoff's outrage about that? His silence is deafening.

yup

quote:

News flash - this bill did have broad bipartisan support - 44 House Republicans signed off on it.

You must have missed this in my comment:

quote:

With some it worked but it is playing politics with wounded soldiers.

and

quote:

knowing full well that it would be vetoed.

You keep throwing out red herrings. This thread is not about the merits/demerits of SCHIP. It is about attaching a military benefit to a KNOWN controversial bill that was clearly under threat of veto.

There IS a separate thread on SCHIP.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:

You keep throwing out red herrings. This thread is not about the merits/demerits of SCHIP. It is about attaching a military benefit to a KNOWN controversial bill that was clearly under threat of veto.

There IS a separate thread on SCHIP.

The SChip bill took months of work and had broad bipartisan support, including from some of the leading lights of the Republican party. Go back over the legislative history and you will see dozens of committee meetings, rewrites, conferences and the like. There was absolutely no reason for it to be controversial except that your hero, Dubya, suddenly decided after 7 years of rampant fiscal irresponsibility that we don't have the money to pay for the program. Of course, cutting rich peoples' taxes might have had something to do with that, but that's another thread altogether.

The entire SChip program costs about the equivalent of a few days of the war, and the benefit of extending insurance coverage to working class Americans will be more than made up for by the strain it will take off of our medical infrastructure and off of parents who will take their kids in for preventive health care rather than waiting until they need hospitalization.

As for the recommendations of the Dole/Shalala Commission, we've got the president saying he'll put together some legislative initiatives, yada yada, instead of having the darn thing already put together and in effect. How long is it going to take for him to get his legislative initiatives together? Shall we wait until the next State of the Union so he can refer to it as some of the great work his administration is doing? In the meantime wounded warriors' families are dealing with a situation that exists NOW. And what they've got from our supposedly troop supporting administration is a promise that they're fixin' to do something any day now. And you accuse the Dems of making it about politics.

quote:

There was absolutely no reason for it to be controversial except that your hero, Dubya, ...

Not to quote Ronald Reagan but there you go again. You jump to a mighty big and erroneous conclusion.

How about a link to the history of the bill? Be happy to read it and comment on the SCHIP thread. I assume it will include the history of the wounded warrior/family add-on including who proposed it be added to SCHIP ... and when.

As to the Administration's initiatives, if you'd read the base article and a few of the articles and this GAO report from September that preceded it in time, you'd know pretty well where they stand.

BTW, as you'll note in my reference above, Congress is still playing with initiatives as well.

The President wants to expand the program, but not to those who don't deserve it most - the children. I don't consider 22, 23, 24 year olds making $80,000.00 a year, own a home, two cars, etc., "deserving." This is just another feeble attempt by the socialist left to backdoor their universal (social), government-run healthcare programs on Americans.

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:
The President wants to expand the program, but not to those who don't deserve it most - the children. I don't consider 22, 23, 24 year olds making $80,000.00 a year, own a home, two cars, etc., "deserving." This is just another feeble attempt by the socialist left to backdoor their universal (social), government-run healthcare programs on Americans.

PRECISELY.

Continual references from "Left Leaning Moderate" Posters about the proverbial "getting Camel's nose into the tent" B S to get Universal Government-run Health Program started. Negative Ghost Rider, not gonna happen...

That camel got itself shot. You Want It Hard..., Hard Is What You Get.

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:
The President wants to expand the program, but not to those who don't deserve it most - the children. I don't consider 22, 23, 24 year olds making $80,000.00 a year, own a home, two cars, etc., "deserving." This is just another feeble attempt by the socialist left to backdoor their universal (social), government-run healthcare programs on Americans.

I Agree, I make $50K a year and pay for my own health Insurance, I should not have to pay for someone else's.

Geez, some of you folks are amazing.

So what if some middle-class families who really "don't need it" end up being covered by this program?

My God, these "undeserving" people will take their children to the doctors office and they will get treated.

I can't think of a worse way to spend my tax-dollars:

Helping to keep America's children healthy!

What do you suppose these "undeserving" families will do with the money they save?

Probably spend it on other things like food, clothing, car payment?

Mortgage payment?

A catastrophe!

quote:

Originally posted by bakobill:

I Agree, I make $50K a year and pay for my own health Insurance, I should not have to pay for someone else's.

Oh really, and do you have children? Are you paying their insurance too, and putting a roof over their heads, and paying for their food, and funding their school and transportation on your $50K? And unless you're a smoker, why do you think you'll be paying for SCHIP? Have you ever had a kid get sick or injured and need 4 or 5K to pay for the medical expenses? Ever think about what might happen if you had kids and one of them developed something like diabetes or cancer? How about if they had an accident while playing and needed a couple of weeks in the hospital?

Fifty thousand ... how amusing. A guy with your income would go under trying to pay for one uninsured kid's week in the hospital. You'd be bankrupt.

President Bush 'Confident' Compromise Can Be Reached On SCHIP Legislation; House Appears Unlikely To Override Veto


http://www.medstore.biz/news/14412/president-bush-confi...d-schip-legislation/

quote:

And unless you're a smoker, why do you think you'll be paying for SCHIP?

That is the part I think is so dang flawed with it. What happens when more and more folks quit smoking because of the added heavy taxes? Who is going to pay for it then??????? You and me, that is who! Another thing, the poorer folks that already qualify for the SCHIPS are the ones less likely to quit smoking. Say they smoke 2 cartons a week, that adds up to $160/mo per smoker that could be used for food or other items. Guess what, you just made them poorer still! BTW, SCHIP is designed for kids, not adults. This was nothing more than an attempt at starting to socializing health care and you know it.

quote:

Originally posted by Woody_in_La:

quote:

And unless you're a smoker, why do you think you'll be paying for SCHIP?

That is the part I think is so dang flawed with it. What happens when more and more folks quit smoking because of the added heavy taxes? Who is going to pay for it then??????? You and me, that is who! Another thing, the poorer folks that already qualify for the SCHIPS are the ones less likely to quit smoking. Say they smoke 2 cartons a week, that adds up to $160/mo per smoker that could be used for food or other items. Guess what, you just made them poorer still! BTW, SCHIP is designed for kids, not adults. This was nothing more than an attempt at starting to socializing health care and you know it.

Aside from the inequity of targetting cigarette smokers for the revenue stream to fund the up-sized program, there is the minor little problem that cigarette smoking must increase (by about 22 million smokers), rather than decrease, to fund the program over the next five years. After five years, funding of the program drops 80% to below CURRENT funding levels. Smoke and mirrors.

quote:

Originally posted by Woody_in_La:
That is the part I think is so dang flawed with it. What happens when more and more folks quit smoking because of the added heavy taxes? Who is going to pay for it then??????? You and me, that is who! Another thing, the poorer folks that already qualify for the SCHIPS are the ones less likely to quit smoking. Say they smoke 2 cartons a week, that adds up to $160/mo per smoker that could be used for food or other items. Guess what, you just made them poorer still! BTW, SCHIP is designed for kids, not adults. This was nothing more than an attempt at starting to socializing health care and you know it.

Have I ever mentioned how much that little sign creeps me out? However, might get one of my own. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em and all that.

Anyway, I actually agree that we shouldn't be funding this through a sin tax, but through something more fair. A lot of smokers in my family. Even though I'm totally opposed to smoking I understand the nature of the addiction very well. However, this great bugaboo of "socialized medicine" is a load of hooey. The same people who would denounce an insurance program as socialized medicine see no disconnect between that attitude and approval of things like agriculture subsidies and bank bailouts. Frankly, I don't care what you call it. Tell me, after taking away the whole "socialized medicine is bad" argument and the funding mechanism, what exactly is the harm of this program?

Two to three million children currently covered by private insurance would move to government insurance.

Funding is a shell game. In order to provide the appearance of funding the bill (deficit neutral) the program drops 80% after 5 years (which we all know isn't going to happen so it is dishonest and faulty accounting).

Despite all the rhetoric about the increased tax acting as a disincentive to smoking, in order for the program to remain funded over the five years, 22,000,000 new average smokers must be added to the tax base.

I haven't mentioned "socialized" once nor have I complained about the tax being unevenly spread.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
Two to three million children currently covered by private insurance would move to government insurance.

Funding is a shell game. In order to provide the appearance of funding the bill (deficit neutral) the program drops 80% after 5 years (which we all know isn't going to happen so it is dishonest and faulty accounting).

Despite all the rhetoric about the increased tax acting as a disincentive to smoking, in order for the program to remain funded over the five years, 22,000,000 new average smokers must be added to the tax base.

I haven't mentioned "socialized" once nor have I complained about the tax being unevenly spread.

I wasn't responding to you, but to Woody_in_LA. Other than that, what's your argument with me? I'm opposed to using a cigarette tax, and I have no problem with a few million more children being added to the rolls. Seems to me that creating an environment where more people will be able to seek preventative health care for their kids, where families do not have to choose between losing their homes or cars in favor of paying massive medical debts, where parents do not have to choose between working two or three jobs and neglecting their kids or allowing their families to slide into poverty so they can care for their children, is not such a bad thing. So again, someone please tell me WHY this program is bad. Forgo the rightwing memes about socialism or government interference or any of that stuff, and tell me what the actual harm will be.

Pretty much tells the story.

IMHO

quote:

Originally posted by jdksfcret:
Pretty much tells the story.

IMHO

Perfectly put. I'm with you.