Bogus radio address by the Dems.

JTT wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

JTT wrote:

"Bogus radio address by the Dems."

Pardon me. After all the lies and the crap you've been spoon-fed, which you've dutifully slurped up, you have the temerity to even post something like this.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22456

Did you even read what I posted and the information inside of it or are you just defending what can't be defending?

I'm even willing to give you this one gratis [although I know someone will be along shortly to help you with your reading/internet search skills].

So what's the score on lies now,

Republicans - 83,729,541

Democrats - this one and one other one.

Jesus H Kerist man, have you any concept of proportionality? You oughta be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for trotting this dog and pony show out given what you offer slavish support for.

Your really going to say that the dems have only lied twice? Please you have got to be kidding. Have any comment on the substance of the article.

So that's my question: what about people who can't get insurance?

Okay, this is an answer to both of you guys.

They don't have to prove anything to either of you. Your opinion is immaterial. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe they deserve it. Their state has guidelines for the SCHIP program, which they met, and were approved for it. They have passed approval already and certainly aren't looking for a bunch of wingers to say 'oh, okay, you deserve it.'

Woiyo, you have no idea how hard the guy works or doesn't work at his job, so who can say?

Okie, you would have them sell their house and business in order to pay for health insurance? Doesn't make much sense.

Neither of you is showing an ounce of understanding in this situation. To begin with, the concept of selling their house or going into debt to pay for health insurance is laughable. Stating 'they should work more' is ridiculous, as you have no clue what their day-to-day situation is. All you know is that you don't like people getting handouts b/c it takes your hard-earned money away from you.

And that's bullshit because I don't see either of you complaining about military spending. Woiyo at least has made noises in this direction. We spend in Iraq every week what the Dems proposed we spend in addition to the current amount once a year.

Neither of you are concerned with saving money; both of you are concerned with the idea of keeping people from getting assistance.

This is a very frustrating conversation for me, b/c I know - know - that if you found yourself in the same position that they did, you would have taken the SCHIP program for your kids as well. And you're lying if you say any different.

Cycloptichorn

They qualified for CHIPS. If you have a problem with their home equity not being considered, move to their state and get it changed. But, don't attack them for qualifying. What are you going to do, sift through every recipients paperwork as if you are the decider of who qualifies and who doesn't? You act like you have a right to all of their information so that you can pass judgement. Graeme was just an example, a face on the problems dealt with by MILLIONS of people in this country. That's a lot of paperwork and judgements for you to make. You better get started.

squinney wrote:

They qualified for CHIPS. If you have a problem with their home equity not being considered, move to their state and get it changed. But, don't attack them for qualifying. What are you going to do, sift through every recipients paperwork as if you are the decider of who qualifies and who doesn't? You act like you have a right to all of their information so that you can pass judgement. Graeme was just an example, a face on the problems dealt with by MILLIONS of people in this country. That's a lot of paperwork and judgements for you to make. You better get started.

Once again, your emotion is getting in the way of objectivity.

To qualify for any taxpayer assistance program, disclousure is paramount to avoid fraud. Therefore, I expect the govt to "sift through all their paperwork" to make sure they are actually in need of assistance.

The numbers just do not add up. On 50K, how can they afford anything? How is he buying and refurbishing real estate? How can he feed and cloth and pay real estate taxes? Why is selling down not an option?

All this aside, you need to explain where personal responsibility ends and govt assistance begins.

woiyo wrote:

squinney wrote:

They qualified for CHIPS. If you have a problem with their home equity not being considered, move to their state and get it changed. But, don't attack them for qualifying. What are you going to do, sift through every recipients paperwork as if you are the decider of who qualifies and who doesn't? You act like you have a right to all of their information so that you can pass judgement. Graeme was just an example, a face on the problems dealt with by MILLIONS of people in this country. That's a lot of paperwork and judgements for you to make. You better get started.

Once again, your emotion is getting in the way of objectivity.

To qualify for any taxpayer assistance program, disclousure is paramount to avoid fraud. Therefore, I expect the govt to "sift through all their paperwork" to make sure they are actually in need of assistance.

The numbers just do not add up. On 50K, how can they afford anything? How is he buying and refurbishing real estate? How can he feed and cloth and pay real estate taxes? Why is selling down not an option?

All this aside, you need to explain where personal responsibility ends and govt assistance begins.

Objectivity? Funny that you would use that word woiyo..

SCHOLARSHIP
Insurance LIMIT on injuries
Mortgage
The program REQUIRES proof of income to be eligible

It seems it is YOUR emotion that is getting in the way of objectivity woiyo. Go read your car insurance policy. It has limits on what it will pay out. Go to a private school and ask them if any of the children there are on scholarship. (I bet about half will have a scholarship of some kind with many getting a full ride.)

It is cheaper to own a home than it is to rent in many markets. They have to live somewhere. As squinney pointed out they bought the house a number of years ago for $55,000.

As for accusing someone of fraud. Maybe you should be objective and get some facts before you make that statement. What evidence do you have that anyone hid anything? You don't even know the requirements for qualification but you are throwing out the word fraud. Objectivity my ass. It is YOU that is being emotional because someone else might be getting some of the piddly amount that you pay in taxes.

The left thinks they have blown this story back at conservative that questioned it, but not all of us are that dumb.

1. What happened to the auto insurance that they had, is it all run out now, assuming they had some?

2. How many people that can't afford insurance live in 3,000 square foot homes? I mean get serious here. I'm dropping my insurance and moving trading my house in on one twice the size.

3. Does medical insurance really cost 1200 per month? I've seen reports that it may be half that or less, especially for a modest deductible.

4. Do we really know what the family makes? Is it taxable income or actual income $45,000 to $50,000?

5. For a guy that isn't making much money with his business for how long now, how does he buy commercial buildings for it?

6. Public schools are free. Why not go there and save some money to hopefully buy insurance?

6. If the woodworking business is not making any money, why not sell the building and buy insurance for your family and get a better job?

7. I would like to see other aspects of this case as well, and why are people elgible for the program without regard to property holdings, if that is the case? After all, don't old people have to go broke, including selling their house to get the government to pay for nursing home care?

8. I feel sorry for the children, but that doesn't give the family a license to misrepresent their situation in Congress.

Here is my question/issue. If they have the resources to pay for private school to the tune of 40K.yr, I would assume they have sibstantial resources. Therefore, why should I the taxpayer, subsidize their healthcare?

So they pay 6K (500/mo) to send thier children to this private school.

What about personal responsibility? Can the wife work?

You are right I do not understand how someone making 50K /yr, spending 6K on private education, living in a 3K sq foot house that property taxes nust cost several thousand dollars, feed 6 kids, clothing ,so on and so on.

I reject your statement that I do not want to provide assistance. My position has always been that this society has been a generous society to the "UNABLE". I support that ewntirely.

Quote:

I reject your statement that I do not want to provide assistance. My position has always been that this society has been a generous society to the "UNABLE". I support that ewntirely.

They were unable to afford health insurance, not unwilling to. The article clearly states that they couldn't find affordable insurance so they turned to SCHIP.

Look - it isn't reasonable to have an asset test for SCHIP. Many families fall on hard times, times which wouldn't be improved by forcing them to sell their house! The point of the program is to help out kids who need help, not to ensure that people have gotten rid of all physical assets before turning to the State for help.

Are you against the entire SCHIP program? Because, I can assure you, there is noone who couldn't be told to 'work harder.' You could tell each and every applicant to 'go get a better job. Sell your house. Work two jobs.' Nobody will ever apply to the program who couldn't just 'work harder' or sell assets, to you guys.

Cycloptichorn

Yet, if they could sell down or borrow on equity, is that not a viable option?

I am not so sure THIS particuliar family, based upon the facts presented, is what the program was designed to do.

woiyo wrote:

I am not so sure THIS particuliar family, based upon the facts presented, is what the program was designed to do.

The people who run the program - who asked the required questions - and reviewed the responses - decided that assistance to this particular family was indeed what the program was designed to do.

The left thinks they have blown this story back at conservative that questioned it, but not all of us are that dumb.

Quote:

Yet, if they could sell down or borrow on equity, is that not a viable option?

No! You're saying that they should go into debt 13-15k per year, in perpetuity?

That's a terrible way to run a society or to help someone.

So-called 'asset testing' is ridiculous in this case. Do you know what the penalties for taking money out of their retirement account would be? Gigantic. And the results? More people on the dole later on in life. It isn't a net gain for the taxpayers to force people to spend their retirement savings on health insurance.

I think you have no idea how much houses cost these days. There's not much chance they would find a cheaper house then the one they have; there's actually little chance they could sell their current house in the climate we're in, not for anywhere near what the supposed 'value' of the house is.

I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to go into debt to pay for health insurance for their kids. I don't know why you think this is reasonable.

Cycloptichorn