Are some of us a little unclear on the concept here? Do you know what the "i" in S-chip stands for, okie? INSURANCE. And what is the principle of insurance? That everyone pays something, which spreads the risk around, so you are covered when something catastrophic happens to you.
That's what happened to whatever-their-name is. That's what happens to half of the bankruptcy cases in this country every year--they have catastrophic or huge unexpected medical costs, which they simply can't cover. And 75% of those people have health insurance anyway, but due to the limitations that insurance companies impose on payouts, they're wiped out anyway. And that's just the people who actually have to file for bankruptcy, not to mention the millions more who are almost as buried in medical bills.
The case we're dealing with wasn't exceptional. They're at just about median family income. They bought their property long ago, when it cost much less, and they probably were struggling with the mortgages. If the guy' a carpenter, one of those cars is probably a work van--just try getting a sheet of plywood in your Toyota Corolla. And there'as a hell of a difference between a 2 car family(which you pretty much need to get two people to work in a country which has systematically dismantled mass transit) which drives two 1990 Fords and one that drives two 2007 Mercedeses, tho both may be two car families. And $1200 a month for a health insurance family plan isn't out of line for a family that's not eligible for a group plan, which most self-employed people aren't. How many families can afford twenty-five percent of their pre-tax income for a helth plan? Not many.
That's what INSURANCE is all about. And that's why S-chip is so important--because a huge number of Americans can't afford HMOs, and more and more fall into that category as companies slough off their health care costs and uncover their workers. Which is why even a lot of Republicans supported it, you will notice. Even people solidly around the median of the country--not the rich, not the upper middle class, but half the country or more, need some help. Which is why single-payer makes more and more sense.
okie wrote:maporsche wrote:I can't believe that ANYONE would consider a family of 4 making 40,000 as being in the middle class.
That's 2 parents working at Home Depot full time.
Another little question here, dare I ask a question at the risk of being castigated endlessly for ever questioning a government program, what could be worse than that, but here goes anyway. If there is no qualifier on property ownership, I suppose somebody like the Frosts could own property worth a few hundred thousand more, perhaps a million or two or three, and still qualify? I
That is an absurd question.
How would they afford the mortgage on two million dollars worth of real estate on their income?
Quote:I am learning something here, nothing makes some people madder than to question their favorite government program. That is the holy grail, do not touch.
What you need to learn is compassion and equanimity and learn not to be driven by greed and envy.. Your gripe is that someone got something that you didn't and it drives you bonkers. You also are reminded that you are less than others who have these traits and that bothers you deeply.
Perhaps, therapy would help.
Roxxxanne wrote:okie wrote:maporsche wrote:I can't believe that ANYONE would consider a family of 4 making 40,000 as being in the middle class.
That's 2 parents working at Home Depot full time.
Another little question here, dare I ask a question at the risk of being castigated endlessly for ever questioning a government program, what could be worse than that, but here goes anyway. If there is no qualifier on property ownership, I suppose somebody like the Frosts could own property worth a few hundred thousand more, perhaps a million or two or three, and still qualify? I
That is an absurd question.
How would they afford the mortgage on two million dollars worth of real estate on their income?
Not an absurd question at all. What if there is no mortgage, what if they own it free and clear and maybe their parents pay the property tax?
Quote:Quote:I am learning something here, nothing makes some people madder than to question their favorite government program. That is the holy grail, do not touch.
What you need to learn is compassion and equanimity and learn not to be driven by greed and envy.. Your gripe is that someone got something that you didn't and it drives you bonkers. You also are reminded that you are less than others who have these traits and that bothers you deeply.
Perhaps, therapy would help.
What gripes me are people that want to turn this country into a nanny state and use the guise of children to accomplish their cause. If you cared about children, you would be talking more about parental responsibility, intact families, and a healthy atmosphere for children to grow up in, and you wouldn't advocate the killing of them prior to birth.
It isn't obvious that a moral stand by Okie is worth more then making sure that kids who don't currently have health insurance, get it.
The point of the SCHIP expansion is that there are currently plenty of kids who don't have the health insurance, b/c their families make just over the current limits, but can't really afford to drop the kind of cash that modern health insurance costs.
Okie, why is it that dollars spent defending you don't count as 'nanny state,' but dollars spent helping kids do?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:It isn't obvious that a moral stand by Okie is worth more then making sure that kids who don't currently have health insurance, get it.
The point of the SCHIP expansion is that there are currently plenty of kids who don't have the health insurance, b/c their families make just over the current limits, but can't really afford to drop the kind of cash that modern health insurance costs.
Okie, why is it that dollars spent defending you don't count as 'nanny state,' but dollars spent helping kids do?
Cycloptichorn
When you "keep raising the bar" where does it end? If you raise to to 65K, those who make 66K will bitch. Raise it to 70K then 71K complains.
Defending our way of life protects our way of life so you can keep asking for more of my money.
woiyo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:It isn't obvious that a moral stand by Okie is worth more then making sure that kids who don't currently have health insurance, get it.
The point of the SCHIP expansion is that there are currently plenty of kids who don't have the health insurance, b/c their families make just over the current limits, but can't really afford to drop the kind of cash that modern health insurance costs.
Okie, why is it that dollars spent defending you don't count as 'nanny state,' but dollars spent helping kids do?
Cycloptichorn
When you "keep raising the bar" where does it end? If you raise to to 65K, those who make 66K will bitch. Raise it to 70K then 71K complains.
Defending our way of life protects our way of life so you can keep asking for more of my money.
No, I can't agree with that. I think that you should be forced to pay for your own defense. I personally don't see why I should have to pay to defend people who I don't care about. I work hard for my money, and it's socialistic to take it from me in taxes in order to pay for the defense of others.
If you want defense, build a nuclear bunker and buy a rifle. But don't come to me looking for it. Soon everyone is going to want to be defended from all sorts of biological and chemical weapons as well. Do you know how much that's going to cost? It's a slippery slope.
Cycloptichorn
Well, well, looks like the Republican bigwigs are frantically trying to distance themselves from this latest right-wing smear campaign, which they originally told reporters to pay attention to. They're even saying there's no validity to the whole right-wing blog slime and are defending the Frost family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msj-gYgeG6U Apparently only okie still treats it as if there were any truth to it.
Of course the fact that somewhat more than half of Republicans support SChip, as well as an overwhelming number of Democrats and Independents, and they ain't gonna get reelected without some Dem and Ind support, may have a bit to do with the waffling.
Quote:So the bottom line for me is: They can't rely on truth to make their case for their cause. They have to lie. [
] [b]They send the kid out to lie. They filled this kid's head with lies[/b] just as they have some of these soldiers about me.
Now that the right-wing smear campaign against Graeme has been proven to be completely baseless, Limbaugh is desperately trying to revise history. Last night on Hannity & Colmes, Limbaugh claimed he "never attacked" the Frost family:
[b]I never once attacked this family.[/b] I attacked the Democrats for exploiting them. I attacked the Democrats for putting lies into the head of a 12-year-old. [
] The Democrats are amazingly brazen in this at using kids, using season citizens. [b]I never attacked this family. I simply reported what their financial circumstances are.[/b]
During the segment, Limbaugh also sneeringly mocked Graeme by taking on the voice of a 12-year old child.
Interestinger and interestinger.
It doesn't matter if the republican leadership back-peddles now. They've already gotten the hair up on the backs of their staunch supporters. Just like trying to get through to them after the truth comes out that maybe Iraq didn't have WMD's or anything to do with 9/11. You can't call back the dogs after the fox has been released to them. They're gonna run with it no matter what.
While we are on the subject, I don't want my tax money going to subsidize oil companies any more.
If you folks want to get a tad depressed (and who doesn't?) then you could read this excellent piece on Rudy's backers and connections...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071029/berman
If that doesn't do it, try this one, also by Berman...
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=244120
Roxxxanne wrote:Baldimo wrote:I love how 2 or more pages of this thread has centered on okie. The fact that about 4 people are attacking okie is even better. Talk about an attack machine from the political side. You guys are your own left wing personal attack machine.
Okie deserves everything he gets.
Badimo, why do
you hate chidren?
I don't hate children. I support parents doing what they have to do in order to provide for their families.
I provide insurance for my family through my work. I picked my company because of what they provide in benifits. If they didn't provide benifits then I would look for another company that did. It is my responsibility to provide these things for them not the govt. No where in the constution does it say anything about medical help or health insurance. That is for the family to provide for themselves.
People complain about spending govt money on the war and defence of the county. Well guess what having a military and paying for it are in the Constitution where medical and health insurance are not part of the Constitution.
Is invading a country that isn't threatening us and cooking the evidence to justify that action in the Constitution? Is diverting the resources to fight the war on terror (which is in Afghanistan) to fight a war against a country which had nothing to do with it in support of a cockamamie neoconservative vision of remaking the world in the Constitution? Is assuming quasi-dictatorial power for the Presidency in the Constitution? We've thrown away going on a trillion dollars, plus 3500 American lives, and more than 10000 permanently maimed American lives--which will cost us far more in future medical care than SChip. And the intelligence agencies' consensus is that we're less safe now than before Iraq. Do you find all those in your Constitution? Better get a new copy.
Baldimo wrote:
I provide insurance for my family through my work. I picked my company because of what they provide in benifits. If they didn't provide benifits then I would look for another company that did.
I thought that you joined the military, B. When they're screaming for fresh cannon fodder and extending soldiers terms, how is it that you were able to do such a short stint?
username wrote:Is invading a country that isn't threatening us and cooking the evidence to justify that action in the Constitution? Is diverting the resources to fight the war on terror (which is in Afghanistan) to fight a war against a country which had nothing to do with it in support of a cockamamie neoconservative vision of remaking the world in the Constitution? Is assuming quasi-dictatorial power for the Presidency in the Constitution? We've thrown away going on a trillion dollars, plus 3500 American lives, and more than 10000 permanently maimed American lives--which will cost us far more in future medical care than SChip. And the intelligence agencies' consensus is that we're less safe now than before Iraq. Do you find all those in your Constitution? Better get a new copy.
Maybe you missed it username, but Congress authorized the war, including Hillary. Why don't the Dems just shut down the war?
okie wrote:username wrote:Is invading a country that isn't threatening us and cooking the evidence to justify that action in the Constitution? Is diverting the resources to fight the war on terror (which is in Afghanistan) to fight a war against a country which had nothing to do with it in support of a cockamamie neoconservative vision of remaking the world in the Constitution? Is assuming quasi-dictatorial power for the Presidency in the Constitution? We've thrown away going on a trillion dollars, plus 3500 American lives, and more than 10000 permanently maimed American lives--which will cost us far more in future medical care than SChip. And the intelligence agencies' consensus is that we're less safe now than before Iraq. Do you find all those in your Constitution? Better get a new copy.
Maybe you missed it username, but Congress authorized the war, including Hillary. Why don't the Dems just shut down the war?
Talkin' about missin' it, Okie. You are, more than a couple bricks short of a load. They lied thru their teeth. They tricked Congress. What they really should do is impeach the lot of them and ship them off to a war crimes tribunal.
Congress let themselves be tricked.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:woiyo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:It isn't obvious that a moral stand by Okie is worth more then making sure that kids who don't currently have health insurance, get it.
The point of the SCHIP expansion is that there are currently plenty of kids who don't have the health insurance, b/c their families make just over the current limits, but can't really afford to drop the kind of cash that modern health insurance costs.
Okie, why is it that dollars spent defending you don't count as 'nanny state,' but dollars spent helping kids do?
Cycloptichorn
When you "keep raising the bar" where does it end? If you raise to to 65K, those who make 66K will bitch. Raise it to 70K then 71K complains.
Defending our way of life protects our way of life so you can keep asking for more of my money.
No, I can't agree with that. I think that you should be forced to pay for your own defense. I personally don't see why I should have to pay to defend people who I don't care about. I work hard for my money, and it's socialistic to take it from me in taxes in order to pay for the defense of others.
If you want defense, build a nuclear bunker and buy a rifle. But don't come to me looking for it. Soon everyone is going to want to be defended from all sorts of biological and chemical weapons as well. Do you know how much that's going to cost? It's a slippery slope.
Cycloptichorn
So generally, you would not pay to defend your freedom? (do not include defense spending relative to this police action)
Let others defend me so I can profit. That is your mantra?
