House fails to override S-chip veto

We've gone through this before, you and I. I don't much relish having my tax dollars spent on someone else's kids. That a lot of my tax money is already going in that direction is beside the point.

Particularly when this bill included families that make considerably more than I do. (...and my family is about 5% ahead of the median family income as it is.) Perhaps those families with the real means to afford it should buy that insurance and perhaps forgo the purchase of Ipods and cell phones for those kids in lieu of.

If we want to talk about the "Poor". Fine, I have a healthy dose of concern for the poor. I do not have much sympathy for supporting the lifestyle of the upper middle class. That's their lookout, as it has been mine for years.

Halfback

0 Replies

But, then again, we both know that the entire "package" had no chance of passing anyway. It was merely brought up by the Democrats in the knowledge that it would be Vetoed, so they could campaign on "The Republicans don't care about the health of your kids!" gambit. Razz

You know that, I know that and most of the political analysts know that.

The sad fact is that there are many voters out there who are going to "buy into" the story. If for no other reason than they see a way to pick up a few more bucks from "Daddy Government".

I keep getting this mental picture about many of the voters in this country..... in this picture they are like millions of little "Olivers" who have the audacity to approach the Government and cry, "Please, Sir, may I have some more?" Never dreaming that their greed deprives others of the expectation of a reasonable return for their tax dollars. (...and that's another whole topic.)

The Constitution promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not a livelihood. You are responsible for that. Not the Government. Not my tax dollars.

Halfback

0 Replies

You don't read much, do you Halfback...

Quote:

I keep getting this mental picture about many of the voters in this country..... in this picture they are like millions of little "Olivers" who have the audacity to approach the Government and cry, "Please, Sir, may I have some more?"

Somehow I get the feeling you haven't read the story.

0 Replies

Halfback is one tough hombre....

0 Replies

These scumbags who hate children should be put on a barge and sent to Cuba...oh, wait, Cuba has free health care, Cuba is too good for them.

0 Replies

Actually, Mr. Brown, I read quite a bit, almost incessantly, in fact. Dickens happens to be one of my favorites, to boot. Quite presumptuous to assume that I don't. (Not to mention arrogant.)

My interjection of the "Oliver Twist" incident was to impose, perhaps, an alternate point of view for that same incident. (Ask any police officer how "eye witness" accounts differ.) That there exist in our society certain folks who are completely incapable of even admitting that there just might exist a viewpoint that differs from their own, I hold to be self evident.

I stand by my original statement, I am NOT interested in supporting the lifestyle of the middle class. Helping the "lesser fortunate" I don't mind.

I happen to like kids. Us "scumbags" have raised our own and sent them on their way in life as independent, productive and self reliant members of society. We instilled in them a sense of personal responsibility for their actions, their successes AND their failures. To do otherwise would be a disservice to them. I have no qualms nor regrets on that matter.

For those of you who have the unmitigated gaul to assume that the Country owes you a living, or your progeny for that matter..... I look askance, to put it mildly.

I might point out that amidst all the personal insults, scorn and name calling I have reaped from my statement, not one of you has offered a single argument as to why I should sit still and let my tax dollars be "given" to the children of upper middle class parents.

That also was predictable and very typical. How sad.

Halfback

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

the children of upper middle class parents

Hi Halfback, I'm interested in this bit.

I've been following the threads on this topic. Also found the results of this poll here quite interesting.

So, how would you describe "upper middle class parents?" And, more specifically: would you describe a family making $40,000 per year as upper middle class, or something else?

0 Replies

The median income for family units, according to the IRS (Can't remember if it was '05 or '06 figures) was $54,000. I try to keep tabs on it, I spent many long and hard years trying to move my family from my lower middle class origins to upper middle class.

$40,000 is considered lower middle class.

All indications point to an upturn in the inflation rate, at least the "inflection point" has been reached and passed. Time will tell if I sink back below the 50th percentile mark as a result of inflation. Ah well, cross the bridge when it shows up.

Halfback

0 Replies

I see. Well, you've said before that you'd be in favour of some children health care programmes. Getting down to the numbers, who would you say should be eligible for SCHIP?

0 Replies

Fine, I realize that there are points of view that differ from my own. It is to be expected. I don't have any problem with that. That I appear to be in the minority also doesn't bother me.

Look, push come to shove, we all know what is going to happen in the next election. The Democrats are most likely going to take the Presidency and may gain enough seats in Congress to make the Republicans moot as it pertains to "preferred legislation".

I fully expect a total Government run Health Package to be put in place within the first two years of the next President's term. I don't have to like it. It just seems inevitable.

Aside from all the offered pros and cons about public health systems I have seen over the past couple of years.... my primary concern is how this "Great Society" program is going to be paid for. It IS going to be extraordinarily expensive.

Either we allow the public debt to run further in the red. (An untenable situation in the long run) Or we tax the bejesus out of the taxpayers. The proponents of these social programs tend to term it "taxing the rich". My personal observations tend to convince me that "the rich" are those who are earning just enough money to be excluded from the present "give away" programs.

Robin Hood might have meant well, but it was still theft.

I have worked long and hard to put myself and my family in a situation where I have a certain amount of extra income to afford those little things that make my retirement enjoyable after years of the "long grind". It's kind of like a payoff or a reward to myself. I don't like the Government telling me that they are going to confiscate that extra income to give it to someone else. No matter how noble sounding the cause.

I could go into the long running failures of our social welfare system as it stands, but that is an entirely different forum.

Suffice it to say, I'm one of those old curmugeons who actually expects to see positive results from the expenditure of my (and everyone's) tax dollars. "It is a dream I have...."

Halfback

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

Fine, I realize that there are points of view that differ from my own. It is to be expected. I don't have any problem with that. That I appear to be in the minority also doesn't bother me.

Look, push come to shove, we all know what is going to happen in the next election. The Democrats are most likely going to take the Presidency and may gain enough seats in Congress to make the Republicans moot as it pertains to "preferred legislation".

I fully expect a total Government run Health Package to be put in place within the first two years of the next President's term. I don't have to like it. It just seems inevitable.

Aside from all the offered pros and cons about public health systems I have seen over the past couple of years.... my primary concern is how this "Great Society" program is going to be paid for. It IS going to be extraordinarily expensive.

Either we allow the public debt to run further in the red. (An untenable situation in the long run) Or we tax the bejesus out of the taxpayers. The proponents of these social programs tend to term it "taxing the rich". My personal observations tend to convince me that "the rich" are those who are earning just enough money to be excluded from the present "give away" programs.

Robin Hood might have meant well, but it was still theft.

I have worked long and hard to put myself and my family in a situation where I have a certain amount of extra income to afford those little things that make my retirement enjoyable after years of the "long grind". It's kind of like a payoff or a reward to myself. I don't like the Government telling me that they are going to confiscate that extra income to give it to someone else. No matter how noble sounding the cause.

I could go into the long running failures of our social welfare system as it stands, but that is an entirely different forum.

Suffice it to say, I'm one of those old curmugeons who actually expects to see positive results from the expenditure of my (and everyone's) tax dollars. "It is a dream I have...."

Halfback

0 Replies

The present program covers it quite well. One must remember that this particular "Bill" was an effort to "extend" the boundaries of eligibility. That the concept is widely supported by those who stand to gather a few more taxpayer's bucks in their pockets is not very surprising.

What they fail to consider fully is the fact that they are trading their independence and individuality for dependency on the Government "Sugar Daddy" and that all the taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill, whether they benefit from the "giveaway" or not.

Halfback

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't like the Government telling me that they are going to confiscate that extra income to give it to someone else. No matter how noble sounding the cause.

it's simply a question of whether you consider national health as important as national security. conservatives (i'm using the term respectfully for a moment...) seem to have little problem with a socialized military, it's when the money goes to schools, roads or medicine that it becomes an issue.

i agree with you there should be an incentive for hard workers, but lots of people work hard and for a reward, they get bankrupt because they have insufficient insurance. you're not just lucky if you're an exception, you're privileged.

health should not be a privilege, and it's not in many countries. you could also say that national security is a privelege, after all, lots of countries don't have any. fine, let people pay towards national security as they see fit, like they do with schools and everything else. let's finish the privitization of the military, and make the people that want it pay for it, not taxpayers.

of course i'm not serious- actually it sounds like a great idea, but i'm not serious. i am trying to get you to be fair, but i'm trying to be fair to you, even if there's a bit of sarcasm.

socialism isn't the answer to everything, but for some things it works. for some things, like the military (maybe,) there might not even be any other practical way. keep your rewards, and support national health- that's got to be at least as important as dotting the atmosphere with anti-missle lasers, missiles, or spy blimps, which are real schemes that hardworking taxpayers like yourself have footed bills for.

besides, more people die from car accidents or heart disease than terrorism. if the government takes your money anyway, i agree they should make the most of it.

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

That the concept is widely supported by those who stand to gather a few more taxpayer's bucks in their pockets is not very surprising.

Well, it seems that about 70% of the population support not only the renewal of the SCHIP programme, but also the expansion. If only those who would profit from the programme were to support it, the number should be closer to 2%.

Halfback wrote:

What they fail to consider fully is the fact that they are trading their independence and individuality for dependency on the Government "Sugar Daddy" and that all the taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill, whether they benefit from the "giveaway" or not.

I don't know whether or not people realize that if the government is going to spend money on something, it'll have to come from somewhere. It'd be reasonable to assume that much, even after years of having a government in place that managed to cut taxes while spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

i agree with you there should be an incentive for hard workers, but lots of people work hard and for a reward, they get bankrupt because they have insufficient insurance. you're not just lucky if you're an exception, you're privileged.

So, if I've worked hard,planned for my own medical needs,paid for my own insurance, and generally done everything needed to take care of myself with no help from the govt and without waiting for the govt to do it for me, that means I'm "priviledged"?

I thought it meant that I simply took responsibility for myself, and did what was right.

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

that all the taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill, whether they benefit from the "giveaway" or not.

Halfback

Halfback, why do you hate children so much?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

tinygiraffe wrote:

i agree with you there should be an incentive for hard workers, but lots of people work hard and for a reward, they get bankrupt because they have insufficient insurance. you're not just lucky if you're an exception, you're privileged.

So, if I've worked hard,planned for my own medical needs,paid for my own insurance, and generally done everything needed to take care of myself with no help from the govt and without waiting for the govt to do it for me, that means I'm "priviledged"?[sic]

No it means you are privileged! Privileged not to have a catastrophe event that wrecks your finances and forces you to ask for government help.

Mysteryman, why do you hate children so much?

0 Replies

What the liberals are doing, as usual, is misrepresenting the FACTS.

The Dummycrats wanted to EXAPND the minimum income levels to about 60K from about 40K. That is basiclly what was vetoed.

: How does the program work and who does it cover now?

TOOLBOX
Resize Text
Save/Share + DiggNewsvinedel.icio.usStumble It!RedditFacebook Print This E-mail This
COMMENT

POST A COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register

Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Who's Blogging?
» Links to this article
A: The $5 billion-a-year program was created 10 years ago with the goal of covering children from families with annual incomes at or below about twice the poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. The target population is children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance on their own.

Currently, 18 states and the District of Columbia have eligibility levels above 200 percent of the poverty level. New Jersey is the highest at 350 percent. No other state is above 300 percent.

About 6.6 million children and 671,000 adults received health coverage through SCHIP in 2006, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

About 83 percent of those enrolled were children at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, and another 9 percent were low income adults, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The remaining 8 percent were children from families with incomes above twice the poverty level.

Q: How many children are eligible, but not enrolled?

A: About 5.4 million uninsured children are eligible for coverage under SCHIP or Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor, according to an analysis of Census data by the Urban Institute. Of those, 1.7 million are eligible for SCHIP and 3.7 million for Medicaid.

About 90 percent of children who are eligible but still uninsured are from families with incomes below twice the poverty level. Some eligible families have incomes above twice the poverty level because some state SCHIP programs have income limits above 200 percent.

Q: Who would be covered under the bill approved by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?

A: Under the bill, states could receive the full federal matching rate to cover children from families earning as much as three times the poverty level, or $61,950 for a family of four. States seeking to cover families with higher incomes would receive a less favorable federal matching rate. In either case, states would have to receive approval from the Bush administration to raise their eligibility levels that high.

About 70 percent of those who gain or retain coverage under the bill would be from families earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute. The analysis includes an assumption that some states would raise eligibility levels.

Don't let the FACTS get in the way of your LIE!!!

0 Replies

Those opposing this expanded socialized medicine spending bill....beware, you will be categorized as hating children. Shocked

It is the perfect emotional appeal as the counter to any opposition to this program. It will work, in the long run. (I believe I mentioned this early on in this "debate".) The fact that it is non sequitur does nothing to diminish the appeal. Razz

Old Europe: War notwithstanding (and my general disgust on "The War on Terror" can be found in pertinent threads.) Virtually everyone agrees that Government programs must be paid for. There are two ways they can be paid for: more deficit spending or more taxes. Neither of which are particularly palatable to me.

That leaves reducing spending. Some of the same people who are castigating me in this thread were the same ones who insisted that we cannot continue to pass along the National debt at an ever increasing level. I believe the "children" were the emotional kingpin for that "argument" also.

Setting aside all the hype and emotional appeals, I submit we have to set our Country's fiscal house in order before we can go any further. Deficit spending has been the name of the game virtually every year since 1969. I remember a time when interest payment on the National Debt was but 2% of the budget. Now it is closer to 10%. ALL of it attributed to deficit spending.

Think, if you will, of an individual's family budget. When the "interest only" payments on your credit cards gets to 10% and you are NOT reducing the balance of the principles on those cards, your family budget is in trouble! From what I read, this is the general trend in America. This is exactly what our Congress has accomplished over the past 40 years. Yet whenever a "balanced budget" amendment comes up in Congress, it is "dead in the water" on arrival.

Congress needs to set an example of responsible spending, without deficits and without killing our economy via vastly increased taxes. If this means we cut the military to the quick, so be it. If this means we cut certain "cherished" welfare programs, so be it.

Congress MUST decide and choose between the "Need to have" programs and the "Nice to have" programs. In the mean, existent programs must be looked at with a "results vs money spent" construct. Those programs that do not show positive results from the expenditure must be dropped or redesigned to show positive results. THAT will require a little creative thinking in the hallowed halls of DC, something they have shown little inclination toward.

If this upsets the mindset of those who demand to be fed of the Government teat, I'm sorry.

Halfback

0 Replies

House fails to override S-chip veto

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know