Republican Senators oppose CHIP expansion

It's a conspiracy (0.00 / 0)

against the children.

Even George WIll jumped on the anti-SCHIP bandwagon this week, with an editorial in the Washington Post (and that unfortunately was reprinted by the "lets-always-be-ever-so-balanced"  Missoulian). Seems they are bringing out the heavy guns in the propaganda war against health care reform. They've even got to resort to out-and-out lies:

The new expansion [of SCHIP], which is vengeance for Bush's veto [of the previous attempt in 2007], is mission gallop: It will make it much easier for some states to extend SCHIP eligibility to children from families earning up to $84,800. Furthermore, to make "poor" an extremely elastic concept, generous "income disregards" are allowed. Families can, depending on their state's policies, subtract from their income calculation what they spend on rent or mortgage or heating or food or transportation or some combination of these. So children in some families with incomes well over $100,000 will be eligible.

So once again, we have the right-wingers taking the argument to its absolute absurd end: intimating that folks making over $100k will get welfare. He throws out these assertions without any facts to back them up. And all the local and vocal yokels will pick this story up and just repeat it verbatim. Prove your assertions, George. They are pulled out of thin air (that air coming out your backside). And of course, because of the hyper-agitation of the born-again moral austerity of the right, the bill should be shredded, even if that means many children who wouldn't get health care coverage any other way will go without.

He then astutely goes on:

Grace-Marie Turner, a student of health-care policies, says this SCHIP expansion is sensible -- if your goal is quickly to get as many people on public coverage as possible and to have children grow up thinking that it is normal for them to get their health insurance from the government. That is the goal.

Well, yes, if the goal is to insure people's children who can't get insurance through the private insurance industry or through their jobs. And yes, if your goal is single-payer health care, or universal health care that has a large government component, then you've got to move people to thinking that it is ok for the government to supply healthcare coverage. That's what we're trying to do. As in, no sh*t, Sherlock.

Thus the sirens went off on the great health care debate of the 111th Congress. We will hear the likes of this trumpeted from George Will and every other anti-government mouthpiece from now until the ink dries on whatever watered down piece of warmed over legislation Obama signs. And it will be parroted in every state legislature considering health care legislation.

If we see signs of caving on SCHIP now, then the rest of the health care reform debate is doomed. Anti-universal health care forces and the insurance industry will take a victory here--even a teeny, tiny, small one--and blow it up into massive public opposition to major health care reform. The seeds have been sown, and the battle has begun. Those who enter this battle with wimpy, pre-compromised plans not based on solid principles (like universal means EVERYONE), and are trying to be reasonable, will be laughed out of the arena in this Will-inilly fashion. The naysayers to all things entitled.

Better that those who advocate SCHIP to acknowledge that it is a middle class program of health care for uninsured/uninsurable children--not just a Medicaid extension. And tell the Will.i.am.not.for.entitlements to STFU.

Healthcare welfare for the rich. My ass. Will just proves why we have to ditch this whole charade and start with the notion of single payer--or at least universal coverage that is government supplied and covers everybody that private insurance doesn't or won't. These idiots need to be blown out of the water and discredited before the real battle begins.

[/rant]

---

by: JC @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 18:16:06 PM UTC

Once we have government (0.00 / 0)

Paying for insuring our health, we have government controlling our actions.

It's not about denying children access to health insurance, it's about not giving freebies out to people that can afford it.  Plus, IT'S NOT THE FEDS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE OUR CHILDREN- IT'S OURS.

Weird that you don't get that.

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 22:35:19 PM UTC

We've already got the government (0.00 / 0)

spying on all of our actions, thank you GWB. And the Bushies were working on controlling our actions in many, many ways.

But you obviously don't have a clue about the difficulties people have in providing health insurance for their children. If it were easy or affordable, or if some kids weren't denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, more parents would do so. If their weren't a gazillion impediments to people getting insurance for themselves, and their families and kids, more people would do so. But it isn't economically feasible for many, and insurers do all they can to avoid covering anybody with a hint of a preexisting condition.

But I'll ask you another silly rhetorical question: how can the tens of millions of newly unemployed and underemployed people pay for health insurance for their kids? THEY CAN"T, YOU MORON.

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 23:36:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm seriously cracking up (0.00 / 0)

Right now...  

"you obviously don't have a clue about the difficulties people have in providing health insurance for their children."

Do you know anything about me?  

Ok, now that I've stopped laughing, the answer to government control isn't to give them more control.  You (and many lefties like you), are a-okay with the government controlling the lives of Americans as long as you (and the policies you support) are the ones in charge.

I have NEVER been in support of less civil liberties, often even at the expense of my own morale beliefs.  I have NEVER advocated more government control, knowledge, etc.  

Unemployed people will get jobs, we have a large country and different regions are better off.  The market will recover and charities help.  I'll say it again... Health insurance doesn't equal access to health care, OR health.  

Oh, and name-calling really shows you have no argument.

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 21:43:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, and lest I forget: (0.00 / 0)

"Once we have government [doing x, y, or z] we have government controlling our actions"

We already have the government controlling our actions through things like: anti-abortion legislation; laws against same-sex marriages; laws against victimless crimes; ad infinitum. The government, at the behest of what once portrayed themselves as the moral majority, has enacted thousands of laws in congress and the states "controlling our actions."

April 15th is a big day in government control. So was November 4th. Though I pretty much loved January 20th, the day the Constitution told me that the outgoing president had to leave office.

So, libertarian you aren't. So quit telling me and others here that you don't like the government controlling your actions. It just don't wash. You love the government controlling people's actions. It's just that you want the government to control them the way that pleases you.

---

by: JC @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 23:45:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again (0.00 / 0)

You don't know me or my beliefs.  You project based on your own preconceived notions of what "conservatives" or whoever think.  

Good luck with that.

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 21:45:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]