Dems use of 12-year old as Absolute Moral Authority against Bush's veto of SCHIP expansion backfires

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
I didn't say he doesn't have authority to obstruct. Just like GOP has authority to not override the veto. But there is a political price to pay for obstructing healthcare to poor kids. A big one.

You're right, too bad its the Dems playing political games with healthcare for poor kids so they can expand their power base and continue the creep of socialized healthcare.

I can only encourage this sort of self delusion in the GOP. With this kind of self destructive behavior, we'll get Hillary in the White House, and filibuster proof Congress, and get some nice healthcare bills passed that will make SCHIP expansion look like small potatoes. The fact that the GOP chose to make a stand on fighting healthcare for poor kids and attacking 12 year olds and middle class families only helps facilitate that, and I can only support your party taking this position.

Like I said earlier, witnessing cognitive dissonance can truly be a sight to behold.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
honest question, but would Bush's proposed increase have even kept up with population growth?

We are seeing a 1-3% increase in population. Most of this is from immigration. I dont know all the specifics of the original bill. But my understanding is it was a 30 billion a year program and bush was willing to move it to 35 billion a year or a ~15% increase in funding. That is well above inflation and population growth.

No it's not. Have you seen what healthcare inflation has been in the last few years. It's out of control. Healthcare bill needs to keep up with healthcare prices and population growth. 35Billion is nothing.

I'm sure you'll provide all the research and documentation on that.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Uh the president has the authority to veto any law he doesnt like. He vetoed it, get over it. Have your democrat buddies write a law that president said he would sign. Democrats are obstructing the process by sending an unrealistic law to the president late.

we might not be in this situation if your republican buddies in the white house had accepted the democrats offer to sit down at the negotiation table.

instead, in typical administration behavior, Bush said 5 bil, you're with us or against us, and stuck his head back in the sand instead of trying to work out a compromise.

say what you will about bill clinton, but when he had to deal with a congress in control of the opposition, he seemed a lot more willing to hash out compromises than the current administration.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Keep it up, Cons. This is great!

Falacious arguements, attacking a brain-damaged 12 year old and his sister, muck-raking a working family in Baltimore and then dredging up a "quote" from an insurance blog that neither defines the coverage or policy nor links to the information.

Oh, darn. Do you think that insurance blog when obtaining the so-called *quote* acknowledged that the coverage was for pre-existing conditions that included a coma, brain damage and on-going physical therapy?

You guys are clueless and need to get out more. Maybe the Cons are going to implode before the 2008 election.. :laugh:


Dear Prospective Republican Candidate:

Q: "What is your healthcare platform if you are elected in 2008?"

A: "Terri Schiavo & Graeme Frost! Terri Schiavo & Graeme Frost! Terri Schiavo & Graeme Frost! Terri Schiavo & Graeme Frost!"

Good luck with that . . .

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Ahh yes, the classic "Dems/leftists have a conscious while

Repubs/conservatives want old people and children to die" argument.[/quote]

Actions speak louder than words.

But go ahead, this will surely increase your voting base once this generation comes of voting age. :laugh:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87

Uh the president has the authority to veto any law he doesnt like. He vetoed it, get over it. Have your democrat buddies write a law that president said he would sign. Democrats are obstructing the process by sending an unrealistic law to the president late.

we might not be in this situation if your republican buddies in the white house had accepted the democrats offer to sit down at the negotiation table.

instead, in typical administration behavior, Bush said 5 bil, you're with us or against us, and stuck his head back in the sand instead of trying to work out a compromise.

I dont know, soudns like a negotiation to me. He could have just said same amount of funding. Democrats waiting until the last second clearly shows intent to make a political grand stand at the expense of the kids. Have to remember those kids!

say what you will about bill clinton, but when he had to deal with a congress in control of the opposition, he seemed a lot more willing to hash out compromises than the current administration.

Huh? You dont remember the govt shutting down because Bill was unable to compromise with congress? It was either his way or the highway. So when Bush doesnt sign a bill it is obstruction. When Clinton doesnt and shuts the govt down it is compromise. mmkay.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
honest question, but would Bush's proposed increase have even kept up with population growth?

We are seeing a 1-3% increase in population. Most of this is from immigration. I dont know all the specifics of the original bill. But my understanding is it was a 30 billion a year program and bush was willing to move it to 35 billion a year or a ~15% increase in funding. That is well above inflation and population growth.

http://www.npg.org/facts/uspopfax.htm

The U.S. population is growing by about 2.5 million people each year. Of that, immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually

1 mil of 2.5 mil = most?

And the increase was for $35B over 5 years, not each year.

 

[Genx87]

When I include immigration, I am including the millions flowing over our border here illegally.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Huh? You dont remember the govt shutting down because Bill was unable to compromise with congress? It was either his way or the highway. So when Bush doesnt sign a bill it is obstruction. When Clinton doesnt and shuts the govt down it is compromise. mmkay.

er, I've consumed a lot of mind altering substances between then and now I was in junior high and high school during the clinton administration, so I'm relying on vague recollections for, like, anything pre-Monica.

saying my way or the highway doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me, though, especially when the administration turned down the seat at the negotiation table that the D's offered. I guess we'll see... if the administration is truly willing to work something out, hopefully we'll see some signs of progress soon.

Originally posted by: Genx87
When I include immigration, I am including the millions flowing over our border here illegally.

illegal immigrants would not be affected by this bill in any way, afaik

 

[palehorse]

lol.. so damn typical. The parents manipulated their income and tax brackets to qualify for the SCHIP program, but could afford $40,000, cash, to send both of their children to private school!?

This why I despise nearly all government programs - there are just too many jerks out there ready and willing to abuse them - and I end up paying for all of their fvcking slack asses.

bah...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87
When I include immigration, I am including the millions flowing over our border here illegally.

illegal immigrants would not be affected by this bill in any way, afaik

Sure, just like illegal immigrants would not be affected by our driver's license laws, our Social Security laws, our housing laws, our hiring laws, or any of the other myriad laws that say illegal immigrants don't qualify...

 

[Genx87]

illegal immigrants would not be affected by this bill in any way, afaik

For now, until Hillary gets into the WH and the full on pandering of illegals can be put into full effect.

Though I do understand what you are saying about the current bill.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Huh? You dont remember the govt shutting down because Bill was unable to compromise with congress? It was either his way or the highway. So when Bush doesnt sign a bill it is obstruction. When Clinton doesnt and shuts the govt down it is compromise. mmkay.

Yup. And the Republican Congress and Newt had to back down because they reflected the primary core value of the Republican Party. . .

Mean-Spiritedness . . .

 

[ScottMac]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but from the first page or so, I haven't seen anyone bring up the fact that since this was as a result of an Auto Accident, it is and will be forever covered by the auto insurance.

My brother lost his legs in a car accident in the late 70's ... the (auto) insurance still covers the cost of prosthetics, ortho, and any other affliction associated with the original accident.

If this / these kids are somehow disadvantaged as a result of the car accident, they should be able to recover fromthe auto insurance.

If the parents (or driver of the car) didn't have auto insurance, that's a completely different issue, and no, there should NOT be national car insurance, even if it is "for the children."

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
If the parents (or driver of the car) didn't have auto insurance, that's a completely different issue, and no, there should NOT be national car insurance, even if it is "for the children."

You're just being heartless and mean-spirited.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but from the first page or so, I haven't seen anyone bring up the fact that since this was as a result of an Auto Accident, it is and will be forever covered by the auto insurance.

My brother lost his legs in a car accident in the late 70's ... the (auto) insurance still covers the cost of prosthetics, ortho, and any other affliction associated with the original accident.

If this / these kids are somehow disadvantaged as a result of the car accident, they should be able to recover fromthe auto insurance.

If the parents (or driver of the car) didn't have auto insurance, that's a completely different issue, and no, there should NOT be national car insurance, even if it is "for the children."

Sorry about your bro - I hope he's livin' a good life.

Not to argue (okay, I will . . . ) There are limits of medical liability in every auto insurance policy today.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87

Uh the president has the authority to veto any law he doesnt like. He vetoed it, get over it. Have your democrat buddies write a law that president said he would sign. Democrats are obstructing the process by sending an unrealistic law to the president late.

we might not be in this situation if your republican buddies in the white house had accepted the democrats offer to sit down at the negotiation table.

instead, in typical administration behavior, Bush said 5 bil, you're with us or against us, and stuck his head back in the sand instead of trying to work out a compromise.

I dont know, soudns like a negotiation to me. He could have just said same amount of funding. Democrats waiting until the last second clearly shows intent to make a political grand stand at the expense of the kids. Have to remember those kids!

say what you will about bill clinton, but when he had to deal with a congress in control of the opposition, he seemed a lot more willing to hash out compromises than the current administration.

Huh? You dont remember the govt shutting down because Bill was unable to compromise with congress? It was either his way or the highway. So when Bush doesnt sign a bill it is obstruction. When Clinton doesnt and shuts the govt down it is compromise. mmkay.

Since when is "Do it my way or we don't do anything at all" a negotiation? That is what is called a strong arm tactic.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87

Uh the president has the authority to veto any law he doesnt like. He vetoed it, get over it. Have your democrat buddies write a law that president said he would sign. Democrats are obstructing the process by sending an unrealistic law to the president late.

we might not be in this situation if your republican buddies in the white house had accepted the democrats offer to sit down at the negotiation table.

instead, in typical administration behavior, Bush said 5 bil, you're with us or against us, and stuck his head back in the sand instead of trying to work out a compromise.

I dont know, soudns like a negotiation to me. He could have just said same amount of funding. Democrats waiting until the last second clearly shows intent to make a political grand stand at the expense of the kids. Have to remember those kids!

say what you will about bill clinton, but when he had to deal with a congress in control of the opposition, he seemed a lot more willing to hash out compromises than the current administration.

Huh? You dont remember the govt shutting down because Bill was unable to compromise with congress? It was either his way or the highway. So when Bush doesnt sign a bill it is obstruction. When Clinton doesnt and shuts the govt down it is compromise. mmkay.

Since when is "Do it my way or we don't do anything at all" a negotiation? That is what is called a strong arm tactic.

So is delivering a bill knowing it will be vetoed and then crying in front of the media using kids as pawns.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CPA
More hypocracy (in both the Dems use of the kid and lib posters who don't have a problem with it) from the left. Do you expect anything less?

The desperate scavenge for umbrage material continues...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is ironic that these parents were able to find ?affordable? housing in the form of a 3000 sq foot home, an ?affordable? place to open and operate their own business, and an ?affordable? way to send their kids to a $20,000 a year private school.

But can?t find ?affordable? health insurance :roll:

Amazing isnt it?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is ironic that these parents were able to find ?affordable? housing in the form of a 3000 sq foot home, an ?affordable? place to open and operate their own business, and an ?affordable? way to send their kids to a $20,000 a year private school.

But can?t find ?affordable? health insurance :roll:

Amazing isnt it?

What's even more amazing is the willingness of the righties to accept all of these "facts" without a shred of evidence other than an insurance company blogger.

Even in the Freeper "investigative" report it talks about how there was a FUNDRAISER for the boy and his sister. This seems to be the norm whenever a family experiences something this traumatic...the community rallies around them to help them out.

How the boy's father owns a company that BRINGS IN LESS THAN $20K/YR (assuming that his wife makes market value for her job) and doesn't allow him the ability to pay for his own insurance. They would still have qualified regardless of whether he was able to "offer" himself insurance but didn't accept because they couldn't afford the premiums.

As for the property, as usual the righties would rather have families selling off everything they own to pay for healthcare.

Then there is the brilliance of the housing market forecasters who think that a house that sold at the very beginning of summer (before the housing bubble rapidly started loosing steam) is still a fair indication of what a house would sell for now. I sure wouldn't take any stock tips from this guys. Or maybe I would and just do the polar opposite. I'd make a killing.

The whole origin of this thread is specious and was probably not worth the keystrokes that it took to debunk all of the fallacious arguments.

 

[piasabird]

It is call lying and fraud.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
How the boy's father owns a company that BRINGS IN LESS THAN $20K/YR (assuming that his wife makes market value for her job) and doesn't allow him the ability to pay for his own insurance. They would still have qualified regardless of whether he was able to "offer" himself insurance but didn't accept because they couldn't afford the premiums.

The combined total income of the family is ~$45k. Business income is not included in that because...it is a business. This is a common trick of business owners....pay yourself a minimum salary and use your business income to pay for most everything in order to pay as little in taxes as possible.

The articles on this family all say something along the lines of "The Frost's are unable to get health insurance through their employer" while neglecting to inform the reader that the Frost's have been their own employer. They've made a conscious choice not to sign up for health insurance either as a business or as a family. The article says that Mrs. Frost started a job at a new company...does that company not offer insurance?

As for the property, as usual the righties would rather have families selling off everything they own to pay for healthcare.

Maryland does not have an assets test for qualification into S-CHIP. Typically, someone that owns their own business, owns the property the business is located own, has tenants that rent that property, owns a $300k-$400k 3,000 square foot home, etc would not qualify for the S-CHIP. And that's ignoring the potential fact that two kids attend a $20/k private school.

Nobody is suggesting that Frost's sell off their property except for the lefties making that claim. Instead, we are questioning why a family that has invested so much in their business, property, education, etc hasn't bothered to invest in health insurance instead of going on the government dole....potentially taking away resources from a truly needy family that the S-CHIP program is meant to help.

The whole origin of this thread is specious and was probably not worth the keystrokes that it took to debunk all of the fallacious arguments.

Good try but no.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Queasy

The combined total income of the family is ~$45k. Business income is not included in that because...it is a business. This is a common trick of business owners....pay yourself a minimum salary and use your business income to pay for most everything in order to pay as little in taxes as possible.

Just because Republicans Lie, Cheat and Steal why do you assume everyone does it.

Without facts to back up your supposition, you just slandered their family.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Queasy

The combined total income of the family is ~$45k. Business income is not included in that because...it is a business. This is a common trick of business owners....pay yourself a minimum salary and use your business income to pay for most everything in order to pay as little in taxes as possible.

Just because Republicans Lie, Cheat and Steal why do you assume everyone does it.

Without facts to back up your supposition, you just slandered their family.

:roll: Yeah, onnnnly Republicans....right. I'm sure if they were Dems they would send in an extra 20% in taxes just to be on the safe side, right?

There's a reason I called it a common trick....because it is something that business owners do! They don't have to be Republican, Democrat, white, black, green, or purple. They just have to be business owners.

Example: Guy that lived next door to me in my old neighborhood owned a pretty successful restaurant. He bought himself a Harley, bought a new Nissan Titan, bought a new Nissan sedan, bought some other nice stuff. The cars were 'purchased for his restaurant' yet they were driven by him and his 'wife'.

And I say 'wife' because he did not marry the mother of his two children. Instead, they lived as husband and wife but she would stay home and watch the kids and declare no income. This way the kids qualified for Georiga's S-CHIP program, Peach Care, and he didn't have to pay for insurance.

I don't know what his political affiliation was but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Republican. Mexicans primarily vote Democrat.