Ted, the last time I checked this thread was about Children's Health Care, not the media. While Zack's link addressed the issue, regardless of how poorly, yours is out there in left field. WQhy would anyone want to search for what is or isn't in a specific newspaper? BTW, MSNBC, a rivial of FNC, did air Sanchez's words, including those about the media.

Well I wouldn't have chosen Fox news as a source but it was the source and if you went to it and read the titile you would see both the Majoriy and Minority leaders were interviewed. Look at the title of the page, look at the first sentence.
Regardles if you watch fox news the House Majority spoke there and I would think what he had to say would be of interest to anyone desiring to debate the issue being debated as equally the comments by the Minority Leader in that same reference.

You are correct in that Steny Hoyer was also interviewed by Brit Hume.

Where you are off is in assuming that the people are smart and will buy the Republican position or should I say Zack's position?

Contrary to your thinking, an NPR poll indicates that nearly two-thirds of Americans support reauthorization of the program.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=15356593

The NPR poll flat out rejects your assessment. People may be smarter than you think.

I understand what you and the poll state. But in the poll there is not a sample SCHIP re authorization bill that the Republicans and administration would support standing beside the Democratic Bill offered for people to choose sides on. Of course no one can argue that SCHIP shouldn't be re-authorized but they can argue that it should be re-authorized in another manner. It isn't a lights on - lights off either take it or leave it subject. The poll taken represents it as a lights on -lights off and of course the majority will choose lights on.

My argument is that the Democrats present it as lights on and that the president and House Republicans are turning the lights off. Quite to the contrary the overwhelming majority of congress and the President desire the lights be on when all is done. Read the interview and you will see the minority doesn't want the program to end but he wants more emphasis on poor kids and removal of loopholes.

Hopefully the Senate will compromise today before the vote at the witching hour of 1:00AM. If the concerns of the House members are adequately addressed then even if the President were to veto the bill the House and Senate would overturn the veto.

And I responded about the potential compromise on the bill - didn't I??????? and I totally reject the silly idea that the general “press” is neutral and baaaaad FOX is biased. Pure nonsense.

And I stand by my belief you may have found some comments on MSNBC but the major media you claim is so unbiased (like NYT) will never print it – NEVER.

What the NYT did or did not print about General. Ricardo Sanchez had to say about the war and the media have no bearing on the children’s health care controversy. Zack accused me earlier of introducing the war into this thread.



Very graciously, he admitted his error.


Ted, you are doing what you do best, clouding the issue with another smokescreen.

Now on to Bush. Bush has fanned the flames about Democrats disregarding the needs of poor children on October 27th . Then on October 31st he distinguished between SCHIP and Medicaid. Did Bush not know the difference on October 27 or was this a deliberate attempt by this “great” president to lay any and all blame at the feet of Democrats?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071026-2.html



http://www.whitehouse.gov/



It’s great that you have time to watch the C-Span hearings, but there are other important issues, like a drop of nearly 400 points in the DOW today. More importantly, why is it important to watch the hearings when your mind is already made up.



Gee, “conservative” is good, liberal is bad; “Republican" is good, “Democrat” is bad. This is exactly why we don't have much bipartisan efforts in Washington.

Let’s recap Zack. In this thread you argued that there should be no SCHIP program because the 10th amendment didn’t allow it. Later you said the question is not re-authorization of the program. You have introduced every smokescreen possible – the people, emotional, Bush is a great president, your 10th grade social studies teacher, the 10th amendment, Kennedy, Vietnam, federal aid to education. Very little of this extraneous material deals with the issue. Instead of firing a rifle at the problem, you are using a shotgun and hope some of the pellets hit their target.

I just want to add to my earlier response about the poll, had there been a poll question side by side asking should the House leadership work with administration and House minority leadership to prepare SCHIP re-authorization legislation that the president will sign? Then I think that option of the poll would have received a larger support than the simple question on the poll.

Immediately after the vote today in the Senate the Senate Majority Leader, in an almost mumbled voice stated that if Bush vetoes the bill he may not even bring it up for an override vote even if it is overrides in the House. I thought that spoke volumes about the politics. Then just a few moments ago he returned to the floor stating the the House Leadership will hold the passed re-authorization for a couple of weeks to allow the old bill, now extended to expire prior to sending it to the president for veto. If I were a Democrat I would hold my head in shame! Playing politics with poor kids will not buy such predators votes, the people are too smart for that.

Working with the administration is one thing. Giving the administration what it wants is another. I think Democrats are working with congresional Republicans to get a bill that will allow overriding a Bush veto. Given there has been considerable support for the measure, I will repeat my remark about Bush as the obstacle - the cork. I think Bush realizes that as soon as Congress overrides one veto, others might not be too far behind.

Have you noticed that Republican presidential candidates keep invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, not George W. Bush. This should tell you something. They don't want to run on Bush's record.

There is no reason for House Republicans to fold at this point, today Senate members met with house Republicans but the compromise wasn't even close. "The hold" for more time to negotiate with House Republicans is "code" for the delay of the last bill where anti Republican TV ads were ran over and over in the "hold outs" districts. There simply isn't any compromise in the Democratic Majority's vocabulary. Not only will Bush stand behind this veto and have it sustained, it will happen over and over and over and over because the Democrats think they can blackmail the minority into submission, they think wrong! I will be very surprised if the government isn't shut down and the president will have the higher ground and beat them up daily. The only way the Democrats can get their way is to give blocks of PORK to the Republicans so they can overide a veto. If Bush vetoes an omnibus bill full of pork and then hits the Whitehouse lawn and cameras and says "I vetoed it because it was filled with pork, and I will veto it again and again if the pork remains". Congress will have to decide to overide to get pork or remove the pork.

We shall see who crumbles, there may be some direct compromises between the President and Congress but it will be to the President's choice. Wan ta wager on it? Never mind!

Oh, I have no doubt that Bush will win on funding. It's important to concentrate more power in the executive branch. Bush and Republicans will lose on the PR issue which, in the long run, is more important. Just an opinion.

Then we are finally in agreement that the Democratic Party does everything, including using poor children for politics. We could have saved a lot of typing if you had just admitted that up front. Are you proud of how you think PR will work for your party. Many people aren't engaged but those who vote will conclude as you did and only far lefties will stand with such Democratic strategy.

No, that's an erroneous conclusion. Both parties are playing the same game from different angles. Did you read Bush's two seemingly at odds statements I posted in #106?

Here it is, just in case you want to read it again.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=229765

Actually, I think I did miss that post. Where do you see Bush' statements at odds? I don't get it. Please spell it out for me because I actually understand Bush language and find both quotes perfectly reasonable statements.

In the first post, Bush doesn't seem to know the difference between Medicaid and SCHIP. A few days later he does. Did his advisors prep him on this? Is he not playing on "poor children" in the first? Bush and Congress are both playing politics, but I realize your mind is so made up, so closed, that Bush can do no wrong.

Unless you can somehow understand that Bush is just as culpable as the Democrats, we’ve hit an impasse. I think you have an enormous blind spot. What more can be said?

First bold above addressed:

I returned to Washington late last night. And when I got back to the White House, I was disappointed by what Congress had been doing -- and even more disappointed by what they had not been doing. This week, the majority in the House passed a new SCHIP bill that costs more over the next five years than the one I vetoed three weeks ago. (The new SCHIP bill still sucks, it has not been improved but made worse) It still moves millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care. (the new SCHIP bill authorizes persons now on private health care plans to drop those plans and sign up for SCHIP and have their children medical insurance be funded by state/federal SCHIP funds if it would become law) It raises taxes to pay for it. And it fails to do what needs to be done: to put poor children first. (The bill would allow coverage of single adults, adults and children and children of adults with income three or more times the current rate of poverty to sign up for SCHIP before the majority of 200% of poverty children are covered by SCHIP.

Where in the above do you conclude Bush doesn't seem to know the difference between Medicaid and SCHIP?

Second bold of your quote:
SCHIP was created to provide coverage for poor and uninsured children whose parents make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. (Poorest children are covered by Medicaid and SCHIP was created to cover those children whose parents were just above the poverty level who couldn’t afford private insurance and that were earning too much income to qualify for Medicaid) Let me make sure you understand the facts. When people say we're not providing money for poor children, they're overlooking the $35.5 billion a year of your money we spend on poor children through Medicaid. (here the president is saying poor children are provided protection by Medicaid, implying to say poor children are covered and to say otherwise is untrue. The SCHIP program is to protect children of parents that are not poor but on the bottom rung just above these poor children) There is a robust program to make sure poor children in America get health care. And that's good. If you're poor and can't afford health care, that's a -- a good role of the government is to help you.

Now I couldn't find the press release to the above statement so I can't put it into context without the entire text that is now missing at the link you provided:http://www.whitehouse.gov/ But, if you go to that link and then click the info on SCHIP on the right of the screen it clearly states exactly the problem existing.

I'm entirely at a loss as to how you conclude from the second quoted press release that suddenly Bush is aware of differences between SCHIP and Medicaid. Where did you conclude that? Please explain.

Please do explain, I've made my best attempt to approach the information provided to apply reason. Maybe you should ask another person to look at the same information and see if they conclude as I or conclude as you do? I totally miss your deductive reasoning.

Edited to add: If you can locate a full press release from the second I'll be glad to translate it. But for your reference every day when Bush makes PR's you can go to the White house site and get a translation of what was said, don't believe me wait until he talks to the press again and then click the website for the White house and wallah it is in non-Texas English.

Zack, you don't have to explain that. The two quotations I provided from Bush came from www.whitehouse.gov

This has become a tennis match, Zack. Why, do you think I started a poll here, except to get input from others. It might be interesting to hear from someone who has something to add, other than that he thinks Bush is right.

BTW: I'm perfectly capable of reading English without your translation.

Well I now note that you are from Texas and Bush is from Texas so you folks should be able to understand each other. Wait a moment Bush isn't from Texas, but I think he is brilliant to convince everyone he is dumb by the way he communicates. Some doctors and lawyers claim that he is so brilliant that they tricked him into voting in support for him to take the nation to war, now that's smart. Others claim he planned the attack on the twin towers and that would take total brilliance. But he has his cover even though he made higher grades in college than John Kerry that he has communication skill disorders, wow that's brilliant!

But, you know what, I had to seek out someone smarter than myself to understand clearly what Clinton meant when he said something about, that's according to what the meaning of "is" is. Go figure?

I'm dumb and I tricked the entire Congress filled to the brim with doctors and lawyers to vote in support of war. Now these brilliant doctors and lawyers will have the public believe they are better qualified than the person that tricked them. Now that is totally beyond a normal persons capability of comprehension. The dumb guy isn't qualified to lead because he tricked me. That kind of makes me chuckle.


When you get around to it please explain why you posted the two PR's from the dumb president and concluded the way you concluded.

None of this has any relevance to the thread under discussion, Zack. See you later, how about?

1. Was the President right or wrong to veto this expansion? Why?

He is still wrong, because his is fiscally inconsistant- once again, you don't find religion on fiscal conservatism over one cheap bill, that ensures, in the end, that more kids are insured. What is the problem here? That there won't be enough money to divert to Haliburton and Blackwater?

2. Right or wrong, what will be the political implications of this veto?

It's obvious- Anyone that votes against this will pay the political price, and GW is too hated by most of America to worry- he is lame duck, no doubt about it, and going down as the worst president in US history- and doesn't even appear to know it.

There is no consistant argument, unless you are someone like Ron Paul, that has routinely voted against spending, ESPECIALLY if you are republican, and have voted consistantly for pork barrel spending, earmarks and personal perks.

It's a darn funny time to suddenly find religion in regards to spending money. It is pretty damn stupid to find that religion when it is just a few bucks towards uninsured or under insured kids.

In my house, I make sure the neccesities get cut last, and cut the stupid spending first.

If you want to have some moral high ground to NOT fund it the way the dems are demanding- you had best have been consistant with this idealism- and it is clear that the republicans are NOT consistant with this- they have spent like drunken sailors since the day they came into power. All of a sudden- we are supposed to believe you that this is bad- why?

Because, um, it helps too many US kids? And this is bad, um, why?

Why do republicans get thier panties all in a bunch for bad fiscal policy- only if it helps someone other than Haliburton or an Iraqi?

You seem like a reasonable person with a reasonable position. Let's say you were in the House Leadership and could cause this new SCHIP re-authorization to fly through congress and be singed into law, would you? Wow, you could gloat about it along with raising the Minimum Wage as a Democratic accomplishment, why not do it? Here is what is in between the bragging rights and failure:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071025-6.html

So I ask you, since you seem so reasonable would you take thirty minutes of your time to make changes to the legislation to have it approved or would you just have it die? If you wouldn't agree to the above, and would rather not see the changes made would you think that citizens would respect you as their elected leader? Hey, maybe you could compromise on four out of the five and still have success? Why would you not take these actions being so reasonable?

Why would you assume the President and Republicans will be blamed? Congress has all the money, money for war, authority for war and the Republicans are in the minority? Even Hillary seems to want to come into office if she is elected and ask for billions more for Iraq. I'm betting congress will give it to her and Halliburton will still be there. The president doesn't have the checkbook so it is congress that makes all things possible for the administration.

Oh, I blame congress's lack of guts often enough- but this is a veto- the realm of the prez- it is his alone to bear here, it is pretty obvious that the only roadblock to this bill is the prez- it was passed by both houses of congress.

It was the republican congress that was the big spenders BTW Zack- they were the ones that spent so much money with no vetoes from GW, if you recall.

We have had some movement back toward reality, with the dems at least starting to make mewling noises over cutting off the funding to GWs war, and I wish they would just do it and stop being a bunch of wusses personally. I would also like to see them cut all funding to the executive branch FIRST, as a sign of how serious they are going to get this this low life piece of human offal we have in the white house right now, it is just another example of how spineless they are to me-

that being said- this is GWs and the repubs responsibility for it not getting through, no one elses.

If GW had not vetoed it, and the republicans not stood fast by him, this bill would already be law.

I agree that Repubs have spent like Dems when in control. The issue with this SCHIP is more than just the money – it’s the entitlement that will of course go on forever. Can you ever see it being “cut back” once enacted? Never happen.

As far as the war – ya the gutless Dems did squat except to tack on 24 billion in earmarks while passing the spending bill! Real admirable huh CR?

Sorry, I don't have very much personal time as of late.





All of the above you have listed schools provide to children whose parent's don't or can not. There are some schools where over 90% of the students are provided breakfast, eyeglasses (if needed) dental assistance etc. That is why these health programs are advertised and I would guess most likely accessed and applied for within the public school system itself. And your jokes about love and hugs isn't funny or silly, ask any school teacher how much of their interactions with children is based on an exchange of just basic human level of attention and affirmation. Not only does every public school in our country have a health room staffed by a nurse they also have a school counselor who is a child psychologist, so again even with the mocking of mandatory hugs and whatnot, our public schools do in fact recognize and address mental health issues too.

My point is we can not properly and fully address the educational needs of all our children fairly and equally without addressing their medical and health needs too. We can not separate these and easily define the limits, as you have also conceded, so it is not irrational or ridiculous to then provide some basic system within our school system to provide for this, for the whole you know..."human element".


Limit it but not all together eliminate it? I have only asked that you consider the health needs and responsibilities we have to our nation's children who are not being provided for privately, that is limited yes? I also think it would not be the total responsibility of the federal govt either as local govt shares the largest burden of public eduction.



It works in some places where I live, some of the schools in my district are not working or I should say are not working for some. I think we all know that public education is not being evenly applied or provided in our country, I by no means feel this is a legitimate problem that then leads me to belive that public education's access should be further restricted or limited. If we can send our children to public school without any need to prove we can not afford a private alternative I don't really understand how we then must do so for any government health programs, how is a child's health less important than their education?




Obviously I believe public education works.



The taxes I pay to my county by no means (if fully refunded) would be even close to enough to pay for my children's private education, not even close. I think you greatly reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots in this theory of taxes you have. I am with you on the wal-mart point as I too live in a county that has not one single wal-mart store within it's boundaries and yet has the highest % of government housing in the entire nation. BUT I am also thinking of situations where private ind. is not limited and still is not providing basic needs, as in the phenomena known as food deserts and how these conditions often lead to not only social disparity but health risks too.



Well I think statically speaking the majority of "baby boomers" have in fact privately saved for retirement. And I think the private investment industry in the US is alive and well despite the government's public systems in place. One does not cancel out the other. You can in fact enjoy a healthy private economy and still provide for your nation's most vulnerable population through public endeavors.




Well ancedotally speaking my experiences in the UK are the opposite. I good bulk of my family lives in the UK and any of them who can afford it or are offered private health care have it. My sister receives private health coverage as a benefit from her employer and this is not unusual. Private healthcare without question is considered more effective and is more coveted in the UK than NHS is.


Ack! You have given me a horrible fright. For someone who advocates the constitutional rights and the rights of the individual you somehow correlate that with the need for prayer in school. As I said in my last post...."Perhaps it takes more than just empty words to encourage and foster a good life"
As someone who is not associated with the Christian majority in this country I think the last thing my kids need are more opportunities for their classmates to tell them they are going to die in hell, or similar threats of faith. I don't think this whole prayer thing is as healing or socially constructive as you believe it to be.



So Australia who has a national health system only falls behind us by 1 point? You really think public health coverage is that much of a factor in this social identity of ours? I don't, and if we are to only lose 1 point for providing the needed health coverage for our children then I will gladly give that 1 point away.

It seems the debate is what do the citizens want from government? We want all children to have health care available to them. The next obvious question is what are we willing to pay for that government service? The Democratic Party says it's a win - win situation, we pay for it with a high tax on smokes. When smokes cost more less people smoke and that is a good thing.

So I propose this question if increasing tax reduces does decreasing tax increase?

If you tax rich people you will have less of them... if you tax big corporations you will have less of them...

If a child sees a package of candy on the shelf and it is priced at 89 cents and he takes it to the teller and hands the teller 89 cents he/she is quickly notified that it costs 96 cents... and what is the 7 cents the child asks his parents and they answer the cost of government.... the child considers is 7 cents too much or too little to pay for the government... what do I get for my 7 cents daddy? If the candy cost simply 89 cents then the government is free... because the government gets its money from where?

Tax it too high and you get less... do you want less companies for citizens to work in? No more companies where they can work and earn a good living...

If you are paying for government you want LESS GOVERNMENT!

In some cases the Democratic Party seems to be on my side when they argue, we need to raise a tax to pay for the war. Pay more tax equals less war, now that's logical now isn't it?

Who/what do we tax to pay for SCHIP once we end smoking? What can America do with less of? Rich people, hey if it gets too tax expensive they buy an island. Companies, they pass the tax to the products they sell. Where is the free SCHIP funding if tax reduces?

You are making an assumption Zack and I am not sure that assumption is warranted. While smoking declined for a period of time, that decline has leveled off. I am not sure an increase in the tobacco tax would substantially decrease smoking.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...hpid=sec-health

A couple of weeks ago I saw a man, probably a father or grandfather, smoking in a closed van with a girl who looked to be about four years old.

Second hand smoke is hard on children.



http://www.entnet.org/healthinfo/tobacco/s...dhand_smoke.cfm

If old farts like this want to smoke around children, then let them pay the health costs. If threats to their own health - heart disease and lung cancer - and to their children don't stop them, then I don't think an increase in cigarette tax will have much impact. If, by chance, smoking does decrease, it could mean less health problems for children who have to inhale adult fumes.

You posted this once before. Did you read my last post and consider what I wrote?

Using this logic we could make marijuana legal and then tax it and alcohol to fund Department of Defence. My point is there is always a reduction of revenue when the product is taxed, that is why the Democrats want to tax war. Do you think marijuana and alcohol users would pay the tax if it tripled their cost or would they find a way around the tax?

If you tax rich people you will have less rich people. If you tax companies you will have less companies. If you tax everyone you will have less government. Do you not agree that all Americans should be taxed the exact amount for all services the government provides and in not, why?

"Always" is a blanket statement. Do you have any evidence that there are never exceptions? How are Democrats attempting to tax war? Are you confusing taxing the war rather than finding someway to pay for it?




I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are suggesting a flat tax, then no, I believe in progresssie taxation.

Again you are going off on a tangent and getting the thread off topic.

Hmm. You make good points about what we currently offer poor children. But this debate is about expanding SCHIP to pay for more children who are not poor. About extending it to adults up to age 25. At what level of income or age do invididuals have to pay for their children's health care? $45,000? $65,000? $150,000? Where and why do we draw the line is the question. The kid who spoke on behalf of expanding the program was a kid who was covered by the program, even while his parents earned $45,000 per year. How is that an argument for expanding the program? Seems clear to me that this kid was another example of politicians are playing to our feelings and the "human element," rather than having a logical discussion on the topic. It almost makes me long for Ross Perot and his pie chart infomercials.


Right, limit it. To poor kids. I'm OK with this.


Health care is a lifetime expense. Education is a 12-year expense. We provide education to children to help them become valuable parts of society. We help poor parents with health care in the interests of same. We expect middle class parents to take care of their children.


You don't seem to grasp my point, although I concede it's off-topic here. In major cities, in the United States, public education does not work. If it works in some schools by you, that's great. It doesn't help poor kids in Chicago though.


Really? If you were refunded the costs that you pay, in taxes, for your lifetime, you could not afford private education? I am very skeptical about this. I bet we would have a thriving student loan market tomorrow if we actually eliminated these taxes. You don't stop paying those taxes once your kids graduate you know. This is why older folks tend to be against property tax increases and educational funding increases.


Sure, they have saved for retirement, but they sure as hell fight tooth and nail to keep their social security as well. Raising the age to 70 or pushing income limits would be political suicide. Obama found this out just this weekend. There is a reason it's called the "third rail" of american politics.


I had private healthcare myself, but needed to go to casualty as the injury was urgent. I am quite aware about private insurance, and moreso that it is really a two-tier system, just like here.


Up until the 1960's, nearly every public school opened the day with "God bless my parents, my teachers, and my school" or some variant of this. Then, the SCOTUS ruled against bible reading over the intercom. Then, next thing you know the "separation" wall is more paramount than morality. Spare me your fear of God intruding on school. Is that harmless one-sentence prayer and the "under God" in the pledge really going to hurt you or your children? Come on. Children's ignorance of even the basics of the bible prevents them from understanding the tenets of Western Civilization.


You have a chicken / egg thing here. Hofsteede measured the way society is, not anything to do with health care. Australians are as individualistic as us, and they have government health care. Not the other way around. It is an interesting observation, however. And no one is arguing about health care "for our children," but (back on topic) whether we should extend SCHIP to adults and to children who are not poor.


Good points Zack. The downward-sloping demand curve is a pretty clear thing. Tax doctors, you get less of them. Tax smoking, you get less. It's axiomatic.

I'm pretty sure you understood what I was referring to when I used the term taxing the war. Following the Revolutionary War the government taxed whiskey and the moonshiners/bootleggers were born while paying for the war. So to answer your question, "Do you have any evidence that there are never exceptions?" I would simply say legal revenue is always reduced by taxation or the good or service is reduced. Because certain items remain in demand does not mean that tax will reduce those items but it will reduce the tax paid on those items. Had the House been sincere when using the smokes tax as a tax base then they should have stated that as smoking is reduced a proportionate amount of Medicare funding will be reduced since the health benefit of less smokers causes less illness.

In the analogy I offered I suggested to legalize now illegal drugs and tax them. I said this in a tongue in cheek to the smoking tax comparison. Should that happen then we could save the cost of incarceration of violators and we could save the federal expenditures on the War on Drugs since they would be legal. Of course if drugs were legal and taxed street drugs would take away the tax revenue.

Are all men created equal in America or not? What we have here is taxation without representation, we have a majority of non smokers taxing smokers to fund something they are not willing to fund. But in reality what we really have is a program funding based on a diminishing tax base that will be funded by another minority of the population that already pays a disproportionate percentage of the US tax, again taxation without representation against a minority in support of majority of poorer citizens.

In a representative democracy if politicians promise to a class of people guarantees of services that they do not fairly participate in funding it is a theocracy style of government. In fifteen years the lower income 95% of the taxes paid by citizens will barely fund Social Security and Medicare leaving the remaining government funding to the top 5% of income bracket.

There is absolutely no reason a business or a wealthy person should remain in America to fund 95% of the population's desires presented to them by politicians. Hillary, I have hundreds of good ideas and the Democratic teams have give away programs to the bottom 95% to the level of $750 billions of dollars that they have plans for the top 5% to pay for. This nation will hit a reality when the business and wealthy people leave in groves leaving behind the programs to be funded.




This is the debate about SCHIP, taking from the smokers, as a down payment and then transitioning into the top 5% to fund the desires of the lower 95%. Until the lower 95% share the burden they will want more and it seems the Democrats are willing to give it to them.

I think some drugs should be legalized and regulated, but again you are going off-topic and throwing everything but the kitchen sink into your argument.



My heart cries for smokers and rich people.



Theocracy, social saecurity? What do these have to do with the debate? How many kitchen sinks do you you wish to dispose of?



Sounds like John Galt is back or perhaps if the "rich" don't get their way, they will throw a tantrum that's opposed to our national interest.

Historically, income tax rates have been higher than they are now.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federal...ry-20070227.swf

My point is that taxing smokers is a smoke screen.



Why should the poor class that smokes fund child health care for persons earning three times their income?



The SCHIP program is a Social Security program. As for Theocracy, it is a tenth century amendment to the Catholic Bible that requires the wealthy to provide for the poor. Our American constitution says nothing about compassion for poorer classes of people. Compassion belongs in the family, church and community and not in government. I would even consider community to be as large as state level so fellow citizens could judge if the "deserving citizens" were deserving.



I'm not familiar with John Galt but I'll check him out later. However your link is very supportive of my position, if you look a few years back you will see that tax was due even when you were in the $0 to whatever 10% bracket, and today in the same category you pay $0 dollars and are qualified for a $1,000.00 tax refund if you at least work a little through the Unearned Tax Credit. I support giving citizens that try a tax break but that is just stupid that they pay no tax at all. Well in the case of offering poor kids health insurance then possibly the government could suspend the $1,000.00 UTC from irresponsible citizens that have children because if you have children and can't qualify to pay tax above Social Security you don't deserve a reward for your sex trophies that need health care.

My point is that if the people who are on the receiving end of a program should pay into the program proportionately to their ability.

While everyone is taking weekends off in congress waiting to send the SCHIP bill to the president negotiations are going on to convince the hold out Republicans to support the bill to make it veto proof. Well guess what, if you check a few links on the Iraqi Emergency Bridge Funding you will find that Nancy Pelosi needs the Hispanic caucus to vote for the funding with strings attached stating a get out of Iraq date to get it out of the house. The same House Hispanic caucus is angry with Nancy because they want a guarantee that Illegal Mexicans get SCHIP coverage that the hold out Republicans don't want. So the SCHIP bill is dead because Nancy won't cut Illegals from coverage under SCHIP and it will go to the president and be vetoed. And, the House Republicans will sustain the veto because Illegal immigrants shouldn't get smokers tax for their sex trophies health care.

Tax Americans for Illegal Mexicans health care, is that what you support? Take the funding from the Unearned Income Tax Credit of irresponsible citizens that make sex trophies to pay for their sex trophies health care and restrain the program to the poorest of the poor to qualify for the insurance.

I'll give you a clue. John Galt was the hero in writer Ayn Rand's super capitaist novel Atlas Shrugged. I'm surprised you didn't know that. If you are prepared to read about 1000 tedious pages, you may see something in Galt that you recognize - like looking in a mirror. Of course, you could take a sahortcut and read the Cliff Notes version.

Um yeah where I live 45,000 for a family of six is not living good, and I live in the same region as the Frost family. I feel for them, trying to raise four kids on that kind of income in the Baltimore area is rough. When I take into consideration the costs I pay for Health Insurance even with my husband's employer contribution it makes $45,000 seem like even a lot less and a lot tougher. Let's discuss this subject in it's proper context, is $45,000 enough for an American family of six to afford all of their health care needs? The Frost family's yearly earnings were well below the already (note not expanded) existing SCHIP limits set for a family of six, and in fact Maryland allows for nearly double the Frost's family income in order to qualify.

I think the levels would have to be set according to context, I believe as it is now each state is allowed to set these limits...within the limit defined federally. Do you disagree with this? Do you feel there should be a set federal limit only? I also believe that each state can elect to allow higher limits but must then kick in their own funding. Again do you disagree with this? I also have read the some states who allow higher limits also have a higher set premium for those with higher incomes. Which brings about the fact that this program is not totally and completely Free, that they in fact do have premiums, co-pays, deductibles, cost-sharing etc..



Education is not limited to 12 years...most states provide mandatory kindergarten and now even pre-k. Also high risk children, most often defined by income levels which are usually determined or sought after by the state during in utero, are eligible for education provided by the state at an even earlier age.
Middle class parents are not expected to pay for their child's education, we do not expect for every cost to be carried by the parents alone for raising the future generation of our society, regardless of the income ability.



I get your point, I am just conscient of the fact that local conditions do apply and that these realities are not universal. Much like the SCHIP program itself, state policies and politics play a heavy role in how we carry these federal principles out across the US. Just because your state or local government fails to ensure quality education for children in Chicago by no means is proof that this is so universally. Each state has operated, funded and expanded SCHIP differently, for example Illinois is one of the states who requested that the SCHIP funding be expanded to adults and caregivers, the federal government granted their request, this was all done through HIFA, which was all set forth and designed by this administration, the president is either two-faced or has no idea what his own policies actually are.



You and I both know that all of my taxes are not going to education, if we took the percentage of my taxes that go to educ