So let me get this straight:

$7 billion more per year over the next 5 years for kids health care that has the support of every major insurance company is "breaking the budget".

$190 billion dollars FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR (total spent so far - $600 billion) is OK to fight this war in Iraq that even General Patraeus can not say makes us safer.

Tell me Brucey, Johnny D, JD, Jerry White, etc - why does Bush hate American kids so much?? Is it more important for Iraqi kids to have health care than American kids??

Bobin,

50 years from now, we will be spending that same $7 billion/yr, at least adjusted for inflation and population growth, while we will not be spending $190 billion per year for Iraq.

Iraqi kids are getting insurance they will live and this won't become like Southeast Asia after we withdrew from there.

You equate not having gov't sponsored health care with hate. Only a lib.

Dem. Senator Reed calls the Dem S-CHIP legislation a "moral imperative".

Don'tcha love the hypocrisy of the Democrats admitting to legislating morality, the very thing they always try and accuse Republicans of?

Really, Terry? How many Iraqi kids are dead because of our insuring their "freedom" - not including the almost 4,000 dead of our own "kids". And how many more years do we spend $190 billion in Iraq if we get another Republican President?

According to my calculator, your $190 billion for Iraq equates to 27 years of the extra health insurance. And if this is government sponsored health care, why is it that all the major medical insurance companies are FOR this bill?

But you are right Terry - only a liberal cares more about American kids than Iraqi kids. Isn't that the way it should be??

You equate not having gov't sponsored health care with hate. Only a lib.

Posted by: Terry | September 27, 2007 12:14 PM

Hairy Terry,
I agree, we Republicans shouldn't be spending our hard earned dollars on healthcare for our children, it should be spent on continuing to Stay the Course in Iraq and any other future wars we may choose to start.

P.S. - Tell your wife thanks, we worked on "math" last night.

Terry,
How come back in the '70s you and all your rich Republic buddies didn't get onto your private planes and yachts and go to SE Asia after we left Vietnam and help the people you now claim to care so much about? Your manufactured compassion for SE Asians is transparent and hollow. You're just parotting talking points.

Brucey:

It's not just the Dems that are for it - otherwish the vote would have been a lot closer than it was. And the Senate version, also.

Unfortunately, my two lunkhead senators here in Georgia (Chambliss and Isaakson) are both against the bill - making sure they stay in lockstep with W, even though kids here in Georgia suffer because of it. I only wish Max Cleland would come back and run against Chambliss - maybe we could get the seat back.

The great Michael Moore was on Oprah today, trying to get through to a blinded, brainwashed American populace that medicine isn't supposed to be a profit-motivated business. It's a science to serve mankind, not enrich the AMA, insurance lobby and big pharma.

Bobin,

A heck of a lot less Iraqi kids are dead now as compared to when Saddam used WMDs on them are ran them thru the "human shredder"

Only a liberal equates care with a gov't program.

Math Whiz - funny choice of words you use "equates". You don't know an equation when you see one.

How's the wrist. It's probably hard to hang on to something two inches long.

Janet,

Because all the funding for the U.S. military was pulled by the democratic led Congress.

"Tell me Brucey, Johnny D, JD, Jerry White, etc - why does Bush hate American kids so much?? Is it more important for Iraqi kids to have health care than American kids??"

Fighting the war on terror, instead of cutting and running, keeps Americans kids safer from terrorism.

It keeps them alive, dead kids don't need health insurance.

President Bush is pro life and objects to a $.61 tax on tobacco?
Smokers versus uninsured children and the tobacco companies win. Only in America!

There are two ways to look at government supported healthcare. You can think of healthcare as a personal desire of Americans and thus as their own responsibility and obligation. Or, you can think of healthcare as an essential need of all Americans. Those who view healthcare as a personal desire will not care if others go without any healthcare. The attitude is that healthcare is not essential, it is a personal desire for which each American is responsible. Those who see health care as an essential need see coverage as a moral issue. We expect government to address the essential needs of the members of society. We don't expect government to worry about our personal desires or wants. Paying for healthcare is really not the issue. We can pay for anything we believe is essential and necessary. What we can't seem to get past is agreeing on whether healthcare is an essential need of all Americans or just a personal desire to have.

Terry,
How did that stop you and your pals from taking your PRIVATE planes and PRIVATE yachts to SE Asia, loaded up with guns and other "concerned" private citizens such as yourself and helping out the SE Asians?

Terry, get a clue.

Only a to a con does the end justidy the means.

Terry,
Are you sure that we won't be spending the 190 billion in Iraq and other countries in 50 years, or have we all forgotten the Korean War, oh wait we are still there. Even the White House states that this will be a protracted war with no set end date in site.

god why don't democrats realize most americans are morons? ie. kitty and harry. complete morons and not worthy of debate

Let's face is Bush has lost his marbles. And I am a Republican. Or will be only through the end of this day. Enough of this insanity from the White House.

We live in a very prosperous nation and the greatest at that. Give it to the Iraqi's if they're most prosperous are below our poor. If you want everyone to have health care, kids included then you foot the bill pal. Don't force me into more taxes through guilt. I tithe enough as it is. Again, the libs want social security to be there without doing anything to fix it. They want security of the borders but don't want remedies to fix it because it means votes. How bout pay more attention to the Gov. of Virginia nominating a Muslim with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood? No but that would be hate. Libs.

I am a non-smoker but fail to see the logic in taxing cigarettes to pay for health care for childeren whose parents can make up to $83,000 a year and still qualify for health care for their children. And does this include the thousands of kids illegal aliens produce? You can bet your life it will. If cigarettes are taxed for this purpose, what's next? Anything the government decides to tax, to pay for even more programs to accomodate those who live their entire lives on the dole?

" are ran them thru the 'human shredder' "

What?

"Iraqi kids are getting insurance they will live "

Now, if only the doctors who ran for the border could comeback to Iraq so all those kids can put that insurance to some good use.

Fred C. Dobbs -

The only thing I find more offensive than a smoker is an anti-smoking zealot.

Where's the money for S-CHIP going to come from when the bottom falls out of the smoking market after all the smokers quit (or turn to the black market)?

Are you ready to pony up the bread to cover the loss? I doubt it.

Name calling is apparently all some people can do. Here's the deal: Where does the money come from to treat patients in the US?
Unless it comes from outer space it somes from Americans pockets. So if an uninsured kid has to go to the emergency room for his bronchitis, the most expensive place he can go,who pays? Why those with insurance and/or the government. Trace it all and it comes ultimately from us. So if we are spending it anyway shouldn't it be the most economical?

I think many of the repugs here simply don’t want to spend a dime on anything that is not directly benefiting them. It's expected with the small pie mentality types. Thinking that there is not enough to go around immediately makes the repugs afraid they will loose something (in this case they don’t want to spend any of their money for someone else to live a long healthy life, especially if that person is poor and likely to be a dem).
So, good luck convincing the limited minded small pie mentality that it's a good idea to have a healthy population (much cheaper in the long run).

Oh, there it is again, something that doesn't directly benefit a repug. Anything long run is not good for them because they don't get something directly from it.

What is this the Brucey and Terry forum?
What you are both over looking during your partisan wee wee contest is just exactly what does the bill say it will do...commit us to...and for whom. If they want to subsidize insurance for the kids why don't they go for the industries that do the most to contribute to poor health...fast food, junk food, industies. How about the crap the so called needy ....family of 4 at $65,000...give me a break. Let 'em stop buying booze and cigarettes and take care of the kids.
Look at the real issue, not the partisan
defense mode...right or not.

Bill

BUSH ONLY CARES ABOUT FUNDING THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF MISSIONS IN IRAQ SO HISTORY WILL NOT LOOK AT HIM AS A ABOMINABLE FAILURE (WHICH HE IS). WHO CARES ABOUT 6 MILLION AMERICAN CHILDREN? BY THE TIME THEY GROW UP THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL BE A BAD MEMORY AND A DOO-DOO STAIN ON AMERICAN HISTORY.

The needy already have health care.
The U.S. is not a socialist state (see http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl). No one is entitled to be given a house, car, food or health care, etc. If we want these things, we have to earn them. The government does not earn money. Perhaps some of us should take a civics class and learn about America. We all have to labor for what we want. For those who need help there are the charities and state programs. We need to fix the health care issue but we cannot fix it unless we know how it is broken. For the answer, please see http://www.InteliOrg.com/

Medic,

Are you talking about that Korean War that the democrats got us into?

Are we spending the sam amount on Korea, adjusted for inflation, as we did in 1950-52?

Also, why do you think we have troops in Korea?

Janet and Bobin,

If Universal healthcare is so important, and that is where this expansion of SCHIP is heading, then please let me know where personal responsibility stops on what the gov't should provide the individual. Should it be 21 meals per week, clothing, transportation, housing?

" Or, you can think of healthcare as an essential need of all Americans."

Last I check the U.S. Government wasn't supposed to provide any needs.

This is the corrupting influence of entitlements. the U.S. Government was not nor was it ever founded to cloth, feed, provide shelter,or educate anyone, or any other list of tacked on needs that have occured over the last 70 years.

It would be best to read the Constitution and the declaration of Independence.

Wow, while I agree with some of what you are saying, I am EMBARRASSED by some of you. I like how everyone doesn't like the idea of a government healthcare program for all americans , but they are okay with having a police force to offer protection, they are okay with a socialized school program, they are okay with the government controlling our army.....I could go on for days. Its so hilarious that people use a hair brained argument about paying more taxes as an excuse not to want healthcare programs. And you war supporters, dont you think we are going to have to pay for this war eventually? Taxes will HAVE to go up. And the cost we have spent to "liberate" a country that neither asked to be liberated and that we were told not to invade could have ended world hunger. So what do you think is better? "Helping" people who didn't ask for it or possibly ending world hunger.....really think about that before you answer.

And just an FYI Terry, there were NO WMDS. And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so that argument just FAILS. Its not america's job to go police other countries and FORCE our values and way of life on them. But keep telling yourself what you have to to keep thinking "we are doing our job".

Every other reasonably prosperous country has socialized medicine, and you do not see them clamoring to imitate us. Socialized medicine saves costs and enhances productivity. At the big picture level, it's a no-brainer: you get healthier people and a better economy. The Iraq war, on the other hand, is doing nothing at all to "fight terrorism," and only people who ignore facts think otherwise. At the big picture level, it's a disaster, whatever the "surge" may be accomplishing locally and in the short term. Maybe the real difference between libs and cons is that libs can see the forest and cons can only see the trees.

We do live in a prosperous nation. One in which the top 1% of the population controls the vast majority of that wealth. Without government and without a social structure those individuals with wealth would not have it. In other words, accumulation of wealth requires a government and it requires a social structure. Those who benefit most from the social structure are expected to pay the most to maintain it. What the government does or does not do is not the decision of a single person, but the collective decision of the entire society. It really doesn't matter whether you think you pay enough taxes or not. If the collective decision of the population is that you will have to pay more then that is exactly what you will have to do. That is why we can pay for whatever needs and necessities government has. It would make far more sense to decide on what are the essential needs of society then to spend your time railing against liberals. The case needs to be made why healthcare is not an essential need of all Americans, not why you don't want to pay for it.

Wow, while I agree with some of what you are saying, I am EMBARRASSED by some of you. I like how everyone doesn't like the idea of a government healthcare program for all americans , but they are okay with having a police force to offer protection, they are okay with a socialized school program, they are okay with the government controlling our army.....I could go on for days. Its so hilarious that people use a hair brained argument about paying more taxes as an excuse not to want healthcare programs. And you war supporters, dont you think we are going to have to pay for this war eventually? Taxes will HAVE to go up. And the cost we have spent to "liberate" a country that neither asked to be liberated and that we were told not to invade could have ended world hunger. So what do you think is better? "Helping" people who didn't ask for it or possibly ending world hunger.....really think about that before you answer.

And just an FYI Terry, there were NO WMDS. And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so that argument just FAILS. Its not america's job to go police other countries and FORCE our values and way of life on them. But keep telling yourself what you have to to keep thinking "we are doing our job".

Maybe if we told the pres those 6 million kids were sitting on a trillion gallons of oil and had some plutonium from africa he would change his mind?

Healthcare for profit is such a huge success, right? Our average health care cost is something like twice that of other industrialized nations and our industries (like GM) have trouble staying cost-competetive because they are carrying most of that cost burden. I'm sure there are a few people who stand to gain by keeping the current system (the politicians who're getting money from industry PACs, for example) but the rest of us are paying through the nose.

Terry:

How many more kids are alive because of Saddam being gone? Do you know how many? How many Sunni kids are dead that would not have been if Saddam were still in power?

And more important, what about the almost 4,000 young American men and women who are now dead because of George Bush? How many of them would have gone on to be doctors themselves to help the kids here?? How many kids here in America no longer have mothers or fathers to take care of them??

Kitty:

The war on terror was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq during Saddam's time - they were his mortal enemies. Now they are there - thanks to W's stupidity!!!

Sorry folks but $62,000 is hardly poverty level. Anyone making that much does not need to be banging on the vaults for 75% and on our doors for the other 25%. Its called the right to pursue happiness. That doesn't mean you automatically deserve happiness. If you aren't getting by on $62K then there's something seriously wrong with your spending habits.

Don't make your lack of financial well-being my problem. This tripe is just 1 more step toward communism!

Bush and his logic amazes me. His intent with this program was to offer insurance to "poor" kids, but now he sees it as helping middle income families...does he know what a "middle income" family is? He supposedly has an MBA, so he should understand the simple economics behind inflation. Of course, that is giving him more credit than he is due.

Please remember that this very basic health care, just for children, is necessary if we ever face a true pandemic disease or bio-terrorist attack. Without free basic care, we will not know enough about these events until it is too late. Everyone benefits from this, not just the actual recipients. Medicare for all would be better still, but every little bit helps.

I'm completely amazed at how ignorant almost everyone on this board is, especially those who see an American child as more important than any other child, it just sickens me to see all the Nationalism hoopla in the guise of patrotism. Why are we in Iraq, lies, no WMD's, not Terror links, but for some reason people think we should still be there, get with it, we are less safe, ask those whom used to travel a lot.

As for those who thing "illegal aliens" are the problem, funny how no cared till after the war went sour. I don't agree with the raise in the cap for CHIP, at least not as high as it is now. But the program is essential and having had to use it for my own children in the past it was literally a life safer.

Please everyone take a moment to reflect and think of your one side ignorance.

The President is not representing the G-O-P as a whole.

Many G-O-P members voted for the S-CHIP legislation so please, don't go lumping President Bush with the entire G-O-P. The G-O-P will survive President Bush's suicidal moves to destroy the United States.

I am a long-time G-O-P member; but I don't believe in private medical insurance unless the federal government controls the salary packages of the executives. Cutting the compensation of the top 15% of private medical insurance companies (and their parent companies) will generate billions of capital each year.

What are physically challenged adults supposed to do? Roll over and die as the dishonorable senator from New York - Hillary Clinton - once said.

The entire health care system needs to be reformed with direct orders from our federal government. It must begin with a Constitutional Ammendment saying ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE ENTITLED TO UNCAPPED HEALTH CARE ON DEMAND.

In my opinion, our citizens need 100% reimbursement for those families whose incomes (earned & unearned) fall below $150,000 a year. Reimbursement by a dollar-for-dollar refundable federal income tax credit.

Just my opinion...

How about sending sick American kids to walk ahead of the troops in mine fields,after all they are sick already,( no child left behind,remember )like that we save twice.everybody win (almost everybody...)
way to go W.

The issue of government-subsidized health care will be settled once and for all when enough big businesses decide that it's not in their best interests to continue subsidizing health care for employees. Once that happens, you'll see an "unprecedented bipartisan support" for some program that takes health insurance out of businesses' expense column and puts it into the government's. Once we get to that point, the debate will change from left and right calling each other names over whether it should be done to left and right calling each other names over the details of how it WILL be done.

The good news is that, while the details of the argument will change, the arguing will continue and we'll all be able to continue to enjoy the oh-so-witty derogatory epithets that make these comments such a joy to read.

Republicans love the so called private health care system because it keeps Americans indentured servants of large corporations. Everyone knows the game even Republicans. Bushes entire family has federally subsidized heath care. The man some call President is a total historical moral loser.

All I know is that King George eats babies. So if children are able to get treatment for illness. Then Gerogey will starve. Of course he is not for it. That is why we are in Iraq now. He is fueled by Hatred and Murder and that is just the appetizer. Bring on the main course of Blood and Aborted Babies and then wash it down with some TEXAS TEA (oil, for you ingrates). Capitalism is now destroying us. How about we bring back some old fashioned Fascism...Oh. wait. Somebody already beat me to that one...Rock on G.W. You RULE!!!!! no pun inteded except for the one that you just read...MY Face Your MoM!!!!!!!

To me this whole discussion seems to be about what the government "a.k.a. tax payers" should do. What about the parents’ responsibility to provide for the needs of their children? I'm not rich, not even close, but I do provide for my family's needs and do not expect my fellow tax payers to do this for me.

I also feel that I am already subsidizing far too many people who do not share my believe in person responsibility for one’s self and one’s children. I believe it was even a democrat that once said, “Do not ask what your country can do for you …” Let’s put just a little responsibility back where it belongs, on the individual citizen.

"BUSH COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR HEALTH OR YOUR CHILDS HEALTHCARE"

Give me a break America, 1 trillion dollars later and you honestly think Bush and his Administration and the brains behind his C- high school through college average gives a rats butt about American Health Care. Just look at your mom and dad aka seniors in america who bought into his pay me for a new plan. You have 70-85 year old people paying a yearly premium to save money. 85 years old and having to save money for overpriced medicine.

SO IF YOU THINK GEORGE BUSH, DICK CHENEY OR HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF GIVES A RATS BUTT ABOUT YOUR CHILD, YOU ARE BUYING POPPY FROM AFGANISTAN.

BECAUSE THIS IS WHY THEY CALL HIM BIG POPPY, SO THROW YOUR HEALTHCARE IN THE AIR LIKE YOU JUST DON'T CARE.

HE DOESN'T!

Screw the kids, I want more WAR!

Anon,

BAsed upon the intellgence that was available in March, 2003, the invasion was the correct thing to do.

As far as war casualities, how many of our soliders,sailors,airman, and marines that dies in WW2 would have gone on to become doctors, etc...? As far as those soliders in Iraq, according to John Kerry, not many would become doctors because the military was their only option. I disagree with that though.

Phil,

Great post. I've been dumbfounded for years that American businesses are so tortoise-like in recognizing that national health care is a BUSINESS COMPETITVENESS ISSUE.

Look at the percentage of the cost of US made cars that goes toward health care and "legacy costs." Our major manufacturers are being drowned by it, whereas Japan and Europe, who have far lower per capita health care expenditures with their oh-so-scary "socialized medicine," will maintain that competitive advantage until we do something.

Socialized medicine helps big business, and isn't that what this country is REALLY all about?

I love it when Republics argue that little children should be personally responsible for having health insurance. If only every child could be lucky enough to be born healthy and into a weatlhy family with great healthcare. So much compassion, and most of you probably claim to be Christian.

Economically speaking as demonstrated by "wealth of nations" the poor should be given every opportunity to succeed through education and health care. By failing to do so we are condemning children to remain indefinably in poverty and by extension we are condemning our own economy.

Several people here spoke of personal responsibility and the rights of tax payers to determine how their money given to the government is spent. Well point in fact the congress which you elected is doing that and their support of this bill should show that this is then social medicine.

There is often a trend to equate social medicen with communism, lets keep a level head and remember on of our few remaining allies in the world has this system. Our nearest neighbor Canada uses a system very close to this, get no one would dream of claiming that these nations are not bastions of democracy and freedom. So clearly the social medical system is not evil.

I am a republican, but I am a Yankee fiscal conservative Republican and this make perfect since. What do you think will happen to those children who don't die from illnesses but are crippled? They will be supported by the government for the rest of their lives, is this the American you want to waste money being stingy when we can pay a little to save a lot?

I think the conservatives here need to think about how much of the lobbyists line they are swallowing and think about what make basic fiscal sense.

Terry - based upon intelligence available in 2003, the invasion of was not the correct thing to do. There were plenty of doubts before the invasion. I didn't believe their lies then and I surely don't believe them now. Based upon the CIA reports before Darth Cheney started poking around, Iraq was not a threat nor have connections with al-Qaeda.

Oh yeah Republican,

Screw capitalism, I want more SOCIALISM!

"BAsed upon the intellgence that was available in March, 2003, the invasion was the correct thing to do."

This is factually wrong. There were numerous questions raised about the validity of the claim. We had UN inspectors in the nation looking around. The choice to start a preemptive war was the wrong one. It will always be a sign of the gross incompetence and ideological zeal of this current batch of Social conservatives.

Bush should have listened to his commanders, his father and not his friends.

"This has been a bipartisan commitment to make sure that our children are covered in America,'' Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said at a Capitol press conference.

Someone please advise Mr. Kerry and all the others that if they will go on S/S like the rest of us, and stop paying themselves exhorbitant comps every year, there will be enough to cover every need from now to eternity.

They are interested in their hip pocket and little else. They hesitate not to dip into ours to pay for some tear jerking plot they come up with to salve their conscience over with.

Until they go on S/S and give up the huge raises every year, and reduce their salary to come into compliance with ours, We will never believe in them, or trust them. Sorry Senators but I must tell it like it is. We love you but you must straighten up and soon.

Wow, some of you people are really heartless. You're all for a war that is costing us billions upon billions of dollars because you think it's a war on terror. Terror is a state of mind, not an enemy that we can fight. If you're so concerned about "the good" and "the safety" of our nation, what about helping our most important foundation. Our Children.

While I can see how some people think that the individual should pull themselves up by the bootstraps. These are children, and I'm sorry but $62,000 a year for a family of four is not that much money. On paper it may look like it would all be fine and dandy, but there are always variables to living life. Especially with young children, which healthcare can be enormously expensive. With the mentality that you're approaching this, it's like seeing a grandmother on the side of the road with a flat tire, and saying "she needs to take care of it herself" and then just keep driving by. It's heartless.

And you're complaining that the taxpayer is going to have to pay for this. This would be funded by a tobacco tax. Why is this a bad thing?

Come on people, this is supposed to be a great nation. So many of you don't think so though, greed and me me me is all that occupies your mind. If I saw you on the side of the road in need, I would stop and help. Wouldn't you do the same back?

Dear pleaseread: You obviously haven't considered the context the constitution and declaration of independence were written in. If we only interpreted the documents literally only wealthy white men would be voting and slavery would still be alright. After all, did any women sign those historical documents? You may read, but you apparently don't analyze. Too bad you weren't around 150 years ago so you could personally experience the ignorance that you hold up as principle

Yes, let's spend hundreds of billion dollars to keep our kids safe from "terrorists".

Let me ask you, though, have you ever seen a terrorist?

I have...

He was just a typical American, driving down the highway. This guy had a few too many drinks, and ended up swirving into our lane, striking the car behind us, killing my sister and he boyfriend.

For all your COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL fear of these "terrorists" overseas the Bush administration has sold to you to justify their corrupt business, you fail to see the terrorists here at home that continue to kill MILLIONS OF COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Not 3000 like the WTC, MILLIONS.

I bet if we spent those hundreds of billions of dollars researching alcohol harm-reduction and prevention, we'd be saving a LOT more lives.

LOOK its basic ecconomics. If you let the free market takes its course you have maximum production for the cheapest possible price. once the goverment gets involved and makes determined price capps... ect you have ineffficency.
There is no other way to see it.

Do we want the same people that handled FEMA to take care of our healthcare? I don't. Choice is what makes America better. What then is the solution? First stop having employers dicide what healthcare you and I get. If insurance companyies only have to sell to the employer and not you then the policy will only benifit the employer. Or at best will benifit the average employee but not most. And all the added cost of providing health care is just get taken out of the salary anyway. (albeit indirectly) so you still pay for it. Only now you are paying for healthcare that someone else chose for you. Instaed outlaw company healthcare and only allow indiviuals to buy insurance so that the insurance company has to privde a policy that you want and works for you at a price that is good for you. Making healthcare cheaper. Then outlaw lawsuits and make a kind of Naitonal bar where doctors can loose thier licence if they preform bad. This bar would have hearing on disputes for patients instead of having the best lawer win. now they do not need malpractice insurance and health care costs go down again. Also force a single form for all insurance companies so that less people are needed to enter in the codes for health care and reducaes the costs again. Free Market is the only way to get affordable care and getting the government out of the way is the only way it will happen.

Our federal government "subsidizes" its police and military forces because this is implicit in the job of our federal government - to secure an ordered liberty for its citizens within its constitutionally-limited domain. It is NOT the implicit job of our federal government to provide economic goods such as food, healthcare, education, housing, etc.. Certainly it's arguable that the federal government has largely abdicated the former mandates in favor of the latter options; what's not arguable is the financial and cultural disaster toward which this path is driving us. That's why many of us oppose new federal entitlements, no matter how wonderful they seem. It's not that we are selfish, but quite the opposite; we fear our country becoming unable to take care of anybody due to economic collapse.
BTW - in case anyone decides to launch an ad-hominem attack on me, my family falls within the lower 2nd income quintile, so I am not a country-club type concerned about my own taxes.

In a way, I'm glad the Twit in Chief will veto SCHIP. After all, he vetoed stem-cell funding twice, since he doesn't want to hurt any babies.

Have you seen pictures of the thousands of Iraqi babies and children his war has maimed and killed?

His ignorance and arrogance are overwhelming. Hard to believe it's taking so long for people to wake up.

Scott,

Taxing one group of individuals to supplement the needs another group is evil. Let's face it. This is yet another attempt to demonize smokers, and has nothing to do with S-CHIP. And why not? It worked for Hitler.

In his fascinating book Cigarettes Are Sublime, Richard Klein, a professor of French at Cornell University, writes that Hitler was "a fanatically superstitious hater of tobacco smoke." He also notes, that there is a direct link between freedom and the right to smoke. He writes: "Like other tyrants such as Louis XIV, Napoleon, and Hitler, James I despised smoking and demonized tobacco. The relation between tyranny and the repression of the right to grow, sell, use, or smoke tobacco can be seen most clearly in the way movements of liberation, revolutions both political and cultural, have always placed those rights at the center of their political demands. The history of the struggle against tyrants has been frequently inseparable from that of the struggle on behalf of the freedom to smoke."

Terry,

You need to get educated or read more. This recent Iraq war has not made the US safer or saved more kids from Saddam. It has only served to push Iraq into a Shite state and into an ally of Iran, a much greater threat to children everywhere. Saudi Arabia and Iran remain top sponsors of worldwide, jihadist terrorism. Iraq in 2003 wasn't even in the top 10.

Bla bla bla; Thats all I ever here from you politicians. Let the truth be known from my point of view; I don't want to work to pay for a child health care system. Where did it say in our constitution that I have to give the the poor because they can't help them selves? (I know the moral obligation; I give)I worked in the Iron Ore mines of michigan and was able to sacrifice my way to pay for an education (twice). Thats what makes this country great, opportunity!! Not me having to pay for someone elses bad choices; so punnish me for wanting more than sub-par living but don't tell me I have to work harder to stay in the middle class because some parents can't think out side the bottle or make clear choices for their children. OK, if your going to make me pay higher taxes for this child crap, then because it's a federal program then everyone involved should have to take a drug and alcohol test to pass compliance. There the ones smoking and takng drugs usually; benefiting from my tax dollars (the nerve). The goverment make all their employees do it because as a citizen I demand coeherent workers and competent workers, all government programs should do the same. Also, this program fails me because it doesn't teach hardship and rewards. It's preposterous to think a healthy child will make better students and better choices; ask Kerry about that one. Enough venting. I do have a brain. peace out!!

Neo-cons: Lower-middle income whites that are Republican because they hate black people; the same people who would benefit most by this legislation.

Wake up hater!

why is it that liberals continue to equate social spending with defense spending? If the iraq war ended today, not one dollar would go to welfare schemes. As far as the current "scheme du jour" is concerned, i see the usual liberal debating trick of calling a welfare scheme a benefit "for poor kids". Interestingly, the new legislation would reduce available money for poor children by expanding coverage to middle class children and to illegal aliens, not to mention enlarging the beneficiary age group to include adults up to age 24. The left cannot cope with the truth, so I am sure the media will conveniently ignore these factors while tarbrushing President Bush, while liberal cretins bray in the background chorus.

"And you're complaining that the taxpayer is going to have to pay for this. This would be funded by a tobacco tax. Why is this a bad thing?"

What if the tobacco tax doesn't cover it? What if tobacco companies have to layoff hard working American workers due to this tax?

Bush is a jerk. period.
Enough is enough, impeach both him and Vader for crimes against humanity and send them to Gtmo.

You all make a lot of good points let me try to do the same. The preamble of the Constitution tells us what the document is all about. If you then read the rest of the Constitution you'll see that everything else in there is in furtherance of the Preamble. Amongst the words in the beginning are" to support the general welfare, to provide for the common defense". Social programs are in my opinion part of the Constitution's mandate. A second point: If you will take the time to go to the IRS website and look at the charts you wil find that more than half of the families make 30K or less. That's about 60 million workers. There are not 60 million jobs that pay enough or have insurance for these folks to go get one. It is not possible. So how can they have insurance then? It is a fallacy that the only reason people don't have insurance is because they are lazy or stupid or whatever. There is not the jobs, no matter what some say or think.

Kudos to PJW for succinctly summing up the fundamental division on health care in such an objective way.

Jim wrote, "Free Market is the only way to get affordable care and getting the government out of the way is the only way it will happen."

This is 100% on target.

Dean,
I'm not demonizing smokers, but have you looked at the health issues that smoking causes. Your attempt to frame anti-smokers as being like Hitler is sad. Hitler also killed many people, hasn't smoking done the same? Hasn't Second Hand smoke done the same?

If you want, I can flip your argument and frame smokers as being like Hitler.

Go look at some facts about second hand smoke, something smokers push onto other unwilling people. It's responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. It also causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome deaths in the United States annually. And you say taxing smokers to help pay for children's health care is evil? How do you figure that?

Go ahead, keep smoking, I'm not telling you to stop. But when you blow out all that smoke and chemicals into the air, your screwing with the air quality around you, which adversely affects the health of those around you, with them not having a choice about it. Some people might call that... evil. Keep that in mind.

And Jim, come on. Poor tobacco companies. Anyways, isn't it the smoker who pays the tax?

Health coverage today ,Doctors
Lawyers,democrats,republicans,
soldiers,and the American family of tommorow , 165,000
American troops ,and a slap in
the face by President all in the name for a pack of cigarrettes, and a drum of oil
impeach this president , after all he is employed by the American people .........

WageIt: "What do you think will happen to those children who don't die from illnesses but are crippled? They will be supported by the government for the rest of their lives, is this the American you want to waste money being stingy when we can pay a little to save a lot?"

Hillary Clinton said the federal government would euthanize the physically or developmentally challenged child - which I find absurd. Still, she said it not once but multiple times and is why she is, in many minds, THE DISHONORABLE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK.

Democrats and Republicans alike fail to recognize the fact that with federal government assistance, tens of millions of physically or developmentally challenged people (children and adults) can lead productive lives.

I don't think lacing one's arguments with name calling is conducive to getting one's point across. Phrases like 'liberal cretins' or 'heartless' neo-cons only serve to create the impression that your view is extremist and therefore to be discarded. While I can certainly understand partican frustration with the way the other side wants to run things, keep in mind that frustration is high on both sides. It's good to know there are posters like Dave and Wageit who can provide convincing arguments (one against and on for) this health care bill.

Bush Family insurance

The Bush Family insurance is federally subsidized.

Why should we be paying his doctors bills after he drank and coked himself up for 30 years. He couldn't get a job as a bus driver in our town.

A mental and historical moron.

* * * * *

If we only interpreted the documents literally only wealthy white men would be voting and slavery would still be alright. After all, did any women sign those historical documents? You may read, but you apparently don't analyze. Too bad you weren't around 150 years ago so you could personally experience the ignorance that you hold up as principle

Posted by: hector gomes | September 27, 2007 4:34 PM

Sorry Hector,

But your comments rank right down there with the dumbest and most ignorant garbage I have ever heard about the Constitution.

The Constitution today has a lot more in it than when it was first ratified. Those additions make your statements totally false.

Only wealthy white men would be voting? That’s news. Nothing in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence says that only wealthy people get to vote. Furthermore, the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments provide that the right to vote cannot be denied “by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (15th), or “on account of sex” (19th). Therefore, a literal reading of the Constitution shows that people of either sex, of any socio-economic group, and regardless of race or color, have their right to vote guaranteed too.

And then you think slavery would be permitted? The Thirteenth Amendment says otherwise: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Did you see that? Slavery shall not exist within the United States. That’s not just a right to be free from slavery as a result of governmental action; it is a right to be free from slavery from anyone. So, knowing these words are in the Constitution, how do have the nerve to claim its literal interpretation would make it okay to have slavery?

And then you point out that women didn’t sign either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution? So what? Had they been chosen by their respective States to represent them, they could have. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation or even the Constitution ever barred a women from running for office, getting elected or even being appointed to public office. If it was true then, it is certainly true now with a vengeance. The “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendments prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender unless a state can show an “exceedingly persuasive justification" for it. (See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531 (1996).)

You then twit the other poster for not being “around 150 years ago so [he/she] could personally experience the ignorance [he/she held] up as principle.” You have no place to speak. You are ignorant.

In contrast, readplease is correct in stating the purpose of government isn’t to run a nanny state. It isn’t. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to run a nanny state. If the Constitution doesn't give it that power, then the Constitution, itself, prohibits it. (See Amend. 10, U.S. Const.) The nanny state did not exist in this country until F.D.R.’s “New Deal” ushered in a bevy of socialist programs which, today, threaten to break the government’s finances. This was done in complete disregard for the Constitution, or by an expanded reading of its words that were entirely unjustified.

Folks, I see too many false arguments here. The argument - how can you justify/like/support spending on A when you don't like spending on B? - is a false argument.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact the federal government has wrongly entered us into a war in Iraq doesn't mean that any lesser wrong – such as foolishly spending more money in the face of a budget and debt crisis, and without any constitutional authority - is proper or better. All government actions have to be judged on their own merits, and not in comparison to others.

"LOOK its basic ecconomics. If you let the free market takes its course you have maximum production for the cheapest possible price." - Jim

Jim, You need to actually read free market theory and not regurgitate this kind of BS.

In most cases the free market can do a better job, however the government needs to enforce fairness and provide an even playing field were all potentials of the market can be explored.

This means no monopolies and no "no bid" contracts.

"once the goverment gets involved and makes determined price capps... ect you have ineffficency." - Jim

Illogical statement based on a straw man argument. In many cases the government takes more time and money to do the same thing but they also do things that companies can not make a reasonable profit off.

Now tell me do you think companies should make a profit off poor kids health?

As for FEMA, one of the major issues with the Katrina debacle was not with the government workers other then Mr Brown but their use of contractors and their ability to structure a response. This is how they lost track of people, never delivered that Ice and to date have failed to account for lost home.

"There is no other way to see it." - Jim

In this I think you are being very disingenuous. Their are many ways to see it and one of the clearest is that insurance companies are not regulated enough. These for profit corporations have been allowed to dictate the level of health care rather then becoming more efficient. This works against the free market.

Well, crap. I actually do some work and miss a great thread.

"why is it that liberals continue to equate social spending with defense spending? If the iraq war ended today, not one dollar would go to welfare schemes."

This is incorrect. Post war you have billions of dollars in veterans benefits. We will be paying for the Iraq war for the next 50 years. The price may increase as more soldiers are crippled but still alive and they have longer lives. Lets also be mindful that we will be paying to support the Iraqi government somewhere in the tune of 8-12 billion dollars a year for decades.

"As far as the current "scheme du jour" is concerned, i see the usual liberal debating trick of calling a welfare scheme a benefit "for poor kids"."

Please articulate who else it benefits or is this pure paranoia?

" Interestingly, the new legislation would reduce available money for poor children by expanding coverage to middle class children and to illegal aliens, not to mention enlarging the beneficiary age group to include adults up to age 24."

Well that statement was filled with dishonesty.
The coverage of a family of 4 making under 64,000 is not the middle class in the majority of America. In some states 64,000 is poverty level for an individual.

The coverage of these kids to 24 allows for those going to college (not you have to be a student) so they don't lose benefits the moment they leave for college.

"The left cannot cope with the truth,"

Ironic statement if I have ever seen one.

"The Constitution today has a lot more in it than when it was first ratified. Those additions make your statements totally false."
Posted by: John W. | September 27, 2007 6:02 PM

You must have skipped the first sentence:

Posted by: hector gomes | September 27, 2007 4:34 PM
"You obviously haven't considered the context the constitution and declaration of independence were written in." While it does end its sentence with an unfortunate preposition, your (highly entertaining) rant about the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendment was nonentheless rather specious. It took the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments to right the wrongs that the poster accurately pointed out.

"Nothing in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation or even the Constitution ever barred a women from running for office, getting elected or even being appointed to public office."

She just couldn't vote for herself.

As Mike pointed out earlier in the thread, the Preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What is your interpretation of the general Welfare clause? Where does "promote the general Welfare" end and "the nanny state begin?

Scott,

I don't smoke. Only morons do. And it is not a false argument to compare the tactics of Hitler's non-smoking policies with today's anti-smoking attitudes. But I like the way Dave Hitt puts it better.

And I've lived around smokers my whole life. Second hand smoke is a myth.

>>"What is your interpretation of the general Welfare clause? Where does "promote the general Welfare" end and "the nanny state begin?

Nanny State:

The War on Drugs
The War on Immigrants
The War on Poverty
The War on Fat
The War on Smoking
The War on Gambling
The War on Prostitution
The War on fill in the blank

Each declaration is an attack on our freedoms. And there is not one person in this discussion who could not be affected somewhere down the line.

An interpretation of the General Welfare clause

"While I can see how some people think that the individual should pull themselves up by the bootstraps. These are children, and I'm sorry but $62,000 a year for a family of four is not that much money. On paper it may look like it would all be fine and dandy, but there are always variables to living life"

Yes, Scott... variables. How about we take away some of those variables? Do you know that almost 1/2 of "povery level" people own their homes? Over half have cable? almost all have color televisions? 75% own cars?
How many kids living in projects have cel phones, PS3, X-box, $100 sneakers, ipods etc...

Whew! Look at all of that "poverty". With the exception of owning a home (which I feel should be a major priority in anyone's life) These are hardly necessities and the amount of money wasted on our creature comforts (because the media says we HAVE to have them) is disgusting. "Poor" America has no idea what to do with their money.

No, my friend, $62,000 is more than enough to mortgage a home, have a decent car, feed and clothe your family AND buy health care. I do it already. and did it for 1/2 that amount for a few years after I was laid off. I can also assure you that your kids won't die if they don't have 500 cable channels and the newest video game console. Waddaya say people get back to having appreciation for what they have instead of all they want?

If you have a job that doesn't provide health care at a decent price then maybe, again, it is time to rethink your life's strategy. I have had a few different jobs in my life and almost all offered some form of health package for less than $100 a month for an entire family. That is less than most people pay for cable.

Of course, if you want a $500,000 home and a Lexus then feel free to work 2 jobs or better educate yourself in your current position and raise your own value. I still don't feel responsible to take care of anyone else. If you hand people everything then they have no reason to better themselves.

Take a look at our broken welfare system for a glorious example of "something for nothing". There is something seriously wrong when there are people who have never worked a day in their lives with no plans or intentions to ever change their habits driving around in new cars and I am driving a 1992 minivan trying to help my kids pay for college. Why do I need to pay even more for other families? If you can't afford a huge family then simply don't have one. It should not be anyone else's burden.

Poverty used to mean "I have no money for food and clothing". Now it means "I can't afford to take my kids to 6 Flags".

About cigarette tax... Yes, all of you who don't smoke think it is great. There will come a day in the very near future when smoking is banned completely. Do you think the Govt. is going to say "Oh darn! The well has run dry. There goes billions of tax dollars..." Nope! They will tax fast food, candy, soda, clothing, etc... So laugh it up while you can. When I am not paying tax on my cigs anymore you will all be helping pay. A tax increase of a few $$$ per day per citizen will be hysterical from my vantage point :)

BTW, I DO help little old ladies change their tires and even hold doors open for them. Most older folks I know don't think any of us should pay to dig other people out of holes either.

* * * * *

"Social programs are in my opinion part of the Constitution's mandate."

* * * * *

Posted by: Mike | September 27, 2007 5:13 PM

No, Mike, they are not. Government social programs were unknown and entirely alien to the country and society when the Constitution was written. Thus, we know those who wrote the Constitution not only did not have, but could not have had, such programs in mind when they wrote the words “general welfare” into the Constitution.

Second, we are reminded by the 10th Amendment that the federal government is a government of “limited powers.” That Amendment says, “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Thus we have a clear, textual basis in the Constitution itself that says the federal government’s powers are both finite and limited to those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. The idea of limited, delegated powers is entirely inconsistent with any notion that the federal government has some inherent power to create new powers for itself by spending money on a given problem.

Third, in the absence of an implicit power of the federal government to enlarge its powers by handing out money, social welfare programs can only be justified by an explicit power, or from some logical reason as to why those programs are “necessary and proper” means for carrying on one of those explicit, delegated powers. In this regard, the only place the words “general welfare” are mentioned among is in Article I, Section 8, clause 1 which gives Congress the power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; . . .” As originally written, this clause was not meant to grant any power other than the power of taxation. The words “to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare” were understood as words of purpose and limitation on the taxing power, and not as creating any new or different power to spend on social welfare programs.

If the framers of the Constitution intended to create a general government with the power to re-define its own powers by spending money, they certainly did not exhibit any consciousness of it during their deliberations in the Convention of 1787 when they wrote the Constitution. To the contrary, the records show they were worried about taking too much power, and especially of taking any power that would cause the States to reject the Constitution for infringing on their rights to self rule. The States most certainly feared an open-ended power of the federal government to re-define the objects of government by a general spending power, because they could see, through such means, the seeds of power consolidation and concentration into a single government at the ex