Ad campaign: Congress with Bush, or the children?

In 2004, Bush himself said he wanted to expand the s-chip. Now he wants to take this issue and make it seem like the republican party has returned to fiscal conservatism. What a joke. Way to late and surely the wrong bill.

It's not too late Bill R to try fiscal discipline. The GOP made the law that gives SCHIP to poor children it has been prostituted by Pelosi, Reid and Durbin to give middle class families a form of socialized health care to set the stage for Hillary. Bush is right we don't need more public health care we need to stick with private sector health care. Reagan is right we need a safety net for the poor and that what the original law passed by the GOP did. Bush linited growth to $5 million instead of Dem bloated $35 million. I'm sick of unions and Hil using the "children' to embarass Republicans> GOP House members stand by W on this bill. Jerry White, Springfield, IL P.S. You Dems have given us too many victims including the 12 year old kid who gave the Jackass response to the President.

If it was okay for the Republic party and the insurance companies to have a fictional elderly couple to distort a health plan being proposed during President Clinton's administration, then it's just as fair to run TV ads with children to win support to override Bush's veto of the SCHIP plan.

We will have families that are paying the Alternative Minimum Tax and they will also be on SCHIP.

Make Sense?

Why can't these families use their $1000 Child Tax Credit and cut back on internet, cable, cellphone, dining out, lottery tickets, etc... and pay for their own insurance?

If there's anything more disgusting than Republican priorities, and watching them parrot the Limbaugh lines (drug addict as political philosopher), I can't imagine what it would be. Bush finally went too far, and will soon wear his veto like an albatross. Believe me, 2008 will give us all a chance to repudiate these neos.

Why can't these families use their $1000 Child Tax Credit and cut back on internet, cable, cellphone, dining out, lottery tickets, etc... and pay for their own insurance?

Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 10:44 AM

Because poor are all lazy greedy chislers, unlike the noble virtuous rich, right, Terry?

The average premiums for family coverage for health insurance was $12,106 last year, and then you have deductables. The Child tax credit won't even cover a month of premiums.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091107nr.cfm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003880312_medinsure12.html

Anon,

famil Coverage - assume a family of four. that would be about $3,000/person, so the child tax credit would account for 1/3 of theat payment. Eliminate, cable, internet, lottery tickets, cell phones,... and the kids insurance could be paid for.

Why don't the parents look at every expenditure and ask which is more important - that expenditure or helath insurance for their child?

"famil Coverage - assume a family of four. that would be about $3,000/person, so the child tax credit would account for 1/3 of theat payment."

No Terry, assuming a family of 4 they would g3t $2000 in Tax credits a year, $1000 per child. It would pay 1/6th of the cost.

"Eliminate, cable, internet, lottery tickets, cell phones,... and the kids insurance could be paid for."

Let see, being really consrvative:

Cable & internet: $100 per month. - $1200 total.

Cell Phones - lets be wacky and say they spend $200 a month on cell phones (They're really getting robbed)- $2400 a year.

So now with the tax credit we're up to $5600 a year saved.

That leaves them another $6500 to find in savings in order to pay for insurance. That's another $540 a MONTH to save. Are you so deluded that you think the average poor family is spending $540 a month on lottery tickets and dining out?

Terry these people are spending their money on food, transportation, housing, and child care. They aren't spending over $500 a month on frivolities.

"Eliminate, cable, internet, lottery tickets, cell phones,... and the kids insurance could be paid for."
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 2:37 PM

How about some evidence for this jaw-dropping assertion, Trickle Down. Sounds like a familiar right-wing refrain about "welfare queens" that has long been debunked. If you think that earning at the poverty line of $20,000 per year is enough to support a family of 3-4, why don't you try doing it?

But I know I know, they're all dumb or shiftless or lazy. But "industrious" Terry, who loudly proclaims his desire to climb the ladder and pull it up after him and who I'm sure has never received any assistance from anyone at any time in his life, says that these poverty line families need to simply "cut the fat" out of their budgets.

Step out of your Ivory Tower for a minute, Trickle Down, and talk to some working families. It might break down your extreme cognitive dissonance on why people are poor and what the best way to help them is. Maybe that will help you break out of your childish, Ayn Rand myopia.

Final note: bringing as many people out of poverty is the single best way to grow the economy. And isn't that what its all about, Trickle Down?

Anon,

First I am talking for the kids, so that is $6,000. Yes I think a family of four can fine another $10/week to get the kids insurance. That $10/ week - you forgot the trip to McDonalds and the lottery tickets

The other thought is get catostrophic insurance, which is a lot less.

DV (Tony),

We are not talking about $20K per year families, we are talking about the $60K per year families. Big difference - nice try shifting the arguement though.

If the idea is to bring people out of poverty, then let's have the gov't pay a $500/month housing stipend to these middle class families ($60K), or how about a transportation stipend, a food stipend, clothing stispend?

Is it such a stretch to work for what you earn? Have you ever done that? Please let me know how you contribute to this society? Are you a taxpayer?

"First I am talking for the kids, so that is $6,000."

Terry, in order to get "family coverage" you have to cover the parents too. That's the family part.

"Yes I think a family of four can fine another $10/week to get the kids insurance. That $10/ week - you forgot the trip to McDonalds and the lottery tickets"

Umm Terry, not $10 week, $125 per week. $10 per week is only $520 a year Terry, not $6500. Really, you need to learn some math.

"The other thought is get catostrophic insurance, which is a lot less."

And doesn't cover preventive and routine care at all. No check ups, no care for your kid with the flu, or a minor injury.

So, hot shot, where does the extra $125 a week come from? It's not coming from big macs and lottery tickets?

Do some homework. Talk to a real live poor person about where their money goes.

Kids have health care. The needy already have health care. The U.S. is not a socialist state. The government caused the problem with health care in America by over socializing medicine to the extent it is not completive, and we want to exacerbate the problem? U.S. Capitalism refers to an economic system in which the means of production are all owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit). see http://www.InteliOrg.com/

Anon,

My math is fine - $6000 minus $5600 is $400, so I was being generous and saying $10/week. Follow?

Second, you can get coverage for your kids w/o coverage for the adults and your price is about right - maybe a little high for the avg child.

catostrophic care puts more financial risk on the parents, but covers the big bills. Its a decision the parents have to pay.

Children can't contribute to the repukelican fiesta. Of course they aren't interested in helping these humans.

Why does the government need to get involved in health care insurance? They rarely can get things right especially at the Federal level.

SCHIP is just the foot into the door for socialized medicine. Instead of the Doctor working for you, he will work for the government. What happens if he makes a mistake, who will be accountable? Who will you be able to sue? No One to both questions. If you don't like the Doc you can't fire him.

In Massachusetts, this is what is happening -

www.liberator.net/articles/McElroyWendy/DoctorsQuestions.html

Big Brother spies on Parents through the Doctor. And you on the Left are screaming about what you think President Bush is doing with your rights. While screaming you forgot to look behind you. You fellow Lefties are sneaking up behind you.

"My math is fine - $6000 minus $5600 is $400, so I was being generous and saying $10/week. Follow?"

Yes I follow that you cooked the numbers because they weren't going your way.

Face it my friend, the poor aren't all living lives of indolent luxury, ignoring their basic needs and failing to provide for their children.

Go talk to the poor. I know they scare you, but give it a try. They aren't all as evil as you think. The poor aren't bad people Terry, they just have less money.

Anon,

Didn't cook the numbers - $3000/kid (you number) times 2 = $6,000.

Yes you can get stand alone health insurance for a child w/o having the adult covered.

Terry: I hate to resort to name calling but clearly it's needed. Why are you so ignorant?