# Children's Health Insurance Bill



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Upon hearing Bush defend his veto of the Children's health insurance bill, I am reminded of WH Auden's Epitaph for a Tyrant: 'Perfection of a kind was what he was after/And was greatly interested in armies and fleets/When he laughed respectable senators burst with laughter/_And when he cried, little children died in the streets'_


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I don't think that children will likely die because a federal program wasn't expanded. However, I think it's a good indicator on how screwed up the government is when they merrily fund a massively expensive, never-ending black hole non-war before even attempting to fix the problems at home. The democrats carry just as much blame as the current lamest duck president.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The President added 20M$ to last years. The Democrats added 35M$. If the Democrats are so right why didn't we hear a peep from them last year?

The 3 stoogies (media) has never given even reporting, leaving out important info on both sides to slander Bush, so how can we compare?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As usual, things are not as simple as people would have one believe. 60k, the real current limit vs. the 83k possible limit in NY that Bush quoted, is still far from an impoverished family IMO. Also, I think there should be some scrutiny of the families of recipients, i.e. money for Xbox, cigarettes, alcohol = money for insurance for your kids. Also, the kid that Democrats keep quoting as having died from a bad tooth, Deamonte Driver, *did have insurance*. He had Medicaid, so by definition, he did not need SCHIP, as SCHIP is expressly to cover kids in families with incomes over Medicaid limits.

Sorry to inject reality, I'm sure the OP will not be happy to read it. But there you have it.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> As usual, things are not as simple as people would have one believe. 60k, the real current limit vs. the 83k possible limit in NY that Bush quoted, is still far from an impoverished family IMO. Also, I think there should be some scrutiny of the families of recipients, i.e. money for Xbox, cigarettes, alcohol = money for insurance for your kids. Also, the kid that Democrats keep quoting as having died from a bad tooth, Deamonte Driver, *did have insurance*. He had Medicaid, so by definition, he did not need SCHIP, as SCHIP is expressly to cover kids in families with incomes over Medicaid limits.
> 
> Sorry to inject reality, I'm sure the OP will not be happy to read it. But there you have it.


There's always someone to find a reason not to help others.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

If elections weren't coming up next year, you can bet Republicans in Congress would have rallied behind Bush's decision.

After all, as far as they're concerned, spending $600 billion to build hospitals, schools and provide medical care for Iraq's children is their priority. America's poor children can go to hell. I think they call it "compassionate conservatism".


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

rip said:


> There's always someone to find a reason to not help others.


Just as there's always someone who wants to use armed government thugs to _force_ people to help others (usually in totally inefficient and bureaucracy-laden ways).


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> Just as there's always someone who wants to use armed government thugs to _force_ people to help others (usually in totally inefficient and bureaucracy-laden ways).


I, for one, had rather help 10 undeserving children if it helps 1 deserving child; you, I take it, and most conservatives, had rather deny care to 10 deserving children than to help 1 undeserving child.

I'm sure you've had much experience with "armed government thugs".


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

rip said:


> I, for one, had rather help 10 undeserving children if it helps 1 deserving child; you, I take it, and most conservatives, had rather deny care to 10 deserving children than to help 1 undeserving child.
> 
> I'm sure you've had much experience with "armed government thugs".


That's right...us Republicans actually eat poor people's babies when we get together at our secret meetings where we try to find new ways to mess up the world...but if you'd like to get serious for a moment...do you realize how many of your hard earned dollars get lost in the shuffle helping those 10 undeserving children??? this isnt just a matter of everybody pitching in a few extra bucks to make sure that junior gets his cough syrup...this is a matter of taxing you and I into oblivion so that irresponsible parents who have children that they can't afford don't have to go without rims and premium cable so that their kids can have health insurance...and that those saame tax dollars can get grafted in 10 different directions along the way...


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

rip said:


> I, for one, had rather help 10 undeserving children if it helps 1 deserving child; you, I take it, and most conservatives, had rather deny care to 10 deserving children than to help 1 undeserving child.


What an idiotic statement. It's nearly as hyperbolic and sensationalistic is your original post, which would have us believe that middle class American children are going to be dying in the streets because we didn't increase the bureaucrats' budget for this program.

Here's something for your bleeding heart to contemplate:

This bill would have raised the tax on cigars by 53.12% (amended from the 2,000% increase the congressional idiots who cooked up this hair-brained scheme originally proposed).

Independent cigar boutiques, many of them immigrant-owned family businesses, were already planning to close their doors because of the impact of this bill. This bill would have put people out of work -- most of them Hispanic immigrants. Won't someone think of the impact it would have had on _their_ children?

And then there's Latin America. Cigars form one of the largest exports from such developing countries as the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru, Panama, and Costa Rica. 95% of these exports go to America.

Such a significant tax hike would have a devastating impact on this industry, likely forcing the closure of cigar factories throughout Latin America or at least the firing of numerous workers. What about _their_ children?

The fact is these authoritarian elitists and bureaucrats in Washington have no clue what's best for the children of places like West Virginia, let alone what impact their decisions are going to have on children in places like Honduras, but they come up with elaborate schemes to pick the pockets of the middle class and wrap it all up in heart-tugging rhetoric that has gullible state-worshippers like yourself willing to stick your hands right into your neighbors' purses to hand the bureaucrats ever more, more, more.

And that's not even to mention the fact that even the Comptroller General of the United States is trying to warn us that these bureaucratic entitlement programs are swiftly bankrupting our country.



> I'm sure you've had much experience with "armed government thugs".


Don't taze me, bro.

What do you think would happen if I decided that the fruits of my labor would be better spent on local charity than by handing it over to Hillary and Teddy and Georgie to fritter away on the welfare-warfare state?

What if I decided that I should just take that 33% of my income (not including the social security pyramid scheme that I'm automatically enrolled in but will never benefit from) that the government decided it's entitled to and used it to fund a children's health clinic in my town?

There would be men with guns on my doorstep before you could say, "Screw the IRS", ready to make me pay or be hauled away.

And statist suckers like you think it's all A-OK. After all, it's _for the good of the children_!


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> Independent cigar boutiques, many of them immigrant-owned family businesses, were already planning to close their doors because of the impact of this bill. This bill would have put people out of work -- most of them Hispanic immigrants. Won't someone think of the impact it would have had on _their_ children?
> 
> And then there's Latin America. Cigars form one of the largest exports from such developing countries as the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, the Bahamas, Ecuador, Columbia, Peru, Brazil, Panama, Costa Rica. 95% of these exports go to America.
> 
> Such a significant tax hike would have a devastating impact on this industry, likely forcing the closure of cigar factories throughout Latin America or at least the firing of numerous workers. What about _their_ children?


I've always maintained that if the liberals got their way, and everybody stopped smoking tomorrow, as soon as they realized how much tax money would be lost, you'd start seeing Al Gore doing ads for Kools, and Hillary Clinton would become the new Marlboro man...

that might seem like me going off on a tangent, but I find that so many of these "compassionate" liberals who are "looking out for the little guy" really have no clue...I'd hate to imagine the devistation to our economy (and country as a whole) if these knuckleheads ever got their way with socialized medicine...


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> that might seem like me going off on a tangent, but I find that so many of these "compassionate" liberals who are "looking out for the little guy" really have no clue...I'd hate to imagine the devistation to our economy (and country as a whole) if these knuckleheads ever got their way with socialized medicine...


You're absolutely right. The politicians who cook this crap up are just in it for their own aggrandizement and the consolidation of their own political power, and people out there actually believe they're "looking out for the little guy".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> There's always someone to find a reason not to help others.


Rip, I do not believe I said we should not help those in need of help. I do believe I intimated we should save help for those that need it. No one is stopping you from paying for the health insurance for children in families making 60k a year. In fact, please feel free to pay for mine. Why do you seem to feel it takes a federal law to help others?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> What an idiotic statement. It's nearly as hyperbolic and sensationalistic is your original post, which would have us believe that middle class American children are going to be dying in the streets because we didn't increase the bureaucrats' budget for this program.
> 
> Here's something for your bleeding heart to contemplate:
> 
> ...


My heart really, really bleeds for you poor smokers and the people who continue to manufacture and sell you your drugs. And it's people such as you who force a mandated tax, since left to your own devices, you would decide to, on your own, what was it? oh, yes, fund a children's clinic... oh, wait, there's that bespoke suit I've been promising myself, and those shoes, got to have those shoes... those kids can wait, they're young yet... and there's always the emergency room... well, maybe next year.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

rip said:


> *And it's people such as you who force a mandated tax*, since left to your own devices, you would decide to, on your own, what was it? oh, yes, fund a children's clinic... oh, wait, there's that bespoke suit I've been promising myself, and those shoes, got to have those shoes... those kids can wait, they're young yet... and there's always the emergency room... well, maybe next year.


Project much?


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

rip said:


> My heart really, really bleeds for you poor smokers and the people who continue to manufacture and sell you your drugs. And it's people such as you who force a mandated tax, since left to your own devices, you would decide to, on your own, what was it? oh, yes, fund a children's clinic... oh, wait, there's that bespoke suit I've been promising myself, and those shoes, got to have those shoes... those kids can wait, they're young yet... and there's always the emergency room... well, maybe next year.


Why do children whose parents make $60k+ per year need "free" health care, again?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> My heart really, really bleeds for you poor smokers and the people who continue to manufacture and sell you your drugs. * And it's people such as you who force a mandated tax, since left to your own devices, you would decide to, on your own, what was it? oh, yes, fund a children's clinic... oh, wait, there's that bespoke suit I've been promising myself, and those shoes, got to have those shoes*... those kids can wait, they're young yet... and there's always the emergency room... well, maybe next year.


Yes, that is the bottom line for leftists. They simply know better how someone else's money should be spent, at all times. Good of you to stop pussy-footing around the topic and come out and let everyone see exactly what it is all about.

Charity begins at home. Socialism begins in the hearts of busy bodies. So we can figure you make no luxury clothing purchases rip and that all of your disposable income goes to charity for medically indigent children?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, that is the bottom line for leftists. They simply know better how someone else's money should be spent, at all times. Good of you to stop pussy-footing around the topic and come out and let everyone see exactly what it is all about.
> 
> Charity begins at home. Socialism begins in the hearts of busy bodies. So we can figure you make no luxury clothing purchases rip and that all of your disposable income goes to charity for medically indigent children?


Actually, socialism begins in the hearts of those who actually have a heart for the indigent, children or otherwise. As for my disposable income, you'd be very surprised.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> *Actually, socialism begins in the hearts of those who actually have a heart for the indigent, children or otherwise.*


LOL. The Great Lie. Glad to see there's still a few of you around. We need reminding from time to time.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL. The Great Lie. Glad to see there's still a few of you around. We need reminding from time to time.


A few? Socialism is the predominant form of government on planet Earth.

If any group qualifies as "a few" these days, it's laissez faire capitalists.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> A few? Socialism is the predominant form of government on planet Earth.
> 
> If any group qualifies as "a few" these days, it's laissez faire capitalists.


Yes and we can see how well those socialist/communist countries are faring:
1) Zimbabwe
2) Cuba
3) Venezuela 
4) China (yes China!!)

compared to:
1) U.S.
2) Japan
3) U.K.
4) Germany

and the list goes on.....

100 years of human history stand between you and your notion of a socialist utopia Frank.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Let me be blunt: When someone else has a child, that does not put a mortgage on me.

Rip, you are welcome to sit in the admissions area of a hospital somewhere and offer up your net worth to people coming in so they don't have to touch their lifestyles to pay their kid's bills. Or, you could right now offer to pay for so-called "insurance" for as many households with children as your can afford until your money runs out. But don't sic the government on me and force me to do the same. I still feel an obligation to take care of my family and me first so that *we* don't become a burden on someone else. But it is possible to tax me into dependency, which, I suppose, is the plan.

Progressive socialism is like vampirism. Your blood gets sucked until you become one of them and the only way you can survive is to find someone else's blood to suck. What a beautiful social model Liberalism is!

And I put "insurance" in quotes because we are really not talking about insuring against the risk of disease or accident. What we are talking about is full blown health care, all the reasonable and expected costs of having a child, like "well baby care." One reason the cost of insurance is so high nowadays is for that reason. It's not insurance, it is a program that covers all the reasonable and expected cost of living or bringing someone into this world. In fact, it is paying for consequences of deliberate decisions! Why is the cost of the normal delivery of a baby that a couple has *decided* to have an "insured" expense? Why should normal deliveries and well baby care be a pooled expense?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

rip said:


> Actually, socialism begins in the hearts of those who actually have a heart for the indigent, children or otherwise. As for my disposable income, you'd be very surprised.


I didn't realize that $80K per year was indigent.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Why it will cost more than you think*

This topic was debated on the Interchange a few weeks ago, when someone linked to an article about a woman who quit her job in order to go on SCHIP. I was at the time working for a health insurance organization that provides policies to businesses. Those business figured (probably correctly) that taxes would be placed on them to pay for SCHIP expansion. So, they are looking into ways to get the children of employees who qualify for SCHIP off of the company insurance policies. That is correct, SCHIP expansion actually creates an incentive for companies to drop family health insurance coverage for any child who would qualify for SCHIP, which results in more children needing SCHIP, which results in higher costs. The Democrats claim that they will be able to pay for the expansion through increased taxes on tobacco, but declining usage rates mean they have tied this cart to a dying horse. No government program ever gets cancelled, so what will they tax when tobacco taxes prove insufficient?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> Progressive socialism is like vampirism. Your blood gets sucked until you become one of them and the only way you can survive is to find someone else's blood to suck. What a beautiful social model Liberalism is!


Exactly! Once a government program is in place its never again a question of whether it is needed anymore, rather a question of where do we find more funding.

I wonder if there is a provision in the bill that would force families who can purchase insurance through their employer to do so as a first measure. That would mean tightening the belt, getting rid of the cell phone, cable/satellite, driving a cheaper car and eating out less but too bad. Only then should it be offered to families who would still have to pay a premium, copay and have a cap (like Medicare B).

And I wonder if it will cover things like Jr. wanting to play football or basketball and racking up medical bills due to injuries sustained on the field of play?


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> Progressive socialism is like vampirism. Your blood gets sucked until you become one of them and the only way you can survive is to find someone else's blood to suck. What a beautiful social model Liberalism is!


Wait a minute! If socialists are like vampires...and vampires are bloodsuckers, then...stay with me on this...that must mean that socialists are 'suckers too! Yup, that sounds about right!

T3G


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> A few? Socialism is the predominant form of government on planet Earth.
> 
> If any group qualifies as "a few" these days, it's laissez faire capitalists.


And thank God for that!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm amazed at the number of excuses offered to justify a hard heart and a tight fist.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Yes and we can see how well those socialist/communist countries are faring:
> 1) Zimbabwe
> 2) Cuba
> 3) Venezuela
> ...


Those who confuse socialism with communism show both their ignorance of history and of economics, but then, the Right has always been filled with those who wave their ignorance as a banner of honor.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> I'm amazed at the number of excuses offered to justify a hard heart and a tight fist.


At least on my part, you are completely mischaracterizing. But then again, that is what it is all about for you on such topics. I have said this is not about denying charity to the deserving, it is about discerning who has true need. Agnash has raised a very good issue too. Lastly, I pointed out one of the total lies that Dem house leaders have used to tug the heart strings of idiots, namely the example above that is egregiously incorrect.

Do you just want to sloganeer rip, or do you want to actually debate something useful, i.e. the means testing tool, why do so many in society feel charity should be a new tax, what right do you have to impose your moral values on others, etc?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> compared to:
> 1) U.S.
> 2) Japan
> 3) U.K.
> 4) Germany


And remind me how health care is delivered in Japan, England, and Germany?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> At least on my part, you are completely mischaracterizing. But then again, that is what it is all about for you on such topics. I have said this is not about denying charity to the deserving, it is about discerning who has true need. Agnash has raised a very good issue too. Lastly, I pointed out one of the total lies that Dem house leaders have used to tug the heart strings of idiots, namely the example above that is egregiously incorrect.
> 
> Do you just want to sloganeer rip, or do you want to actually debate something useful, i.e. the means testing tool, why do so many in society feel charity should be a new tax, what right do you have to impose your moral values on others, etc?


You spend so much time trying to parse "true need" that the truly needed go unserved, but that is of no moment to you, so long as one un-needy person doesn't get served. And it is always convenient to have that one "welfare cheat" to trot out over and over again to prove the invalidity of the entire concept. Or that somehow the additional tax on tobacco products are going to bankrupt you. No debate is possible with a knee-jerker. You simply spout your canned responses. It borders on perseveration.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> And remind me how health care is delivered in Japan, England, and Germany?


Yes lets consider Germany for example where crime amongst the elderly is on the rise because the government cannot afford to pay out the state mandated "pensions" it has promised to old age pensioners.

My point was not to focus in on the health care system but rather the economic system as a whole. By the way, let's take a look at what the marginal tax rates, as well as all the other taxes piled upon members of the EU. I can't speak for Japan.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> 100 years of human history stand between you and your notion of a socialist utopia Frank.


I'm not making any judgment calls about socialism, just pointing out that it's the predominant form of government in the world today. The idea that it's somehow rare (i.e. "There's still a few of you left") is astonishingly ignorant, but typical in America.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

rip said:


> Those who confuse socialism with communism show both their ignorance of history and of economics, but then, the Right has always been filled with those who wave their ignorance as a banner of honor.


Read Hayek!


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

rip said:


> Actually, socialism begins in the hearts of those who actually have a heart for the indigent, children or otherwise. As for my disposable income, you'd be very surprised.


Let's have a little reality check here. Most true poverty in the world exists in countries with socialist governments. It's a failed idea that everyone seems to continue to believe in despite the evidence.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> You spend so much time trying to parse "true need" that the truly needed go unserved, but that is of no moment to you, so long as one un-needy person doesn't get served. And it is always convenient to have that one "welfare cheat" to trot out over and over again to prove the invalidity of the entire concept. *Or that somehow the additional tax on tobacco products are going to bankrupt you.* No debate is possible with a knee-jerker. You simply spout your canned responses. It borders on perseveration.


As usual, no content. Please show me the "welfare cheat" I trotted out or where I made any reference to a tobacco tax (I do not even smoke). Rip, you are bereft of anything approaching a cogent argument. You have been asked by more than one person why you consider families earning 60k should be automatically considered medically indigent and refused to answer. Agnash gave you a real world example of the unintended consequence of the SCHIP program, and you ignored it. You have been given every chance to offer something besides a slogan and not given us anything but very lame attempts at sounding morally superior.

*yawn*.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'm not making any judgment calls about socialism, just pointing out that it's the predominant form of government in the world today. The idea that it's somehow rare (i.e. "There's still a few of you left") is astonishingly ignorant, but typical in America.


I had ment in America implicitly, as we were speaking about America, but thanks for the completely unprovoked insult anyways. Can you put me back on ignore please? And BTW, I'm not American.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I had ment in America implicitly, as we were speaking about America, but thanks for the completely unprovoked insult anyways. Can you put me back on ignore please? And BTW, I'm not American.


WF, in the context of this discussion you're not even correct about America. Americans overwhelmingly support this legislation, and support government-run, universal health care over our current system by an almost 2-to-1 margin:
https://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

Does this make nearly 70% of us socialists? If not, we at least support a few basic components of it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> WF, in the context of this discussion you're not even correct about America. Americans overwhelmingly support this legislation, and support government-run, universal health care over our current system by an almost 2-to-1 margin:
> https://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm
> 
> Does this make nearly 70% of us socialists? If not, we at least support a few basic components of it.


Conflation Frank.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> As usual, no content. Please show me the "welfare cheat" I trotted out or where I made any reference to a tobacco tax (I do not even smoke). Rip, you are bereft of anything approaching a cogent argument. You have been asked by more than one person why you consider families earning 60k should be automatically considered medically indigent and refused to answer. Agnash gave you a real world example of the unintended consequence of the SCHIP program, and you ignored it. You have been given every chance to offer something besides a slogan and not given us anything but very lame attempts at sounding morally superior.
> 
> *yawn*.


You're simply looking for a forum in which to continue showcasing your right-wing rant. I'm not going to provide that


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> You're simply looking for a forum in which to continue showcasing your right-wing rant. I'm not going to provide that


:stupid: :deadhorse-a:

Can you please just point out what I have said that is "right wing" in this thread?

:icon_headagainstwal:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'm not making any judgment calls about socialism, just pointing out that it's the predominant form of government in the world today. The idea that it's somehow rare (i.e. "There's still a few of you left") is astonishingly ignorant, but typical in America.


If you read my post I never mentioned whether it was rare or common. Just that it is flawed from the core.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ---C.S. Lewis


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

rip said:


> No debate is possible with a knee-jerker. You simply spout your canned responses.


...says the guy who hasn't offered a single cogent argument in this thread, but just mindlessly keeps insisting that anyone who objects to the provisions of this bill must be a heartless pig who wants to see children dying in the street. 

You are such a caricature.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> just mindlessly keeps insisting that anyone who objects to the provisions of this bill must be a heartless pig who wants to see children dying in the street.


Anyone who objects to the provisions of this bill must first explain this:

Americans are already paying for children's health care. Just not American children.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So what exactly does this prove Frank? Two wrongs make a right? _Ad populum?_


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So what exactly does this prove Frank? Two wrongs make a right? _Ad populum?_


It proves the fiscal priorities of our federal government are royally screwed up. If Bush wants to suddenly pretend he's a fiscal conservative, after spending our money like a drunken sailor for six years, he should start by withholding money from Iraq's children, not ours.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> *Americans are already paying for children's health care. Just not American children.*





FrankDC said:


> It proves the fiscal priorities of our federal government are royally screwed up. If Bush wants to suddenly pretend he's a fiscal conservative, after spending our money like a drunken sailor for six years, *he should start by withholding money from Iraq's children, not ours.*


I don't always agree with you, Frank, but you've got this one right. Now, there still needs to be some way to determine true need, so people aren't taking advantage of the system, but it could easily be paid for with the huge amount of money we waste on this type of foreign aid.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> socialism begins in the hearts of those who actually have a heart for the indigent


You're awfully generous ... with other people's money.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see, yet again, A appointing B to steal from C, then watching B give some of the loot to D (keeping the rest for himself), and then watch as A strains his arm patting himself on the back for how generous and giving and caring he is.

What a joke.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It proves the fiscal priorities of our federal government are royally screwed up.


Well, no argument there.


----------

