Democrats and the child health care bill

[WyoBob]

I think I heard yesterday that Congresses approval rating is at an all time low---11%. Do they ever think maybe they're doing something wrong? Naw. As long as they get enough money from lobbyist, kickbacks from contractors and campaign donations from large corporations, they're in fine shape. They just need to spend a little money every 2, 4, 6 years to put b.s. ads on TV to fool the "sheeple" so they can get re-elected and they're all set to hop back on the gravy train.

WyoBob

[illinoishoosier]

Wasn't it..."by the people, for the people"?

Dems, Repubs, it doesn;t really matter. It's a job to them and they will do anything to keep that job. I mean where can I get a gig where I can be convicted of a crime, resign, and still receive a pension. (which , btw is about 3x what I make).

I work in the tax industry and see first hand what a screwed up mess DC has made. Unfortunately, taxpayers don;t care much when the gov't starts handing out free money.

Stop making welfare a destination, and make it what it was intended to be, a stepping stone, a help....not a way of life.

[calistogey]

Originally Posted by WyoBob

I think I heard yesterday that Congresses approval rating is at an all time low---11%. Do they ever think maybe they're doing something wrong? Naw.

One interesting thing about this is that, while it is true that everyone in the country disapproves of congress as a whole, people seem to love their own respective elected representatives. If this wasn't case, they wouldn't continue voting for them and all of them would be one-termers.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by calistogey

One interesting thing about this is that, while it is true that everyone in the country disapproves of congress as a whole, people seem to love their own respective elected representatives. If this wasn't case, they wouldn't continue voting for them and all of them would be one-termers.

I think a lot of people really don't have a clue. In my area and industry, which is heavily unionized, a lot of the guys I talk to will bitch about high taxes, gun rights, the fact that our soldiers are hamstrung (many are vets) in Iraq, etc...but will swear their allegiance to the left wing because that’s what the union tells them to do. It is pounded into their heads at the meetings and in the mailings that if anyone besides a left winger is elected, Carnegie and Rockefeller will swoop down upon them, take their paychecks and their kids' lunch money.

Add to that the name recognition that many candidates and incumbents have. For example, the 06 Senate race here in NY, Hillary vs John Spencer. Who the hell is he?

Then you throw in the educated union members, welfare recipients, and political dependents who vote for their pay checks, and its easy to see why certain people win despite being the absolute worst choice.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

After almost 200 years of whining for the poor and buying votes with policies, iniatives, and spoils, they have yet to even come close to replicating the success and widespread prosperity seen in the country prior to their acceptance.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...ub0KQD8RULLR00


If only I could be a few days ahead of the curve on the stock market...


"Clinton said such an account program would help people get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs."

[Bax]

Originally Posted by GOAT LOCKER

[SIZE=3]Really?[/SIZE] Who's children should I support? I am already supporting my own and those of the "poor", now I gotta support someone else's? By the time I have put my daughter through college, I have no doubt I will be forced to support the children of people making more money than I do. America seems to have forgotten what personal responsibility is.

Trust me, you would be begging for help if ,God forbid, you ended up loosing your insurance and then you were told that your Daughter had cancer. It's easy to see this as you are now, but what if bad things happen?

True that people do have parents who are worthless slobs, but the children should not have to pay the price. I've had friends and family on both sides of this issue. I've seen the good and the bad of it.

[ATLHARP]

Originally Posted by Corona Gigante

I think you mean unacceptable rather than impalpable.

Anyway, 45 House Republicans supported the bill and eight House Democrats opposed it, so it's not a completely partisan issue.

Bush has promised to veto and the majority in the House was not big enough to override the veto, so it's unlikely that this version of the bill will become law.

True, but the real soul of partisanship will be displayed in the Senate. The bill itself is useless, it serves only to damage funding for Republicans in the future (Tobacco lobby funding). Republicans did this a couple years back with tort reform and hurt some funding on the Democrat's end with trial lawyers. I believe this bill serves a few purposes beyond just political embarrassment. Democrats are always hurting on the funding end, most of their money typically is soft money from high end "champagne socialists" who drop massive donations. That has only changed recently with Obama who seems to be pulling more hard money from the far-left.

Still Democrats can get the funding by taking matching funds (political welfare) to carry their message to American people.


ATL

[GOAT LOCKER]

Originally Posted by Bax

Trust me, you would be begging for help if ,God forbid, you ended up loosing your insurance and then you were told that your Daughter had cancer.

No doubt, but does that give me the right to steal money from you? The world is full of tragedy. Why is everyone suddenly "entitled" to the best medical care (someone else's) money can buy?

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by GOAT LOCKER

No doubt, but does that give me the right to steal money from you? The world is full of tragedy. Why is everyone suddenly "entitled" to the best medical care (someone else's) money can buy?

Correct.

Cases where people require expensive care are best handled locally with people raising money and hospitals/physicians providing care at reduced cost.

Having some government agency with highly-paid, incompetent political appointees running it (think FEMA) to "take care of the children" is just a waste of money.

[Bax]

Originally Posted by GOAT LOCKER

No doubt, but does that give me the right to steal money from you? The world is full of tragedy. Why is everyone suddenly "entitled" to the best medical care (someone else's) money can buy?

Of corse not, I'm just saying it's tuff to draw a line. But, they must be drawn. I wish I had better answers and wish even more we had better politicians.

[RETSF]

There is nothing free, someone has to pay for it. We are the government and we will end up paying for it through taxe increases. As stated before the socialists in congress are targeting a minority because the sheep in this country dont care about it right now since it dosen't affect them. Once the tobacco industry fails, unemployment goes up, another segment of society will be targeted. Not to mention the poor medical treatment you will recieve. Hmmmmm Government run HMO: In order for the government to cover your medical you will have to see Dr. X, in 6 months because of the waiting list and your medical issue is not important enough yet to put you higher on the list. Yeh you'll be able to use the emergency room if its a matter of life and death - which probably could have been prevented from reaching that level, but no matter because your'er not going to pay the medical bill the government is. Gotta love a socialist congress, they can really look out for us that don't know squat. I'm really looking forword to paying more and more taxes to the government for another social bandaid. I'm really looking forward to having the federal government mandating to me how to live, when I can see a doctor. Lifs really going to be great. NOT!!!!!!

[macjoe53]

If the democrats had their way 80 percent of the money you make would go to the government who would then distribute it to people too lazy to go out and work themselves but smart enough to vote democrats into office who will keep ripping the money away for hard working citizens to give to the asshats.

[oddball]

Pyramid Scheme-
"a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered."

Not exactly the definition of this bill, but the result will be the same.
This bill is not for the underprivileged children. It is aimed at Middle American families with "children" up to 25 years old.
This is the first strike for socialized health care, and I don't believe for a nano-second that the federal government can dispense this properly in a responsible manner. No way, no how.

This is a junk bill and needs to be revised into a sensible version.
Of course, IMHO.

[Mister Moo]

"You" and the child health care bill:

If you didn't already smoke fine cigars there is an 90% certainty you wouldn't have anything to say about this bill based on my observation of friends/colleagues, dems and reps, who don't give a damn about cigar taxes. Might as well rename the thread "You and Cigar Taxes."

The only reason the press is on the bill revision is because one party may end up looking more inept than the other in the public eye. The "debate", in these terms, should be taken as an insult to children, taxpayers and (finally) cigar smokers.

[ATLHARP]

Originally Posted by Mister Moo

"You" and the child health care bill:

If you didn't already smoke fine cigars there is an 90% certainty you wouldn't have anything to say about this bill based on my observation of friends/colleagues, dems and reps, who don't give a damn about cigar taxes. Might as well rename the thread "You and Cigar Taxes."

The only reason the press is on the bill revision is because one party may end up looking more inept than the other in the public eye. The "debate", in these terms, should be taken as an insult to children, taxpayers and (finally) cigar smokers.

Indeed,

I would still say plenty about it, especially when the bill is a clear attempt to spread inept and pathetic Socialized Medicine. The purpose of this bill is to get more people dependent on the government for their health care. The bill's expansion is to extend entitlement coverage to those who are already have private coverage. It serves 4 purposes:

1. It seeks to get middle class Americans tied up in a government entitlement. A plus for idiot socialists!
2. It seeks to damage the private health care industry by proposing an entitlement that will pull more Americans from private coverage.
3. It will seek to embarrass Republicans by making them appear heartless and cruel for opposing the bill.
4.It will further damage the tobacco industry by making them foot the bill for an entitlement that will fail due to its projected shortfall of 4 billion dollars a year. (The shortfall will also be the Republicans' fault too!)

Indeed, the Democrats already pulled out the "cancer boy" ploy(If you don't know who "cancer boy" is, go see "Thank You For Smoking") for their radio address rebuttal over the weekend. This issue is pure crap done by liberals who are increasingly useless and irrelevant in a nation that finds them odious at best(15% approval rating!). So it's not surprising to find them demonizing at length like the partisan hacks they are. I would oppose this bill on principle for the simple fact that it is unconstitutional and also will in effect do more damage to our health care system than good. Socialized medicine is a cancer and folly at best; it serves no other purpose than to deprive people of their God given right to make decisions for their own health and well-being (i.e. Life Liberty, Property). I doubt this will do much good for Democrats, they are already virtually seen universally as dupes and schmucks, so this issue will do little to have people think of them any better. Don't worry "cancerboy" still loves'em

ATL