NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/congress.kidshealth.ap/index.html

At times like this, I really wonder if I'm even the same species as Bush. :p

Yes, well, the insurance program is hardly the most FANTASTIC health care system for these kids, but it's what we have, so we need more of it.

But of course, Bush and the Republicans have a serious problem with helping poor children. I honestly don't understand it.

I'd have thought you to be against this on general principle though, LG, because I could have sworn you called yourself a libertarian at one point.

I'd have thought you to be against this on general principle though, LG, because I could have sworn you called yourself a libertarian at one point.

Healthy kids are kids he can indoctrinate in the ways of wedgies, mud baths and face pieing. You should know LG by now. :p

Healthy kids are kids he can indoctrinate in the ways of wedgies, mud baths and face pieing. You should know LG by now. :p

Well that's true. Gotta remember that.

But... But... If we don't get the poor sick children to pull themselves up by thier own bootstraps, then the terrorists win! :(

But... But... If we don't get the poor sick children to pull themselves up by thier own bootstraps, then the terrorists win! :(
You mean those sick poor children who'll have to fight the future wars? Someone not really thinking ahead, eh? :rolleyes:

But... but.. if we help people who can't afford insurance but are too rich for medicare they will stop using private insurance!

But... but.. if we help people who can't afford insurance but are too rich for medicare they will stop using private insurance!

Eh. UN did the "B-But..." better.

bush is bad m'kay

That has led Republicans to argue that it has become a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an increasing number of people.

I honestly don't know what to say...

I honestly don't know what to say...

"Remember, kids, always be selfish pricks and hope you're born into a rich family so you can have health care! And if you're not born into a rich family, you can just go screw yourself! Have fun now! Bye-bye!"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/congress.kidshealth.ap/index.html

At times like this, I really wonder if I'm even the same species as Bush. :p
At times like this, I start mentally compiling a list of people who I am certain will be speaking up on behalf of the children at any moment...

-National Right to Life
-Human Life International
-Baptists for Life, Inc
-The Catholic Church
-The American Family Association

Feel free to add your own!

At times like this, I start mentally compiling a list of people who I am certain will be speaking up on behalf of the children at any moment...

-National Right to Life
-Human Life International
-Baptists for Life, Inc
-The Catholic Church
-The American Family Association

Feel free to add your own!

I'm going to guess the irony is that they don't and won't?

"When the Children Step up We'll Step Down."


I'm going to guess the irony is that they don't and won't?
I'm betting they won't. Once you pop out they don't care what happens to you.

I'm betting they won't. Once you pop out they don't care what happens to you.

Sickening, but predictable.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/congress.kidshealth.ap/index.html

At times like this, I really wonder if I'm even the same species as Bush. :p


Your typing is far too typical of that produced by a hand with an opposable thumb for any such confusion to occur. Rest easy and be well.

"Remember, kids, always be selfish pricks and hope you're born into a rich family so you can have health care! And if you're not born into a rich family, you can just go screw yourself! Have fun now! Bye-bye!"

That definitely sounds more like what they say.

At times like this, I start mentally compiling a list of people who I am certain will be speaking up on behalf of the children at any moment...

-National Right to Life
-Human Life International
-Baptists for Life, Inc
-The Catholic Church
-The American Family Association

Feel free to add your own!

Catholic Charities USA
Catholic Health Association of the United States
The Episcopal Church
Families USA
Islamic Society of North America
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Lutheran Services in America
Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Inc.
United Jewish Communities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops


you certainly were right

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&neID=200707251680.2_761c019824d8c303

Catholic Charities USA
Catholic Health Association of the United States
The Episcopal Church
Families USA
Islamic Society of North America
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Lutheran Services in America
Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Inc.
United Jewish Communities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops


you certainly were right

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&neID=200707251680.2_761c019824d8c303
Erm, I think you missed my point...

Erm, I think you missed my point...

oh did i?

maybe you missed mine

oh did i?

maybe you missed mine
I doubt it.

I think you were trying to be clever by attempting to undermine my assertion that the most visible, loud, rabid "pro-life" and "pro-family" organizations are mysteriously silent when it comes to helping born children or ensuring the health and wellbeing of families in concrete ways (like health insurance). The problem is, you didn't provide any evidence that I'm wrong. You listed some OTHER organizations that do support the measures in question, which is entirely beside my point.

A hint for you: just because an organization has a religion-affiliated name doesn't mean it can be equated with all other organizations that contain religious-affiliated names.

That's just stupid. I'm so glad I live in a nation with free healthcare but the US government won't accept it as it means the Red Threat is back and winning. I mean what are thes kids supposed to do if they have a medical emergency? Cure themselves. It truly is sad when doctors check the wallets before they check the symptons.

I doubt it.

I think you were trying to be clever by attempting to undermine my assertion that the most visible, loud, rabid "pro-life" and "pro-family" organizations are mysteriously silent when it comes to helping born children or ensuring the health and wellbeing of families in concrete ways (like health insurance). The problem is, you didn't provide any evidence that I'm wrong. You listed some OTHER organizations that do support the measures in question, which is entirely beside my point.

A hint for you: just because an organization has a religion-affiliated name doesn't mean it can be equated with all other organizations that contain religious-affiliated names.
Um, the Catholic Church is supporting this if no one else

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

"We firmly believe that there is no excuse for any child in our nation to go without access to health care, which is critically important to the well- being and development of all children. The reauthorization of the SCHIP program is a great opportunity to make a profound difference in the lives of our nation's children. This is an important moral measure of our society and of this Congress." John L. Carr, Secretary, Department of Social Development and World Peace, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops

Certainly the strategy of playing toward the ignorance of the masses is at work in this legislation... From the article, it appears that this, like many other government programs is just expanding far beyond its original purpose and current need.

Through federal waivers, the program has expanded in many states to include middle-income children and adults. That has led Republicans to argue that it has become a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an increasing number of people.

You have to draw the line somewhere if you don't want a full-scale, government run, single payer health care system. It appears that this is the proper place to draw it.

Certainly the strategy of playing toward the ignorance of the masses is at work in this legislation... From the article, it appears that this, like many other government programs is just expanding far beyond its original purpose and current need.

Through federal waivers, the program has expanded in many states to include middle-income children and adults. That has led Republicans to argue that it has become a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an increasing number of people.

You have to draw the line somewhere if you don't want a full-scale, government run, single payer health care system. It appears that this is the proper place to draw it.
Define adult. And define middle income.
Also, explain how middle income == can afford insurance.


And ah yes, the big scary government supported healthcare system. I don't give it too long before American businesses start lobbying for it because of failure to compete with foreign companies. But that aside, expanding healthcare for children is a big scary bogey man now? We better do away with it and get rid of child labor laws so they can go work for their healthcare like any good American.

Define adult. And define middle income.
Also, explain how middle income == can afford insurance.


And ah yes, the big scary government supported healthcare system. I don't give it too long before American businesses start lobbying for it because of failure to compete with foreign companies. But that aside, expanding healthcare for children is a big scary bogey man now? We better do away with it and get rid of child labor laws so they can go work for their healthcare like any good American.
In Georgia, these waivers allow those with incomes as high as $82,000 per year to benefit from the supposedly low income programs. That's wrong.

In Georgia, these waivers allow those with incomes as high as $82,000 per year to benefit from the supposedly low income programs. That's wrong.
That looks like a Georgia problem to me.

That looks like a Georgia problem to me.
To you, maybe, but these are federal waivers that the state must comply with.

To you, maybe, but these are federal waivers that the state must comply with.
Well I suggest you provide cited details about the cause of the problem.

At times like this, I start mentally compiling a list of people who I am certain will be speaking up on behalf of the children at any moment...

-National Right to Life
-Human Life International
-Baptists for Life, Inc
-The Catholic Church
-The American Family Association

Feel free to add your own!

As another person pointed out, the Catholic Church does support this legislation.

The other groups are anti-choice groups, whose sole reason for being is to fight legislation that would make abortion easier, such as this bill. So even though these groups may support the aspects of the bill that allow for care of children, they would also oppose it on the grounds that increases access to abortion for women who choose to have them.

So in a sense you are correct, Bottle, but you are also simplifying a complex issue by suggesting that people who are members of these groups have no say at all about this bill.

National Right to Life has this to say:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07080208.html

I can see this bill as being a bit of a quandary for many Christians due to this.

Yes, well, the insurance program is hardly the most FANTASTIC health care system for these kids, but it's what we have, so we need more of it.

But of course, Bush and the Republicans have a serious problem with helping poor children. I honestly don't understand it.

I'd have thought you to be against this on general principle though, LG, because I could have sworn you called yourself a libertarian at one point.

I defy labels. But I'd put myself snugly in the libertarian camp. Medicine, however is different. It's an inherently socialist system. We don't refuse lifesaving emergency care to people. We only refuse preventative medical care to people. That's retarded. Socially, finacially and humanistically, it makes far mor sense to pay for prevention than cure. *nod*

Healthy kids are kids he can indoctrinate in the ways of wedgies, mud baths and face pieing. You should know LG by now. :p

I like the cut of your jib. :)

Snip.

Funny how you support government spending money to destroy lives, but not to save them. Or support legislation to "help" the unborn, but not the born. Or support actions to mix Christianity with the state, but not any Christian actions.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/congress.kidshealth.ap/index.html

At times like this, I really wonder if I'm even the same species as Bush. :p

There's a cozy place he can stick that veto. (I think he's just vetoing randomly to destroy the legislature's power)

That has led Republicans to argue that it has become a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an increasing number of people.

Oh shit, God forbid the government help people live long, healthy and fulfilling lives...it would be so much easier to just let them die of easily preventable conditions and save 'merica money. Oh, but wait, companies actually lose money and are placed at a competitive disadvantage thanks to the lack of government healthcare!

Dipshits. I'd like to line 'em all up against a wall and...give them a sound talking to.

Oh shit, God forbid the government help people live long, healthy and fulfilling lives...it would be so much easier to just let them die of easily preventable conditions and save 'merica money. Oh, but wait, companies actually lose money and are placed at a competitive disadvantage thanks to the lack of government healthcare!

Dipshits. I'd like to line 'em all up against a wall and...give them a sound talking to.

Hit them with a few heavy economics books while you're at it. Especially ones by Keynes or his disciples. :D

You mean those sick poor children who'll have to fight the future wars? Someone not really thinking ahead, eh? :rolleyes:

No you are nothing think ahead either!

We have to take care of the future Soylent Green! :rolleyes:

Yes, well, the insurance program is hardly the most FANTASTIC health care system for these kids, but it's what we have, so we need more of it.

But of course, Bush and the Republicans have a serious problem with helping poor children. I honestly don't understand it.

You see, helping poor children might lead to helping poor adults. And that would be the most terrible thing to ever occur in the known universe . . . for some reason or another . . .

Can someone explain to me how the House and the Senate can pass different bills to do roughly the same thing, but worded differently and funded differently, and how the hell those two bills get implemented if they aren't the exact same thing?

Is there another round, a committee or something, to reconcile a House and a Senate bill and produce actual instructions to civil servants?

In Georgia, these waivers allow those with incomes as high as $82,000 per year to benefit from the supposedly low income programs. That's wrong. Not to me.

Can someone explain to me how the House and the Senate can pass different bills to do roughly the same thing, but worded differently and funded differently, and how the hell those two bills get implemented if they aren't the exact same thing?

Is there another round, a committee or something, to reconcile a House and a Senate bill and produce actual instructions to civil servants?

sure

they have something called a conference committee that agrees on the final version of the bill.

then they take it back to each house to be passed.

if the committee did its job well, it will pass with no problems.

THEN the president has to sign it or veto it.

You see, helping poor children might lead to helping poor adults. And that would be the most terrible thing to ever occur in the known universe . . . for some reason or another . . .

Because helping the lazy poor is socialism... and everyone knows socialism is the gateway to c0mm13z!!

sure

they have something called a conference committee that agrees on the final version of the bill.
then they take it back to each house to be passed.
if the committee did its job well, it will pass with no problems.

THEN the president has to sign it or veto it.

Thanks. Conference committee must be pretty ugly if the two houses really disagree.

Because helping the lazy poor is socialism... and everyone knows socialism is the gateway to c0mm13z!!

And Mutant Traitors too?

Thanks. Conference committee must be pretty ugly if the two houses really disagree.

yeah there are times when it never makes it out of committee.

it has to be important to the party heads. then theyll do what needs to be done to make it work.

lol

it made me laugh but only because it was so bizarre

have you been drinking?

yeah there are times when it never makes it out of committee.

it has to be important to the party heads. then theyll do what needs to be done to make it work.

It almost sounds like it will work. A quick reading on "conference committee" tells me it's a post-Constitution reform to avoid the houses sending the same bill back and forth in order to reach an agreement (which would be intolerably slow.)

Of course, you toss in the Presidential veto, and the override which rests only with the Senate, and it all goes to hell.

But I like the idea, and here's why. In Australia (and every other govt based on the Westminster system) bills are written in the lower house (of Representatives here) and then submitted to the upper house (Senate) for approval. The Senate can ammend the bill, send it back to the House, who can re-ammend it, and send it back up. The Senate can ammend it one more time, but after that there's a showdown. Either a "double-dissolution" election, or a joint sitting to pass or reject it in one go, or constitutional appeal as in '75.

Now, I'm happy with that system (apart from having the Queens representative as a player) but it has this strange effect, that the level of debate in the Senate is far better informed and far more reasonably conducted than in the House. Debate can actually be seen reflected in the ammendments made to bills, as opposed to the House of Reps, which is more like a circus act, with scripted parts played by the cast of either of the two big parties.

Partly, this is because the two houses are constituted differently. Reps is by electorate across the country. Senate by proportional representation within states. But I think it's also significant that only the Reps can iniate a bill. The Senate, cast into the role of Critic, can afford to debate the issue at a higher level, more reasonably, because whatever bill finally passes it's not really their fault. They worked with what they were given.

Ideally, I'd rather have a single chamber. One parliament, proportionally representative of every voter equally. and taking exclusive responsibility for all national government decisions. No excuses. But we won't be changing our constitution that radically ... ever I guess. :(

It would just be good if our Senate could initiate bills. With the minor parties in there, they'd be laying down some propositions which would really bust open the cosy two-party system in the House. There are way too many issues that are never mooted, because the two main parties agree. It's a huge malfunction when a democratic government could do something popular and effective, but doesn't because neither party would gain an advantage.

I mock the United States for having no body of proportional representation in the trinity. I mock you for having an elected King. I mock your electoral colleges, your party registrations, your electors who can be swayed by television advertising.

But both houses being able to initiate bills, that I like.

EDIT: It's Saturday afternoon. White wine, baby!