Just like normal GOP. They hate children and the troops. I mean the hatred never stops which makes them an incredibly Christian party. Oh wait, Christ was about compassion and not hate. I guess that memo (ie the BIBLE) wasn’t read all that well for the GOP (they even make it with pictures for Bush).
No, the real problem is this is just another attempt to achieve federalized health care coverage incrementally. Every little addition has the government paying for the health care of a growing segment of the population: kids, the elderly, the poor, government employees, until the only people left outside of such will be middle-class and higher wage earners — with the goal of saying that, since they are the only ones outside of the system, why we might as well sweep everybody in!
Well, sorry, but sensible people want no part of that. Pay for your own damned health care. Drop the private school (even if it is only $500 a year), sell some property, whatever you have to do, but pay for your own kid’s healtyh care and keep your grubby hands out of my pockets!
You are paying for them whether you want to or not. They seek treatment in the hospitals using emergency facilities that have to treat them and then the hospital can’t pass the cost along to them and recieve any payment. So they pass it along to the people that have insurance as higher cost and the insurance company passes it along as higher premiums that you end up paying anyway. Besides which those higher wage earners with the premium health care coverage have to suffer under the fact that your insurance premiums aren’t taxed currently but under the system proposed by Bush you would be taxed. Who wants your fucking money now!!!
So you pay one way or another and the other way is cheaper and spread progressively and evenly such that no one bears the burden too much. Preventive medicine drives down cost and people feel safer and more secure lowering the rate of illness. Plus this is about children not about universal health care so stop your nonsense and shut up when you want to spew any of the crap that comes from the president. I mean if you listen to him you should sign up to attack almost every nation on the planet b/c they need to have freedom to survive. Let me know how that war against the 1 billion plus Chinese goes.
I knew when I read that junk Dave linked to about this family that this was another conservative hatchet job or, as ome commenter said at Dave’s sight, a case of the Repubs swift-boating the poor.
I wish the Repubs would simply declare “We don’t want a dime of our taxes going to help out strugglling families like this one” and then stick their tongue out instead of trying to falsely make these families out to be liars because, they, the conservstives don’t want to admit the obvious: they don’t want a half-penny of one of their tax dollars going to help two brain-injured children in a fmily scrapping by o0n a mere $50 million per anum.
I say, let the cons feel they can safely tell us about how stingy they are. Let’s thank them for their comments and, then, reach down into their pockets anyhow and take their money to help families like this one.
If they can reach into my pockets for a military calamity that causes the deaths of probably more than 100,000 Iraqi children, then by God don’t let them think for one moment we aren’t entitled to do the same to them to save the lives of children.
The GOP would never say that to the poor. That would actually be the last straw. The poor and socially conservative folk would finally put down their Bibles and start voting for individuals who represent their best economic interests. Republicans are too crafty and filled with spin to ever go loose at the lips like that.
The families business was dissolved in 1999 and I’ll just ignore the fact that George Bush got a subsidy for his lumber operation on his ranch in Crawford for now and agree with you that the Frost family is not on the streets begging. But, Is that your criteria for “needy?”
According the the NYT:
They also own a commercial property, valued at about $160,000, that provides rental income. Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking and as a welder, while Mrs. Frost has a part-time job at a firm that provides services to publishers of medical journals. Her job does not provide health coverage.
Under the Maryland child health program, a family of six must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify.
So, Is this where conservatism is now? It is a dog eat dog world eh Dave? Survival of the richest and all that.
They also own a home worth more than $300K which they purchased 16 years ago for $55K. That’s a hell of a lot of equity. These programs may be means tested but they are not asset tested and that’s the problem.
They don’t NEED government assistance. They’re CHOOSING government assistance so they can invest in property rather than investing in their children’s health care.
There are people out there who NEED. These folks don’t.
And I’ll remind you, the fight over SCHIP is not eve for folks like these, it’s whether to allow people who are even less “poor” than this to get free health care for their children so they can invest their money in whatever they choose.
You can’t buy health care with real estate appreciation. It might look good on paper, but it won’t buy food unless you sell. In this particular case, it is true that the family can sell their house, live on the street, and then purchase health care.
Let’s get back to reality. Any property asset that you are considering is THEORETICALLY valued at those prices. Hence, (and I understand that this must be a shock especially since overvalued and inflated housing prices just killed the stock market) the commercial property and the home are not actually worth that amount of money and for them to tap into that income would mean that they would be putting thier children’s health care as dependent on when and what the market would pay for the property.
Since Maryland already has a system to evaluate families that qualify your bitching is all tied to the fact that they own assets. Well I love your logic and think that if you want to include assets to exclude families from government programs then we should do the following LOGICAL next step:
Tax everyone on those assets- (oh wait the wealthy would freaking scream and cry and throw a hissy fit that thier precious tax shelters would now be useless.) This is the only fair methodology if you want to consider assets as income to be considered as an exclusion from government services. You can’t have it both ways and want assets used to exclude services but not when we tax income. That is just right wing bullshit nonsense so please go peddle your children hating crap to those that care. Oh wait that is no one but yourselves.
Sure you could. Just like the rich do now. However, if you inherit $100 million in property you will need to make a bunch of money just to afford the property taxes, school taxes, maitainance etc. which would cause a complete strain if all you did was tend bar. Nice try at an analogy but based on your parties logic the GOP would be DON’T TAX THE ESTATE OR THE HOME but consider me too wealthy to use any government services just because I have THEORETICAL value in my estate but not enough real income to take care of my children. Once again this is about KID’s health and as evidenced by your arguments you obviously don’t want to acknowledge the fact that you wouldn’t support health care for children to make sure they were covered.
Since the GOP is the main party of don’t take responsibilty for anything, ie wars, lies, gay bathroom innuendos, affairs, prescription drug fraud etc., I would think that you would be all for that fact that this family doesn’t take responsibilty to sell everything they have worked for to cover thier kids (if it would even be possible given the risk averse methodology of the insurance companies) so that they can maintain a normal middle class lifestyle with investments that benefit the economy. I mean who would ever want to take advantage of reasonably priced and excellent coverage health care from the government. Your arguments sure are difficult unless you realize that you want to spew out of your mouth and ass at the same time. Then they make sense using the ‘have your cake and eat it too’ type of logic.
By Maryland’s standards I could inherit $100 million in property, tend bar, and still get free health care for my kids.
No you could not. If you had $100 million in property you would have to manage it for an income in order to pay the taxes, or else you would lose it. The income would put you over the limit for free health care.
family connections that will not allow him to fail
Ugh. I hate to bring that into a discussion, but I have to admit it’s always in the back of my mind.
“Tax everyone on those assets- (oh wait the wealthy would freaking scream and cry and throw a hissy fit that thier precious tax shelters would now be useless.)”
You are forgetting…those assets WERE more than likely taxed when they were acquired. Income is not supposed to be double taxed, neither would the assets. But they were indeed taxed at some point. And if they get inherited they are taxed again.
So Phantom….it is already being treated as income.
“don’t the farmers own that land? Land in Delaware is worth a lot, technically they could sell their land and live off of that money….right?”
Many already do. Where I moved from in Jersey lost 80% for the farms in the last 20 years because a housing boom made it more profitable. I am not a huge fan of subsidies…but then again I am not a huge fan of vegetables either…so I may be biased.
can someone find me the insurance company that will insure this family.
that seems to be forgotten in all of this.
and after the family liquidates is whopping couple of hundred k, five years from now when they still have $50k a year in bills and NO money because you told them to liquidate you will yell at them for being poor and having a cell phone.
Last time I checked Health Co’s are a big fan of the “pre-existing” excuse. So yep once again hot air, no action and no pity.
You must be dense but I should have expected that given your previous messages. When I said lets tax the assets similar to income that means a consistent tax ALL THE TIME as it is for income tax. Not just a one shot deal when the asset is acquired or sold. Also, I didn’t say that we shouldn’t get rid of any weak tax structure that may be in place right now and move to an income based tax system rather I stated let’s tax it as income since that is how you and Dave want to treat assets. Also, the whole idea of a tax shelter is to not pay tax at all so not all assets have been initially taxed, genius.
Now that the issue is clear do you want to tax assets as income?
“When I said lets tax the assets similar to income that means a consistent tax ALL THE TIME as it is for income tax. Not just a one shot deal when the asset is acquired or sold.”
It is apparent that you are the dense one here. The assets are taxed consistently. Now if you are saying eliminate the sales tax, transfer tax, and what other crappy tax the feds, states, and municipalities want to attach each time we acquire an asset, and just include on your annual tax return for the year in which you acquired it, then that would at least be a valid option. But to tax it again in addition to the the previous mentioned taxes, then you are indeed NOT treating it the same as income.
“Also, the whole idea of a tax shelter is to not pay tax at all so not all assets have been initially taxed, genius.”
Then get rid of them. I have said all along we should eliminate all that crap. One flat tax. No exception, no deductions, no reductions, no shelters, no sales tax, no transfer tax, no other nickel and dime taxes levied by dozens of government agencies. Let me know how much of my income I don’t expect to see, so I can plan appropriately. Of course it would put too many and lawyers and accountants out of work.
I think a lot of people are missing the point. I think the debate about SCHIP is about exactly the cases like this — someone in the middle class whose circumstances make health insurance prohibitively expensive. In the Frosts’ case, it was an SUV accident that left both kids with brain injuries. The cheapest insurance he could find was $1,200 a month, which is higher than the family mortgage payment.
The question boils down to this: Should middle-class people be forced into the lower class by misfortune? All these conservatives who explain all the things the Frosts coulda-shoulda-woulda done remind me of Job’s friends who, as he suffered his misfortune, gathered around to explain exactly what he must have done wrong.
Keep something in mind: We have umpteen government programs — education, job training, tax breaks for home ownership, etc. — designed to raise people into the middle class. Isn’t it working at cross purposes to invest that much in them, but then to force them onto their own resources with in the one area in which catastrophic circumstances can knock them right into poverty. Makes no sense to me.
For consistency sake you are stating that on a residence you are taxed on the appraisal amount that you use to determine equity in your house every year. Bullshit, you are taxed by the state for property taxes based on thier appraisal of the land value (much lower than any equity appraisal). As for income I seem to believe that we pay multiple types of taxes, ie state, local, federal, county etc., and that is not considered double taxation. So if you had to pay FEDERAL income tax on your appraised value of your residence that would be okay with you because then you would be correctly considering your total income? If that is the case then I agree that the family has too much income but then you subtract out taxes and they probably would once again qualify.
If that is not the case then why are you trying to argue that assets should be considered income?
Simple questions that emerge from your convuluted logic to discredit the family from trying to insure thier children. Unfortunately neither answer will fit into your wingnut philosophies of pandering to the wealthy while also trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
The whole point is to not make sense but just attack in any way, shape, or form that is possible. We can’t debate the real issues b/c that would expose the hypocrisy and blatant hatred the GOP works so hard to disguise.
Is it just me, or has the entire republican party suddenly gone “loco”. To put it in perspective, it is as if the entire party hierarchy has decided that “people” exist solely to help the party. If they don’t fit into their narrow view, then they can be mistreated. The party seems in its entirety to have lost its vision that the party is supposed to be helping people.
You have accomplished “not making sense” quite well.
“We can’t debate the real issues b/c that would expose the hypocrisy and blatant hatred the GOP works so hard to disguise.”
And the left is open to honest debate? Please. If we suggest that there ARE other options for people in a tight spot, we are shouted down and poor hating rich people. If we report seeing “poor” individuals wearing $200 sneakers, carrying a cell phone complete with on board video and the like, and wearing more gold than I have ever owned in my lifetime….I am a hatemongering liar! If we suggest that putting everyone on the government dole IS NOT the best solution….we are called right wing nutjobs.
Great comeback. Didn’t actually display any meaning with
“You have accomplished “not making sense” quite well.” but a great comeback line nonetheless.
Once again, I never said the left was perfect either as if it was then why would anyone be a wingnut. Obviously the left has its share of issues but on the whole it is my belief that they are nowhere near as bad as the issues pandered and supported by the right.
In regards to your hypothetical example what are the other options? I can agree that those who misuse the system and benefit greedily from its use by purchasing extravagant items while barely feeding themselves or thier children are irresponsible. I can also agree that a corporation working towards bilking the government and providing shoddy equipment to troops in a time of war is unconscionable. However, neither person is punished for thier transgression. Tell you what, I will agree that stricter standards and greater control should be placed on money designated to help the poor and irresponsible be utilized correctly if you will agree that we need greater controls and stricter standards on corporations that profit by sacrificing the american worker and/or military on the altar of profitability and greed.
I find that the first instance affects a few, a shame but still a few, while the second instance affects many in numerous significant ways including death and complete bankruptcy (see Enron)
The government doesn’t have to be the best solution and I will readily agree that it is not the best solution in every instance. However, from a central control perspective with an organization that should be independent the government is the best we have right now. Solutions are what are needed so feel free to recommend but realize that anyone who will not question you on the facts is trying to drown you out. Also, recommending solutions that have a basis in reality also helps ie, eliminate welfare, social security etc. While it may solve a problem it is not realistically going to happen and wishing it to come true doesn’t work that well.
Falling back on Lieberman is a poor defense. His views and philosophies changed but he realized that he will not win in his home state as a Republithug. So he sought the independent status and then realizing that he can’t keep his seat in the next election if he didn’t at least caucus with the Dem’s was the reason he didn’t completely defect. I think it is just shameful and he should have switched parties but his true allegiance is to Israel so that is why he backs many of these nutjob ideas for the middle east.
“Tell you what, I will agree that stricter standards and greater control should be placed on money designated to help the poor and irresponsible be utilized correctly if you will agree that we need greater controls and stricter standards on corporations that profit by sacrificing the american worker and/or military on the altar of profitability and greed.”
While I don’t think it is in your ideological nature to hold up your end of the bargain, I would agree the corporations need to be held to stricter standards. What we disagree most on is who holds them to those standards. While government may play a role in maintaining safety standards for companies and enforcing penalties relative to illegal activities, it is NOT the government’s place to dictacte what compensation and/or benefits that company should be offering to its workers. That is the responsibility of the workers themselves and the public. Now before you claim I am suggesting there is any real purpose for those phony political organizations called unions…let me explain.
Let’s use Wal-Mart, the left’s favorite whipping post. One of the complaints is that they discourage unions. So if that matters to you, don’t shop/work/support Wal-Mart. Apply your talents and resources to a dry goods store that does. If not patronizing them creates a demand for a pro-Union drygoods story, one will be created…or Wal-Mart will change. Bottom-line pressures.
Another complaint is that Wal-Mart buys a lot of stuff from countries with dirt cheap labor. Again, if that bothers you DON’T SHOP AT WAL-MART. Find a store that purchases from higher wage earning markets or the U.S. and patronize them. Again, if enough of you want that, someone will create such a store. Supply and Demand is really easy to understand. Create a demand for a certain type of store and you will probably get that demand filled.
“Also, recommending solutions that have a basis in reality also helps ie, eliminate welfare, social security etc.”
I have never proposed elminating welfare. What I AM OPPOSED to is the left wingers trying to add more and more people to the roles in an effort to make them dependent upon it, and thus dependent on the tax and spend left.
There will always be a segment of society that just cannot fend for itself. The trick is to reduce that number to its barest levels. I also do not have a problem with extending health care to those individuals. But I am opposed to a national healthcare system that will cripple all of us.
“While it may solve a problem it is not realistically going to happen and wishing it to come true doesn’t work that well.”
And wishing that that a nationalized healthcare system could somehow magically work for the first time ever….won’t make it happen either.
“Falling back on Lieberman is a poor defense. His views and philosophies changed”
Really? Which of his views changed? Isn’t more a case of the views of the Democratic party moving over to the extreme left (what you guys call home) and leaving those Democrats with principles hanging high and dry? As both Lieberman and Zoe Miller have pointed out…even JFK would not be welcomed in the Democratic party today.
“but his true allegiance is to Israel so that is why he backs many of these nutjob ideas for the middle east.”
Mighty anti-semitic from a member of the party of inclusion. And you guys said racism was dead among the Democrats.
Once again loving the words in my mouth. Lieberman has stated that he is consistently pro-Israel and therefore views his opinions through both what is best for Connecticut as well as Israel. When the two conflict he seems to side with Israel more often than not. By having destabilization in the Middle East the arab countries are not free to provide greater support and encouragement to activities meant to destroy Israel. So therefore Lieberman backs those policies. Explain the anti-semitism again? And you claim we are racist.
No, his views regarding the war and how to handle the war changed from when he was trying to get elected to now that he is safely elected in the Senate.
Are there extremists on the left. Yes, but there are also a greater number of extremists on the right who have hijacked the GOP such that extremists on the left have a greater say in order to combat the wingnut policies that are being put in place. One extreme breeds the other. Oh, and don’t go spewing that crap about JFK b/c Eisenhower and Reagan wouldn’t be welcome in today’s GOP since they wouldn’t implement pro-life policies and believed in fiscal conservatism.
Those british and canadians are so unfortunate in their universal health system.
I agree supply and demand will work when it is allowed to work unencumbered. The problem with your theory is that the demanded business would start by treating its workers according to the law and even try to treat them fairly. Whereas Wal-Mart places a high value on skirting the law and seeing how far it can go to influence the law by using lobbyists and such. I wonder what would happen if Wal-Mart used all the money it pays for litigation and lobbyists and doled that out to employees?? Then we wouldn’t have a problem. The issue with Wal-Mart is not supply and demand but rather obeying the rules and not trying to continuely influence the rules by backended measures but rather through innovation and basic retail principles of customer service and employee retention.
Unfortunately that goes against Wal-Marts philosophy of making extremely large amounts of money. It is widely proven that capitalism unchecked would destroy the world as well as mankind (hence why unions evolved etc.) so an organization must exist as a check on the capalistic society. So far in mankinds existence the answer has always been a type of governmental structure but if you have a better solution lets hear it.
Otherwise accept that government is the framework we have to work in right now and work to improve that framework.
“Reagan wouldn’t be welcome in today’s GOP since they wouldn’t implement pro-life policies and believed in fiscal conservatism.”
On the contrary, the republican candidates are desiring to labeled a “Reagan Conservative” because that is indeed what is needed to get the approval of the Republican majority. Most of us have vocally expressed our displeasure with President over his domestic spending. Reagan would not only be welcomed, we would be completely embraced. I am afraid you can not say the same for JFK and the Democrats.
As for Lieberman changing his views on the war, I am not finding that anywhere. He supported the war from day 1 (as many Dems did). He did at one point criticize the president’s handling of the war, but doesn’t seem to have ever spoke out against the war. So it seems to me that his views remained consistent, and that it was his party that left him. He certainly managed to still get elected as an Independent in a blue state. That is the real reason the DEMS hate him so bad.
“Those british and canadians are so unfortunate in their universal health system.”
I have already linked to story after story of the Canadian and British systems failing miserably. But keep chanting it in your head over and over again…just maybe it will someday be true….(not counting on it though).
“Who was it in the debate last night who said “If we implement “universal health care,” where will the Canadians go for their treatment?”
Probably the same fool that swore he saw credible evidence that Saddam had WMDs, Dave.
A free market on health care is just plain immoral. But with that said, having a single-payer system, for all Americans, brings us no closer to “Socialism” or “Communism” than we currently are today. Those words have no meaning to the right, or better yet, they don’t understand what those words truly mean. The right’s two buzzwords are now tantamount to “The Sky is Falling” to everyone else in America.
And here’s a point that many seem to forget. We are a Democratic Republic (as Dave has point out), as set forth by the Constitution. I don’t recall “Capitalism” as being a form of government or even mentioned in the Constitution; it’s only an economic system. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great system, for most things, but not for everything. But if voters put into place politicians who are for a single-payer system, and subsequently approve and put into place such a system….how is that not “Democratic” or make us any less of a Republic?
Using the right’s logic on healthcare, would you want free-market capitalism applied to the Military (Blackwater/Hessians!), the FDA, DHS, and the FBI? These orgs all use federal tax-dollars for the benefit of all Americans, but they’re not considered to be part of a socialist agenda by any means.
And just to give you all an understanding on why capitalistic health care is not appropriate: My mother is an office manager for a cardiology group and she has told me that Blue Cross’ (and other ins co’s too) standard operating procedure is to deny almost all claims, just to squeeze profits. The purpose of these denials is to beat-down the doctors, wasting their time with justification follow-ups that the insurance co’s require after a denial. Sometimes a legitimate claim will still be denied after the physicians have done everything asked of them. And get this, all insurance co’s retain people on staff whose sole job is to find ways to deny people (who pay their premiums) necessary procedures.
These companies have demonstrated that they will go out of their way to deny the services that they previously stated they would provide. They basically play “doctor” and diagnose what is “medically necessary” from miles away (Frist!). They have lost the public trust and have demonstrated their complete lack of good faith. They no longer deserve the opportunity to touch your money (and my $700+ in premiums per year); I’d rather have my money for health care in the hands of the government.
My point about the military (sorry if it wasn’t clear enough) is that the Founding Fathers, and subsequent leaders in early America, certainly did not believe all services should involved in the free-market economy.
Even in the very simplistic late 18th century, they knew that some services needed government intervention and/or control, for the good of the union and the public.
Why can’t Wal-Mart spend that money on employees? You don’t know but you pulled a nice one out of your ass. The answer is that they won’t because then they would be held accountable for thier actions. The capitalist economy offers another option – play dirty- so that is what they do. What I was stating is that competition is only fair if the playing field is level and to compete with a Wal-Mart just on the basic level of Supply and Demand is making the situation much more simplistic than it actually is in reality (you know, the place you and other conservatives avoid on a regular basis so that you can convince yourselves that you are not judgemental and don’t hate everyone else.). The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart has stacked the deck so that even by having consumers shop elsewhere (ie Target, Costco etc.), which is actually occuring and causing Wal-Mart to take notice, Wal-Mart uses it normal methodology of cutting workers pay, requiring overtime without pay, etc. to cut costs on goods. This then generates short term demand for the products that other suppliers can’t match b/c they don’t violate the law. Wal-Mart then gets sued and the evidence of illegal immigrants and violating basic employee rights becomes blatantly apparent but nothing happens b/c they throw boatloads of money into the litigation and lobbying to make sure they don’t pay the consequences. Long-term this seems to be driving away business, which does justify your supply and demand philosophy, but since Supply and Demand is interdependent on many levels as long as WalMart can offer a cheaper price on a product then it will stay in business, albeit by violating the law but it will be in business for those consumers who have to shop on price, aka Wal-Mart store employees. All I am saying is that if it was made cheaper to not violate the law then all the money spent on litigation and lobbying could be redirected to assist the employee.
FYI, I don’t shop at Wal-Mart for these very reasons.
Chris and Dave live in a world where everything is perfect. All that the British and Canadians have are the fact that everyone in the country is covered. Are there issues with the system, yes. Is the system better at treating the health of its citizens than our screwed to the wall system, Yes. As far as Canadians still wanting thier treatments no one said that private insurance had to vanish. Just that basic coverage and treatement for all should be universal and then if you want or need something above and beyond that then either wait on the system or pay for added supplemental insurance.
Canadians could still come here and pay out of pocket for services. You really think that is going to vanish?
I agree. And Flipp Romney was able to accomplish that with a DEMOCRATIC legislature. Amazing how he flipped around once he wanted to be the emissary of the party of pure evil. Just goes to prove that universal coverage and care can be done effectively and correctly by the only organization in place to manage it, the government. Once again, have my cake and eat it too philosophy. Flipp Romney can save health care but not by making it universal the way he did when he was governor working with those god-awful democrats. Sometimes I can’t tell if you people are crazy or just plain evil.