Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Incrementalism - the new way Democrats plan to nationalize health care
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Hillary and Bill Clinton learned quickly and quite firmly that American's weren't big fans of the idea of government run health care when Hillarycare was first trotted out early in the 1st Clinton administration. Or so you assume. But in fact, what was learned was not to introduce it as a whole. Instead, like turning up the heat on a frog in a pot, just take a little at a time, until, eventually, you have it all.

The story that has been touted in the news lately is the bill which introduces a much higher federal sin tax on cigarettes ($0.61)and a 20,000% increase on some cigars.


Well, as usual, it's "for the children". The intent is to pay for the SCHIP program which is an existing children's health insurance program for poor children.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, urged the president to support the committee's proposal, which he said would keep health coverage for 6.6 million children currently covered by the plan and reach 3 million more low-income, uninsured children over the next five years.
As usual, that's not the whole truth. In fact, according to Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) the bill includes an provision which would provide health insurance for children of parents at 400% of the poverty threshold.

What does that mean in terms of household income?

$80,000 for a family of four. So this particular bill and those particular taxes are aimed at a completely new demographic which anyone, even some who hang out here, would have difficulty defining as poor (although they'll try ... just sit back and observe).
"Members of Congress have decided, however, to expand the program to include, in some cases, up to families earning $80,000 a year — which would cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan," Bush said in a speech in suburban Maryland.

"If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I'll veto the bill," he said.
Incrementalism. President Bush is entirely right to veto this attempt to expand the power of government.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t this move been going on since the Johnson administration?
Written By: Bithead
My non-Libertarian opinion of the day: It ought to be illegal to report on a bill in Congress, in a news report, without mentioning the farkin’ bill number - because without it, this stuff is a bear to find, and I always prefer to look at the actual text of a bill.

Part of the reason might be that that version of the bill is/was still in committee rather than on the floor yet. I can’t find hide nor hair of it with various searches on

(Not surprisingly, a local paper can out-report the AP.)

Did the link to Price and Bush’s response get eaten?
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t this move been going on since the Johnson administration?
I figured this out at age 14, which was quite some time ago.

Unrelenting constant pressure. And it works. Only when people like Hillary get too eager do people resist.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks