Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

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

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
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
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
SCHIP: Great Reporting WaPo
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, July 19, 2007

In my post yesterday about the SCHIP program and the intention of Congress to expand eligibility to those with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level (about $80,000 for a family of 4) I mentioned that Sen. Baucus, in his 'for the children' appeal, failed to mention this salient point.

Well, the Washington Post's Christopher Lee dutifully follows suit today in a story strong on 'sick children' and short on facts. In fact, they only time they even get near the real reason for Bush's threatened veto is here:
"I support the initial intent of the program," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post after a factory tour and a discussion on health care with small-business owners in Landover. "My concern is that when you expand eligibility . . . you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."
That said, they give you no context to the remarks. They don't point out, as Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) did this week, that the main sticking point with the bill is the attempt to expand eligibility (to 400% of the poverty level). Given the quote above, you're left to think "he's really against helping more poor kids?"

No. He's trying to stop the incrementalism I pointed too yesterday. Look how the WaPo follows the Bush quote:
The 10-year-old program, which is set to expire on Sept. 30, costs the federal government $5 billion a year and helps provide health coverage to 6.6 million low-income children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance on their own.

About 3.3 million additional children would be covered under the proposal developed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), among others. It would provide the program $60 billion over five years, compared with $30 billion under Bush's proposal. And it would rely on a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes, to $1 a pack, which Bush opposes.
Who are these "3.3 million additional children" and by what criteria are they suddenly eligible? Not a word. Instead we get another relatively cryptic quote from Bush:
"I'm not going to surrender a good and important idea before the debate really gets started," Bush said. "And I think it's going to be very important for our allies on Capitol Hill to hear a strong, clear message from me that expansion of government in lieu of making the necessary changes to encourage a consumer-based system is not acceptable."
Again, no details of the provision which has him taking this position are provided. You're left to think, absolutely in line with the stereotype, that he's just a mean-spirited Republican who refuses to help poor kids. And to emphasize that point you get this:
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the House Democratic Caucus chairman, said he is "bewildered" that Bush is fighting the expanded funding for a program supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. "This is the chance for him to finally be a uniter and not a divider," Emanuel said. "You have consensus across party and ideology, and a unity on the most important domestic issue, health care — except for one person."
But he's not fighting "expanding funding", he's fighting expanding eligibility. Don't expect Christopher Lee and the Washington Post to provide you with those facts, though. Instead count on them to focus on a contextless emotional argument for passage and the expansion of government. It is, after all, what they do best.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Experience is the best teacher. Look to what happened here in Washington state when medical eligibility was expanded.
Roughly 73.8% of additional enrollments are attributable to covering illegal immigrants or children who already have insurance.
June 2009 additional enrollment attributable to "Cover All Kids" bill6
Illegal immigrant uninsured: 11,716
Illegal immigrant switch from BHP: 5,109
Citizen uninsured: 12,738
Citizen drop private coverage: 19,107
Add’l people covered under bill: 48,670
The “Cover All Kids” legislation expanded eligibility for both citizens and non-citizens.1 At the time the legislation passed, the fiscal note approved by the governor’s budget office assumed some 6,680 illegal immigrant children would be added to the state’s rolls by the end of the biennium.
The June caseload forecast council raised the estimate to 16,825, an increase of over 150 percent compared to the fiscal note relied upon by the legislature in passing the bill.2
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
"This is the chance for him to finally be a uniter and not a divider,"

Which is why from now on, I support knife-fighting partisans and not "uniters." And can anyone imagine this sort of line being printed about a Pres. Obama who is also supposedly a uniter? NOPE.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
You really didn’t understand from reading the Post article that Bush’s objection was based on concern over incrementalism? The problem isn’t with the WaPo; it’s just that you’re a little, well, slow.

(was that enough "context" for you? If you didn’t follow, just let me know and I’ll try to spell it out more clearly)
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Really jpe?

Tell it to Joe Gandelman who had exactly the expected reaction:
BOTTOM LINE: Once again this administration is not giving independent voters and non-conservatives much to cheer about. Its actions, stances and orientation are now becoming predictable and all of them taken together may make 2008 a historic year for a massive protest vote on the part of many voters.

Including the parents of the kids Bush wants to leave behind.
Why don’t you go explain it to him?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
...He’s trying to stop the incrementalism I pointed too yesterday.

Oh my god, yes, absolutely. We can’t have that incrementalism thing with health care for children. Heaven forbid that we deprive private insurance companies of their god-given right to make obscene profits just to make sure children whose families cannot afford private insurance get the health care they need. That would be evil, man.

And btw, $80,000 a year for a family of four may not be "low-income," but it’s not that high an income at all, depending on where you live — especially if that number represents a two-income family. Try getting affordable private health insurance if you live in NYC or the San Francisco Bay Area or Boston or Los Angeles or Chicago and you have higher than average medical expenses, or someone in your family has a chronic or preexisting medical condition.

Keeping children uninsured and thus unable to get needed medical care so that Bush’s wealthy buddies at private insurance companies can continue to make their billions at the expense of American children is truly heinous.

And Bush’s argument about not expanding government is absolutely ludicrous, not to mention totally depraved, given the massive expansion of government over which he has presided when it comes to military spending and the ever-increasing reach of the national security state. Bush has expanded the federal government’s reach and power in ways and to a degree that is unprecedented in U.S. history — but it’s all been in the service of war, military occupation, and unconstitutional surveillance and detention programs. The U.S. currently spends about $12 billion a month on the Iraq war alone. SCHIP costs the government $5 billion A YEAR. That is less than half of what the U.S. spends on Iraq alone *in one month.* Congress wants to increase spending for the program by $35 billion *over five years.* Over the last *four* years, the Iraq war has cost *600 billion* (in spent and approved war funding), and Bush wants to increase that total to $750 billion for FY 2008. In fact, just the amount of money found to have been mismanaged or wasted in Iraq — $10 billion — is double what the entire SCHIP program spends in a year.

I have long since stopped asking myself how George W. Bush manages to sleep at night, but I still wonder how other people can support such callousness, such *heartlessness,* and still live comfortably with themselves.




 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
Keeping children uninsured and thus unable to get needed medical care so that Bush’s wealthy buddies at private insurance companies can continue to make their billions at the expense of American children is truly heinous.
What’s even more heinous is some yahoo showing up and claiming that Bush is keeping the children of people who make $80,000 a year uninsured.

Obviously, it’s Bush’s fault, isn’t it?

How you can put forward that "thought" with a straight face is beyond me.

Tell me, what do ’choice’ and ’personal responsibility’ mean to you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Kathy, there is a person named Joe that comments on this site. Occasionally he will go into a rant that’s a parody of liberal "thought" that is really ludicrous. Then you come along and prove that Joe is actually being accurate in his lampooning of progessives.
I actually scrolled to the bottom of your comment to see if it was Joe being ludicrous. He wasn’t the one.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
All I know is, if they expand coverage just a little tiny bit more, my wife and I can quit our 6-figure jobs and just live on our savings. After all, the kids’ll be covered, right?
 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
Heaven forbid that we deprive private insurance companies of their god-given right to make obscene profits just to make sure children whose families cannot afford private insurance get the health care they need. That would be evil, man.
Did you take your meds today Kathy? What about the ’god given right’ of parents to take care of their offspring? Look, if you can’t afford insurance AND 4 kids on 80 grand, that’s a YOU problem. Not a me (Paying extra taxes) problem.
Keeping children uninsured and thus unable to get needed medical care so that Bush’s wealthy buddies at private insurance companies can continue to make their billions at the expense of American children is truly heinous.
Ummm, yeah - those meds? next time take ’em.
I still wonder how other people can support such callousness, such *heartlessness,* and still live comfortably with themselves.
And I still wonder why people like you think people like me should pay for people who make bad decisions in their own lives. But I don’t lose any sleep over it - I know I have to get up again the next day to be productive and to take of my family.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Tell me, what do ’choice’ and ’personal responsibility’ mean to you?

A hell of a lot more than they mean to George W. Bush and all the Americans who still support his disastrous policies in Iraq and at home.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
A hell of a lot more than they mean to George W. Bush and all the Americans who still support his disastrous policies in Iraq and at home.
Nice dodge Kathy.

And another liberal blanks out.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s not a dodge, McQ. I am sick and tired of being lectured about "choice" and "personal responsibility" from people who will not even admit that Bush’s foreign and domestic policies have been a boon to terrorists, have made radical Islamic terrorist groups stronger, have created terrorist groups that did not even exist before March, 2003, have greatly increased the risk of another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, have wasted our tax dollars, the lives of 3,600-plus Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis — MUCH LESS accept personal responsibility for their choices to support those policies.

I’ll say it again: Heaven forbid that Bush should allocate more money to a program that has actually been *successful* in its mission to insure millions of children who otherwise would not have been insured. And heaven forbid that we should expand the eligibility criteria of such a program to cover more uninsured children because they are "middle class" and hence do not deserve health care. Let them be sick and let them stay sick and let them die if need be. The financial cost to this country, not just in terms of dollars but in lost productivity will be much higher than the cost of expanding the program and increasing its funding, but hey — that would deny Bush and his supporters their constitutional right to be petty, vindictive, punitive, and mean-spirited. Can’t have that in Bush’s America.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
Sheeple Kathy has obviously OD’d on the LN.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
It’s not a dodge, McQ. I am sick and tired of being lectured about "choice" and "personal responsibility" from people who will not even admit that Bush’s foreign and domestic policies have been a boon to terrorists,
Oh please ... quit your one-over-the-world whining and stick with the topic at hand. This is a post about an attempt to subsidize people who can easily afford health insurance.

A little fact break for you - The median household income in this country is a bit over $40k. A family earning $80k is in (approximately) the top 30% of incomes — meaning they are wealthier than 70% of US households. So why are Democrats suggesting we need to be transferring money from other taxpayers to them?

Do you have an answer for that or are we going to get another verse of the Bush Derangement Syndrome theme song?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This is a post about an attempt to subsidize people who can easily afford health insurance.

Only in your distorted neoconservative fantasy world. There are millions of middle-class Americans who do not have health insurance and this post is about a bipartisan attempt in Congress to expand the reach of a very successful program to include more uninsured children.

That’s what this is about. And your delusion that you can know what millions of Americans you don’t know can afford or cannot afford is arrogant and small-minded.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
So why are Democrats suggesting we need to be transferring money from other taxpayers to them?

Wake up! This bill has broad bipartisan support, and it’s Republican lawmakers who have been pleading with Bush not to veto the bill. And no money is being "transferred from other taxpayers." The cost of the program is funded by a tax on cigarette sales; it does not come out of your income taxes.

Even if it did, it’s money well spent. I’d rather see my taxes going to help sick children who don’t have insurance than going to fund a war that has brought this country to the brink of financial and moral ruin.

 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
Only in your distorted neoconservative fantasy world.
Oh man ... key the "Twilight Zone" theme.
This bill has broad bipartisan support, and it’s Republican lawmakers who have been pleading with Bush not to veto the bill.
Uh, that has what to do with subsidizing people who can afford health insurance again?

Tell me Kathy, if murdering turtles had broad bipartisan support, and Republicans were pleading for it too would that make it right or good?
And no money is being "transferred from other taxpayers." The cost of the program is funded by a tax on cigarette sales; it does not come out of your income taxes.
What, smokers don’t pay taxes? Are you or are you not singling out a group for special taxation? What if we had bipartisan support for taxing people who exhibit Bush Derangement Syndrome (boy you’d get a hefty hit). Oh, wait, I forgot, smokers are no longer one of the favored classes. So they can be punitively taxed to fund Kathy’s fantasy.

BTW, you do know that we already subsidize tobacco with our taxpayers dollars, don’t you?

Last, but certainly not least, name a single government program such as this giveaway which ever hit its estimate. Just one. Medicare part D anyone? So when they have shortfalls because a) people don’t buy ciggies in the quantities they estimated and b) people who can easily afford their own insurance dump it and take the "free" stuff, who pays for it then, Kathy?

You live in a fantasy world where money is plucked off trees that grow in a grove behind the Treasury Department instead of being the product of hard work by individuals.
I’d rather see my taxes going to help sick children who don’t have insurance ...
Would you? I’d prefer they go only to the strict Constitutional functions of government they’re supposed to fund, and health insurance (of any kind) isn’t one of them.

Why not be honest - you prefer government use it’s power of coercion to take what isn’t theirs and give it to those who you deem worthy. Fair assessment? As you might imagine, those tendencies aren’t listed as positive attributes when talking about freedom and liberty.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
A family earning $80k is in (approximately) the top 30% of incomes — meaning they are wealthier than 70% of US households.
Just to pinpoint it more precisely, $0 - $80K covers 75% of households.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Just to pinpoint it more precisely, $0 - $80K covers 75% of households.
Thanks JWG, but facts are obviously lost on Kathy who’d prefer to put forward emotional arguments as to why here schemes are worthy of forcing you to give up your money to government. It’s "for the children" for heaven sake!
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What kind of job pays $60k or better and does not include benefits, especially health insurance?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"Only in your distorted neoconservative fantasy world."
She might as well be saying: Not in my liberal bubble world Nah, Kathy cannot be a real person. View her picture and profile information on the libertystreet (is that an ironic name or what?) site she gives as her blog address. If I stayed up all night and constructed a blog for a fictitious sheeple it would be exactly like this one; cats, favorite books and all. I don’t know about the listing as a contributor to other blogs, no doubt moonbat havens all.

I once tried to get an informational dialogue going with Greenwald’s blog commenters. They were very like Kathy; living in a different world (the liberal bubble) where maintaining freedom and liberty is not an issue worth considering. They are literally not interested. Not for her to actually read any postings here and respond to their framing (which would upset her world); she came only to vent and bear witness for the other moonbats.

Adios, Kathy. Back to your bubble. Read and comment only in the bubble; where shee...I mean, people understand you.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
NOTE: This is a response to a response from McQ that he posted yesterday. I have been trying to post this reply, unsuccessfully until now, since yesterday afternoon.

Uh, that has what to do with subsidizing people who can afford health insurance again?

Uh, it has to do with this question:

So why are Democrats suggesting we need to be transferring money from other taxpayers to them?

which you, McQ, asked me oh, 10 minutes before I answered it. I guess you forgot you asked it.

Tell me Kathy, if murdering turtles had broad bipartisan support, and Republicans were pleading for it too would that make it right or good?

Definitely not. I don’t support murdering turtles. And uh, what does murdering turtles have to do with helping children whose families can’t afford health insurance again?

What, smokers don’t pay taxes?

Sure, they do, but the taxes they pay do not go to fund SCHIP. A small amount is added to the sales tax smokers pay on cigarettes to fund the program. And please don’t try to tell me that a smoker who can afford to pay $20 or $25 or $30 for a carton of cigarettes that won’t last a week for heavy smokers can’t afford an extra 60 cents on each carton.

What if we had bipartisan support for taxing people who exhibit Bush Derangement Syndrome (boy you’d get a hefty hit)


I was hoping you would mention "Bush Derangement Syndrome" again, because it occurred to me that that expression is the *perfect* example of right-wingers’ refusal to accept the personal responsibility they are always screaming at other people to take. *I* am not "deranged" because I oppose and am outraged at the many ways in which Bush has damaged this country’s democracy and national interests. It’s Bush’s policies that are deranged. It’s Bush’s insistence on living in a bubble world that no reality can penetrate that is deranged. And everytime you and your kind accuse those of us who rightfully despise Bush for the truly and objectively terrible things he has done in these last 7 years of having "Bush Derangement Syndrome," you are proving your inability or refusal to take responsibility, as a Bush supporter, for the deranged policies for which he is responsible.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that.

BTW, you do know that we already subsidize tobacco with our taxpayers dollars, don’t you?


Yes. Which we should not be doing. Why should *I* as someone who has never smoked in her life have to subsidize the harmful behaviors of those who do smoke? And what does that have to do with people who DO smoke paying extra sales tax on their cigarette purchases to fund a government program that ensures access to health care for uninsured children?

So when they have shortfalls because a) people don’t buy ciggies in the quantities they estimated and b) people who can easily afford their own insurance dump it and take the "free" stuff, who pays for it then, Kathy?


I have no idea if the unsupported claims you are presenting as fact are actually true, but I don’t believe that the real issue here is who makes up the shortfalls if and when they occur. The real issue, in my view, is the anger you obviously feel at the smallest possibility that any part of your taxes could be going to pay for the health care of uninsured children. That’s what astounds me. It’s not like that money would be paying for murder. It’s going for *health care.* It’s going to help *sick children.* And whatever portion would be coming out of your taxes in this scenario of yours would be so much less than what comes out of your taxes to pay for a war that has killed thousands of Americans, wounded tens of thousands, and turned Iraq into a Disneyland for terrorists. And yet you object to paying to help sick children, and welcome paying to support a policy that has killed and is continuing to kill the innocent and grow terrorists.

You live in a fantasy world where money is plucked off trees that grow in a grove behind the Treasury Department instead of being the product of hard work by individuals.


You have GOT to be kidding. Where is the $2 trillion that the war in Iraq is going to end up costing us (or more) coming from? What trees are the $12 billion we spend every month on Iraq being plucked from? You are seriously asking me where $5 billion for uninsured children’s health care is coming from when you are paying more than double that amount for one month of a war that has lasted four years now and is likely to last for decades more? Now that’s what I call living in a fantasy world.

I’d prefer they go only to the strict Constitutional functions of government they’re supposed to fund, and health insurance (of any kind) isn’t one of them.


Neither is preemptively and aggressively invading and occupying a country that did nothing to harm us and did not have the power to harm us in any way.

And I would argue that justice is not served, and that the people’s "general welfare" is not promoted, when 46 million people — 10 million of them children — do not have health insurance and thus, in many cases, cannot afford to seek medical care when they get sick. I would argue that when 18,000 Americans die every year from treatable medical problems as a direct result of being uninsured or underinsured, that is not promoting the general welfare.

Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Why not be honest - you prefer government use it’s power of coercion to take what isn’t theirs and give it to those who you deem worthy. Fair assessment?

No, it is not a fair assessment, nor is it even accurate. You talk about the government as if it were a separate entity from you or me. It isn’t. The government’s money comes from us, to pay for the services and institutions that serve and promote the general welfare, because the government belongs to us and we have created it and we decide who will run it and how they will spend our money.

A second way to respond to your statement/question is to ask you to respond to the same question. You support spending limitless amounts of money on what used to be called defense spending but now is more accurately called empire maintenance: Would I be fairly assessing your position if I suggested that you prefer government to take what isn’t theirs and give it to those YOU deem worthy?

What it really comes down to, McQ, is priorities. You don’t object to the government spending your money. You just have different priorities than I do for what you want the government to spend your money on. If you could acknowledge that, perhaps it would be possible for us to have a more honest and productive discussion (generally speaking, not necessarily here and now) about what those priorities should be.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
Definitely not. I don’t support murdering turtles. And uh, what does murdering turtles have to do with helping children whose families can’t afford health insurance again?
As I understood it your criteria was ’bipartisan support’ and having "Republican lawmakers" pleading for its passage. That’s what you offered as reasons to pass the legislation, not me.

So apparently you’re backing off that as somehow germane to the topic. Good. Moving on.
*I* am not "deranged" because I oppose and am outraged at the many ways in which Bush has damaged this country’s democracy and national interests. It’s Bush’s policies that are deranged.
No, you’re deranged because every other sentence is about how much you hate Bush. It gets tiresome quickly. Fairly simple to understand if you can back away and look at it objectively, Kathy.
Where is the $2 trillion that the war in Iraq is going to end up costing us (or more) coming from? What trees are the $12 billion we spend every month on Iraq being plucked from?
It, at least, is Constitutionally mandated expenditure. And while I’m no pleased with the conduct of the war there (at least until recently) that doesn’t mean the expenditure isn’t at least within the agreed upon powers of government. Health insurance? Find that in the document, will you, Kathy? BTW ... the cost has been about 450 billion for the war, m’kay? As for "projected costs", they, at this point, have no real meaning.
Why should *I* as someone who has never smoked in her life have to subsidize the harmful behaviors of those who do smoke?


Well I assume for the very same reason that you think *I* should be subsidizing health insurance for children belonging to families who make $80,000 a year. It’s a thing called principle, see if you can root it out and understand the point.
Neither is preemptively and aggressively invading and occupying a country that did nothing to harm us and did not have the power to harm us in any way.
I do love 20/20 hindsight ... it is so useful in ignoring the real context of an occurrence, isn’t it?

But to your point ... yes, it is, if Congress authorizes it. And, as you probably know, it did. That Constitutional thingie again.
I would argue that when 18,000 Americans die every year from treatable medical problems as a direct result of being uninsured or underinsured, that is not promoting the general welfare.
First, the "preamble" isn’t law. But have you any idea what Constitutional scholars have had to say about the "general welfare"?
"From the constitutional tradition of the US federal government, there is no reason to construe "general Welfare" as referring to the economic and economically related well-being of the citizenry. In short, the general welfare means no more than those legal foundations that facilitate the achievement of the well-being, economic and otherwise, of the people on their own, not the government’s, initiative."
Could it be anymore clear?
The government’s money comes from us, to pay for the services and institutions that serve and promote the general welfare, because the government belongs to us and we have created it and we decide who will run it and how they will spend our money.
Uh, no ... we’re a federal Constitutional republic. That means the federal government is bound by the limits of the Constitution of the United States not our whims. See the discussion above about the meaning of "general welfare".
You support spending limitless amounts of money on what used to be called defense spending but now is more accurately called empire maintenance.
Nope. I support spending what is necessary to maintain our freedom and security and support our national interests. In terms of real spending for war, in relative terms (as a % of GDP) this is war on the cheap.
What it really comes down to, McQ, is priorities. You don’t object to the government spending your money. You just have different priorities than I do for what you want the government to spend your money on. If you could acknowledge that, perhaps it would be possible for us to have a more honest and productive discussion (generally speaking, not necessarily here and now) about what those priorities should be.

Oh, but I do object to the government spending my money. I’ve already stated that. I object to it spending it on anything but Constitutionally mandated expenditures. War and the military happen to fall within that category. Welfare and insurance subsidies (and crops subsidies and corporate subsidies and school loans and all other income redistributions schemes and ... well you get the picture) don’t.

So no, it’s not a matter of priorities. The priorities are already set by the Constitution. So are the limits, which, for the large part, are blithely ignored by lawmakers who don’t seem to understand that any better than you.

It is, in reality, a difference in the role we view for government. And, I suspect, that comes from completely different political philosophies. I support the "night watchman" form of government (said succinctly, a government which protects individuals and their rights from force or fraud and not much more) while you apparently are more enamored with the "Santa Claus" form (aka, the welfare state) of government.

But yes, perhaps at some point, we could have a more productive discussion. Until then, though, I intend to keep calling for a veto of this bill.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
As I understood it your criteria was ’bipartisan support’ and having "Republican lawmakers" pleading for its passage. That’s what you offered as reasons to pass the legislation, not me.

You understood incorrectly, and no I did not. I truly don’t mind strong disagreement — in fact, I welcome it. But I can’t stand dishonesty. And I think you know that my remarks about bipartisan support and Republican lawmakers were made in response to your specifically casting the legislation as a "Democratic" attempt to expand government, etc., etc. It really should be beneath both of us to deliberately misrepresent someone’s position for cheap debating points. Or put another way, you and I have enough stuff that we disagree on without inventing any.

So apparently you’re backing off that as somehow germane to the topic. Good. Moving on.


No I’m not, because I never presented it as "germane to the topic" except insofar as you made it so by suggesting that the SCHIP legislation is "Democratic" and not "Republican." See above, and yes, let’s do move on.

Well I assume for the very same reason that you think *I* should be subsidizing health insurance for children belonging to families who make $80,000 a year.


Fair enough, except that smoking is an unhealthy behavior that harms society as a whole in addition to the individual who smokes; whereas ensuring that all children in the U.S. have access to appropriate and adequate health care regardless of whether they live in families that have health insurance or can afford to pay for health care benefits the entire society. And you pay for uninsured children anyway, but paying at the front end is a lot less expensive. Pay for it now or pay for it later. Those are really the choices.

First, the "preamble" isn’t law. But have you any idea what Constitutional scholars have had to say about the "general welfare"?

The link you provide is to another post of yours, and while it is a cogent and well-written post, it does not persuade me. Plus, you don’t cite any constitutional scholars. You quote from a book written by one man, who may or may not be a scholar; I would have to do the research to see who he is to know that, since you yourself do not provide that information. I could write an essay on why your arguments in that other post do not persuade me, and perhaps your comments section is not the place for that. For now, I will only say that your arguments in the other post are just that: arguments. They are your opinions, for which you have provided some support, but I could present just as strong an argument (actually stronger, imho) that the framers’ reference to "the general welfare" does imply that the founders viewed it as the job of government to use law and public policy to make people’s lives better. I’m not trying to tell you that I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m simply saying that we disagree on the meaning and implications of "the general welfare" and nothing you have written here has proved that your interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation or the correct interpretation.

But yes, perhaps at some point, we could have a more productive discussion. Until then, though, I intend to keep calling for a veto of this bill.


Which quite unarguably is your democratic right, as it is mine to support the bill.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
I never presented it as "germane to the topic" except insofar as you made it so by suggesting that the SCHIP legislation is "Democratic" and not "Republican"
Ah, but you did, and as you must be aware, it is a Democrat majority Congress we are now burdened with which means it is the majority party which decides what legislation goes forward.
Fair enough, except that smoking is an unhealthy behavior that harms society as a whole in addition to the individual who smokes;
Which is none of your business and has nothing to do with the principle mentioned. BTW, just for clarity, I don’t smoke. I used the "generic" "I" to make the point.
I could present just as strong an argument (actually stronger, imho) that the framers’ reference to "the general welfare" does imply that the founders viewed it as the job of government to use law and public policy to make people’s lives better.
I honestly, no BS, would love to see you try.
I’m simply saying that we disagree on the meaning and implications of "the general welfare" and nothing you have written here has proved that your interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation or the correct interpretation.
Well you know how to attempt to make that point ... and yes, you’re right, a comment section probably isn’t that place. Let me know if you take the project on.

Until then ... to each our own (and I’m actually glad we both calmed down a bit and became at least a bit better at "listening" in this particular exchange). BTW, I assume, by now, you’ve figured out this isn’t a ’neo-con’ blog?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ah, but you did, and as you must be aware, it is a Democrat majority Congress we are now burdened with which means it is the majority party which decides what legislation goes forward.

Ah no, but I didn’t, and as you *should* be aware, this is a thoroughly bipartisan piece of legislation, which is strongly supported by a majority of Republicans as well as Democrats, and which, furthermore, is due to expire on Sept. 30, which means that the issue of renewing it had to come up, so this is not an issue of "introducing legislation." And if you don’t know, you should, that the current proposal to expand coverage to 3.3 million additional children was developed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, AND Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), *among others.* It was also Grassley and Hatch who wrote to Bush pleading with him to rescind his veto.

You are entitled to your own opinion about this legislation, McQ, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts, and you are NOT entitled to make up lies about my part in this discussion.

And now, I think we are at the start of the tape loop again. This is the point at which you asked for my thoughts about murdering turtles.

Which is none of your business and has nothing to do with the principle mentioned.

It most certainly is my business, McQ. It affects me in at least half a dozen ways. And btw, uninsured children is my business too, even though my own one child has always been insured even when I was not (because her dad is), and she is 17 and all but grown now anyway. It’s my business because whether I have uninsured children or not, the fact that millions of children ARE uninsured, and are not getting the health care they need, *affects me.*

BTW, I assume, by now, you’ve figured out this isn’t a ’neo-con’ blog?

I hadn’t actually given it much thought, but if I had to guess, I would say, libertarian?

I honestly, no BS, would love to see you try. ... Let me know if you take the project on.

Sure. I love to do that kind of stuff (i.e., research into issues and writing about them).
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
It most certainly is my business, McQ. It affects me in at least half a dozen ways.
My smoking, if I actually did it, would affect you in no way that I know of, unless of course you live in my home and I’m just not aware of it.

But again, the principle is the point and I think you acknowledged that with the "fair enough" comment.
I hadn’t actually given it much thought, but if I had to guess, I would say, libertarian?
That would be a fairly good guess.
Sure. I love to do that kind of stuff (i.e., research into issues and writing about them).
Let me know if you do it and put it up ... my email is on the upper left side of the blog’s main page.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
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.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider