Lack of Information by Liberals on SCHIP
I always have fun reading the liberal blogs and just how far off these people are. The comments below are from http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/10/healthcare_for_children.html
“In the days following the President’s last veto, Dems and Republicans began to see the light, as they felt pressure from their constituents to support such a good bill. We’ll see that pressure continue. We may never change the President’s attitude toward providing healthcare for children, but we may shift the power dynamic soon regarding who gets to make that decision.”
First, The USA should not pay for healthcare for individuals over the age of 21. This bill that Bush Vetoed would have paid for the healthcare of “children” to 25 years of age. Also, the wages were way off regarding who qualified. No one that I know of has a problem with poor or working poor having tax paid subsidized healthcare, but it should not be for everyone. President Bush has not said he wants children to die in the streets from lack of healthcare. The liberals just can’t get this right about Bush.
The SCHIP bill is simply an attempt by the liberals to extend government controlled healthcare to the majority of citizens. If this bill had been signed by President Bush, most “kids” up to age 25 would have healthcare via the government and seniors 65 and over would be mostly in government ran programs. Hmm, that would have only left age 26 to seniors totally in the private sector. Again, it just seems to me that the SCHIP bill was an effort to piece mill nationalized healthcare.
After Hillary’s failed healthcare attempt in the early 1990s, the Clinton administration and its T.V talking helpers said it would just have to be done one piece at at time. I guess we see that happening with SCHIP.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Our country doesn’t need to pay for healthcare for those over the age of 21. I agree that this just further extends the control that they would have and our decreases ours. Let’s stop extending the rights of our goverment. We are responsible heads of our families. We don’t need another handout. Yet, there are those in our government that would love to give us one.
At what price are we willing to sell ourselves? I agree that this is another approach on the slippery slope to nationalized healthcare.
I was recently on a website of a company who touted great efficiencies in healthcare delivery systems here in the US. The comments on it I found to be less than factually or reality based - it turned out that the companies headquarters we located in Ontario, Canada - I’ll leave you all with that to think about!
October 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I think this all flies above the greater problem of the rising costs of healthcare. This is all just a band-aid to cover the true problem.To better understand this problem, you need to go straight to the source. Healthcare spending is rising faster than inflation.
Why are we paying more for healthcare?
Is it frivolous lawsuits? Maybe it’s costs handed down from pharmaceutical advertising? In my opinion it’s just that we’re more sick than we were in years past. Obesity is reaching epidemic levels, and the healthcare industry is now responsible for patching us up from our overindulgence. We’re paying more because we’re using it more. Insurance companies have to drive up their costs to cover the increased risk.
Our nation needs a healthcare (and health in general) paradigm shift . The current system won’t scale, so we need to step back and look at the big picture.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:31 am
SCHIP is an excellent example of the liberal policy of incrementalism. We have seen this policy exercised in many forms over the last 50 years, every since the FDR Administration.
Incrementalism states that for a “worthy cause” we should slowly expand our nations involvement in a matter. We have seen this in the welfare offered by this state, which began under the FDR administration when it was a much needed service for the people of America. Later, it expanded into “entitlements” (a concept foreign to the Constitution of the United States).
SCHIP is just the latest incantation of incrementalism, in that we now are being told that the definition of “Children” includes individuals up to age 25. President Bush has vetoed and (rightly so) says that he will continue to veto this measure. To do otherwise would be disaster for the USA. If 25 year olds are “Children” how will that definition affect the troops? If 25 year olds are “Children” how will they be required to pay taxes? If 25 year olds are “Children” should the federal government then pay for education through age 25?
You can see where incrementalism can take us. We are right in standing our ground and calling for individual rights. Let us, as free-market individuals provide solutions for ourselves, not being dependent on the “State” to do this for us!
November 17th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Lack of Information by Liberals on SCHIP, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.