Rally tonight in The Junction

OP October 4, 2007 (4:26 pm)

Morons.org, as usual, are socialist, lying malcontents who fail to tell you that this is not just a simple “renewal” of the existing S-CHIPS to keep it going, but a 50%, $35 billion expansion of it. Or that the plan covers “children’ up to age 25. It also goes well beyond the original intent of the program (to help truly poor children). Plus, it forces people (more government by attrition) to switch from privatized health care to government health care. Dems and Morons.org and other liberal PACs are trying to spin this as evidence that “Repubs don’t care about kids, but we do.” What a load of bull. They are the ones using kids as a political pawn for their socialized medicine agenda. They aren’t fooling this West Seattlelite. What an embarrassment to the once-great Democratic Party of JFK they are.

s October 4, 2007 (5:05 pm)

….tell us how you really feel…

Kayleigh October 4, 2007 (7:17 pm)

Another political misstep and morally reprehensible decision by the worst President in American history.

Heaven forbid children be able to go to the doctor when they are sick.

As usual, the Republicans hold back progress for the common good. But I think this is a battle they will lose in the long term.

coffee geek October 4, 2007 (7:53 pm)

OP: As I understand the proposed bill, SCHIP would cover “kids” over 18 until 25 if they are in school/college. I was a military brat (retired Army father), and had gov’t funded healthcare under my parents until finishing undergrad school. $80K (or less) isn’t a ton of money, locally at least. I imagine the tobacco and private health insurance company PACs are no doubt pouring $$$ into this. I’d be interested in seeing a link to info about “forcing” kids from private to gov’t funded insurance.

Erik October 4, 2007 (7:53 pm)

worst president last 100yrs?
IMO…Wilson for selling us out to the private Federal Reserve, followed by the income tax.

coffee geek October 4, 2007 (7:58 pm)

Also….does anyone else feel weird about tobacco taxes paying for health care? It’s like the heart foundation selling doughnuts to raise cash…

djake October 4, 2007 (8:01 pm)

I so much appreciate people on either side of the fence who take the time to investigate facts instead of emotionally shooting off. The reason our country is in its current state, regardless of political affiliation, is simply because the majority won’t tske the time to think more than 2 inches beneath the surface of any issue. Isn’t really much of a challenge for spin doctors now is it?

Christopher Boffoli October 4, 2007 (8:36 pm)

Kayleigh: Republicans hardly hold the patent on holding back progress. Democrats are just as bureaucratic and corrupt. They just pander to different special interest groups and pretend that they are the just ones who care. It is the two party system itself which limits choice and progress. The next election cycle (already with many of the usual suspects running again) is shaping up to be the same pageant of big money and media soundbytes. Real innovation and progress is sadly lacking in American politics and government. It would be nice to some day have some REAL diversity among the candidates, not just token gender and race. And just once it would be nice for a candidate to act upon what they truly believe as opposed to how that action will influence some future political ambition.

The House October 4, 2007 (9:01 pm)

I’m really glad to see that there are some new posters that seem to have common sense and actually investigate topics, but unfortunately there will still be many that just like to “throw stones” (Kayleigh). Making statements like Bush is the worst president in all of history is very unintelligent. Your entire posts translates into someone that hasn’t read the recently proposed/vetoed bill and does not know Presidential history.

You want to talk about morality? Is it morally right for hard, working class Americans to pay for the irresponsibility of others? No, but we do it day in and day out. As stated above, the vetoing of the Bill does not eliminate healthcare for the children of the irresponsible, it merely stopped the increase of burden to taxpayers of increasing the eligible limits.

Oh, and to all of you that are salivating and waiting to jump on me for using the term irresponsible. With the exception of rape, people are irresponsible for having children or too many children if you cannot provide for them financially yourself (that includes healthcare, education, food, etc).

Love me.

coffee geek October 4, 2007 (9:55 pm)

House: “hard, working class”?? tee hee.

;)

Jan October 4, 2007 (10:07 pm)

house…you know…I tend to agree with you there. But…we have to remember to not punish the children because the parents were irresponsible. Otherwise , I suppose we should push for each to his own, survival of the fittest. For those parents who thought they could afford it, and something happened after the fact to change that…well…that has to be considered, too. I have a 27 yo wonderful daughter. When I had her at age 33, we had no idea if we could afford it or not. If we had waited until all the money was already in the bank, she wouldn’t exist…

todd October 4, 2007 (10:12 pm)

The House has made a great point of the “Me” society that we have been seeing in earnest since the Reagan presidency. “We” are all in this together and have a responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves. Case in point to The House: I have a good job, salary and benefits and I foresee that situation into the future. I have decided to have children. But what if my “code monkey” job gets farmed out to India and now I have no job and no benefits. Now my kid is sick and I can’t get him to the doctor. What now? Do what Mr. Bush recommends and use the emergency room? Does a case of broncitous have to turn to pneumonia and risk life before using the emergency room with all of its extraordinary overhead? And ultimately cost everyone alot more. We are a society, a commons that provides for the best of times and the worst.

coffee geek October 4, 2007 (10:15 pm)

Okay, so I’ve done more research. All because of OP! :)

The proposed bill allows states to petition the Fed Govt to declare an exception and raise the ceiling level up to approx $80K household income. This might want to be allowed for expensive markets, like I suggested above.

The Fed Govt can deny the petition(s).

It does NOT set a blanket household income level at approx $80K and below nationwide, automatically.

I’m still waiting to see a link to the provision stating kids are required to switch from their private insurance plans.

Dis October 4, 2007 (10:40 pm)

The fact remains that there are lots of “irresponsible” people who have children they cannot provide for. We like to believe that we don’t have a caste system in this country, therefore we cannot leave these children to perpetuate the irresponsibility of their parents. Maybe the House would like to consign the fate of these children to the kindness of strangers or the charity of churches (I think that’s the Republican safety net)? I think it’s the responsibility of government, and I am HAPPY to pay taxes for that purpose. Unless you’re in the top 1/2 of 1 percent of wage earners in this country, you work against yourself in promoting the so-called conservative agenda these days. And yes, Bush is definitely the worst president we have ever had. The damage he’s wrought on foreign relations will take decades to repair. He has ushered in an era of personal greed unseen in any previous generations, and it’s marked by true moral and ethical irresponsibility.

boohoo October 4, 2007 (11:35 pm)

++According to a MoveOn.org e-mail just forwarded to us by a reader (thank you!)++ The WSB cannot even contain its glee on this one…

Christopher B., totally agree with you but you gotta go easy on Kayleigh as she is having “landlord paranoia” troubles these days…

The party of pro-aborts and gay marriage (read test tube children if that) is toutin’ “its for the cheldaren…” is so clearly an unveiled attempt to paint those most commonly on the side of pro-life, pro-marriage (where the biology is complimentary and can gen new life) etc. as somehow child unfriendly.

I’m no fan of Bush but this moron.org stuff is really thinly veiled strategy to discredit current political leadership, as if…

Finally, in *no way* do I want the gubmint running anything that has to with healthcare. Both sides of the aisle have screwed up so much of what they meddle with and clearly its not about you and me it is about their own very special interests. Healthcare is TOO important to have the politicos driving the bus.

Privatize it all! and provide only the smallest of safety nets with the shortest of half lifes.

WSB October 4, 2007 (11:48 pm)

Hi boohoo – we usually stay out of the political chatter but to clarify here, we express gratitude to everyone who sends us something. If you search the site on the phrase “thank you” you will find it in a variety of contexts, simply because we wish to express appreciation to all who take the time to let us know what they’re seeing and hearing about what’s going on. Recent examples include:
https://wsb.blackfin.biz/blog/?p=3378
https://wsb.blackfin.biz/blog/?p=3338
https://wsb.blackfin.biz/blog/?p=3315
https://wsb.blackfin.biz/blog/?p=3292
And while we’re at it, thank YOU for taking the time to comment.

OP October 5, 2007 (12:22 am)

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m still waiting to see a link to the provision stating kids are required to switch from their private insurance plans.

There’s no link, friend. Just common economic sense. If something costs less, even though the quality is not equivalent, where do you go. (Hint: That’s nearly rhetorical.) Kinda like WalMart, only it’s the government, but worse.

…appreciation to all who take the time to let us know what theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re seeing and hearing about whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s going on.

I know they are few and far between, but when’s the last time WSB posted anything or event having to do with WS conservatism? Hmm? I know it’s rare, but still….

Kayleigh October 5, 2007 (5:22 am)

House, I have read the bill, and I have worked in health care. Most of my career has been spent there, actually, and I am a strong proponent of a national health plan. The wasteful and unethical private medical insurance industry needs to end.

The president hasn’t made me this POed since that ridiculous Snowflake Baby thing.

Why is he the worst president? You name me another president who can match this: persistent lying, gutting social programs, trashing our moral authority aborad, ridiculuing science, using fear to manipulate the masses, using a political agenda to undermine science, driving the country into debt, governing like a dry drunk with no compassion, playing guitar during Hurricane Katrina, putting me and innocent others on the no-fly list, renditions, torture….

the list goes on, but I need to go to work.

eric October 5, 2007 (7:15 am)

I pretty much disregard anything from moveon.org – just like I disregard anything from the Christian Coalition. They’re both a bunch of partisan whackjobs that overreact and lie about anything that is not remotely close to their extreme agendas.

coffee geek October 5, 2007 (8:46 am)

OP: I am sure you’re aware “common economic sense” is not all that common, and does not equal “force”. If the coverages (private vs SCHIP) were entirely equal, I could understand the decision to switch. But YOU’RE making that assumption. You assume that either the gov’t funded program will be better than any private coverage (which is a good thing), or parents who can afford the better and more expensive private insurance will elect to put their kids on the less expensive gov’t plan with poorer coverage (which is a bad thing). Actually, in re-reading your reply to me, it seems you think folks WOULD switch even if the quality is poorer…and that’s an unfortunate outlook on your fellow citizen/parent IMHO. Why do you think everyone puts price above all other considerations? I don’t. Do you? Also, how do you respond to the fact that your originally posted blanket generalizations regarding the proposed SCHIP bill are inaccurate (or incomplete at best)?

OP October 5, 2007 (12:30 pm)

coffee geek:

Sorry, I was a tad flip and should have explained myself better in my response, but it was late and I was tired. Let me see if I can elaborate.

First, I’m not assuming the gov’t program will better from a care standpoint, just cheaper. (Rhetorical Question #3,765: When has the government offered any service or product to the public that’s better than what’s been offered in the private sector. Answer: Zippo. I do hope you’re laughing…;-)

Anyway…

Why do you think everyone puts price above all other considerations? I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. Do you?

We’re not talking about you and me, though, CG. We’re talking about poor families and the tough financial decisions they have to make.

When one is poor, one MUST take into account finances. Is it the single overwhelming and deciding factor? Obviously no; their child’s health is. However, barring catastrophic illnesses like cancer, etc., for basic health care coverage, cost, almost unquestionably, becomes a big factor in choosing between the two. If that’s the caseÃ¢â‚¬â€and I would contend that in a majority of cases it will beÃ¢â‚¬â€the cheaper, gov’t HC coverage will be the choice vs. privatized.

Also, how do you respond to the fact that your originally posted blanket generalizations regarding the proposed SCHIP bill are inaccurate (or incomplete at best)?

Inaccurate? Where? How? $35 billion increase is complete and accurate. Covering “kids” up to 25 is accurate. (BTW: Your parents probably claimed you as a student/dependent on their taxes, etc. which allowed your coverage to continue, yes? My mom did the same with me.) Going well beyond the original intent of the bill is accurate. Please point out where and what I said is inaccurate.

$80K (or less) isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a ton of money, locally at least.

Sorry, I find that to be hogwash. 80K in Seattle is a very decent living. In fact, the average HH income in the city of Seattle is $45,736 (source: US Census Bureau). I know of at least 4 families who make just slightly less than 80K and have good HC coverage. But let’s just say if a family of 4 has a HH income of 80KÃ¢â‚¬â€and let’s just assume it’s a single-income HHÃ¢â‚¬â€I would wager a good size bet that that person has a job where HC is offered. Even if isn’t offered, that HH can afford insurance. (I personally know it’s possible, I insured myself making 50K because I HAD to (and still have to) have it.) So make it 50K, I think that’s reasonable. But 80K is not.

Finally, we desperately need to do something about out HC system, I agree with that totally. But we have to do so reasonably and be fiscally sound in how we go about it achieving it, otherwise we’ll end up taxed to the hilt like Europeans are.

BTW, and not in the least, many thanks to your father for serving his country! I hope you’re proud of his service.

coffee geek October 5, 2007 (2:57 pm)

OP: Thanks for the response. It may take a day or two, but I’d like to continue this discussion…I think it’s an important one. Jumping on a plane soon… As food for thought, I’d wager one gov’t “service” you may differ your opinion on is protecting its citizens. ;)

OP October 5, 2007 (3:40 pm)

As food for thought, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d wager one govÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“serviceÃ¢â‚¬Â you may differ your opinion on is protecting its citizens.

Police, fire and emergency services aren’t offered in the private sector. ;-)

Jeff October 5, 2007 (5:26 pm)

Where do all these “fiscal conservatives” go when it comes time to discuss throwing another $200 billion to our glorious war? I figure, the kids are going to be ones paying for that mistake, we might as well throw them a little health care in the meantime.
The system is broken. Quit trying to apply supply and demand solutions to matters of life and death. The latest bill is only a band-aid solution, that’s for sure, but it sure beats the Bush proposal of just “bleeding it out”.

LP October 5, 2007 (6:12 pm)

I do not know what the right solution is. I know that it is wrong for a 7 year old girl to be on dialysis for the rest of her life because she didn’t get seen and treated for a simple urinary tract infection before it ate away her kidneys. This shouldn’t happen, but stories like this happen everyday in this country.

OP October 5, 2007 (6:40 pm)

Where do all these Ã¢â‚¬Å“fiscal conservativesÃ¢â‚¬Â go when it comes time to discuss throwing another $200 billion to our glorious war? We’re right here. Happily paying for the War Against Islamofascism.

Jan October 5, 2007 (7:00 pm)

I never did understand why people are more than willing to give money to war…that maims our young men and women, yet, when they cannot care for family once they come back injured and maimed…too damned bad…gov’t shouldn’t pay for that…that is wrong on soooooo many levels. I don’t care if you are a “neo-con” or not…it’s a sad state of affairs. This country may go bankrupt before things are settled in the mid-east, and you still think it’s just fine. We are not fighting ALL islamists…and if you think we are, I’m sorry for you…

The House October 5, 2007 (9:14 pm)

Lots of fun statements here. I’d like to address one by one:

Jan, the current plan does not punish children at all. There is merely a cap on the annual salary for the parents to take advantage of the benefits.

Todd, their are hundreds of “code monkey” jobs in Seattle and thousands around the country. If you lost your job today, you’d most liekly have a job with insurance very quickly and you’d be eligible for COBRA coverage for a short period. Whether it was done strategically or not, you possess a skill that is valuable to our current work force. In that capacity, you’re responsible.

Dis, please read the current bill. I, nor the bill propose eliminating assistance for children completely. I’d also like for you to like all of the countries that Bush supposedly has damaged our foreign relationships with? NONE! All of the countries that dislike the USA now, disliked us 8 years ago.

Kayleigh, at first it sounds like you’re describing Bill Clinton.

Although I disagree with many of President Bush’s policies, I do not think that he will go down in history as the worst president. In modern times that distinction typically goes to Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon. Read your history books and you’ll find out that James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce were way worse.

What? You don’t recognize those names? I bet most of you liberals thought Bill Clinton was the 1st President.

We’ve got to get this conversation back to WS or else the Blogger is gonna get pissed that we turn it into a political board.

I think the answer is that we should all hold hands next Sunday at the Farmers Market and sing “We Are The World”? Who’s in?

Erik October 5, 2007 (9:42 pm)

bitchin!
‘we are the children’

Jan October 5, 2007 (11:18 pm)

oh, House…you have such a way with words…even when you misunderstand… :) (I was possibly not being clear about a statement of a previous poster willing to send the contents of Ft. Knox to support our “war”)

What time at the Farmer’s Market?

I will say, though, that while J. Carter may be listed in the books as a “worst president” candidate, I have much more respect for him, than…well, let’s say , for example…Tricky Dick and “W”…

praying man-tis i October 6, 2007 (8:26 am)

OP…they aren’t fooling you with this issue, but they sure got you with the Iraq war!

This is what I hate about politics: it divides our country in the worst way.

Dis October 6, 2007 (9:46 am)

You wouldn’t know, House, if you get your news from the US mainstream press, about anti-American protests taking place throughout Europe….not just a handful of people on street corners, but hundreds of thousands, in Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, etc…Chancellor Gerhard Schroder swept to victory in Germany on anti-American platform in 2002, the overwhelming majority of the Islamist party in Turkey in 2002, when Turkey has been one of the stongest US allies for generations, and on and on. Do a bit of research. It’s not OK to be in denial on this subject.

The House October 6, 2007 (10:35 am)

All of the countries you list have been and still are allies of the United States. Just because some of the citizens of these countries protest the U.S. doesn’t mean we have broken relations with them that will take “decades” to repair. Germany and Turkey are still allies. The USA disagrees with how many leaders (ie Mexico), that doesn’t mean they are enemies of the state. I am not in denial. You’re making comments that are made with emotion, not facts.

You seem to forget that this country and many of our allies have been placed under attack by a countryless enemy (New York in 1993, Saudia Arabia in 1996, Kenya and Tanzinia in 1998, Navy Destroyer in 2000 the 9/11 attack in NY in 2001 and several other attacks in Tanzinia and Spain since then). There is no manual the President or his Cabinet can read to guide them and they pretty much were in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position.

Look back at the timeline and who was President of the United States when these attacks initially began? Why don’t you question the innefectiveness of that President (yes, Bill Clinton) and why his Cabinet allowed the issue to fester? Laying blame doesn’t solve any problems, but the current state of affairs are not just George Bush’s fault.

Do me a favor and do everything in your power not to let Hillary or Obama in office next year. Even if you have to vote for Ryan Seacrest.

Dis October 6, 2007 (1:45 pm)

Those countries are our allies, and we’re not at war, right? Where were those “allies” during the invasion of Iraq? Was it the parliament of our ally who prohibited US troops from accessing Iraq through their country? With friends like that…… Those are facts, not feelings. And yea, if I can I’ll be voting early and often for Obama. Have a nice day.