He surprises you.
Vetoing a program designed to use a tax on cigarettes to provide health care for poor children? With reasoning that prioritizes the needs of huge health care companies over helping sick children?
Does he remotely think that ANYONE is going to be fooled into thinking that his motivations come from anything other than protecting big business interests over the interests of the most helpless sections of the population?
Yes...it's a new low. And if Congress can't override this veto, they're fricking useless.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at October 5, 2007 01:03 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingBut he's taking a stand on principle! Doesn't matter what his principles are, if he's a principled man, he's okay! Because he has principles!
This and other fallacies, news at five.
Bush will continue to hit new lows as long as Congress bends over.
Pure politics on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. The Republicans want to control the growth into the middle income groups, but are willing to cut off the poor kids to force it. The Democrats wanted to force them to vote it down/veto it so they can say "Look at the evil, heartless Republicans", rather than compromise and put forth a version that deals just with the low income families.
Neither side is looking good to me at the moment. This should be an easy bill to pass.
Pure politics on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. The Republicans want to control the growth into the middle income groups, but are willing to cut off the poor kids to force it. The Democrats wanted to force them to vote it down/veto it so they can say "Look at the evil, heartless Republicans", rather than compromise and put forth a version that deals just with the low income families.
Neither side is looking good to me at the moment. This should be an easy bill to pass.
Darwin never applied his principles to Congress. Considering Congress has the shape-shifting ability of an amoeba, sadly, it's not likely they'll grow a spine any time soon.
The fact that the (current) schip program might be suspended because of this is ridiculous. That said the democrats are nowhere near innocent on this one. They waited until the program was days away from expiring to present anything to the president. The president asked (on a nationally televised press conference) for a clean extension of the current program, and offered a compromise version with a $5 billion dollar increase. They passed a version that has a $35 billion dollar increase (some accounts say $60 billion over 5 years), and with redefinitions of “child” and “poor”. Child is now anyone 25 and under, and poor is $82,600 a year and under. Does that seem resonable?
This whole thing is just silly and would have been avoided if a straight reauthorization of the current program was passed.
John said what I was going to say.
When did 82k a year become poor? When did a 25yo become a child? Politics from one side and the other.
Makes a good soundbite to say that Bush vetoed the Chips program, but the facts say a little different.
I concur with Jeff. When you read what Peter posted you want to say, "Bad Bad Bushie". But if you step back and look at it, its just an expansion of publicly paid health care into an income bracket where you really have to ask if they need it or want it.
Flat 82k/year definition? Somehow I doubt that. Have you read this in the text of the bill, or in a summary of the bill by a newspaper columnist/blogger? I don't have time now or I'd go searching for it.
The current definitions are something like 10k without children, and increasing a particular amount for every child the family has. Increasing each number makes sense to me, because it's probably time to increase them. Changing it to a flat rate for everyone regardless of the number of children doesn't make sense to me.
82k sounds high...but what if the family has 10 children?
And I also somehow doubt that all 25 yos get defined as a child. I suspect only those who are 'dependents' are. You know, those who are living at home with parents and not filing their own tax return.
So the people complaining all over the web about the 25 yo earning 82k himself/herself and being called a poor child is ridiculous. They wouldn't be considered a dependent of their parents.
There's a current limit on age now. I don't know what it is. 21? 23? Raising it to 25 with the average age at marriage going up as it is doesn't sound out of line to me.
Now...if the text of the bill actually does say that all 25 yos are considered children, whether or not they are dependents. And if combined with this it really does say anyone making 82k a year is poor, regardless of the number of children. If both of these things are true...then I will agree that the Congressional Democrats are smoking weed.
But I am willing to lay a large amount of money down on the table and bet that it ISN'T true. And that those who are saying it is are either grossly misinformed, or lying.
Off to search for the text as I have a couple minutes now.
John,
Your point about the $82,600 sounding high made me go and look into it. First as to where I heard $82,600 from it was the president, but I should have looked more into it anyway.
Here is how it stands right now; the bill makes anyone at 300% of the poverty level (or lower)eligible. That would currently be $60,000 for a family of four, however New York state asked that number to be moveb to 400%, ($82,600) and all that needs for that to happen under the bill is for the department of health and human services to say ok, not a new bill, so the $82,600 is a little suspect, but not if the democrats take the white house and thus take over HHS.
Now that $60,000 a year for a family of four is, in my opinion both high and low. How can that be you might ask? Well, the bill and most bills for that matter do not take into account geographical factors. $60,000 a year in NYC is far less then $60,000 a year in rural Alabama.
As for the hypothetical family of 10 children you mention, I would be torn on that. I wouldn’t want the children to suffer for acts of the parents. On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?
Well, as usual, this is just more of Bush lying. Yeah, I said it. And I'm not alone. He's ticked off his fellow Republicans so much that the Democrats didn't even have to reply to his "explanation" that included the $83,000 figure.
But supporters of the bill immediately seized on that claim and said it was not true. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a loyal supporter of the Bush White House, responded angrily to the president during a Capitol Hill news conference.
"Are families of four making $83,000 going to get benefit(s) under this? Not unless the administration agrees to it. This bill does not call for that high level of expenditure," Hatch said.
Hatch explained that the only way such families would get SCHIP coverage would be if their states petitioned the administration for a waiver — just like under the current program. When New York, made such a petition, the Bush administration turned it down.
The new law would be the same, Hatch said, and even if the White House were willing to grant waivers, such families would make up just a tiny percentage of those eligible.
"To call this a step toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care is just political in my view," he said. "This is a block grant. States have tremendous power over this bill — not total power, but power."
Hatch said he found the veto difficult to understand, and senior Republican Sen. Charles Grassley said the same thing.
"Every effort was made to bring the administration into the process, but it decided to veto the bill, I think, before it was even written. From their position, it was either my way or the highway. Well, that's not how the legislative process works," the Iowa senator said.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14980830
What? You don't like the liberal NPR? How about the McClatchy news service?
President Bush claims that the bipartisan bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program "would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes up to $83,000 a year."
That's not true.
The bill maintains current law. It limits the program to children from families with incomes up to twice the federal poverty level — now $20,650 for a family of four, for a program limit of $41,300 — or to 50 percentage points above a state's Medicaid eligibility threshold, which varies state to state.
States that want to increase eligibility beyond those limits would require approval from Bush's Health and Human Services Department, just as they must win waivers now. The HHS recently denied a request by New York to increase its income threshold to four times the poverty level — the $82,600 figure that Republican opponents of the bill are using.
Under current law, nineteen states have won waivers from these income limits. The biggest was granted to New Jersey, which upped its income limit to 350 percent of the federal poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four in 2007. The expanded SCHIP program retains the waiver option under federal discretion; it doesn't change it.
The president also claims that the proposal would cause some families to drop private coverage and enroll their children in the cheaper SCHIP program.
That's true.
Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said that was inevitable to some degree when any government program expanded. The CBO estimates that the legislation would attract 5.8 million new enrollees by 2012. Of them, 3.8 million would be uninsured and eligible under current requirements, and 2 million probably would have had private coverage before the expansion.
That's a rate of about 1 in 3 new enrollees dropping private insurance. "We don't see very many other policy options that would reduce the number of uninsured children by the same amount without creating more" dropouts from private insurance, Orszag said.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/20169.html
What do you know, he was actually right about one thing.
Take the time and do some reading instead of just listening to the President's sound bites. At least, that's what I learned before the Iraq War started.
the 82K is a fallacy kids. It was something that was suggested ONCE by the governor of New York having to do with the poverty line in Manhattan. The Feds (and the bill) have already said no to this. HOWEVER since it has been said then it will be used to prove how useless the program is.
25 is the age at which most adults come off their parents health insurance even in they are in school at the time. That is were that number got plucked out of the air. Again nothing to do with the actual bill's wording but something someone MIGHT try in the future.
This bill provided money for children for preventative health care. Things that could be done at a much lower rate to the tax payer than all the emergency room visits that the tax payers will now be paying for. Controlling some poor kid's asthma by doctor's visits and some medications is a hella of a lot cheaper than taking the kid to the emergency room because the kid can't breath and there is no insurance but the emergency room has GOT to take them under the law.
Here's the actual text of the bill for those who wish to peruse.
To me it seems it says that states that propose to provide funds to families higher than 300% of the poverty line will get limited federal matching funds. Suggesting that there is some flexibility by state on how high to go. But 300% is specifically mentioned in the text of the bill. But poverty is not being redefined. So those who are saying that it says 82k is poor, aren't semantically correct. It's 300% of poor.
I couldn't find any reference to age, but there's a lot of text to read, so I read just the summary.
"(Sec. 110) Places a limitation on the matching rate for states that propose to cover children with effective family income exceeding 300% of the federal poverty line."
This is in the Summary of the bill at the link above, but when you go to the full text of the final bill, Section 110 is missing. Goes straight from 109 to 111. So it wasn't in the final bill.
As for the hypothetical family of 10 children you mention, I would be torn on that. I wouldn’t want the children to suffer for acts of the parents. On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?
1) People who aren't in 'their right minds' or those who are of below average intelligence.
2) People who don't believe in, or know about using effective birth control. (The latter not necessarily being synonymous with #1)
Pure politics on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. The Republicans want to control the growth into the middle income groups, but are willing to cut off the poor kids to force it. The Democrats wanted to force them to vote it down/veto it so they can say "Look at the evil, heartless Republicans", rather than compromise and put forth a version that deals just with the low income families.
Neither side is looking good to me at the moment. This should be an easy bill to pass.
Maybe raising the income qualification was the only way to get any republican support, so the bill wouldn't be seen as a giveaway to minorities.
Why would they want to increase taxes on cigs? It would get to a point where smokers can't afford to pay for their habit and then you lost all the money you were getting from them to begin with.
This bill requires states to have an approved program, and based on that program, they get variable Federal assistance. The changes being made don't raise the bar, but it does make provisions for the states to do so. If they do, there's an eventual cap as to the amount of Matching Federal share they can get. I gather that it's also up to the states to define what constitutes a "child." It's been a while since I turned 18, but I know I could not afford health insurance on my own until I got my first real professional job at the age of 26. Until then, I had very, very basic coverage. Thankfully, I didn't need medical assistance. I don't know what I'd have done if I had.
As for whether $82K is "poor" or not, that's not the point of this bill. It's not help the poor...that's what Medicaid is for. This program is to cover those that make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but might not be able to afford good private health insurance. My family has a single income...mine...at just over $90K gross. We have a small 2 BR condo, a new van to cart the kids around in, and I drive a 17 year old Honda that we got cheap from a family member to work. We have a little credit card debt, but some big educational loans used to pay for law school. We have good insurance though work. After paying off all our utilities, car payment, mortgage, putting away a portion for property taxes, savings for the kids, and our normal savings, there's just enough for us to have a modest entertainment budget. Just barely. A faimly of 4, making just $8K less than us, will have to totally forgoe something that's considered essential to healthy living...savings, a good, safe car (van with that size family), education savings. From statistics available today, it would seem that a large number of those families sacrifice health insurance.
SCHIPS helps them out. It allows them to purchase a lower level of coverage and lends a hand with the rest. There's also significan evidence that families that don't get CHIPS assistance end up in the ER more often. This simply transfers the cost of providing these families with health care at a higher rate than the SCHIPS program costs. That $30 billion increase may very well reflect a net decrease in overall spending on healthcare.
If congress doesn't get this overturned, this will be the cause of the next round of GOP defeats to come.
"Why would they want to increase taxes on cigs? It would get to a point where smokers can't afford to pay for their habit and then you lost all the money you were getting from them to begin with."
For one, smokers add to health care costs. Don't argue this one with me...my family just lost a 60-year old grandmother to lung cancer who never smoked a day in her life, but worked around people that did, and has a grandfather with lung cancer who also never smoked, but his wife smoked for years.
Second, smokers have proven to be relatively price inelastic consumers. That means that their purchase habits basically don't react to price increases.
So, this tax provides a relatively stable supply of funds for at least the next 10-30 years, until the current crop of smokers start to quit/pass away. If new generations of consumers don't replace them, it's sort of a win/win. Funds will go down, but so will overall healthcare costs, because there are fewer smokers contributing to healthcare needs.
I loved Trent Lott's rationalization of the veto. If cigarettes are taxed even more, he argued, people will be less likely to smoke, and the money won't come in to help people who develop illnesses from smoking. Does the word "Duh" even appear in this guy's dictionary?
"As for the hypothetical family of 10 children you mention, I would be torn on that. I wouldn’t want the children to suffer for acts of the parents. On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?"
-------
"1) People who aren't in 'their right minds' or those who are of below average intelligence.
2) People who don't believe in, or know about using effective birth control. (The latter not necessarily being synonymous with #1)"
Why should we be paying for someone else's bad decisions? Procreation is not a decision to be taken lighty. If you can't afford to raise a child, don't spawn one - the world will go on just fine if you don't.
"Why should we be paying for someone else's bad decisions? Procreation is not a decision to be taken lighty. If you can't afford to raise a child, don't spawn one - the world will go on just fine if you don't."
That would be fine if all you were doing were punishing the parents. But more often than not, the kids do suffer.
Yes, that's true. That is why sterilization needs to become something to consider.
Nothing about this decision should be surprising considering what a consistently sleazy weasel Bush has been. His remark the other day about how everyone has access to healthcare because they can go to the emergency room tells what an elitist f@#& he is and how little regard he has for people not in his (and his backers) economic strata.
I loved Trent Lott's rationalization of the veto. If cigarettes are taxed even more, he argued, people will be less likely to smoke, and the money won't come in to help people who develop illnesses from smoking. Does the word "Duh" even appear in this guy's dictionary?
I loved Jon Stewart's riposte: Then we'll get the poor kids hooked on smoking so then that way they'll be paying for their own health care.
Everytime you think Bush can't hit a new low...
He surprises you.
Bush's career path has been one of setting lower and lower expectations to meet. And just think: We have a full year of us watching him lowering the bar even further!
Posted by campchaos
Darwin never applied his principles to Congress. Considering Congress has the shape-shifting ability of an amoeba, sadly, it's not likely they'll grow a spine any time soon.
Twain originally said it about school boards, but it fits well in other places*, so I'll paraphrase:
God made an idiot for practice. Then He made a Congress."* In fact, checking to find exactly what Sour Sam *did* originally say, i just found a Canadian blogger paraphrasing it to attack the Dreaded Canadian Bush-Bashing Liberal Media.
Posted by Tom Saltz at October 5, 2007 09:46 AM
Why would they want to increase taxes on cigs? It would get to a point where smokers can't afford to pay for their habit and then you lost all the money you were getting from them to begin with.
I find it difficult to believe that raising taxes on something that as of Oct 1, here in Minnesota, is illegal to do in public to fund this bill is completely ludicrous and when that money starts to fall short who will foot the bill?
Government run health care may not be ideal, but it's certainly better than the corporate run health care we currently have.
Screw Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats, their apologists and their cheerleaders. I still say "us" sometimes when referencing the Democrats, but I registered myself as an independent some time ago now. Both parties are making me sick at this point and games like this are a perfect example of why.
I find it difficult to believe that raising taxes on something that as of Oct 1, here in Minnesota, is illegal to do in public to fund this bill is completely ludicrous and when that money starts to fall short who will foot the bill?
Even if, for the sake of arguement, we assume that not one red cent will be collected in cigarette taxes to pay for this, I still think it's worth it. The money goes into preventative care that will save much larger amounts that would be spent on emergency room visits. People without health insurance are unlikely to be able to pay for that, either. Therefore, the taxpayers would end up footing the bill, regardless. It's just smaller on this end.
At this point, we have the Dems trying to make the Republicans look bad, and the President determined to use up every last drop of his political capital before leaving office. So it REALLY sucks to be a Republican lawmaker, because Bush is on the political equivalent of a kamikaze run...he doesn't want to leave office popular, he wants to leave office having forced through as much stuff of his and blocked as much stuff NOT his as possible. Popularity is useless currency when you can't run for a third term, after all, and Cheney's not running either, so Bush doesn't have to worry about keeping his veep looking good.
Meanwhile, the Democrats probably know that it's pointless to do stuff that makes Bush look bad at this time, but hope for as many Republican congresscritters to get caught in the splash as possible. Every time a Senator votes not to end debate or every time a Representative votes to not override a veto out of party loyalty, they hand their next election opponent another bullet for the gun. Sure, it can backfire in some cases, if the Republicans can spin it so that it's the Dems' fault for putting up an unpassable bill, but SCHIP's not going to be one of those cases, I'm thinking. "Think of the children" rallies people a LOT better than "socialized medicine booga booga" these days.
Hmmmm. Bush doesn't really care about the poor children or he would have signed the bill with a written statement that it does not apply to any middle class families.
82,000$ may NOT be a lot, depending on where you are. 82K in upstate New York is a far cry from Long Island, Manhattan, San Fran, or suburban CT. Our household makes more than that, and at $3 a pop for school lunches, times four kids, is $60 a week, or $240 a month, which is ridiculous, and we don't qualify for reduced price (there's no sliding scale, it's either $3 or 40 cents). Therefore, my kids don't get them. Add in gas at $2.80 a gallon, you're adding another 400-500$ a month in travel costs. Add in a 20% surcharge on groceries for living in a "high income" area (I'm not kidding, it really works this way. High welfare cities have cheaper corporate prices); there goes another $700 a month - not counting eating out. We pay $350 a month in Health Insurance. Add in a moderate home with $500 a month just in taxes, and you can see how 82,000 flies out the window before you even know you made it. I'm up to $2,000 a month already without talking about rent or mortgage, car payments, utilities, Holidays, savings, or kids' clothes. Now imagine if you ever wanted to see a movie (6 people x $9 x soda x popcorn = $115 for ONE movie) or take a vacation... If you have no insurance, one, just ONE (Lamictal) of my kid's medications is $600 (six hundred) a prescription. Imagine if every doctor visit had a $150 co-pay.
Sadly, what seemed a huge fortune 20 years ago buys you squat in the 21st century.
May the ghosts of children dying from lack of health care haunt bush (I won't capitalize that) and his cronies to their graves.
Posted by: John at October 5, 2007 09:21 AM
As for the hypothetical family of 10 children you mention, I would be torn on that. I wouldn’t want the children to suffer for acts of the parents. On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?
1) People who aren't in 'their right minds' or those who are of below average intelligence.
2) People who don't believe in, or know about using effective birth control. (The latter not necessarily being synonymous with #1)
John, you're forgetting those of us who foster and adopt - that's how I'm up to 5. If more people took in one extra, the rest of us wouldn't have to take in so many.
Why should we be paying for someone else's bad decisions? Procreation is not a decision to be taken lighty.
I look forward to hearing you advocate cutting funding to the Iraq occupation in proportion to the increased cost and stupidity involved.
It's times like these I'm proud to be Canadian.
Bush looks after his friends at Big Tobacco and Big Medicine and somehow thinks a ham-fisted speech about the 'Socialized Medicine' Boogeyman will cover his tracks. A society should be about people looking after people, and not about letting big business decide the fates of others.
I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a creeping attempt to institute a national health care program, overseen and run by the same people who 10 or so years ago, were writing checks like money was water. Of course water is getting scarce here in Georgia. Canada and England are perfect examples of why we don't need Nationalized healthcare. 15-20 years ago, my parents were still able to barter services for medical care...after that became a no-no (made so by the government that now seeks to control the same billion dollar industry, prices went up, insurence became a must, and nobidy thinks about what the TRUE cost of medical care is...But say POOR peopel , especially kids, don't have insurence coverage, and "OH NO! Bush is evil!!!" No blame on the idiots who brought millions of kids into the world with out any means to support or care for them. No, they's just poor. They's can't help it. Stick 'em back on the gov't plantation. It ain't their fault they don't know no better!
Canada and England are perfect examples of why we don't need Nationalized healthcare....
Stick 'em back on the gov't plantation.
I didn't realize Canada and England separated children from their parents and sold them as commodities. It's a wonder some brave successor to Rosa Parks like you hasn't spoken up before.
"I look forward to hearing you advocate cutting funding to the Iraq occupation in proportion to the increased cost and stupidity involved."
I'm sure the irony of Bush having no trouble funding endeavors to take lives rather than save them has escaped someone as irony-free as you.
Bush doesn't care about poor children. The fact that he was willing to send them in poorly equipped indicates he doesn't care about our soldiers. But don't worry: If it's any consolation, while you're busy coming up with every knee-jerk defense of him you can, consider that he very likely doesn't give a damn about you, either.
Done with you now.
PAD
Why should we be paying for someone else's bad decisions? Procreation is not a decision to be taken lighty.I look forward to hearing you advocate cutting funding to the Iraq occupation in proportion to the increased cost and stupidity involved.
I'm sure the irony of Bush having no trouble funding endeavors to take lives rather than save them has escaped someone as irony-free as you.
Bush doesn't care about poor children. The fact that he was willing to send them in poorly equipped indicates he doesn't care about our soldiers. But don't worry: If it's any consolation, while you're busy coming up with every knee-jerk defense of him you can, consider that he very likely doesn't give a damn about you, either.
I implied no defense of Bush, and you are literally inferring the cited "increased cost and stupidity" on the part of the Iraq occupation as a defense of him for reasons only you know.
Done with you now.
Some day you may go so far as to Start™ at which point I'm sure I'll learn what real trouble is.
"No blame on the idiots who brought millions of kids into the world with out any means to support or care for them."
I'm going to break a rule I've given myself, that being when a post really really pisses me off to wait for a while before responding. You might want to learn some of the situations before writing checks with your mouth that not just your butt but the rest of your damn body can't cash. See, my son is on the Pennsylvania CHIP program. When my wife got pregnant, we were pulling in sixty grand a year. By the time our son was born, due to downsizing at both our companies, we were at half that. That was six years ago. We've just now topped forty grand a year, and neither of our jobs offers benefits for children. Hell, her job doesn't even cover her. Throw into the mix that I spent two years taking care of dying parents and your attitude really, really pisses me off. I'm sure the sun is brightly shining on your lawn that's green because it's made of hundred dollar bills, but you know what? Shit happens to real people and real people end up with big problems. I'm so angry right now I won't even begin to address your either horrendous spelling or horrendous typing.
Sorry about the rant, everybody. Attitudes like that just really get my Irish up.
I tend to see this as another attempt to slip government control of the health care system under the door. Hillary care by increments as it were. And under the expanded system, ADULTS between 18 and 25 would also be eligible for this program. Adults should be able to decide for themselves about their health care needs, not the government.
And Peter, we agree on one thing. Congress IS fricken useless no matter which side of the political coin is in temporary control. We've reached that point in our country's history where the sheeple have learned to vote themselves "bread and circuses". And I have very little faith in them or the executive branch. The nice thing about the extremely low approval ratings for Congress and the President is that it indicates a basic distrust of government by the sheeple. Maybe things are as they should be in that reguard.
To Bobb Alfred: Note, there are certain benefits to people dying early (no, I'm not making fun of anyone who has died an untimely death). For one, the government doesn't have to pay out socialist security payments when they reach retirement age...a total win for the government. Secondly, all that money paid into Medicare is gone too since they made it to the finishing line too early to collect anything. The person's own health care provider took it in the shorts, not the government. They win again. And if you look at it from the government's point of view, living longer costs them waaaay more because of the last two subjects. You actually get some of your retirement money back, ditto with Medicare. This is also why the government doesn't give anyone full SS benefits at age 65 anymore. You'll get too much of your money back!
C. Schwehr: With all due dis-respect....fuck off. I don't know how much more crystal I can make this than I did in my last post...my family just lost a member...60 years young...we buried her on Thursday.
You can take all that money the government saved by the "untimely death" and shove it up your unsympathetic ass. I'll be sure to pass on to my sister-in-law, niece, and nephew that they can all stop crying because you see some good in the death of their beloved Nana.
Your lack of humanity appalls and disgusts me.
Bobb, you and your family have my sympathies and condolences. Just wish I could offer something more.
> Hillary care by increments as it were.
Given the money she receives from the health care industry to fund her campaign, don't hold your breath on this ever happening if she makes it into the White House again.
"Hillary care"
"sheeple"
"socialist security"
Does this kind of political rhetoric actually work? Does it contribute something to serious political discussion? Wouldn't it be simpler to say: "hey, I'm a libertarian, these are my positions, let's talk about it"?
You can argue the politics side all you want, but it comes down to morality: why is a child in foster care (or any situation where there is no or inadequate health coverage) not entitled to basic healthcare for a minimal quality of life? Medicaid is not the answer, people. Medicaid doesn't cover squat. Find a dentist that takes it. There was a case last year in MD where a child DIED because a tooth became infected, no dentist would take state aid, and the infection went to his brain. If your child needs to be put under anesthesia to do dental work, the anesthesia is not covered ($800 cash only). No psychiatrist (required for any behavior-modifying drug) will take State Aid. Insurances will not cover helmets for children whose seizures cause them to smash their heads. Insurance does not cover braces or special shoes ($400+ each time they're outgrown. A toddler can bankrupt you) so that the child can walk. Why does a nice clean kid living in a decent home have to sit for 6 hours or more at a Welfare clinic (or ER) with all kinds of crazy scum when ill or in pain, because it's the only place they're allowed to go under their insurance plan?
When did basic DIGNITY for fellow man require an act of Congress?
"When did basic DIGNITY for fellow man require an act of Congress?"
Because the question: whose responsibility it is to take care of the dignity, is a political question. The most extreme socialist position is that it is completely the responsibility of society (i.e. taxpayers) and its government; the most extreme libertarian position is that it is completely not the responsibilty of the government but rather a matter of choice for private individuals and organizations (like churches) to provide rgis dignity.. Mosdt people are somewhere in between.
And under the expanded system, ADULTS between 18 and 25 would also be eligible for this program. Adults should be able to decide for themselves about their health care needs, not the government.
Americans already accept socialist services. Why is it ok for the government to intervene in crimes and fires endangering 18 to 25 year olds -- or anyone -- but not health care?
"Sorry about the rant, everybody. Attitudes like that just really get my Irish up."
Hey, Sean, Listen up...My comments were not about people who have the world come crashing down on them and everythimg falls apart. As a matter of fact, my family of four and I are FINALLY seeing the light at the end of a VERY dark tunell. I was making good, not great money, and then I did some really stupid stuff that resulted in me loosing my $60K a year job, going to federal prison for 5 months, and being placed on probation for 3 years. THIS IS ALL MY FAULT, before you attempt to point that out. And that also makes my point. I lost my financial means to support my family, so I got a job scrubbing toilets at McD's. It sucked. But it came with health insurance. My wife, who had gone back to college to get her BA went back to work. The bad decisions I made forced us to make some other, more tough decisions. We were extremely lucky that no one in our family needed our help or care during all of this, and I am sorry that you lost family members during already dark times for your family. Again, my point is more to the people who continue to produce children partly because they know there is a government safty net beneath them. What is the solution, I don't know, but throwing good money after bad has yet to work. Please put your Irish back down. Oh, and sorry about the typing and spelling. Two things are happening. 1. My 5 yearold is attached to my lap whenever I am on the computer, and 2. I gradated form Georgia schools, and I do beleive our schools ranked 49 in the nation the year I graduated,dispite the fact that billions of dollars was thrown at educating us, so the fact that I am able to type at all is, indeed, a true miricle. I will, however, spellcheck for your benefit.
"I didn't realize Canada and England separated children from their parents and sold them as commodities. It's a wonder some brave successor to Rosa Parks like you hasn't spoken up before."
And to you, Mike. I see every day the way the government has subjagated whole families by providing free goods and services. Now before you light into me with your rightious indignation, I am for limited time help for people who are in need, bu a life time at the government teat is too much. I was on free lunch at school because my mther couldn't afford to send in the money for our food. I was on a program that provided juice, milk and cereal to our home. When our son was born, I was in the Navy, and didn't make much money, so my family went on WIC for a couple of months. I am not insensitive to the need for help, but at some point, people need to stand on their own two feet. If you have read the rest of my post, then you know what my family and I have been through in the past 2 years. People can bounce back from problems. My point about England and Canada was that their nationalized healthcare programs DON'T WORK!!! People die wating for services. Do you want that here? It all happens in little baby steps, then one day you end up with a government that dictats when you can water your lawn, when you can drive in certain lanes of traffic, an can send you to jail if your kid is late to school too many days. We are half way there now. If want all of that and more....
As for the Rosa Parks comment, what the hell? I', not even sure how to respond to that, so you get to be the witty, cleaver one today.
Sean, I apologize. I did spell check, but I did not post the corrected version. Excuse could follow, but what would te point be, really. I'll do better next time...
"gradated form Georgia schools, and I do beleive our schools ranked 49 in the nation the year I graduated,dispite the fact that billions of dollars was thrown at educating us"
Since I assume your parents were not rich enough to pay for private education for you, who would have paid for your education if the government didn't? Do you think they would have done a better job educating you? \or do you think the government should have spent less educating you? What would have happened to you had you been less educated?
"My point about England and Canada was that their nationalized healthcare programs DON'T WORK!!! People die wating for services."
How does the British and Canadian medical systems compare with the American system?
"can send you to jail if your kid is late to school too many days."
Who should be responsible for protecting abused or neglected kids if the government will not?
"My point about England and Canada was that their nationalized healthcare programs DON'T WORK!!! People die wating for services."
Um... could you give me specific examples of this? I live in Canada, am a politician in Ontario (part of my job is overseeing the local hospitals) and to my experience no one has died waiting for services.
Many of the complaints we have stem from the fact that we triage in the hospitals (your broken arm has to wait for the heart-attack victim) and that we don't have enough family doctors, mainly because they move to the more financially lucrative U.S. market where they can charge what they want. There is a waiting list for elective surgery, but anything life-threatening is taken care of before it becomes too serious. In my own family, my mother-in-law was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and had a tumor removed within a month of diagnosis.
Of course we have people grousing about our health care system, but who doesn't complain about anything when given the opportunity? I once overheard a woman argue with a nurse at an ER over the fact that someone with 'only' a heart murmur got in ahead of her strained calf muscle.
Americans seem to be cowed by fears of 'Socialized Medicine', because time and again you've been told that it's bad for your government to have a say in your health. But consider this: doesn't your government already have a say in your health by forcing you into a system where financial concerns trump quality of life?
I would agree that our national healthcare is not perfect but no one gets turned away, no one dies, because some big business jockey has decided that what was needed was not covered in some plan. I refute the belief that "people die wating for services". It is simply not true.
"I would agree that our national healthcare is not perfect but no one gets turned away, no one dies, because some big business jockey has decided that what was needed was not covered in some plan. I refute the belief that "people die wating for services". It is simply not true."
I was up in Canada visiting a retailer when his young son, who had been plagued by health issues, had to be rushed to the hospital for a recurrence of one of his conditions. As we waited to hear from the doctors who were working on the boy, the retailer told me that he was so grateful for the fact that the government covered medical costs. That if that were not the case, he would long ago have been driven into bankruptcy.
PAD
That if that were not the case, he would long ago have been driven into bankruptcy.
And let us all remember that when Bush and the GOP were reelected in 2004, the very first bill of significance they passed was one dealing with the [sarcasm] very pressing issue [/sarcasm] of bankruptcy reform, making it much harder for John Q. Citizen to declare Chapter 11 if they're financially fucked. The ostensible reason was to prevent the supposedly huge amount of dishonest borrowers from skipping out of their debts despite the fact that the vast majority of people who declare bankruptcy do so because of . . .
. . . wait for it . . .
. . . healthcare and medical costs/debts.
Sasha,
I'm not sure that the "vast majority" of people who declare bankruptcy do so because of the crushing debt that can come about due to medical problems. I know that it is the largest single cause (plurality), but I don't think it outstrips all other causes combined (majority).
Regardless, your point is still valid. It is another piece of hypocracy on the part of the current Adminstration. Especially since I've read that many people who file for bankruptcy typically dig themselves deeper into debt trying to do right by their creditors and attempting to keep from filing bankruptcy until they have no other choice.
"Um... could you give me specific examples of this? I live in Canada, am a politician in Ontario (part of my job is overseeing the local hospitals) and to my experience no one has died waiting for services. "
There have been a few problems with your system (like the same can't be said of ours) that critics of health care reforms like to single out and play up way out of proportion. The line about people regularly standing in line and dieing while waiting for life saving medical procedures is hugely popular amongst the talk radio set.
The typical story is told as to how there are hundreds, nay, thousands of people in Canada who are, each year, made to wait months and years for vital health services. England's system is even worse then Canada's by the way. Regular people who have the money to do so, and just tons of Canadian doctors who all know that the American system is sooo much better, flock South of the boarder for care rather then waiting for care that will come late or, gasp, even too
Funny thing is, I know a few Canadians and I know quite a few people from England (including several arch conservatives) and Scotland and they rarely see our system as better. One girl I know came over a few years ago and was appalled at the nature of our system when it came to a mutual friend's discussions of the bills and ordeals involved in the birth of her first child. My English friend then discussed the care, treatment and attention she received for the birth of her son in England and found the U.S.'s system to be less then fantastic in comparison. Hell, the whole thing with the bills was almost enough to make me want to move there this last summer. I'm still crawling out of that pit and I have insurance.
Most of the stories I hear from people actually living in Canada or Great Britain are a far cry from people desperate for an American style system or of people waiting so long for simple procedures that things spiral out of control until greater levels of medical treatment are required to save their life if they even get that before dieing while waiting in the system. But, turn on talk radio and you get lots of "experts" taking on the subject as well as the occasional caller (who is either missing an accent all together or doing such a bad one that it make the ones used in The Boondock Saints sound authentic) telling tales of near misses with death and the life saving moves of heading South to get the expert and available treatment so lacking in Canada.
And then 20 million dittoits go out and parrot every word of it.
Huh, lost words and goofed the italics. the correct post was....
_____________________________________________________________________
"Um... could you give me specific examples of this? I live in Canada, am a politician in Ontario (part of my job is overseeing the local hospitals) and to my experience no one has died waiting for services."
There have been a few problems with your system (like the same can't be said of ours) that critics of health care reforms like to single out and play up way out of proportion. The line about people regularly standing in line and dieing while waiting for life saving medical procedures is hugely popular amongst the talk radio set.
The typical story is told as to how there are hundreds, nay, thousands of people in Canada who are, each year, made to wait months and years for vital health services. England's system is even worse then Canada's by the way. Regular people who have the money to do so, and just tons of Canadian doctors who all know that the American system is sooo much better, flock South of the boarder for care rather then waiting for care that will come late or, gasp, even too late.
Funny thing is, I know a few Canadians and I know quite a few people from England (including several arch conservatives) and Scotland and they rarely see our system as better. One girl I know came over a few years ago and was appalled at the nature of our system when it came to a mutual friend's discussions of the bills and ordeals involved in the birth of her first child. My English friend then discussed the care, treatment and attention she received for the birth of her son in England and found the U.S.'s system to be less then fantastic in comparison. Hell, the whole thing with the bills was almost enough to make me want to move there this last summer. I'm still crawling out of that pit and I have insurance.
Most of the stories I hear from people actually living in Canada or Great Britain are a far cry from people desperate for an American style system or of people waiting so long for simple procedures that things spiral out of control until greater levels of medical treatment are required to save their life if they even get that before dieing while waiting in the system. But, turn on talk radio and you get lots of "experts" taking on the subject as well as the occasional caller (who is either missing an accent all together or doing such a bad one that it make the ones used in The Boondock Saints sound authentic) telling tales of near misses with death and the life saving moves of heading South to get the expert and available treatment so lacking in Canada.
And then 20 million dittoits go out and parrot every word of it.
Canada and England are perfect examples of why we don't need Nationalized healthcare....
Stick 'em back on the gov't plantation.
I didn't realize Canada and England separated children from their parents and sold them as commodities. It's a wonder some brave successor to Rosa Parks like you hasn't spoken up before.I was on free lunch at school because my mther couldn't afford to send in the money for our food. I was on a program that provided juice, milk and cereal to our home. When our son was born, I was in the Navy, and didn't make much money, so my family went on WIC for a couple of months. I am not insensitive to the need for help, but at some point, people need to stand on their own two feet. If you have read the rest of my post, then you know what my family and I have been through in the past 2 years. People can bounce back from problems.
You compared providing socialized healthcare to slavery. I provided what is perhaps the defining qualification for slavery -- the privilege to trade human beings. Your obvious options are to validate your analogy by demonstrating how the qualification for slavery was fulfilled or retreat from your analogy.
We currently live under a system where insurance companies accept increased profits by refusing to do what they took their money for. Bouncing back's got nothing to do with it.
As for the Rosa Parks comment, what the hell?
As far as your analogy of socialized medicine to civil rights violations go, there doesn't seem to be a place for comparing the challenge against socialized medicine to any civil rights dissent, which you've confirmed by questioning the relevance of a historical instance of civil rights dissent to your analogy.
Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times. "For the children" may sound nice, but it isn't much of an argument. Not to mention that a government that has the power to heal you also has the power to do the opposite.
Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times.
Unless you waive the privilege of ever dialing 911, you accept a socialized service. Logically and empirically.
Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times.
That's why the US is 38th in the world in life expectancy, behind Canada, the UK, and most of western Europe? And why it's in a similar position regarding infant mortality? The actual empirical facts don't logically connect to your position.
For all the talk about how "socialized medicine" doesn't work, nearly every industrialized nation has some kind of national healthcare system except the US. And, despite all the horror stories conservatives toss around about waiting lists, the majority of people in those countries prefer it to what we have.
And the numbers bear it out. We pay a higher precentage of our GNP on health care than any other nation and yet we're near the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of life expectency.
Our current system of employer provided health care is broken. It's one of the main reasons that companies complain that US labor is too expensive. Hell, companies like GM are doing everything they can to get out of paying for the health care of their retirees, never mind that they signed the contracts 40 years ago when things were good for the US auto industry.
Waiting lists? Inefficiencies? Rationing of care? We've already got those here. It's all just hidden under layers of financial incentives from the insurance companies to keep costs down.
I had to go to the ER a few years ago for a back injury and it took hours to be seen and it wasn't even at a busy metropolitan hospital. It was a small rural community late at night (non-peak hours). But they made sure all my insurance forms were filled out before a doctor even said hello.
But no, let's argue about whether 82k is "poor" in Alabama, even though the elgibility limit in AL is actually about half that for a family of four. Nothing like making up facts as we go along.
Bush was here in Pennsylvania last week to justify his veto. Here's how it went:
"I really appreciate the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce for giving me an opportunity to explain why I have made some of the decisions I have made. My job is a decision-making job. And as a result, I make a lot of decisions. And it's important for me to have an opportunity to speak to you and others who would be listening about the basis on which I have made decisions, to explain the philosophy behind some of the decisions I have made."
Yep, he's the decider.
Bobb, my condolences to your family
"Not to mention that a government that has the power to heal you also has the power to do the opposite."
So, the private doctor under the system we have now has the power to do the opposite. Just about anyone or anything that can be helpful or beneficial in any situation has the power to do the opposite. So, was that point actually meant to be something other then extra words at the end of your post or had you just not thought it through all that well before posting?
Doug Atkinson: That's why the US is 38th in the world in life expectancy, behind Canada, the UK, and most of western Europe?
Luigi Novi: How do you know that life expectancy is tied so closely to whether a nation has socialized medicine? Have you excluded all other societal factors?
Here It Is.
The Answer To All The Health Care Problems.
If you CAN NOT afford to have a kid, THEN DO NOT have a kid!!!!
Dave, you're absolutely right. Every parent should make sure they save up enough money to pay for several years of chemo therapy in the event that their kid gets cancer before they even think of having children.
Why didn't anyone else think of that?
Dave W.,
You're an idiot and here's why.
You can afford to have a kid, two kids or three kids at any given time in your life. Thing is, life tends to be a little fickle. Sean already pointed out above the situation he was in. I once watched layoffs drop a family of four with a pretty good six figure income down to being a family of four with about $30,000 a year coming in to live off of. That lasted for about three years before they were able to get back up to better income levels. My father-in-law was "downsized" from his $125,000 + a year gig. He's still not making anything near that now.
Jobs can go "poof" real fast these days. You can afford five kids one year and not be able to afford one kid the next.
That doesn't even take into account unexpected medical or care bills. Den pointed out the chemo example before I could, but there's tons of stuff out there that can bring on medical bills that can crush someone. Special needs children, long term treatments, really bad accident that put you out of work for a long spell. I had a friend who developed a tumor in her brain. She had to stop working. A cop's salary ain't much, but if it's half of what's coming in and it goes away then you're hurting. She couldn't work and she and her husband were paying huge bills right up until the cancer killed her. They had kids. Fortunately, all three kids were adults and either in the military or working elsewhere, but had that tumor hit just a few years earlier..
I'm not an advocate of 24/7, cradle to the grave nanny states, but any nation that dares to declare itself the greatest nation on the Earth better damned well better have system that's better then "F 'em, they're own there own." And it certainly better have a better idea then the drivel you slapped out on your keyboard.
Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.
The United States being 38th in the world most likely has to do with our eating and exercise habits. And look at what the United States considers infant mortality compared to what most European countries do.
Jerry, the difference between a private doctor and an all powerful central state should be obvious.
Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.
The United States being 38th in the world most likely has to do with our eating and exercise habits. And look at what the United States considers infant mortality compared to what most European countries do.
Jerry, the difference between a private doctor and an all powerful central state should be obvious.
Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times.
Unless you waive the privilege of ever dialing 911, you accept a socialized service. Logically and empirically.Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.
You said nothing socialized works. Your police and fire departments are socialized services, logically and empirically. Your unwillingness to do away with your police and fire departments demonstrates your inaccuracy in portraying socialism ruining everything it touches. It ain't Rocket Surgery, Ben.
"Who should be responsible for protecting abused or neglected kids if the government will not?"
Are you saying that being late to school is the same as abusing your child? Wow. That's something...
"You compared providing socialized healthcare to slavery. I provided what is perhaps the defining qualification for slavery -- the privilege to trade human beings. Your obvious options are to validate your analogy by demonstrating how the qualification for slavery was fulfilled or retreat from your analogy"
Okay, how about this, by the government's willingness to continue to coddle individuals and families and not give them their own personal "D-Day", where they can be expected to fend for themselves, then the one's on he government take volunteer to subjugate themselves to the wishes and whims of a government that is all too willing to allow them a life or financial slavery at worst, and financial indentured servitude at best.
"Since I assume your parents were not rich enough to pay for private education for you, who would have paid for your education if the government didn't? Do you think they would have done a better job educating you? \or do you think the government should have spent less educating you? What would have happened to you had you been less educated?"
In fact, I did spend 3 years in a privet school, not because my family is or was rich, but because they sacrificed and did without for me to go there. And no, money is not the answer. Accountability is. Teachers are doing a tough job, not only dealing with the children of someone else, but dealing with the parents as well. Parents need to be held accountable for their children and not simply bitch and moan when little Johnny gets a 0 on his homework. Look, I could ramble on for hours, but nobody cares. Most of you have your opinion and it is not going to change by me telling you anything. You are right, the sky is falling. Everybody run, run, run. I have to take my kids to school before I get arrested.
Oh, and one final thought...Why can't big boys and girls like all of us not have a grown up conversation online without calling each other name. Keep in mind the old saying about opinions and assholes...
How do you know that life expectancy is tied so closely to whether a nation has socialized medicine? Have you excluded all other societal factors?
The burden of proof isn't on me, since I'm not making any such claim; I'm just providing data that's contrary to the claim that socialized medicine "empirically" doesn't work. (Those who want to claim that the Canadian system is killing people could start by explaining how Canada has 2.6 years more life expectancy and 3/4 the infant mortality rate, for example.)
"Oh, and one final thought...Why can't big boys and girls like all of us not have a grown up conversation online without calling each other name."
Dear Mr. MyTMauz, I was not aware that I called you names or was trying to be insulting in any other way. If I did, please point it out to me so I will not repeat the mistake. My questions were serious and with the intention of holding serious conversation.
"Most of you have your opinion and it is not going to change by me telling you anything. You are right, the sky is falling. Everybody run, run, run."
You are mistaken about that, my mind is not made up on these issues, which is why I ask questions. You should also know that I'm not an American and have no stake whatsoever in the specific welfare policies of your country, except perhaps when they are imitated by politicians in mine.
"Are you saying that being late to school is the same as abusing your child? Wow. That's something..."
I don't know if the problem here was that I was not clear enough or that you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I'll spell things out more clearly. The question here is: what is the responsibility of the government? It is assumed by people who support the welfare state that the government should step in to protect and provide for children if and when their parents are doing it below certain standards, and it is also assumed that he government should use its coercive power to do so. Thus the government arrests abusive parents, takes away neglected children, and enforces mandatory school attendance. What is unclear to mm is whether you completely oppose the government involvement; oppose its involvement in certain things (which); or just the way it performs its job?
"In fact, I did spend 3 years in a privet school, not because my family is or was rich, but because they sacrificed and did without for me to go there. And no, money is not the answer. Accountability is. Teachers are doing a tough job, not only dealing with the children of someone else, but dealing with the parents as well. Parents need to be held accountable for their children and not simply bitch and moan when little Johnny gets a 0 on his homework."
Here I find myself completely at a loss. There so many issues here, and I really don't know where you stand.
1) Public school system, good or bad thing (as a matter of principle)?
2) If government provided education is the right thing, why are there problems with the system, and how can they be fixed (taking into account that this will cost the taxpayers money)?
3) What is the role of parents? What can be done so they perform that role? When should governmental coercive power be used?
"Okay, how about this, by the government's willingness to continue to coddle individuals and families and not give them their own personal "D-Day", where they can be expected to fend for themselves, then the one's on he government take volunteer to subjugate themselves to the wishes and whims of a government that is all too willing to allow them a life or financial slavery at worst, and financial indentured servitude at best."
First it should be pointed out that this last paragraph was in response to somebody else, not me. I take not responsibility for what he said or the way he said it. However, again things are unclear to me. Does the American welfare system actually force people to do things based on their dependence on government welfare? Secondly, it has always been my impression that opponents of the welfare system feel that the government should be more demanding of the recipients of welfare.
---------------
"And look at what the United States considers infant mortality compared to what most European countries do."
Do Western European countries have lesser standards when it comes to infant mortality? Does Canada?
"Here It Is.
The Answer To All The Health Care Problems.
If you CAN NOT afford to have a kid, THEN DO NOT have a kid!!!!"
Jerry and Den have already talked parents who may have sufficient funds to take care of their children under regular conditions, but not under extreme ones, or if their economic condition changes suddenly in an unforeseen way. They also pointed out that in todays economy changes like that can occur quite often. A collapse of a stock market in the far east can cause recession in the US, for example. The question is, is is desirable that only financially secure people should have children?
Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that children are not always born to the most capable parents. If a child is born to a parent who is incapable to provide for his or her care, and lacked the foresight not to have a child, what should be done? Or should the government step in to ensure that people like that do not have children?
---------------
"I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works."
Obviously socialized services do work, or you wouldn't be able to use them. ? The question is not one of a systems that completely doesn't work and one that works perfectly well. All western countries live in a kind of compromise between market economy and the welfare state, the question is one of degree. There are three basic questions: (1) what is better (in different circumstances), socialized or privatized services, from the point of view of quality of service? (2) What is the price (monetary or otherwise) of using either one of the systems? (3) What is the right balance?
Okay, how about this, by the government's willingness to continue to coddle individuals and families and not give them their own personal "D-Day", where they can be expected to fend for themselves, then the one's on he government take volunteer to subjugate themselves to the wishes and whims of a government that is all too willing to allow them a life or financial slavery at worst, and financial indentured servitude at best.
Please indicate the subject of your sentence to those of us who learned to read and write English in the wild west of public education.
Please indicate the subject of your sentence to those of us who learned to read and write English in the wild west of public education.
It's hilarious that you would even attempt to include yourself in such a group, Mike.
"Here It Is.
The Answer To All The Health Care Problems.
If you CAN NOT afford to have a kid, THEN DO NOT have a kid!!!!"
Ignoring the gross oversimplification this statement makes, seeing as it ignores all health care problems that stem from adult illnesses...
I'd be the first to say that anyone having children who hasn't determined that they can afford to care for and raise that child is irresponsible. Having said that, this is no solution at all. Short of highly draconian measures, there's just no way to get society to this point. Even good public educations...at least when I was in school...teach barely the basics of reproduction, thanks to our society's fear of encouraging promiscuity in children. There's no education on child-rearing, the differences in child stage development, or any kind of real education on the financial requirements a child has. Maybe more kids would be more careful about sex if we taught them what kind of time and money responsibility children are.
Luigi Novi: How do you know that life expectancy is tied so closely to whether a nation has socialized medicine? Have you excluded all other societal factors?
Doug Atkinson: The burden of proof isn't on me, since I'm not making any such claim; I'm just providing data that's contrary to the claim that socialized medicine "empirically" doesn't work. (Those who want to claim that the Canadian system is killing people could start by explaining how Canada has 2.6 years more life expectancy and 3/4 the infant mortality rate, for example.)
Luigi Novi: And I'm asking you, in response, to explain how you know that life expectancy has anything to do with whether a nation has socialized medicine. Of course you're making a claim. By brining up life expectancy, you're making the implicit claim that there's a connection between the two.
"I'd be the first to say that anyone having children who hasn't determined that they can afford to care for and raise that child is irresponsible."
When my then-wife was pregnant with our first child, we had everything planned out. I was working as an all-around office hand at a small publisher and had been promised a promotion to assistant editor and a raise right before Christmas. She was going to be able to stay home and take care of our child. We had income, medical coverage...we were set.
A week before Christmas, rather than keep her word about the promotion, my boss fired me. So there I was, with my wife seven months pregnant, out of work at the worst time of the year to be out of work.
Are you telling me I was irresponsible for believing my boss's promise or thinking my job was secure?
PAD
It's hilarious that you would even attempt to include yourself in such a group, Mike.
You are welcome to put me in my place anytime you feel like bringing out one of my many sentences you can't find the subject to, Craig. Until then: attempted and succeeded.
Man, I wish I lived in a world of delusions like Mike. Life would be so much easier then.
To me, the most appalling thing about the whole veto is this:
Way, way back when Bush the Smarter was running for President the first time, there was a Doonesbury strip in which someone was asking the erstwhile President what people should do if some disaster befell them and their homes were lost or damaged (I'm doing some major paraphrasing here because I can't find it online and the collection the strip is in is at home). The candidate's reply was that he assumed they'd just go to their summer homes.
Now, that was satire in a comic strip. It wasn't real. It was funny.
Dubya saying there's no health-care crisis because, hey, you can just go to an emergency room and get treated if you need it--that's real. And it's not very damn funny at all.
"Dubya saying there's no health-care crisis because, hey, you can just go to an emergency room and get treated if you need it--that's real. And it's not very damn funny at all."
It shows how fucking out of touch with reality the First Chimp is...
Bush always stands on principals...after kicking them to the ground and rubbing their faces in the dirt like the rugby thug he is.
Bush always stands on principals
I always knew that W. was anti-education but this is taking it too far.
I notice that the conservative line is that "socialized medicine" doesn't work. Yet studies have shown that Americans are more disatisfied with our current system than residents of other industrialized nations.
"One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16 percent of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing approval among the countries surveyed."
And
"Four in 10 U.S. adults told researchers that they had gone without needed care because of the cost, including skipping prescriptions, avoiding going to the doctor, or skipping a recommended test or treatment.
"Meanwhile, 26 percent of Americans surveyed said that they had faced more than $1,000 in out-of-pocket health care costs in the last year, compared with 14 percent of Australians, and 4 percent of Britons."
Of course, feel free to ignore the above quotes, as it's just more of the "liberal media" spouting off their socialist agenda.
Peter David: Are you telling me I was irresponsible for believing my boss's promise or thinking my job was secure?"
I highly doubt it. I think it is more likely that Bobb is referring to the phenomenon of chronically poor individuals having children indiscriminately.
It is a false dilemma to argue about whether government assistance enables irresponsible procreation or simply helps families who fall on hard times. Both phenomena coexist within our society.
My girlfriend has worked for the social services department in the county in which we live for nearly two decades. She is currently a supervisor for one of the county's Child Protective Investigations units. As such, she has a perspective that many "bleeding hearts" lack: the poor are for her more than merely an abstract concept which she has fleshed out with preconceived notions. She interacts with them, works with them, and understands quite a bit about them. Moreover, she is earning an Master's Degree in Social Work and has had an academic paper published in a journal published by the National Association of Social Work. And, yes, there is a significant swath of the population that suffers from poverty because of their own irresponsible behavior. Choices including indiscriminate, unprotected sex resulting in unwanted pregnancies; indiscriminate intentional procreation by individuals with no means to support a child; drug use; and criminal behavior are all choices that people make that either result in poverty or aggravate it.
The costs to society are often more than liberals care to acknowledge. After all, the government spends far more on "corporate welfare" than on aid to the underpriviledged, right? Well... no. Because that comparison blithely omits the other costs to society inflicted on us by the chronically poor and irresponsible: the cost of providing health care to children damaged by malnourishment and/or other forms of neglect, the costs of maintaining prisons for the disproportionate number of poor people who end up there, and the costs of government-funded drug treatment programs are all examples of the less-obvious costs of poverty.
So we simply need to stop giving these people hand-outs, goes the conservative trope. Well, wrong again. It's easy to say that people should straighten up and fly right. But a child who grows up in a household where no one works, criminal behavior is the norm, and there is no loving guidance has very little chance of understanding that he or she has a choice about how to behave. Worse still, if he or she suffers trauma such as abuse, or is malnourished, his or her neurological development can be impaired in subtle yet profound ways.
Clearly, the current system isn't working because it encourages irresponsible behavior by providing an omnipresent safety net. On the other hand, the idea that we can just cut off these programs fails to take into account the costs society will incur should the chronically poor be turned out on the street without learning the skills needed to be productive citizens.
It's a complicated problem, and I have yet to hear anyone offer a realistic solution. I think it's a discourse we need to have, but instead we have polarized debates like this that degenerate into personal acrimony.
SCHIPS, by the way, is a band-aid for the hemmorhage that is our health care system today. Health care costs are skyrocketing way past the rate of inflation. As others here have pointed out, even the middle class is having trouble keeping up. Real wages are being driven down as people's raises are being eaten up in large part by ever-more-costly health insurance premiums. Hard-working, economically secure individuals are now one catastrophic health problem away from seeing the fruits of their life's work wiped out. If left unchecked, the meteoric rise of health care costs could have a significantly adverse impact on our overall economy.
There are many causes, however, and not all of them are due to the Big Evil Boogey-Men of the Left or the Right.
Take prescription drugs, for example. On the one hand, drug companies are unconscionably profiteering at the expense of the U.S. consumer. On the other hand, I don't think drug companies will ever be able to manufacture drugs as cheaply as some would like to believe. Research into new drugs costs millions or even billions of dollars and is a crap-shoot. Drug companies have to maintain cash reserves beyond what companies in other industries need, because they have to be prepared to absorb those losses.
(Canadians, among other nations with socialized health care, ought not to be so quick to criticize our health system, by the way. The low prices their governments negotiate for prescription drugs are subsidized by higher prices charged for those same drugs in the U.S.)
That's just the tip of the iceberg. The current tangled mess of multiple payers, including private insurance plans, HMOs, Medicaid, and Medicare, each of which has its own labyrinthine and crushingly massive set of rules and procedures, increases the administrative overhead for medical providers who pass those costs along to us. There is fraud on the part of both providers and health care consumers. There is irrational rationing of health care: plans that will not pay for preventive treatment such as mammograms but will pay for far-more expensive cancer treatments such as radical mastectomies. I could go on and on.
We need a serious debate about health care in this nation, one that is driven by a sober assessment of empirical evidence. Unfortunately, that cannot take place in an environment where the debate so quickly degenerates into personal acrimony, and where emotion trumps thought.
"Your unwillingness to do away with your police and fire departments demonstrates your inaccuracy in portraying socialism ruining everything it touches."
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
"Do Western European countries have lesser standards when it comes to infant mortality? Does Canada?"
From Wikipedia: "The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure.[1] IMR is also a useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and is a component of the physical quality of life index. But the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.
The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. The United States counts an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but some other countries differ in these practices. For example, in Germany and Austria, fetal weight must reach one pound to be counted as a live birth, while in some other countries, including Switzerland, the baby must be at least 12 inches long. Both Belgium and France report babies as born lifeless if they are less than 26 weeks' gestation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality
My understanding is that in many cases other countries don't even try to save these "non-living" babies.
"Are you telling me I was irresponsible for believing my boss's promise or thinking my job was secure?"
Did you have a contract? Even if not, what she said constituted a verbal contract no doubt, and if you wanted you could have threatened a law suit in this day and age.
Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times.
Unless you waive the privilege of ever dialing 911, you accept a socialized service. Logically and empirically.Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.
Your unwillingness to do away with your police and fire departments demonstrates your inaccuracy in portraying socialism ruining everything it touches.I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
What are you denying, that you'd rather have your police and fire departments than not have them, that you said socialism ruins everything, or what?
Do Western European countries have lesser standards when it comes to infant mortality? Does Canada?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality
It's very late and I may be too tired to understand correctly, but doesn't the above quote suggest that European countries have higher standards when it comes to infant mortality. Naely, that if the american standards were appplied in Europe than their infant mortality rates would have been even better compared to the US?
"We need a serious debate about health care in this nation, one that is driven by a sober assessment of empirical evidence. Unfortunately, that cannot take place in an environment where the debate so quickly degenerates into personal acrimony, and where emotion trumps thought."
Well said. True of other complicated subjects as well.
It's very late and I may be too tired to understand correctly, but doesn't the above quote suggest that European countries have higher standards when it comes to infant mortality. Naely, that if the American standards were appplied in Europe than their infant mortality rates would have been even better compared to the US?
I think it means that what would be considered a dead infant in the US--and thus contribute to the overall infant mortality rate--would be just a stillbirth in other countries, and thus not add to their total.
How much this changes the overall numbers, I can't say.
Incidentally, the standards are not even equal from state to state in this country. Talking about the sudden spike in infant mortality in MO, a reader commented "In some states, an infant must live for several hours to be counted as born live. If it dies sooner, it is counted as a still birth. Other states do not count premature infants. Some places count deaths attributed to accidents while others do not."
Interesting article at http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/ may shed some light on this. Money quotes:
The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.
Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.
This is not an necessarily an attempt by the countries involved to game the system; the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included. The fact that the USA includes smaller births (which have a 50% survival rate at best) drops our numbers relative to those that don't.
If the ability and desire to save ultra low birth weight babies is a sign of a successful health care system it would be ironic to have it be used as a condemnation of that same system.
"Government run health care may not be ideal, but it's certainly better than the corporate run health care we currently have."
Sounds like the choices are eating shite and sucking vomit.
"What are you denying, that you'd rather have your police and fire departments than not have them, that you said socialism ruins everything, or what?"
The former.
Ben, Ben, Ben...the only good that will come out of this is another zombie movie review...
Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.
Your unwillingness to do away with your police and fire departments demonstrates your inaccuracy in portraying socialism ruining everything it touches.I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
What are you denying, that you'd rather have your police and fire departments than not have them, that you said socialism ruins everything, or what?The former.
The advantage in maintaining a public system to intervene against violence and the destruction of life and property by fire and other disasters seems so obvious that only absurd reasons seem plausible in justifying dismantling them. Please provide yours before I provide those you've left me to infer from what you've said so far.
...the only good that will come out of this is another zombie movie review...
Mr. Mulligan, you are trying to seduce me.
Please indicate the subject of your sentence to those of us who learned to read and write English in the wild west of public education.It's hilarious that you would even attempt to include yourself in such a group, Mike.
You are welcome to put me in my place anytime you feel like bringing out one of my many sentences you can't find the subject to, Craig. Until then: attempted and succeeded.Man, I wish I lived in a world of delusions like Mike. Life would be so much easier then.
Craig, maybe someday you'll be generous enough to explain the virtue in you bestowing on me -- under any sense of fairness -- the privilege to tell you you have no cojones, when all I have to do to meet your challenge is dig out my high school diploma.
Michelle Malkin has begun stalking the family of the 12 year old kid who read the Democrats' response to Bush's veto. She's showed up at their house and where his parents work in a desperate attempt to claim that they're "wealthy". Yep, harassing kids injured in a car accident.
Just when you think the wingnuts have hit rock bottom, they get out the jackhammers and start digging.
"Ben, Ben, Ben...the only good that will come out of this is another zombie movie review..."
I'd like to put in a request for the Hammer Films feature, The Plague of the Zombies. Not that I need the review for myself. I upgraded my VHS of that one to DVD some time ago. I just feel that this is an often overlooked zombie film that rarely gets the attention that it deserves. Yeah, I know... Voodoo zombies aren't really your bag and all, but it's a good zombie film nonetheless.
"Michelle Malkin has begun stalking the family of the 12 year old kid who read the Democrats' response to Bush's veto."
Where'd you see/read this?
Well, I first heard it on the radio, but you can go to Michelle "Japanese internment wasn't all that bad" Malkin's blog. She proudly details her harassment there.
Or you can get some infor here:
Where'd you see/read this?
Stalking may be a bold statement but it seems to me that the point could have been easily made without getting physically involved. If the family, as some suggest, seems to have been more interested in investing in business properties than in health care, that's a legitimate point. No reason to run around interviewing their neighbors. Yeah, I suppose once your kid delivers the national radio address of one of the major parties your claims become fair game but still...you aren't going to score any points by being aggressive.
The Plague of the Zombies is a personal fave of mine as well--haven't seen it in a long time though. As I recall, it was made at the same time as THE REPTILE and had some of the same cast and sets. Neither is top tier Hammer but that still puts them above most. The resurrection scenes were creepy as all hell and I recall thinking that Romero may have gotten more from tis movie than is generally realized but I can't remember why.
You know, while they waste everyone's time remaking movies that were done just fine diddley dandy the first time--like STRAWDOGS and NEAR DARK--why not remake some of these old Hammer movies which could actually benefit from an updating? Wouldn't mind seeing THE GORGON redone with better makeup effects either.
Then again, I'm the guy who can't figure out why everyone doesn't demand they bring back 3 strip technicolor. (I'm tempted to go get a High Def dvd player just because they have released SUSPIRIA in it's "new and improved" form, thereby rendering my dvd as officially "old and lousy".)
Police and firemen didn't exist when our nation was founded; it was all done privately. Volunteers. It still can be (and should be) today.
Again, from Wikipedia: "In the United States, the first organized police service was established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854. However, in the Founding Era, and even well into the 20th century in some parts of the country, law enforcement was done by private citizens acting as militia."
Yeah, I suppose once your kid delivers the national radio address of one of the major parties your claims become fair game but still...you aren't going to score any points by being aggressive.
I'd like someone to explain to me the rules vis-a-vis when somebody crosses the line and becomes fair game (Not to Bill M: this is not directed personally at you. I just want to understand the rules). A few weeks ago, we were told that when Bush hides behind a four-star general (because his own credibility is shot) to sell his Iraqi war strategy, the general must be treated as if he has Christ-like infallibility. Any questioning that his report might be politically motivated is a disgusting attack on all of our service men and women.
But, a 12-year old kid who delivers (like politicians have never used kids as props before) a speech is fair game to have people confront his neighbors and the coworkers of his parents with questions about his family's finances.
Oh, and just for the record, I personally thought the the moveon.org ad was stupid and over the top.
Police and firemen didn't exist when our nation was founded; it was all done privately. Volunteers. It still can be (and should be) today.
I can see how a city of 12 million people like NY could operate with a volunteer police force. Yeah, that would work.
Maybe individual shopkeepers could hire Blackwater to guard their stores. That would make the city as safe as Iraq.
Police and firemen didn't exist when our nation was founded; it was all done privately. Volunteers. It still can be (and should be) today.
It sounds like you want firemen to show up at your burning house with buckets of water, armed vigilantes running loose accountable to no one who's accountable to the vote, and Blackwater kicking the ass of anyone who lets the sun set on him in the wrong neighborhood.
Never mind, Den. I went looking at MM's website. I she and her regular posters hadn't convinced everybody that they were loons before...
Just a few of the claims:
The Frost family has a combined annual income of about $45,000, said Bonnie Frost. She and her husband have priced private health insurance, but they say it would cost them more per month than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month. Neither parent has health insurance through work.
$1200 per month for a family of 6 in Baltimore. Really? What are they smoking?
A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays.
Adding a deductible of $750 (does not apply to doc visits) drops the premium to $452. That’s almost a third of the price quoted in the article. Doesn’t anyone bother to check the facts?
Apparently not.
Cute. The best I could find at http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Welcome.ds (which matches her posted $$$$ amounts) were plans for families of four that really didn't cover that much when you looked at the details of each plan. Further, I have a sister-in-law in Baltimore and can tell you that they had a hell of a time finding a good insurance plan that worked with their preferred doctors. It's like my departments former dental coverage. It was described as "great" by the state, but almost no dentists in the area would accept it. Until I got my coverage changed, we were driving 40 minutes to see a dentist. And it was a lousy dentist to boot. If you can't get a good doctor, then the cheap plan is practically worthless.
I also passed by the Frosts’ rowhouse. There was an “01 - 20 -09″ bumper sticker plastered on the door and a newer model GMC Suburban parked directly in front of the house. I’ve seen guesstimates of the house’s worth in the $400,000-plus range.
Wow. She's seen "guesstimates" of the house's worth. This is from the same post on her blog where she trashes others for their poor "reporting" in the mainstream media. I wonder if she'd think that guesstimates would be reporting of the highest standards if it was, say, MSNBC doing a piece on Bush or Cheney? Somehow, I doubt it.
One of her blog's posters claims, "So again I say…SHENANIGANS!!!" Why? He went to monster.com and looked up what Mr. Frost said he makes VS what he must "really" make. The Frosts say that they make $45,000 a year. The poster claims that his crack research proves that Frost makes at least $60,370. I wonder if the idiot put in his own job description for his location as a comparison? I did. From what I did find there, I'll never believe another thing that monster.com claims again.
I've got no problems with legitimate questions or reporting, but this tripe is shear speculation be paraded around as fact. The sad thing is, she'll no doubt be on Hannity and Colmes this week to play all of this up as facts, it will become the "facts" reported by the RNM and then the "facts" will be used to smear the family.
"As I recall, it was made at the same time as THE REPTILE and had some of the same cast and sets. "
Yeah, it was. Anchor Bay even had a two disc set with both movies on it out a few years ago. Money was tight though, so I had to pass it up. Still, like I said, at least I have Plague on DVD and I still have the VHS of The Reptile.
Hey, about those remakes... Quatermass!!!! While I love Quatermass and the Pit, I wouldn't mind seeing the others in the series updated by a good team. Oh, and X: The Unknown as well since it was meant to be a Quatermass anyhow.
And, who wouldn't just love a Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter series done by Danny Boyle, Guillermo del Toro or some equally adept unknown director with a good writing team and a good cast and crew?
Well, Jerry, according to thinkprogress.org, the Frosts paid $55,000 for their home 16 years ago. They state this as a "fact", not a "guesstimate". And they also state that at the time they bought the house, it was in a depressed neighborhood. Perhaps the neighborhood improved in the past two decades and the house's value has gone up eightfold in value in 16 years. Even if that were true, that wouldn't change how much they paid for it nor would it have any bearing on their ability to pay for their kids' medical treatments. Unless Malkin is seriously suggesting that the way to pay for treatment for brain injuries is to sell your home.
The mention of the "01-20-09" is nice dig, too. It shouldn't be shocking that a family who would volunteer to have their kid read a speech for the democrats are not Bush supporters, but in the wingnut world that Malkin operates in, that alone is considered proof that they family is lying about something.
"Police and firemen didn't exist when our nation was founded; it was all done privately. Volunteers. It still can be (and should be) today."
Uhhmmmmmmmm... No. I know "professional" cops that aren't all that swift. We really don't need the huge numbers of additional deaths, injuries, lawsuits and other problems that your idea would bring about. Besides, Professional law enforcement agencies are already lowering their hiring standards because they can't get enough people to fill the ranks now. Take away the pay and benefits and you're going to have even less people signing up to do the job.
Hey, I like my job and I do like helping others, but I won't lie to anybody here. money does factor into it. You work at the agency that can pay you enough to live on. Lots of agencies don't and lots more just barely do. I've known guys who loved their jobs but had to leave for private sector jobs because the salary just wasn't cutting it VS their areas cost of living for raising a family.
Besides that, do you really want a bunch of rank amateurs running around your home at night with a gun, oc spray, a tazer and an asp baton if you have to call 911?
I can give you a better example...
Professional soldiers (ie. the U.S, Army) with its relatively minor number of stupid incidents VS Blackwater USA and like groups running around Iraq shooting at everything that moves or filming themselves driving down streets in Iraq and knowingly shooting at civilian targets (and later setting the film to rock music and posting it on the web.)
Sorry, Ben, but that's just a mind numbingly dumb idea.
Huh, shoulda kept reading. Ben beat me to the Blackwater thing.
(Summons Kyle voice) You bastard!!!!!!
Just to be clear. This whole section was from MM's blog. My post dropped a tag or two.
_________________________________________
The Frost family has a combined annual income of about $45,000, said Bonnie Frost. She and her husband have priced private health insurance, but they say it would cost them more per month than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month. Neither parent has health insurance through work.
$1200 per month for a family of 6 in Baltimore. Really? What are they smoking?
A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays.
Adding a deductible of $750 (does not apply to doc visits) drops the premium to $452. That’s almost a third of the price quoted in the article. Doesn’t anyone bother to check the facts?
Apparently not.
________________________
My response started with, "Cute."
Next time I'll have to remember my "" marks as well.
Den, I agree about the price of the hous then VS now. It was foolish to look at the value from today's market rather then from when it was bought. I just found it funny that her whole point about the house was on "guesstimates" of its worth rather then actual worth while she attacks others for poor reporting and fact checking on a daily basis.
"Even if that were true, that wouldn't change how much they paid for it nor would it have any bearing on their ability to pay for their kids' medical treatments."
Actually, that would have a bearing on the debate. It would go to the heart of the matter of fiscal responsibility by the parents. That's likely why she and others will play up the current market value rather then the price that the home was bought for.
If I said that Ian's medical bills were killing me and demanded better healthcare from the taxpayer while it came out that I sold my rather meager home for a $400,000 to $500,000 home after Ian's birth... Well, I'd look stupid and maybe somewhat hypocritical. Now, if I bought a $55,000 home that was now worth that much... It means absolutely zip.
Den, they don't need to hire anyone to guard their stores. Cops don't do it now. They don't prevent crime... they come in afterwards trying to look all professional. If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again.
Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.
All right, Ben, put your money where your mouth is. Although, on reflection, I can't see that working as there will likely be a huge disparity. And I'm not saying you don't have the money, either. Next time you find yourself in a situation that could include but not limited to--
1)An intruder in your house,
2)Someone totals your car,
3)Your fondue set decides to make your house blazing hot,
4)You fall down your stairs and break several limbs,
5)Your child swallows rat poison,
6)You pull into a parking spot being eyed by an overtired truck driver looking for donuts with a sawed-off on his gun rack behind him,
or anything otherwise determined to be an emergency, DON'T CALL 911. But you're so clever and witty, and you have such a firm grasp of reality, that you'd know just what to do in any of those situations. In fact, according to your thinking, 911 shouldn't exsist at all.
Now, for more serious stuff, I'm embarassed to say the only Hammer film I own is The Satanic Rites Of Dracula. WIth my favorite holiday, my birthday, and my wedding anniversary at the end of the month, I'm hoping to expand that soon. BTW, if you're given the opportunity to see Children of The Living Dead, run screaming down the block. Never seen worse audio dubbing.
I'd like someone to explain to me the rules vis-a-vis when somebody crosses the line and becomes fair game (Not to Bill M: this is not directed personally at you. I just want to understand the rules). A few weeks ago, we were told that when Bush hides behind a four-star general (because his own credibility is shot) to sell his Iraqi war strategy, the general must be treated as if he has Christ-like infallibility. Any questioning that his report might be politically motivated is a disgusting attack on all of our service men and women.
Den, I've come to appreciate your passion for