More of the Dems finding phonies to speak out... (health care, regular, suspect)

[TXboomerang]

With all the negative talk about Bush vetoing the 140% increase in children's health insurance, there are some things that are just laughable.

The Dems chose a 12 year old kid for their radio address, to combat Bush's veto and make it look like he simply doesn't care about children:

Bloomberg.com: U.S.


The really sad part is that the Dems either can't really find any truly poor people at all to accurately represent this issue, or they simply don't care how honest their ploys are. My guess is the second.

The story is supposed to be that this family is just a lower income family that is just too strapped to afford insurance since their companies don't provide it. Pretty shocking that they can't afford the insurance. One reason is the father actually owns his own company. He chose not to offer it or get it for himself, not the other way around.

Next up, Graeme and his sister both attend a private school that cost 20,000 per year to attend, while they live in a 3,000 square foot home in a nice neighborhood.



Wow.

Now being that I've found this info on a right leaning website, I'm sure there is the possibility for inaccuracy. If there is a rebuttal to the accuracy of the info about the Frost family, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise the Dems must be tasting kneecap by now their foot is so far down their own throat.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

With all the negative talk about Bush vetoing the 140% increase in children's health insurance, there are some things that are just laughable.

The Dems chose a 12 year old kid for their radio address, to combat Bush's veto and make it look like he simply doesn't care about children:

Bloomberg.com: U.S.


The really sad part is that the Dems either can't really find any truly poor people at all to accurately represent this issue, or they simply don't care how honest their ploys are. My guess is the second.

The story is supposed to be that this family is just a lower income family that is just too strapped to afford insurance since their companies don't provide it. Pretty shocking that they can't afford the insurance. One reason is the father actually owns his own company. He chose not to offer it or get it for himself, not the other way around.

Next up, Graeme and his sister both attend a private school that cost 20,000 per year to attend, while they live in a 3,000 square foot home in a nice neighborhood.



Wow.

Now being that I've found this info on a right leaning website, I'm sure there is the possibility for inaccuracy. If there is a rebuttal to the accuracy of the info about the Frost family, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise the Dems must be tasting kneecap by now their foot is so far down their own throat.

this stuff about criticism of the commander and chief really ticks me off.

where do they get this stuff that president bush does not care about kids.
isn't he leaving a 3 trillion dollar bill for them to practice their earning potential and pay off? if he didn't care about them would he do this?
of course not he wants them to grow, he wants them to have challenges in life. i think he is doing a great job. honestly i get sick of these wild accusations.

stephen s
san diego ca

[Evlevo]

It sounds a whole lot like "Free-Republic" stuff.

I checked around and couldn't find anything that wasn't a blog-type site (although I suppose I just couldn't find it) which in this day and age basically means the info you posted is most likely crap.

Of course that won't stop the talk radio-concubines from filling the Monday morning roster with it.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by Evlevo

It sounds a whole lot like "Free-Republic" stuff.

I checked around and couldn't find anything that wasn't a blog-type site (although I suppose I just couldn't find it) which in this day and age basically means the info you posted is most likely crap.

Of course that won't stop the talk radio-concubines from filling the Monday morning roster with it.

If its garbage I'm sure it will be rather easy to discredit, which is why I posted it.

If its garbage, it will blend in with the stuff posted here from lefty blogs. If its true, it just adds one more notch to the list of phonies the Dems have pulled up to support their bills with an emotional plea.

Vetoing this bill was one of the few moves Bush has made that I support. I would have like to have seen a compromise. The Dems wanted to increase spending on SCHIP by 140%. Bush wanted a 20% increase, which is still a fairly reasonable increase. However, a 50-70% increase would have probably been supported by a veto proof majority.

[fishmonger]

A "reasonable increase" that wouldn't cover all the people that were already eligible. There are such things as inflation and population growth.

[ontheroad]

Inasmuch as the cigarette tax has already been raised, and I believe substantially, to cover this program (and probably others) and insofar as who gets the benefits and who doesn't, it seems to be that we are quibbling about who earns, what and for me the bottom line is "have children get care."

I can't imagine a middle class family seeking the services if they don't need it. In NYS, and VT, two states I've lived in, and in one in which I worked as a health professional, use was below expectations. In fact, VT recently examined its roles and wondering why folks were not applying for services.

Somehow I think the idea is more threatening than the cost itself.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by ontheroad

Inasmuch as the cigarette tax has already been raised, and I believe substantially, to cover this program (and probably others) and insofar as who gets the benefits and who doesn't, it seems to be that we are quibbling about who earns, what and for me the bottom line is "have children get care."

I can't imagine a middle class family seeking the services if they don't need it. In NYS, and VT, two states I've lived in, and in one in which I worked as a health professional, use was below expectations. In fact, VT recently examined its roles and wondering why folks were not applying for services.

Somehow I think the idea is more threatening than the cost itself.

This is what I don't get. If use is below what is expected, and funding for the program as it stands is not short, why would a moderate expansion need a 140% increase in budget? I'm sure population growth rates are expected, but dayum!!!

[ontheroad]

Programs like these often are not known to the general public--those not posting here in P&oC and people are more loathe to seek "assistance" than one would imagine.

The NYSDOH did a rather large publicity campaign for Child+ with the Commissioner several years ago in order for the regular family to understand and appreciate that they could have care for their children rather than keep them home, send them to school or take other measures when their children were not well.

Many factors go into developing programs, but dissemination of their value or not, is often not well organized.

If we have reserves from the programs, the funds go back into the general federal coffers, they are not held onto, and with newer regulations, reappropriation is not permitted.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

This is what I don't get. If use is below what is expected, and funding for the program as it stands is not short, why would a moderate expansion need a 140% increase in budget? I'm sure population growth rates are expected, but dayum!!!

[ontheroad]

Also I suspect that additional surveys have been conducted on a national level to determine how many or few children are without care.

When I was working in the system, we frequently went around the State and held community meetings to see what communities needed. Often, children's health care was among the top 5 requests. These forum generated needs assessments. Unfortunately, needs assessments went unfunded for years, and then at the critical moment were funded. The cart, the horse!

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by Bunky39

this stuff about criticism of the commander and chief really ticks me off.

where do they get this stuff that president bush does not care about kids.
isn't he leaving a 3 trillion dollar bill for them to practice their earning potential and pay off? if he didn't care about them would he do this?
of course not he wants them to grow, he wants them to have challenges in life. i think he is doing a great job. honestly i get sick of these wild accusations.

stephen s
san diego ca

The issue is always about PRIORITIES. And this is typically where the Repubs are LACKING in their policies, versus the actual needs in the society. The Repubs (conservatives generally) would rather that everyone "figure it out for themselves" without public assistance. But that doesn't actually work, promotes individual cynicism (when one notices the great gap between rich and poor), acquieses in ongoing perennial levels of poverty, and allows large aggregations of capital to exploit the population, as can be documented from MANY INSTANCES in past and present American History. Laissez-faire social and economic policies result in HUGE AREAS of WASTE in the economy and in the social resources of the nation. Plus it promotes GREED over CITIZENSHIP and SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. Sounds like Republicanism to me.