Video: The left drops an absolute moral authority JDAM on Bush
posted at 9:30 am on October 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
From Families USA. He pulled the trigger on SCHIP yesterday, to the consternation of more than a few Republicans now facing a slew of ads next year accusing conservatives of hating children on top of everything else. It’s great to see him exercising fiscal responsibility and it’s understandable that he’d want to put up a roadblock on the path to universal health care, but this is the sort of thing you do when you’re 15 points ahead on the generic ballot, not 15 points down. The Democrats are going to grind his face in it, too, apparently:
Democrats, sensing a political advantage, said they were in no mood to compromise. Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing strategy, said Pelosi and Reid seemed set on sending Bush successor bills that are nearly identical with the one he just vetoed. The goal would be to force him—and his congressional allies—to repeatedly expose themselves to criticism that they were denying health care for kids.
The same piece says the GOP is going to try to present itself as supporting health care for kids but not for any program that might expand coverage to adults or illegal aliens. Good luck convincing people when you’re up against this:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Wonder how long ago that ad was produced. Phony planned-in-advance “outrage.” Nevertheless, will score mucho points.
Hey, the Dem’s always exploit the weaknesses of the democratic system. Uninformed voters, and people voting themselves $.
The WH could go on offense, like it did for shamnesty, right?
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 9:36 AM
eh i still say to hell with all that. no random @ss kids need to be gettin medical care off of my hard earned cigarette/dutch master budget
ernesto on October 4, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Bush hates kids? I hate kids too. That’s why, for me, Bush is da bomb.
km on October 4, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Has anyone noticed that the American Cancer Society is running ads that talk about people not having access to treatment because of health insurance.
I question the timing!
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 9:38 AM
I thought most states have health care programs for uninsured kids. Isn’t this a canard?
Nethicus on October 4, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Hogwaqsh! We all love kids but we hate Marxist policies and left wing political parties that exploit kids.
rplat on October 4, 2007 at 9:40 AM
There is nothing Dems won’t use for political advantage. I think Ann Coulter put forth the proposition that the Dems all worship one religion, Political Power.
They throw the troops under the bus, kids are nothing more then a stage prop, and senior citizens and minorities are to be told scary bed time stories to keep them on the plantation.
I don’t look for any politician to look out for me. It seems, going by the amount of money being spent on political campaigns, that campaigning is the largest employer and source of revenue for our economy, trumping anything sold on the market or invested on Wall St. Campaigning has become an industry.
LakeRuins on October 4, 2007 at 9:40 AM
All states do have programs, but they rely on infusions of your tax dollars to support the system. So when NJ says they want to cover children whose families have incomes 400 times above the poverty level, taxpayers in GA who only cover at 200 times the poverty level essentially are funding the program in NJ.
In other words redistribution of wealth, one of the hallmarks of communism.
LakeRuins on October 4, 2007 at 9:44 AM
What a shocka!
Families USA bills itself as a “national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.” This has led the media to refer to it as a health care consumer advocacy group. But Families USA has strong partisan ties to the Democratic Party, labor unions and liberal activism. And it has received major financial contributions from George Soros, who is donating millions to Democratic-leaning advocacy groups to defeat President Bush in 2004. The group’s activities belie its claims to nonpartisanship.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Sorry, I actually thought the ad was really bad. Give Americans credit… they can spot transparent pandering pretty effectively. On the other hand, I saw a survey yesterday that seemed to show that Americans pretty strongly support programs like SCHIP (even given that it will extend coverage to people who can afford it), so it’s a problem either way.
This is why we desperately need someone like Newt, who has the balls to stand up, unapologetically differ with the American people, and persuasively tell them why something like SCHIP is a bad idea. What’s with all of this muddled message stuff… “supporting health care for kids but not for any program that might expand coverage to adults or illegal aliens”?
How about saying “this isn’t the government’s job”?
DaveS on October 4, 2007 at 9:45 AM
I just sent them and e-mail asking why, since they have the money to produce commercials and buy air time, they didn’t start their own insurance company to cover these poor children. I am not holding my breath for an answer though.
deadbackpacker on October 4, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Liberals have always been better at pulling the heartstrings. It’s for the children, the elderly, the disabled, the puppies….
They are masters of spin and have a much better PR campaign than us. To them, it really doesn’t matter WHY Bush vetoed it – they’ll use it as a “Bush Hates Children” campaign which is so disingenuous.
pullingmyhairout on October 4, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Bush does love kids….the kids of illegals, that is. Maybe if he wasn’t so hellbent on giving freebies to everyone that shouldn’t be here in the first place, perhaps we could examine the merits of a program like this.
BigAnge on October 4, 2007 at 9:47 AM
No tag. No dodge ball. No Christmas trees. No guns. No flags. No spankings. No prudes, straights, or celebates. No ROTC. No Israel. We know what is best…..no disagreements allowed.
Limerick on October 4, 2007 at 9:49 AM
If the Republican(t)s had any sense they’d drop this absolute moral authority card. Not I, the government nor the American tax payers are responsible for your child’s health care — you are. Harsh, yes. But ever since idiotic ponytail guy made his “I want the president to be my daddy” speach during the ‘92 debates the libs have been trying to make the “Great White Father” a real father.
Since Washington is Daddy now, it’s time for some tough love, you can’t afford your kids, give them up. That’s what Clarence Thomas’s mother did, that is what happened constantly in generations past. Not putting your kids into homes that can provide for them when you can’t is not an excercise in love — it’s an excercise in selfishness.
But what do I know, I’m just an evil cold hearted conservative.
srhoades on October 4, 2007 at 9:50 AM
When the State wishes to lies most outrageously, it always holds up a child.
(In both senses of the phrase.)
profitsbeard on October 4, 2007 at 9:50 AM
LakeRuins answered your question. But remember, we’re talking about health insurance, not health care. Uninsured people, including those illegally in the country, can receive free health care at the emergency room and at some clinics. Don’t buy the 47 million crap!
The Dem’s plan for SCHIP was to provide gov’t health insurance to a much wider group of people, even those who are no longer children, even those who already have private insurance, etc. That’s why Bush vetoed it.
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Oh yeah, and if we got rid of all government intrusion into healthcare, then prices would drop because people would be forced to do something they used to do before — take bicarbinate when their tummies hurt and shop for an inexpensive doctor.
srhoades on October 4, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Um, uh, no they can’t. Most people read only headlines of stories and not the stories themselves. In this case “George Bush just vetoed health care for 10 million kids.” That is all most mush brained people will walk away with.
mojowire on October 4, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Bush is RIGHT on this debate. How can you lose a debate when you are RIGHT?! HOW?!
Many times I can win a debate even when I know I am wrong, but I ALWAYS win when I am right.
Look, this isn’t about making sure kids stay HEALTHY. This bill has nothing to do with helping sick kids. This has to do with paying for INSURANCE. They aren’t going to cut a program to come up with the money to pay for this, they are going to RAISE TAXES ON THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS for this program.
WHERE IS THE AD from the people who are RIGHT on this debate showing a family currently on the SCHIP program who smokes? That family (if they are a pack a day smoker) will have to pay 222.65/year extra taxes (per pack a day smoker) for this program to pay for the INSURANCE (not health care) for kids whose parents already pay for insurance. . . but since the rich parents who already pay for insurance don’t smoke, they won’t have to pay more taxes.
This tax increase does not discriminate rich from poor. It may serve to decrease smoking, but then you run into the problem of funding once you get less revenue from taxes due to fewer people smoking.
REALLY! Why is it so hard to see this crap? Why is it so hard for ‘CONSERVATIVES’ to formulate this argument? THIS IS WHY WE NEED A TRUE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE. I’m sick of RINO’s who don’t know the appropriate arguments of why taking from the poor to give to the rich (even if it is for rich kids) is a BAD idea.
Of course these same Democrats will claim that these kids are poor, but when they come to raising taxes on the ‘rich’ these people will be classified in the ‘rich class’ (Dobson indicated ‘rich’ – for taxation – was a family earning 94,000/year). This will consider ‘poor’ to be families earning less than 80,000/year.
WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE A CONGRESS? WE JUST NEED A MONEY BURNING PIT FOR US TO THROW MONEY INTO. It would be just as effective as congress.
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 9:52 AM
What incentive is there to succeed anymore? The goverment is going to give me everything until I reach a certain level and then they will start taking it back. When do you quit being poor or a “working American” and become the evil rich?
It seems in matters of such things as estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and income taxes we are all evil rich, but in terms of health insurance, and actual income we are all in poverty. Maybe that is the 2 Americas’ John Edwards is talking about. It is possible to be both.
LakeRuins on October 4, 2007 at 9:54 AM
I love kids. I love my own children so much that I pulled them out of government-funded public schools.
Dare I suggest that any candidate who opposes school vouchers hates kids?
The local school district is going for another tax levy this fall, so I’m already branded a kid-hater for opposing that.
Speaking of Rush, I started listening to his show right around the time they were busing kids to D.C. to beg Congress not to take their lunches away. Ah, good times.
saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 9:55 AM
And y’all know what I’m talkin’ ’bout!
/fake southern accent
saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 9:58 AM
The “it’s not the government’s job” argument is not a winner. People want the government to be able to take care of them, without them having to worry about it. The best argument against expansion of government controlled or provided health care is that the government is inefficient and can not provide the kinds of services that people want as well as the private sector can. In an ideal world, Republicans would have the balls to use the “Hurricane Katrina” argument in situations like this; that is, make ads asking people if they want the same state governments that can’t handle their basic responsibilities taking over their childrens’ health care.
Big S on October 4, 2007 at 9:58 AM
rplat on October 4, 2007 at 10:06 AM
And the funny part of this whole thing?
I just wrote the check to cover my health insurance for this year… problem is? I’m retired Navy. They promised me health care for life constantly to get me to reenlist. yep, heard it time and agian… Free health care for life…
Now, why did I just write a check?
So they want to buy the votes of a bunch of middle class people, while not keeping the promist they made those who served…
Love it.
Romeo13 on October 4, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Don’t want to pry, and believe you are owed free health care for life, but how much do you have to pay. My 82 year old uncle gets free health care at the VA. He says it’s great. But maybe he does have to pay some “fees,” not sure. I do know he pays $3.00 for prescriptions.
I’m self-employed, and pay $1150/month for a family plan. I was able to find exactly two options, and chose the cheaper.
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Now kids are carrying the water for the bankrupt leftist democrats.
When this fails all they have to fall back on is the tried-and-true strategy of grandma in her wheelchair.
Always Right on October 4, 2007 at 10:15 AM
What a ridiculous statement. The reason to pass out entitlements is because someone is behind in the polls?
Wade on October 4, 2007 at 10:15 AM
The captions. . .The captions
Most libs can’t read that fast. . . And that’s the way the
the left LIKES it. . .
Texyank on October 4, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Families U.S.A. a wholly funded subsidiary of the Democrat Party.
Check out the photos on the right. Joe Trippi is Edwards campaign manager, if anybody is wondering.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Somewhat related, I was talking to one of my bartenders last night, he found out he’s got a tumor on his back. As things slowed down a bit he wanted to talk to me about it, I’m a bit of a father figure to all the 20 something guys who work for me. He told me he didn’t have any insurance and he didn’t think it was right that he had to get any, it was “too expensive.” I told him I buy my own insurance and it costs me about $240 a month but plans are as low as $70 a month. I then asked him how much his new Harley cost that he bought 6 months ago? I think he’s coming around. Life is full of tradeoffs. So you don’t feel too sorry for him he works all the good shifts and averages over $200 a night in tips.
I’m afraid we’re going to have trouble changing this me first attitude that permeates this society.
Capitalist Infidel on October 4, 2007 at 10:20 AM
If they removed covering adults from the bill it wouldn’t be terrible. It can be debated at what % over poverty should be covered given the state and cost of living.
If that was worked out, we would just be talking about a transfer of financial responsibilities to the fed from the state in the form of reduction in medicaid. The same occured with Medicare when part D came online. Medicaid was able to drop and/or transfer the $ responsibility to the Fed budget.
But where it ends and if this is where to draw the line? Who knows.
sunny on October 4, 2007 at 10:22 AM
When they trot out the children…….hide your wallet.
infidel4life on October 4, 2007 at 10:23 AM
They need commercial showing a soccer mom in an X5 promoting SCHIP. “We used to have to buy insurance, now we get it for free. Thanks Democrats!” Then show her meeting up at the local Starbucks for a latte with the girls.
Then this blurb:
That is how you fight back Allahpundit. I wish Republicans were more media savvy.
Theworldisnotenough on October 4, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Making it easier and more affordable for the self-employed and small business owners and their employees is exactly where the focus should be, and the Republicans have not been proactive enough on this.
Why are there so few choices available to people like this, many of whom fall into that 200% above the poverty rate category?
Just a wild guess, but I wager that the reason is government regulation that thwarts competition and access, and I’m betting that Democrats are behind it.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 10:28 AM
at least we’re not being accused of…ermm…liking children like we were last cycle. coughFOLEYcough.
its vintage duh on October 4, 2007 at 10:30 AM
I totally agree, we need to attack from the perspective that our government is too inefficient, and frankly too g*ddamned stupid and incompetent to run what they run now, let alone a a giant new entitlement program, “its not the gov’ts role” ain’t gonna work.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 10:30 AM
So since Bush is down in the polls the Dems should have a blank check to pass any piece of garbage legislation, as long as it’s “for the children”?
So in essence, we should be paying for the presidents poll numbers with taxpayer money?
Verbal Abuse on October 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM
agreed. The Republican Presidential candidate that is right on this debate is McCain. Read this CNN article.
“The American people have rebelled against out-of-control spending. If they can find a legitimate way to pay for it, I would consider it,” he said.
Expanding the program to cover children in families up to 400 percent of the poverty line would an “unfunded liability,” the Arizona Republican said. “Just like the Medicare prescription drug program.”
Again, I don’t like him either for several reasons, but I’m beginning to like him best of the top 4.
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Bingo. Would probably cost me around half, twenty miles away in Connecticut. Americans are forbidden by law to purchase their health insurance out-of-state!
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 10:33 AM
My Commercial in rebuttal:
“Hillary Clinton loves children, she says Children are her favorite, they taste just like Chicken.”
GoodBoy on October 4, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Oh, God! That commercial is right! Boosh is a monster, he doesn’t care about kids, he…
/milky substance clears from eyes
Whoa, hey what just happened?
SouthernDem on October 4, 2007 at 10:36 AM
In the Republican’s defense, we control so few media outlets. Talk radio already carries so much of the administration’s water. I’ve always wondered why the White House doesn’t have it’s own cable channel/website/blog to speak over the heads of the MSM and directly to the people. Maybe HA can invite a guest blogger from the WH?
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 10:37 AM
I think we conservatives have been extremely lax. We slept walk through the ’80’s and look what we got. Newt and American Solutions have things on the right track.
Theworldisnotenough on October 4, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Think how many more children the Dems could speak for if they weren’t such huge advocates for aborting them!
Hoodlumman on October 4, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Theworldisnotenough on October 4, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Thanks for that New York Post editorial. Excellent.
All these Federal Government programs are a nightmare. Why the *^$# do we keep designing these monstrous Federal bureaucracies which are never enough to satisfy the masses and always end up getting expanded exponentially?
Personally, I like Romney’s ideas on this issue, where the States design their own programs, and everyone is covered with insurance one way or another.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 10:42 AM
While I don’t want the government getting intot he health INSURANCE business, I too have my own story concerning private health insurance. Here is the case in point.
My daughter is now 18 and graduated. She is not going to college so she is no longer able to be covered under the policy through work. She works but the insurance offered through her employer will not cover pre existing conditions for one year. She has asthma and has had it almost since birth. She is unable to afford insurance that would cover the condition because of the whole pre existing thing, so what is she to do?
She needs her daily meds so going without is not an option, but the cost of insurance is almost more then the meds, but if she doesn’t sign up and wait the year she can never get covered. Of course if she changes jobs the whole cycle starts over.
Just bringing it up for discussion and to warn anybody who has a teenager or kid fixing to come off their insurance.
In the business world we call that a GAP.
LakeRuins on October 4, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Obviously conservatives do not hate children, that is beyond ridiculous.
But Bush’s vetoing this is rather weird. Is he trying to hurt Republican chances in 2008 more than he already has?
He has hardly ever vetoed anything. He just spends and spends and spends, so it makes no sense to think that he vetoed this to control spending. He in fact pushed the far more expensive “Drugs for Seniors” welfare and this would cost a lot less than that will.
As far as his veto being a stopper to “Universal Health Care”, it is more likely to strengthen the hand of those who are for it.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 10:45 AM
LakeRuins on October 4, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Have her go back to the Dr. and tell him/her that she no longer has coverage for her prescriptions. Asthma medications are for the most part generic and cheap. When insurance covers it, Dr’s usually prescribe the latest and greatest from the drug company which may or may not work better than the tried and true medications.
If it’s a special case of asthma she may need the new stuff, certainly a patient decision.
sunny on October 4, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Bingo.
Dems care soooooooo much about the health of our children, if they’re lucky enough to make it through the birth canal alive.
Until then, they are fair game …… and they aren’t shot by accident by the Vice President. They are taken out in a more vicious and heartless manner than the methods that have been used at Abu Guraib or Guitmo – where prisoners were embarrased and ridiculed, but none died at the hands of a physician, or otherwise.
fogw on October 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM
What we need to start arguing is that taxing cigarettes to pay for children’s health care makes smoking a moral obligation.
Show the underlying folly of it all: How many children will die because you choose not to smoke?
cadetwithchips2 on October 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM
That is a very important factoid that I bet most Americans don’t know, and this is exactly where the campaign against SCHIP needs to start.
Too many Americans are mind-numbed robots who tend to look to the government to solve their problems instead of looking at removing the barriers that thwart access and choice in the first place.
Unfortunately since Bush supported SCHIP initially instead of coming up with a better free-market plan, the White House has painted itself into a bit of a corner.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 10:30 AM
I’m not sure how campaign finance law might restrict it, but I can envision some aggressive ads in states where Democrats hold governorships or control of the state legislatures. For Louisiana, you could start off with a picture of swamped school buses (kids theme) after hurricane katrina and ask in a voice over if the voters would trust Kathleen Blanco with their kids’ health care. Then say that Dems in DC want to entrust her with it (SCHIP is a state-administered program after all.) I’m sure some kind of rank incompetence could be dug up for other states as well.
Big S on October 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Stop the madness.
Spirit of 1776 on October 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Lake, your daughter will NOT have to suffer a pre-existing condition waiting period due to the federal law of ‘HIPA’. Yes, the government has 2 ‘hipa’ programs, the most recent is the one concerning PRIVACY that we all know about.
But the first HIPA program was for PORTABILITY (actually Hillary was sort of responsible and it is a good law).
It states. . . if you have had 12 months of continuous ‘creditable’ coverage with no lapse in coverage of more than 63 days, that coverage will be given as CREDIT to any pre-existing condition waiting period of a new policy.
Lake, your daughter needs to take her letter of creditable coverage to her employer and she’ll get everything covered and the waiting period will be waived.
brian@thackeragency.com is my email if you have any further questions concerning this issue. Good luck to you.
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Do you actually want the govt forcing you to buy a product you wouldn’t otherwise purchase? Secondly, health insurance is not “insurance.” Its a cost-shifting scheme.
cadetwithchips2 on October 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM
LakeRuins on October 4, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Another thing…If she is living on her own and as you said insurance will not cover her meds, she can apply to get the medication for free or a reduced cost directly from the drug company.
Look at: http://www.needymeds.com/
If she lives in your house, your household income counts toward her earnings so she would most likely not qualify.
sunny on October 4, 2007 at 10:56 AM
she won’t have a waiting period if she has been covered for the previous 12 months – her insurance agent should tell her this. She’ll get a letter in the mail detailing the dates that she had prior coverage (the insurance company is required to send the letter by law). She needs to take that ‘letter of creditable coverage’ to her employer and the employer will forward that to the insurance company and she won’t have a waiting period.
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 11:01 AM
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Thanks
Reason # 1,397,485 to be thankful for the blogosphere.
LakeRuins on October 4, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Why is it only “our crap politics” when the GOP does something stupid?
Jaibones on October 4, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Kids are stinky little carrier monkeys!
abinitioadinfinitum on October 4, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I’ve never seen you post anything as stupid as this before AP. You don’t think people see through this tripe? It’s that thinking about winning approval above principals that has gotten him in the tank in the first place.
bj1126 on October 4, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Absurd? Yes, just like the Democratic anti everything good movement!
abinitioadinfinitum on October 4, 2007 at 11:15 AM
I guess Republican leaders are pretty stupid too, then. Read the Sun article.
Allahpundit on October 4, 2007 at 11:20 AM
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Just out of curiousity, what happens if his daughter moves out of State. Does she now have to start all over again?
If it means that you will take responsibility for your own health care costs instead of shifting the responsibility to the taxpayer, then, yes, I do support it. It’s not as if this is a no harm, no foul situation.
Among other things, what needs to happen is for private insurance to be deregulated, and the pool of the insured to expand so costs come down, but as I ask everyone who objects to Romney’s ideas, do you have a better idea?
If it’s government insurance, you are correct. If it is private insurance you are incorrect.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Yes, but they don’t like the Rep. Leaders.
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Yes they are too.
No that would have been real earmark reform but neither party seems too excited about that either.
I’m starting to think more and more that the country is completely lost. Corrupt buffoons in both parties run the show now.
bj1126 on October 4, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I agree with you, but there are so many other options. What’s wrong with moving towards less expensive, catastrophic-only health insurance, with deductibles based on income? In other words, return health insurance to being insurance, instead of an unnecessary third-party payer system linked to employment, or a stealth wealth-transfer system?
For example $1000/year/family deductible for poor people, up to maybe $6000 or so for the wealthy. Not sure if it would necessary that it be mandatory.
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 11:32 AM
The bill removed the citizenship requirement for receiving benefits. And you are worried about the political implications? Disturbing.
lorien1973 on October 4, 2007 at 11:41 AM
My first reaction when I see an advertisement of this type no matter what the issue is, I say to myself that obviously it is about an issue they are afraid to debate on the merits.
CommentGuy on October 4, 2007 at 11:42 AM
In state or out of state it doesn’t matter. It is a federal law. Your coverage is creditable no matter what new coverage you get. So if you have a plan with a waiting period, that waiting period is waived if you have had prior ‘creditable coverage’ with no lapse of more than 63 days. It’s a federal law.
What people don’t realize as has been mentioned in this thread is that health insurance (insurance in general) is a ’state’s rights’ thing. Every state has its own Department of Insurance which makes up the laws and rules governing insurance for residents of the state.
This is one of the MAJOR road blocks to ‘universal health care’. Every state WANTS control over it’s own rules and regulations. Most states don’t want to give up control – but many states are suing to get more federal dollars.
It’s all about the money. There are simple fixes – but the government will only focus on more beaurocracy. These issues only focus on PAYING FOR INSURANCE. The PROBLEM is the COST OF HEALTH CARE. The government PAYING FOR INSURANCE does not solve the problem of the RISING COST OF HEALTH CARE (a problem that does have many simple solutions, but no politician is anywhere near them).
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 11:43 AM
YOU ARE GETTING VERY WARM there focusing on solutions Jiangxi. That’s the most reasonable statement concerning this issue that I’ve heard from anyone – much less politicians.
Well done focusing on solutions to the ACTUAL problems.
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 11:45 AM
“It’s great to see him exercising fiscal responsibility and it’s understandable that he’d want to put up a roadblock on the path to universal health care, but this is the sort of thing you do when you’re 15 points ahead on the generic ballot, not 15 points down.”
I’ve never seen you post anything as stupid as this before AP.
bj1126 on October 4, 2007 at 11:15 AM
It seems pretty astute to me, not stupid. In fact not really astute so much as obvious, particularly since Bush has no credibility on controlling spending and this just strengthens the hand of those who want universal health care.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 11:45 AM
That seemed to be on the horizon 10 years ago, but now it has quietly vanished. I’d much rather have a health savings card and catastrophic insurance.
It’s all over now, anytime the government tries to fix a problem, it only grows.
reaganaut on October 4, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Also Families USA has a lot of tie ins to the Clinton administration.
President William Jefferson Clinton
Remarks as Delivered
For Families USA
January 23, 2003
Thank you very much for the warm welcome.
And, Ron, thank you for the reference to Hillary. You actually should have given her a bigger round of applause because, unlike me, she can still do something for you.
I am delighted to be here. Chris Jennings, who was my health care adviser in the White House, and several other people who worked with us are here today. And I see a lot of other old friends in the audience, some of whom I worked with in Arkansas over 20 years ago.
CommentGuy on October 4, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Everyone should have to have catastrophic health care at a minimum, but there should still be options available to people who want more coverage. For instance, Medical savings accounts are great if you are young and healthy and have time to add up your savings, but they are a poor option if you are older. We should not have to rely on employer-based coverage, but we shouldn’t discourage it either.
I think it also comes down in part to how one defines “catastrophic?. Is that only “life-threatening”? For example, what if you are in chronic pain and need a procedure to stop the pain?
Generally speaking, I am wary of income based benefits, particularly with deductibles because invariably is is the middle class who get screwed.
A bit off topic, I think a lot of cost savings could be realized if standard procedures were available without having to go through a doctor’s office. Pap smears, vaccinations, and the like are good examples of procedures which a physician’s assistant or even a nurse could easily perform.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 12:04 PM
For those of you who think Guiliani can beat Hillary, think again. She’s even beating him on 9/11. See this article here.
Hillary Clinton will eat Rudy Guiliani’s lunch in a general election no matter what he says. You better hope that Conservatives who don’t see Guiliani as better than Clinton still show up.
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I have to laugh at that ad, 90 percent of the people who see that ad aren’t going to take away from it what the dems want them to. The reason? Because most people who see it are going to do so without thinking. They will hear the kids praising Bush and not bother reading anything that comes across the screen. Remember this ad is going to run…in between television show mostly at night. The dems just blew their own foot off with this one.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 12:09 PM
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Guiliani built his reputation as Mayor of New York and he was a fantastic Mayor, who saved the City. Here’s all he accomplished
One can disagree with him on some issues, but he has accomplished a lot of remarkable things, among them wresting New York City from decades of nearly catastrophic liberal control.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Should I hold my breath that the msm will actually report on the bill? Or will it be more of the same tired worn out bulls*** line “it’s for the children”
Wasn’t that the line used when they stormed Waco and Americans children were burned alive Ms Reno?
And please somebody explain to me why a 25 year old is considered a child.
Mojack420 on October 4, 2007 at 12:15 PM
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 12:09 PM
The same thought occurred to me. They will probably re-edit it so that the focus on pushing through the SCHIP is clearer.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I meant catastrophic to mean “full” coverage after deductible is met.
Yep, the middle-class is the largest, and will always pay the most. You will ALWAYS carry the poor. (Didn’t Jesus say that?)But I think the middle-class is always proud to pay its way.
Great idea. Not sure it will become ADA approved, laugh laugh.
Doesn’t it make you feel that the gov’t doesn’t want to solve this?
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 12:04 PM
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 12:17 PM
it’s not about what he did for NYC. I’m sure that the 10 million New Yorkers are happy about that. But there are another 290 million people in America that he has done nothing for.
You can think he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread – by all accounts he thinks he is, but Hillary will destroy him in a general election (with or without ‘true conservatives’).
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 12:19 PM
David Brock, is that you? Don’t you normally post on Media Matters homepage?
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 4, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Guiliani built his reputation as Mayor of New York and he was a fantastic Mayor, who saved the City. Here’s all he accomplished
I am from Oregon and Washington state. I have lived in/visited quite a number of places in the U.S. and frankly about the only place I did not like was New York. If I were to say, “Hey look what Mayor Whosits accomplished out here, vote for him for Prez, and besides Hillery will kill you if she is elected (I just thought I would throw that in)”, how impressed do you think that New Yorkers would be? Well guess what, that goes both ways.
One can disagree with him on some issues
The problem is not the some, it is the many.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 12:15 PM
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 12:40 PM
mojowire
Eh, I think most people read that headline and their BS meter pegs.
DaveS on October 4, 2007 at 12:40 PM
maybe if those kids’ fat-ass mommies and lazy baby-dayddies actually went to work and stopped sucking the system dry, george bush wouldn’t really have to hate them so much… it’s all so very sad…
D2Boston on October 4, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I like kids…but I can hardly finish a whole one by myself anymore.
And you really can’t freeze the leftovers…
Asher on October 4, 2007 at 12:48 PM
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 12:19 PM
If you read that recap of what he accomplished you get a pretty good idea of what would be capable of as our Chief Executive.
I don’t agree that Hillary would destroy him. He is a much better debater and speaker than she is, and he would pick up a lot of Independents.
I am not committed to him as my candidate, and like Romney a lot also. I just think that there is a lot to know about what Rudy accomplished that people who are preoccupied with other issues aren’t aware of.
MB4,
I for one do not give a damn that you didn’t like New York City when you visited it. It is completely irrelevant to anything that is being discussed.
When you manage to come up with an articulate response, I’ll consider discussing it with you. Ever since your ridiculous Rush is a chickenhawk rant, I have very little respect, if any, respect for your opinions.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Using Crumb Crunchers to do thy Leftist Bidding.
Kini on October 4, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I for one do not give a damn that you didn’t like New York City when you visited it. It is completely irrelevant to anything that is being discussed.
A little touchy today are you?
Well, I for one do not give a damn that you do like New York City when you visited it (or lived there or whatever). It is completely irrelevant to anything that is being discussed. So there!
Ever since your ridiculous Rush is a chickenhawk rant, I have very little respect, if any, respect for your opinions.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Please supply a direct quote of my ridiculous rant saying Lord Rush is a chicken hawk.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I like kids…but I can hardly finish a whole one by myself anymore.
And you really can’t freeze the leftovers…
Asher on October 4, 2007 at 12:48 PM
You are either a great comedian or you are Jeffery Dahmer.
I am agnostic at this point.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 1:22 PM
This web site is more fun than Saturday Night Life!
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Please supply a direct quote of my ridiculous rant saying Lord Rush is a chicken hawk.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I’m going to play a game you played the other day:
It’s not my job to look things up for you. Google it or check the Hot Air vault.
As for who does and does not like New York City, am I supposed to retort that I don’t much like Washington State either? What freaking difference does it make? Your personal opinion of New York has nothing to do with Guiliani’s readiness to be President of the United States.
Try taking those comments to the tourist board.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Sick and dying American children with no insurance just means they are doing their part to eliminate global warming. Without those pesky kids eating up energy, breathing out CO2 which kills polar bears, and potentially growing up to drive SUVs, the world is a safer and cleaner place.
BelchSpeak on October 4, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I’m going to play a game you played the other day:
It’s not my job to look things up for you. Google it or check the Hot Air vault.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 1:32 PM
How would I be able to look up what you think you saw?
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 2:19 PM
MB4,
I KNOW what I saw, and even Bryan commented on it. There’s a hint for you!
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »