Why are the republicans able to stop things while they are in the minority and the democracts couldn't stop anything majority or minority?

because they also control the white house

Did you really think that the Republicans will actually not use the opportunity to kill more children?

This is a disgusting example of horribly misplaced priorities. It is also remarkably shortsighted; the children who have been shut out of health insurance will not be children forever.

This is example number three why the Dems need to gain control of the White House while expanding majorities in Congress:

1. A Dem won't start unnecessary wars (fingers crossed).

2. Supreme Court

3. Maybe SOME decent legislation would get passed.

As we're seeing now, divided government only works well for the party in control of the White House.

I blame Democrats for this loss.

Rangel and Pelosi did a poor job on the Sunday shows last week pointing out Republican lies about the program and they waited until yesterday to hand out a fact sheet to the media pointing out that the program does not cover illegals & families with incomes at the $83,000 level. They also failed to point out that this bill WAS a compromise bill with the Republicans.

They seemed to think that just appealing to the "kids" would cut it with the media instead of putting out some damn facts. They let the Republicans get away with misleading the public on the program.

Why can't we have more effective leadership? Between this & the Turkey vote, I'd say Pelosi needs to go.

Aborted fetuses: bad
Dead babies: good

Two words, MaryAnne -- "party discipline."

When they controlled Congress, Republicans were able to draft legislative initiatives on the right -- and then force party-wide coalitions -- because of their strong party-line voting. Then, usually, the GOP was able to bring on a smattering of conservative Democrats that were either receiving campaign donations from the same sources or who were ideologically aligned.

On top of that, when the GOP controlled Congress, they were working hand-in-glove with a friendly White House, and didn't need to contend with vetos.

The Democrats have a narrow majority in the House, and most of their members act like a bunch of legislative free agents. In this situation, a unified minority can regularly disrupt the Democrats' initiatives and then uphold the President's vetoes when anything actually DOES happen.

And the great thing? Come 2008, the GOP plans to run against this being a "do nothing Congress."

-- Bokonon

JZ, divided government can work well, and has in the past, when the occupant of the White House is willing to actually work with the other party and has some sense of what the word honorable means. That of course is lacking currently.

Teresa, there was nothing the media could put out there (even if they were willing to) that would have caused enough of an outcry to cause sufficient numbers of Republicans to cross over.

Between this & the Turkey vote, I'd say Pelosi needs to go.

I'm slowly, and sadly, coming to the same conclusion, but... who to replace her with? I'm leery of giving Rahm the opportunity to move up in the leadership ranks any further than he has already.

I blame Democrats for this loss.

I don't see how. I haven't seen the actual vote tally, but the number was 273-156, or 65%; 13 votes shy of the 2/3 needed. I suspect there were just about zero Democrats who voted against. It's clear that the bill failed because of the dead-enders who insist on playing to Bush's pedestal.

What I would like to see is the names of those representatives who vote against posted on-line, and repeated every day between now and the 2008 election, so people know who they are.

Roll Call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll982.xml

I bet every (R) in a close district voted Yea.

Pelosi and Dems, please wake up to the new reality of congressional legislation. Gone are the gentlemen days "coorperation" where dems and reps snipe in public but agree on well-written and designed laws. Today, its the "fuck you, go to hell" congress of the GOP. Where the other side has but one single purpose, to fuck dems at all cost no matter what. This is what your dealing with Pelosi and Reid so please take note and make halftime adjustments as required. Swear to God, the dems just don't get it. 08 is going to be much closer then we think.

This is a disgusting example of horribly misplaced priorities. It is also remarkably shortsighted; the children who have been shut out of health insurance will not be children forever.
Posted by: Dallas

My parents are god-fearing, life-long Republicans, and they are thoroughly disgusted by Bush, and particularly this vote.

I don't see how [the Dems are to blame]. I haven't seen the actual vote tally, but the number was 273-156, or 65%; 13 votes shy of the 2/3 needed. I suspect there were just about zero Democrats who voted against.

It's the Dem leadership that is to blame. Their job is not just keeping their rank and file inline, but also to pick off the necessary GOP votes. The GOP does this quite artfully; I expect the same or better from the Dems.

[Content deleted. IP check verifies handle hijack by a banned commenter.]

"..big shout out to the fever swamps.."

Talk about political bias, Kevin sounds like the old progressive Tip O'Neil who was considered kindly and generaous with my money. I never got credit.

[Content deleted. IP check verifies handle hijack by a banned commenter.]

Dems voting nay: Jim Marshall (D - GA), Gene Taylor (D - MS).

Dems not voting: Julia Carson (D - IN), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D - TX).

Pelosi has to go.

Oh, stick a cork in it. Pelosi has been one of the most effective Speakers in a long time at keeping discipline within a famously undisciplined caucus -- both before AND after 2006.

And whom would you prefer? Steny Hoyer? Rahm Emanuel?

And just think of the headlines! "Disarrayed Democrats Dump Doyenne."

You circular-firing-squad people really are a lot of help.

[Content deleted. IP check verifies handle hijack by a banned commenter.]

Pelosi may be good at keeping party discipline, but she sucks at getting the message out there. Pick one or two people who can make an effective presentation of the facts and make it their job to be on TV. The Republicans have message management down to a science. Dems need desperately to work on this. None of them seems to be on the same damn page or even to have researched some of the issues.

This was a good and popular vote. Pelosi should have been able to override the veto if she were minimally competant.

We need to get out the knives, and do some fucking payback. I am SO TIRED of getting rolled, every single fucking time. It's time to put bills out with NO AMENDMENTS allowed. It's time for payback. It's time for GET IT DONE.

It's time to drop the F-BOMB in the Senate, and prohibit filibusters for many classes of bills. It's also time to limit holds.

I can set-up a Post Office box for you, Kevin, and all the other folks who think that they should pay for my kids' health care. I'm well beyond the limit for getting the gov't to cover my kids & my son's autism sure makes the medical bills pile up.

How much are you going to fork over, Kev? I'd like to budget the amount, since you don't want "sick kids" to go uncovered and I have my eye on a wii that I can get with the savings from my personal account.

Or is it just that you're going to make yourselves feel good, even if it means you're going to spend every last dollar of someone ELSE'S money to do it?

How much can I put you down for, Kev?

Only two Democrats voted "nay" which indicates that here it was a matter of lacking numbers, not party discipline.

The Bush Dog Dems have got to go.

It's time for new leadership, sorry, but they just ain't getting the job done. Put those from the thirtysomething caucus in the leadership and give them a chance.

"This was a good and popular vote. Pelosi should have been able to override the veto if she were minimally competant."

What a ridiculous and ignorant statement. Did you know that Repukeliscum ONLY voted against it? Did you know that Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat? Did you know that the Repukeliscum are trying to sabotage the Democrats?

Tell me, O Scholar of the Congress, exactly EXACTLY what Pelosi could do to GET REPUKELISCUM to VOTE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT? Enough of this ignorant CRAP about "she is an ineffective leader"

How much can I put you down for, Kev?

Yet another well-off wingnut looking for a handout. The funny thing is that he actually believes that he is being original.

Teresa: Pelosi may be good at keeping party discipline, but she sucks at getting the message out there.

Then she should be the whip, not the speaker.

Harry Truman must be rolling over in his grave - he would have ripped the R's a new one over this.

Talk about an easy target! Children's health care? Denying it is downright Dickensian. If you can't rip the opposition to shreds over this then you don't deserve office. The R's hand you a rope that's tied around their neck and the D's don't know enough to pull it?

Did anyone else ever notice the overwhelming number of genetically defective brats the wingers produce?

Pelosi isn't to be blamed for this. BUT the test is, what is she willing to do now? The S-CHIP expansion needs to be attached to a bill Bush can't veto. Maybe that Iraq supplemental he's been asking for? Maybe that FISA/telcom immunity bill he thinks is so fab? Let him and the GOP explain how they were willing to put our troops in jeopardy or allow the terrorists to go free just because they were afraid too many sick kids might get medical help. That's the way this game is played. Let's just see if Pelosi and Reid have the (metaphorical) balls to play it.

Fever swamps...Sunday gabfests...what difference did it all make? Not one Rep changed hir vote, and that's what was needed. Nancy on Press the Meat wouldn't have changed that. In the cloakroom, mebbe, not on the teevee. Frankly, if even one had flipped, I'd credit that to Michelle & Co's performance "above and beyond the call of lunacy". Din happen, though...

The Democrats have a narrow majority in the House, and most of their members act like a bunch of legislative free agents.

Yah. Herd of cats. So what else is new...

never fear... Squalor Can Heal Indigent Preschoolers!

Did you know that Repukeliscum ONLY voted against it?

44 GOPers voted for the bill. 2 Dems voted against.

Tell me, O Scholar of the Congress, exactly EXACTLY what Pelosi could do to GET REPUKELISCUM to VOTE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT?

The same way that the GOP picks off Dems to vote for their bills -- threaten their jobs! Approach members of the opposition in weak districts and threaten to withhold pork. Pelosi has the power -- she just needs to use it.

That being said, I suspect that the calculation by Pelosi is that the Dems gain more by not overriding the veto and having a cudgel to bash the GOP with in 2008. I disagree with that assessment, but it is the best argument in defense of Pelosi that I can think of atm.

Time for Madame Nancy to bring in ze discipline!

y'all want a kick ass speaker of the house ?

barney frank......

Sock puppetry, eh?

"The [trolls] have neither courage nor honor. That is our greatest advantage." --Worf

Disputo: I suspect that the calculation by Pelosi is that the Dems gain more by not overriding the veto and having a cudgel to bash the GOP with in 2008.

Keep dreaming. We're taliking about people who'd bring a nerf ball to a knife fight.

alex is right. I expect them to come up with something stupid like a "million kid march"

"I blame Democrats for this loss.

Rangel and Pelosi did a poor job on the Sunday shows...."

Polling indicates that Pelosi had the support of 80% of the American voters on this issue. What more could she and the Democrats have done?

arkie, see Disputo at 2:23 PM.

Now I want it reported throughout the land: George Bush and the Republicans hate sick kids!

Send out the message and then keep on it.

In other news, Mukasey refuses to acknowledge that water boarding is torture, while the Dem majority Senate prepares to confirm his nomination.

*

The Repubs occupying the threatened seats were the 44 that voted for the override. The vast majority of the others are in super safe seats.

My own representative (Boozman AR-3d) will probably not even have a Democratic opponent next year. How is Pelosi going to threaten him?

Demagogues play with emotional symbols and tug at heart strings so that the brain cuts off and emotions run rampant- that's the tradtional liberal Democrat ploy

Oh yeah, the Retardicans never do that...oh wait, there is that "we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" shit you demagogues play.

SCHIP already covers a lot of adults and middle class people. The bill that failed was trying to extend coverage to even more people who are not needy kids.

I would hope the Dems will now pass an extension of SCHIP that continues to cover needy kids, rather than let the program lapse. If they do, that will dispose of Kevin's accusation of "leaving sick kids uncovered."

The bill that failed was trying to extend coverage to even more people who are not needy kids.

Liar.

RW, I am truly sorry that you are faced with caring for an autistic child. I am glad that you have the resources, financial at least, to help you meet that child's need. I am mystified as to why you would deny those parents of autistic, or othewise compromised children, less fortunate than yourself ANY resource available for meeting their child's needs.

I glean, from your tone, that you are angry about having to pay for the misfortunes and mistakes of others. The "why" of that position confounds me. Please clarify.

My own representative (Boozman AR-3d) will probably not even have a Democratic opponent next year. How is Pelosi going to threaten him?

Well, you start by thinking clearly and not proffering strawmen.

Second, you go after the marginals, the ones not in the supersafe seats. You don't target the hardcore cases.

Third, you don't throw up your hands and exclaim that you hit the wall at 44.

This isn't rocket science. This was Pelosi's best chance to override GWB, and she blew it. And if she knew in advance that she wasn't going to have the votes, she should have never initiated this show-down. What's the plan now? To role over and give GWB a bill that he will sign, thereby looking weaker than before, or to simply not fund the program at all thereby screwing over the kids? I have little confidence that someone who blew this round will be able to muster the support to attach this same bill to lege that can override a GWB veto.

Look, even with her A-game, Pelosi still might not have been able to manage the all the votes needed -- I'm not privy to the details -- but she certainly did not bring out her A-game.

Pelosi either overestimated her ability to get the votes, or made a huge strategic error bringing this lege in the first place. Either way, the fault lies with her.

Or is it just that you're going to make yourselves feel good, even if it means you're going to spend every last dollar of someone ELSE'S money to do it?

Let's turn it around....My daughter pays for private insurance for her healthy daughter, and pays an inflated premium because people like you use excess services...How is that fair? Why should she pay more just so your family can be a loss-leader?

"I can set-up a Post Office box for you, Kevin, and all the other folks who think that they should pay for my kids' health care. I'm well beyond the limit for getting the gov't to cover my kids & my son's autism sure makes the medical bills pile up.

How much are you going to fork over, Kev? [Etc., Etc., Etc.]

How much can I put you down for, Kev?"

Feel better now? Got it all out? Let me answer for myself. I would be happy to be paying for your kids' care by paying my share of taxes to support a national health insurance plan. And it would pay for your care too, for that matter. That would be happening in any other developed country, and I can't understand why it doesn't happen here. And I don't really understand why you would have any problem with that. Cutting out the insurance companies' incredible administrative costs (about 30%), paid by you, probably through your employer, would eliminate one big element of health care costs. So sign me up to pay for your health care, preferable via a single payer plan.

David, whose kids also don't qualify for SCHIP.

The bill that failed was trying to extend coverage to even more people who are not needy kids.

Yes indeed this is yet another lie by ex-lax.

The truth is that the exec has control over who the states extend coverage to. The Dems were merely attempting to fully fund the program.

It needs to be understood that a common MO of GWB (as well as most GOPers) is to give lip service to social programs in order to look all compassionate, and then to underfund them so that they are useless. That is what this veto was all about.

One of my Senators, John Cornyn R(TX), sent me an email on the subject. Here is a little piece...

...but the Democratic majority bill, vetoed by President Bush last week, would divert Texas taxpayer money to expand and subsidize the SCHIP program for middle-class adults in northern states.

See, it's the DAMN Yankees fault!

Mouth foam from some commenters aside, this was not about covering the "poor kids." Democrats have been trying to wedge universal coverage in on "the children" for quite a while. Unless the Democrats can get the middle class onto the dole, there's no real political power in it for them. There just aren't enough poor in America to make a difference in that electoral equation.

As I read it, those kids hauled in front of cameras to push the Democratic expansion of SCHIP were already covered under the current program. I suspect if they had used a representative family that could only have been covered by the new expansions, it wouldn't have gone over nearly as well.

The root problem with the Democratic Party is that they are socialists, and can only win elections in America by hiding this. Most of their problems come from this inherent conflict between what they are and what they have to sell to get elected. Those "Blue Dogs" disparaged in an earlier comment are the only reason Pelosi is Speaker now.

I am mystified as to why you would deny those parents of autistic, or othewise compromised children, less fortunate than yourself ANY resource available for meeting their child's needs.

Who said I did? Who said I was against the S-CHIP program? Is it possible for someone to be opposed to expanding it to the levels that the BY GOD Democratic congress proposed without being a quasi-satan who wants kids to die (and a racist, bigot, homophobe)?

My daughter pays for private insurance for her healthy daughter, and pays an inflated premium because people like you use excess services

Who says I use excess services? For all you know, I spend five-figures out of pocket yearly to cover my family's medical expenses, of which your daughter (assuming that she's in my private system) would not be affected. Or, should I submit a form to your daughter & ask her permission so that my son can please, pretty please, be allowed to undergo speech classes due to his condition (or is it only okay if the taxpayers finance it, as opposed to me & my private carrier)?

Is it fun to designate someone who has an opinion that differs from yours demonic status?

By the way, I noticed that no one even hinted at paying someone else's costs....apparently, it only applies when it's taxpayer financed & approved by the DNC. Gosh, this makes it seem almost more political than the welfare/good of "sick kids". (is that feminine enough?)

but the Democratic majority bill, vetoed by President Bush last week, would divert Texas taxpayer money to expand and subsidize the SCHIP program for middle-class adults in northern states.

Good gawd, it's been almost 150 f-ing years!

Can't we put a fork in it yet?!

For all you know, I spend five-figures out of pocket yearly to cover my family's medical expenses

For all we know, you rape your children every night.

How about telling us the truth, instead of couching lies in hypotheticals?

The root problem with the Democratic Party is that they are socialists, and can only win elections in America by hiding this.

Oh, pish-posh, harry. The socialist segment of the DNC is quite small. The Democratic party is just more inclined for big government solutions than you (or me). There's a big difference in the Dems pushing for this program and socialism. Universal health care, funded by a single-paying government? Yeah, you'd have a good argument.

Calling people socialists does nothing for the situation & is similar to many of the folks here simply calling people who disagree with them the type of people who want kids to be sick or don't care if they die. In short: stupid.

Don't be disingenuous RW - you know damn good and well that every special needs kid they cover raises the premium on every other.

If it were my call - which it is not - Medicare would be opened up for every dependent from the moment of the first positive pregnancy test for so long as they remain a full-time student under the age of 25. But I'm a military dependent and have been my entire life. i have lived with "socialized medicine" my entire life, and I fail to see the evil. I think everyone should have access to the same services I do.

RW, I have apparently misunderstood your position on this issue. What is it, precisely?

Let me rephrase that...I think everyone should have access to the same services that you pay for for me.

This is why congress's ratings are lower then the president's. I wonder what the compromise bill will look like - Bush's initial proposal? The Democrrats will cave, AGAIN. Just like they're doing on FISA.

Don't be disingenuous RW - you know damn good and well that every special needs kid they cover raises the premium on every other.

And every c-section raises the premium of every other person within the system. I guess I should've aborted my son, eh?

My, it doesn't take long for the compassion to come out, does it?

disputo and elmo, I'm sure you believe what you wrote. You can probably find liberal sources to back up your belief that the bill didn't extend coverage to greater numbers of other-than-needy-kids. I can find conservative sources to back up my contention that it did.

Whatever one's view of S-chip, it would be nice if the bill were on the web and if it were written in a clear, organized way so that we could easily tell who, if anyone, was being added to the pool of covered people. It would also be nice if our leading media provided objective summaries of bills before they were voted on, so that citizens could provide knowldgeable input to our elected representatives.

Don't put words in my fingers. I did not say any such thing. I simply stated a simple, irrefutable fact.

And look up a comment or two - You will see what I would do if I made the decisions.

Who ever said SCHIP was for poor kids? That's what Medicaid is for. Can any of you Retardicans explain to me how a family of four bringing home 50k a year is supposed to pay for a liver transplant for an 8yr old? Pre-existing condition and all...

I guess we let the kid die?

Let me rephrase that...I think everyone should have access to the same services that you pay for for me.

Everyone in your situation would qualify. Not everyone has a primary-household person in the military (and thus eligible for active duty callup at the discretion of the CIC). You want the bennies for everyone, but not the responsibilities.

Now - politics aside, RW - I have a question re Autism. (I have an autistic godson and I spent some of my career doing neuro research.) Does he become communicative and lucid when he spikes a temp?

The root problem with the Democratic Party is that they are socialists, and can only win elections in America by hiding this. Most of their problems come from this inherent conflict between what they are and what they have to sell to get elected.

Yawn. Yet another example of why you get seated at the children's table. Comments like this bespeak the feeblest understanding of both socialism & current events. You'd get laughed out of your local high school's debating society.

Don't put words in my fingers. I did not say any such thing. I simply stated a simple, irrefutable fact.

And my saying that blacks have a huge problem with out-of-wedlock births is a fact, as well. Not pertinent & quite inconsiderate to say, though, too.

You were, in essence, blaming my son's condition for your daughter's premium. Now, I'm sure you didn't mean that literally and I don't think you're a bad person, but that was the logical conclusion of your trying to play "gotcha". Trust me, I pay for my son. I pay a helluva lot for stuff that isn't covered by insurance.

I wasn't trying to paint you as an evil person or even someone saying something evil, I just don't think you considered the outcome of what you typed (which was really that anyone with a sick kid was a burden to someone blessed with a healthy kid) and - get this, blogosphere - I'm sorry if it came across that way. I didn't say "if you misinterpreted". I didn't say "if you misconstrued", I said "if it came across that way", meaning the onus was on me. Which, would make me the first person on a blog to take responsibility for something they typed, but....someone's gotta do it.

You want the bennies for everyone, but not the responsibilities.

There you go putting my motives in pixels again!

How do you know where I fall on the responsibility scale? How do you know I don't favor some form of national service? And I said that care for dependents and full-time students to a max age.

Health care and Education are aggregate positives for society as a whole. Herd immunizations in schools against UCHDs eliminated polio and greatly reduced the incidence of birth defects caused by rubella, etc.

Mouth foam from some commenters aside, this was not about covering the "poor kids."

Sure it was. It was about providing coverage for kids whose parents were too poor to purchase private health insurance to cover their needs. That is a real need and a legitimate cause, your nitwit conspiratorial theories aside.

Unless the Democrats can get the middle class onto the dole, there's no real political power in it for them.

The 2006 elections refute your contention that Democrats need to buy the votes of the middle class. That one must have really stung, eh? Probably best you weren't posting here at the time, it would have been as humiliating for you as it was for Charlie and rdw.

Also, FYI, in July of this year "fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American."

That's fifty-one percent of Republicans across all classes.

Apparently you're not paying close enough attention to what electoral power resides where, nor are you recognizing that this is an issue that Americans of all backgrounds are coming around to support.

There just aren't enough poor in America to make a difference in that electoral equation.

It isn't that there "aren't enough poor" to make a difference in the electoral equation, it's that the rich have resources to influence elections that go orders of magnitude beyond what the poor are able to accomplish.

mirror man: y'all want a kick ass speaker of the house ? barney frank......

It's a good question whether he would be more use as speaker or as Senator from Massachusetts when Kennedy retires.

SCHIP FAILS

Oh. Well I'm sure this has nothing to do with conservatives showing up and telling people a bunch of bunk and swearing up and down that the sky is going to fall if you don't help them fuck people over.

No, that can't have anything to do with why we lose this important stuff. No, just keep helping them, stupid-style.

"By the way, I noticed that no one even hinted at paying someone else's costs"

That's because it was a really stupid comment that has no place in any serious discussion. I could just as easily ask why you're picking my pocket to pay for that idiotic Iraq war.

We have a social contract, moron, just as does every nation. Comments like yours are profoundly unserious and ignorant, designed to derail discussion rather than further it.

"SCHIP already covers a lot of adults and middle class people. The bill that failed was trying to extend coverage to even more people who are not needy kids."

This is a deliberate lie, not that this a surprise from you.

"I would hope the Dems will now pass an extension of SCHIP that continues to cover needy kids"

They did. Bush just vetoed it.

Now - politics aside, RW - I have a question re Autism. (I have an autistic godson and I spent some of my career doing neuro research.) Does he become communicative and lucid when he spikes a temp?

No, he 'shuts down', basically akin to a boxer when they've taken a huge blow to the head. He's almost "in a daze" because his focus is even more out of whack.

Now, my son is at the top tier of "high functioning", meaning that a lot of people (including doctors who examine him) have no idea that he has autism. He participates in group sports like basketball, he sings with choirs, just like other kids....I know how lucky I am. There are only a few things that stand out autism-wise (focus, humming, perfering to be alone in his world as opposed to ours) because he can have a conversation with anyone and makes great grades in his class (all A's, including reading, which is very rare for autism).

As we - as a nation & a people - are learning, the spectrum of the condition that IS autism is vast. We experimented with tweaking the diet, which is the latest "thing" vis-a-vis autism, but it didn't change anything. The biggest things thus far are making sure he gets his vitamins/minerals & a good night's sleep, but as most people are aware, we parents are still in the learning process.

All I know is that if someone were to tell a couple that were going into the delivery room that their kid was going to have autism, they'd pray to God with all their hearts that their kid would be as high on the functioning scale as my son is. I'm truly blessed.

And, with that in mind, I support state run S-CHIP programs. The feds have no business clogging up & creating another level of clutter. George Bush or Nancy Pelosi should keep their noses out of it.

I mean, we're getting to the point where its almost useless to have states, any more, what with so much legislation being forced upon us from the federal level. I'm glad the working poor are covered, but it shouldn't be a middle class program funded by the feds, no. My two cents (although, if you guys get your way it'll be a lot more than that, won't it?). :)

RW your logic if you can call it that is flawed. Let me get this straight. anything you don't personally agree with that's funded by congress and paid for through taxes is taking your monety and spending it for people that don't deserve it?
By thta logic I don't think I should pay any taxes because I don't personally agree with how mos of the money's spent because I' not getting enough of it somehow. You complete ashole. I"m sick to to death of your self righteous greedy bullshit. WE spend money as a country and as communities to promote the general welfare of everyone. If we didn't we could just revert to a banana republic. But you'd probably like that.

Not everyone has a primary-household person in the military (and thus eligible for active duty callup at the discretion of the CIC).

Every able-bodied male aged 17 to 45 who is a citizen or who has declared their intention to become a citizen of the United States is eligible for active-duty callup given the appropriate Presidential determination, as are certain others. See, 10 U.S.C. §§ 311, 331-333.

Excuse the mistakes in spelling but these assholes have really got me fired up.

arkie: Polling indicates that Pelosi had the support of 80% of the American voters on this issue. What more could she and the Democrats have done?

Exploit it to the hilt. Make "Republicans don't care if children die" a Democratic talking point, and repeat it at every opportunity, from now until hell freezes over.

Fair criticism? Who cares. You're attacking the Swift Boating party (also see above comment about a nerf ball not being an appropriate weapon to bring to a knife fight).

"As I read it, those kids hauled in front of cameras to push the Democratic expansion of SCHIP were already covered under the current program."

ROFL.... Idiot, the young man who first spoke on this issue said in his commentary that he was covered by SCHIP! It was only morons like you, who didn't even bother to read what he said, who tried to pretend that this was a big secret.

"I suspect if they had used a representative family that could only have been covered by the new expansions, it wouldn't have gone over nearly as well."

Not even remotely, but thanks for playing. Various organizations, including, for example, NPR this morning, found families who would be helped by this expansion.

is eligible for active-duty callup...

Great, another attempt at "gotcha".

Guess that means we should only cover males, huh? Cripes, so many of you simply want an echo chamber and couldn't care less about any dissenting views (you just want the money to pay for your programs)....

disputo and elmo, I'm sure you believe what you wrote. You can probably find liberal sources to back up your belief that the bill didn't extend coverage to greater numbers of other-than-needy-kids. I can find conservative sources to back up my contention that it did.

Typical wingnut. When the facts defeat him, assert that reality has a liberal bias.

Whatever one's view of S-chip, it would be nice if the bill were on the web

Surf to thomas.gov and plug in HR976, you freaking retard.

and if it were written in a clear, organized way so that we could easily tell who, if anyone, was being added to the pool of covered people.

Like I said earlier, dumbshit, this is the job of the states (thus the "S" in "SCHIP"), with approval by the federal exec. Read the f-ing law.

It would also be nice if our leading media provided objective summaries of bills before they were voted on, so that citizens could provide knowldgeable input to our elected representatives.

Typical wingnut, always blaming others for their own stupidity and ignorance.

The truth is out there, you just refuse to see it.

"The feds have no business clogging up"

Dear heart, just what do you think SCHIP is? And who currently funds it?

"& creating another level of clutter."

Since they did not, forgive us if we don't take this argument any more seriously than the rest of your silliness.

"George Bush or Nancy Pelosi should keep their noses out of it."

ROFL.... Incoherent, much?

"I mean, we're getting to the point where its almost useless to have states, any more, what with so much legislation being forced upon us from the federal level."

Another silly comment that doesn't merit a serious response.

"I'm glad the working poor are covered, but it shouldn't be a middle class program funded by the feds, no."

There are two flaws here: the first is that SCHIP is not aimed at "the middle class," nor is the program a "middle class program." The second is that there is no reason at all why this should not, in fact, be a "middle class program." So you're wrong on both counts.

There is no end to this sort of excuses that the Dems are offering.

First it was their minority status. Now it's lack of the veto-proof majority status. Next week it will be the the fact that the President is a Republican. Following that, it will come to the Republican appointed SCOTUS judges.

They are fooling only those who want to be fooled.

The people voted for you. Now do the right thing.

Which in this case means the following: no compromise with the president, pass the same bill again and again, and give the Republicans more opportunities to vote for killing our children.

If the Dems can't do that, they deserve to loose.

Excuse the mistakes in spelling but these assholes have really got me fired up.

Gotcha.
If I don't agree with you on the Democratic legislation, it fires you up to the point where you're sitting anonymously at your computer calling me names that you'd never - ever - say to someone's face. You're getting frothed because I have a different opinion, to the point where you're calling me an asshole. Someone you don't even know. Because I would vote diffently than yourself.

And, I suppose that means there's something wrong with me?

"Cripes, so many of you simply want an echo chamber and couldn't care less about any dissenting views."

ROFL... No, dear, we just want intelligent disagreement, something notably missing from you and your ilk.

"(you just want the money to pay for your programs)...."

Q.E.D. Dear heart, when all you provide is mindless partisan drivel like this, why should we take you seriously?

But it even more then party dicipline, Bokomon, the GOP pratices machine politics. The party holds any wavering members feet to funding fire and they usually come around. If you don't vote the party line, the party doesn't help with funding your next campaigne and cheney or bush doesn't stump for you. And if your still obstinant, the party starts a whisper campainge about your sexuality while growming an iraq war vet to challenge you in a primary. And if your not up for re-election, expect no support on your pet projects, or from K-street and they might even screw with your staff, parking space, office stc. The party owns most reps and they tell them exactly what to do. It called a political machine because it runs like that. The current congressional GOP are raised and bred in the GOP machine. Dems have no such machine, just a bunch of free agents and as a result, look pitiful in comparison. That is why, for the first time, I'm doubting dem gains in 08. The machine lives.

"Gotcha."

LOL.... Only in your fevered imagination, dear heart.

"If I don't agree with you on the Democratic legislation, it fires you up to the point where you're sitting anonymously at your computer calling me names that you'd never - ever - say to someone's face."

No, dear; it bothers us when you disagree with such transparently stupid and dishonest arguments.

"You're getting frothed because I have a different opinion,."

No, dear, we're getting "frothed" because you're basically a moron, incapable of mustering a serious argument.

"to the point where you're calling me an asshole. Someone you don't even know."

Dear heart, if you don't want to be called an asshole, then don't behave like one online. What we know of you is what you write here. That is sufficient information on which to base an opinion.

"And, I suppose that means there's something wrong with me?"

You said it, dear; we didn't.

PaulB,
You don't matter to me. Feel free to continue to nibble at my ankles, but you don't merit me as an audience, so any further inclination to attempt to garner my attention is a fruitless effort on your behalf, thus a waste of your time. In short, you're not bright enough to discuss things with me. Have a nice life, though.

The Democrats have the Bush Dog coalition. This group of fucking traitors is available for any lame-brain Repukeliscum fascist idea that comes down the pike.

What is the Repukeliscum equivalent? What is the Republican Moderate coalition? ANSER: There is none. They are ALL KOOLAID DRINKERS. We cannot pick most of them off, since they are hard-core.

We MUST GO HARD AT THEM FOR THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, STATE 10 TARGETS, AND GET THEM ALL.

YOu can't convert a koolaid drinker. You need to defeat them and then re-defeat them.

"PaulB, You don't matter to me."

ROFL.... Dear heart, the feeling is mutual.

"Feel free to continue to nibble at my ankles, but you don't merit me as an audience,"

ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony....

"so any further inclination to attempt to garner my attention is a fruitless effort on your behalf, thus a waste of your time."

LOL.... Whatever you say, dear. I'm sorry it has escaped your attention that I'm having a great deal of fun at your expense, dear heart, but I'm quite confident that I'll be equally entertained by your further efforts in this thread.

"In short,you're not bright enough to discuss things with me."

ROFL.... Oh, the irony....

Thanks for admitting that you cannot muster a rational argument, dear, and that you cannot reply to any of my points. I do so love the smell of victory.

I am sorry but the lack of understanding of the basic operation of our government reflected in some of the posts here is frightening. It started with the very first post. The Dems cant do a damn thing if they cant get 60 votes in the senate and if no Repubs join them in an override in the House. Why? Because they lack veto override power of 60% in both houses. Its even worse in the senate where you cant vote on any bill these days without 60 out of 100 because the Repubs scream filibuster. Now, I wish the Dems would MAKE them really filibuster, you know...read the dictionary for 6 straight days and let them suffer4 the hurt of looking stupid. Other than that basic criticism of the Dems tactics, the reason things dont get done is because of the Repubs. Yet everywhere I look people are saying the Dems have failed with their majorities and we need change. What change? More Repubs? When the Dems have 60 votes in the senate, and veto override power in the House, then we will see things done, and not a moment before.

As to those who say that the bill requires some states to fund care in other states, hello...welcome to reality. You cant pick and choose what you support based on what state it impacts. I pay for all sorts of crap inmy taxes I wish I didnt have to, but we all dont get a line item veto on our taxes. So Texas money helps pay for northern care, so what? My money is paying for crap in Texas nd I dont like it either but there you are, its the world we live in.

I paraphrase Jimmy Carter who said that the American people get a government as good as they are. I like it better this way: the people get a government as stupid and disfunctional as they are.

MaryAnne: "Why are the republicans able to stop things while they are in the minority and the democracts couldn't stop anything majority or minority?"

Because Democrats don't goose-step mindlessly to the beat of a drumline.

RW: And, with that in mind, I support state run S-CHIP programs. The feds have no business clogging up & creating another level of clutter. ... we're getting to the point where its almost useless to have states, any more, what with so much legislation being forced upon us from the federal level.

So you're a federalism fan, huh? Yeah, me too.

Make you a trade - kill NCLB in exchange for SCHIP. While they're at it, pass a federal law declaring that whether medical marijuana is legal is up to the states.

Medical coverage is one area where, due to the "race to the bottom" effect, there are serious limits to what the individual states can do. As to the other stuff, yeah, leave it to the states.

Federalism? The R's are strictly federalists of convenience.

I do so love RW. He manifestly doesn't know anything at all about SCHIP, nor about the bill that was just vetoed, and yet here he is posting mindless partisan drivel and attacking all and sundry here. How can you not love someone so willing to display such abysmal ignorance? Loved this classic example from above:

"And, with that in mind, I support state run S-CHIP programs. The feds have no business clogging up & creating another level of clutter. George Bush or Nancy Pelosi should keep their noses out of it."

"I mean, we're getting to the point where its almost useless to have states, any more, what with so much legislation being forced upon us from the federal level. I'm glad the working poor are covered, but it shouldn't be a middle class program funded by the feds, no."

How can you not love someone who can write something like this?

Make you a trade - kill NCLB in exchange for SCHIP. While they're at it, pass a federal law declaring that whether medical marijuana is legal is up to the states.

I'm on board. Heck, I wouldn't even stop at "medical" marijuana (and I've never tried the stuff in my life, I just know that it's illogical to have alcohol legal & marijuana illegal).

"So you're a federalism fan, huh?"

Not quite, since he wants the federal government to fund it, while at the same time telling them to butt out. This isn't federalism; it's incoherence.

Why? Because they lack veto override power of 60% in both houses.

It takes 2/3 (67%) to override.

Bush says we can't afford to fund SCHIPS. I say we can't afford NOT to fund it. Numerous studies have shown if a society provides access to good health care at a young age, the health care costs to society are lower over the child's entire lifetime. Many diseases; diabetes, sickle cell anemia, malnutrition, asthma, etc., if caught early in life, can be significantly mitigated and reduce the health care costs that individual will incur later in life.

This program is not just good medicine - it is just plain smart economics!

If I don't agree with you on the Democratic legislation, it fires you up to the point where you're sitting anonymously at your computer calling me names that you'd never - ever - say to someone's face. You're getting frothed because I have a different opinion, to the point where you're calling me an asshole. Someone you don't even know.

Gee, you don't suppose that had anything to do with the patent assholity of your opening comment and only slightly less jerkitude of its follow-ups, do you? You walk into a room and start throwing poop, then claim that the air isn't as fresh as you'd prefer it?

"It takes 2/3 (67%) to override."

They had the votes in the Senate, assuming that everyone who originally voted for it held their vote. In the House, it's much more difficult, particularly with so many members in "safe" districts, unworried about any threats that Pelosi could muster.

Now, my son is at the top tier of "high functioning", meaning that a lot of people (including doctors who examine him) have no idea that he has autism. He participates in group sports like basketball, he sings with choirs, just like other kids....I know how lucky I am. There are only a few things that stand out autism-wise (focus, humming, perfering to be alone in his world as opposed to ours) because he can have a conversation with anyone and makes great grades in his class (all A's, including reading, which is very rare for autism).

This is a genuine question, completely devoid of snark, from someone who doesn't know a lot about autism: in what way is what you describe a disability? His difficulty focusing doesn't seem to prevent him from achieving good grades or participating in activities that require some degree of strategy, so what exactly makes someone like your son autistic, rather than an introvert who likes music? Just wondering.

harry: "The root problem with the Democratic Party is that they are socialists ..."

So quick with the labels, harry -- which indicates a rank inability to understand complex issues beyond the most superficial level.

Would it help if I responded that Republicans collectively behave like greedy and cowardly fascists, who treat the lives and welfare of others with a shockingly casual disdain that clearly belies their long-bogus claims to moral authority and also largely explains your party's less-than-30% public approval rating?

There, now -- that solves everything, doesn't it, putz?

You walk into a room and start throwing poop, then claim that the air isn't as fresh as you'd prefer it?

Exactly what I was thinking. RW, go reread your opening comment - you have no room to bitch about your treatment here.

PS. I swear Shortstop - reading my mind again.

If this outcome proves the Republicans' lack of concern for the health and welfare of children (as if we needed further proof) it also proves the willingness of Democrats in Congress to cynically use the issue of the health and welfare of children as an election year stunt to show the Republicans' lack of concern for the health and welfare of children.

This bill will never be signed into law - even if Democrats increase their margins in Congress and a Democrat is elected president next year.

Nor will there ever be universal Medicare or universal VA-care.

Romney-care (or something that closely resembles it) is the only idea for universal coverage that has any chance of passing in America.

And I think it has almost every chance of passing and being signed into law by the next president.

George Bush is a dick. Everyone knows that by now.

If you don't you're probably one too. And a moron.

But if the Democrats had been serious about expanding health care coverage for children - or anyone else - they would have put a serious bill on the table; this wasn't.

It says nothing kind about them.

so what exactly makes someone like your son autistic, rather than an introvert who likes music?

junebug,
That's actually a very good question. Many parents of high-functioning kids ask that when they're approaching the possibility that their kids may be either autistic or bipolar or the like.

In short: There are tests that the children undergo as well as evaluations from certified professionals who diagnose autism.

Granted, I was giving a SHORT overview of my kid. There are a lot of things that I left out (skipping around the house in circles while humming, constantly twirling a few hairs on his head while deep-thinking, the reluctance to look any human being in the eye while having a conversation, the inability to focus attention on anything that involves another person for a period of time that last more than 30 seconds unless it fits a certain criteria, the near-genius level of intelligence - he built a robot over the summer, not a toy but an actual - albeit small - working robot, using schematics and tools without one iota of help from any other person, etc.)

I questioned the diagnosis at first, due to his ability to carry on a conversation (hey, all I knew about autism was Rainman and my kid was a lot more literate than Hoffman's character) but it's legit. My wife is quite active in the local autism chapter and I've been able to see kids that span the autism spectrum and I can truly say that I am very blessed.

*short example: my son played baseball last summer & batted over .400 (coach pitch) and played catcher and I literally had to stand behind the fence behind home plate and continually remind him to focus on the pitcher. He would watch the pitch come in, scream "strike" if the batter didn't swing and then throw it back to the pitcher, then crouch down and lose focus & start playing with the dirt. Now, granted, most kids do stuff like that in the field, but this is a 7 yr old who does it EVERY PITCH. Once I get his attention, he's fine - just like every other 'normal' kid walking the planet - he just doesn't want to give 'this world' his attention.

So, all we have to do is teach him to stay in 'this world', and he's fine. That's our hurdle.

Exactly what I was thinking. RW, go reread your opening comment - you have no room to bitch about your treatment here.

I don't recall attacking anyone personally or calling anyone an asshole, but that aside, I wasn't bitching about any treatment. I'm an adult & certainly give as much as I take. I was just amused that someone would actually get MAD, to the point of admitting their emotionalism, because of someone's political disagreement.

Heck, all I'd have to do is come here next week and profess that I'd changed my politics and start attacking right-wingers and within a few days many of you who are going after me would soon welcome me with open arms (after I retracted all my previous conservative statements) because politics trumps anything else among MANY. Me, as a person? Doesn't matter how much I give to charity, doesn't matter what I do in my community. What matters is how I vote, period. You know it's true (see: Brock, David).

And, yes, the reverse is true on the other side, as well. That's what's interesting to me. There is no legitimate "opposing viewpoint" because someone who disagrees is obviously an asshole. I read it on the internet.

Oh, RW. Let me humor you. Take your "opposing viewpoint" for which you are in the "minority" and shove it up your ass!

There, is that what you're looking for?

elmo,
Might as well call me a Martian. When an unintelligent, emotional, adolescent attack is thrown, it - as PaulB's constant attempts to garner my attention has shown - bounces off. You would use your time more wisely if you simply typed "please ignore my future writings" as you could not make yourself less credible.

But, it made you feel good to type that, didn't it? And, after all, that's the most important thing; making yourself feel superior to those assholes on the right; isn't it?

By the way, you can save your fingers the effort of typing: I won't read another word above your handle. You don't warrant it. Happy?

CHIP is still a state run program with a subsidy from the Feds. Pa., where I live, covers all households through private insurers with the state capping the premiums. The cap depends on household income and the age and number of children under 19.

As an example, a household with 4 children ages 6-18 making $41,300 annually pays no premiums. Same children with income up to $61,950 pays, on average, $240/mo. and with any income the monthly premium is $600/mo.

The program will continue but for how long without the Federal subsidy is an open question. But even with a veto, children can still be covered.

What are some of the other states' requirements? I'm sure each state has the information readily available. Is there a central clearinghouse?

Here are the HHS Poverty Guidelines for reference:
2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons
in Family or Household 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $10,210 $12,770 $11,750
2 13,690 17,120 15,750
3 17,170 21,470 19,750
4 20,650 25,820 23,750
5 24,130 30,170 27,750
6 27,610 34,520 31,750
7 31,090 38,870 35,750
8 34,570 43,220 39,750
For each additional
person, add 3,480 4,350 4,000

SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 15, January 24, 2007, pp. 3147–3148

By the way, you can save your fingers the effort of typing: I won't read another word above your handle. You don't warrant it. Happy?

Yes. Very. You baby killer.

As riveting as we all find RW's desire to keep whining about her heinous maltreatment and the courageous nobility with which she rises above such base behavior, if we could get back to the SCHIP program...

I am amused to see that the Kentucky papers and TV stations are tearing Mitch McConnell a new one for his slimin' and smearin' and lyin' about it.

As I have heard over and over from various sources, there are many millions (out of the supposedly 47 million uninsured) that for one reason or another (don't want it; don't know how to get it; stupidity; not rightly eligible) do not even take advantage of the SCHIP as presently in place. Why not get those covered who are presently qualified before we take on covering families of an even higher income and not make the 47 million number sound so horrendously high. Call it what you may, it's still the Democrats trying to cover everyone at you-know-who's expense, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. And I know what that's called.

All these folks who keep complaining that the Democrats want to turn SCHIP into a "middle-class program" are missing the point. The point is that health care is sufficiently expensive that unless they get it via their jobs, or if they have pre-existing conditions, the middle class cannot afford it on their own.

And for that matter, as far as I am concerned, if you cannot afford to be treated when you are sick, or if you cannot afford to treat your kids when you are sick, can you really be said to be middle class? If your only option is to go to the emergency room or hope that you or your kids get better on your own, then you basically cannot afford what I would consider a necessity - which makes you POOR.

When an unintelligent, emotional, adolescent attack is thrown...

For more about unintelligent, emotional, & adolescent remarks, you might check your 2:09 p.m. post -- it was whiny, petulant, & reductive to the point of being worthless. If all you're about is a little political disagreement, as you put it, go right ahead & make your point. But you might get a better reception if you did it honestly, rather than characterizing the program as an attempt to rob you of your toys.

tearing Mitch McConnell a new one

Even NASCAR dads are aware their children need healthcare and that they cannot afford it. This may be one issue where the electorate will not vote against its best interests.

Posted by: Mithrandir on October 18, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Word.

And secondly (not directed at you, Mithrandir), it's bad to champion the middle-class because why?

Why not get those covered who are presently qualified before we take on covering families of an even higher income and not make the 47 million number sound so horrendously high.

Coincidentally, that is precisely the purpose of the lege -- to fund and get enrolled those already eligible.

The level of FUD on this very simple issue is astounding.

Guess that means we should only cover males, huh?

Well, I'd rather cover everyone, but I could probably be convinced to accept a compromise pf covering everyone who either is any 17 to 45 year-old male or is a active or reserve servicemember of any age or sex, or lives in a household with or is a natural and/or adopted child of a person meeting that description, if your earlier suggestion that being covered ought to be linked to being connected to a person subject to active-duty callup was accepted.

Dems and Reps are now negotiating a compromise. So S-chip will continue after all and poor children will continue to receive coverage. See

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/10/18/Children_s.Health/

But you might get a better reception if you did it honestly, rather than characterizing the program as an attempt to rob you of your toys.

Should I instead accuse those who disagree with me of wanting kids to get sick & die?

The point is that health care is sufficiently expensive that unless they get it via their jobs, or if they have pre-existing conditions, the middle class cannot afford it on their own.

Well, hey, I have a pre-existing condition in my case & if I cancel my insurance & funnel the money into a couple of Hummers, then *I* won't be able to afford coverage, either.

Dems and Reps are now negotiating a compromise.

The legislation was already a compromise, dipshit.

Dems and Reps are now negotiating a compromise.

That's misleading (I'm sure we're all shocked).

What the article at the link you provided explains is that Dems and GOP supporters of the current bill are meeting to figure out how to tweak the bill so that it's opponents cannot so easily demonize it. (Eg, they are looking at explicitly declaring illegals ineligible, though nothing in the current bill allows for illegals to be eligible.)

Should I instead accuse those who disagree with me of wanting kids to get sick & die?

Clearly RW does not understand the concept of honesty. Shocking, yes.

Well, hey, I have a pre-existing condition in my case & if I cancel my insurance & funnel the money into a couple of Hummers, then *I* won't be able to afford coverage, either

Not. Arguing. In. Good. Faith. Beep! STFU and run along, asshole.

You were saying?

Okay, I see that the REALLY smart people are left, so I'll let you guys go back to your echo chamber (which you so prefer). Have fun, gals.

Another troll takes her toys and leaves. How sad....

Damn, shortstop. If I had any idea it was that easy to get rid of a troll, I would've said that long ago.

uptosnuff: Call it what you may, it's still the Democrats trying to cover everyone at you-know-who's expense

Oh. come on, you can say it - taxpayers.

And since I've never met a taxpayer who doesn't need medical insurance, it seems only reasonable that they should pay for it (or were you looking for a free lunch?).

regardless of whether they are rich or poor. And I know what that's called.

Universal Health Care - a system which, judging by any and all of the scores of countries that have it, costs at least 1/3 less than the current American fiasco. As a taxpayer, I'm tired of getting ripped off.

junie (whose posts I always love, BTW), it only works on the aggressor-turned-victim types. This chick was such a crybaby she was a cert for flouncing out.

I spent the late afternoon calling the Republican offices from the Alabama delegation who voted against the SCHIP expansion expression my displeasure. I got varying responses, but at least I made my displeasure known. I was forceful, but polite, in expressing my displeasure and I was not unhappy with the outcome, but I'm curious about something.

Why do our representatives not have toll free numbers to call? I called the Washington offices of most of the reps, but I had to pick up the cost. I have personally had a toll free number in the past and it was not that expensive, so why do our representatives insist on our paying the cost for our calls to them?

"In behind-the-scenes conversations, Democratic leaders pressed Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia, Betty Castor of Florida, Bob Etheridge and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Baron Hill of Indiana, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Gene Taylor of Mississippi to reconsider their positions on the $35 billion spending increase for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, commonly known as SCHIP.

Despite reservations, Castor, Boren, Hill, McIntyre and Etheridge said they'd support a veto override.

"After careful consideration, I have decided to vote to override the president's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program," Etheridge said Wednesday. "I remain concerned that a tobacco-tax increase could harm North Carolina's rural economy." - McClatchy

Wonder how these people voted? I don't suppose the record is online yet. And what's Kucinich doing here??? First time I've considered the tobacco tax as being a reason to vote against the override.

RW: "And, after all, that's the most important thing; making yourself feel superior to those assholes on the right; isn't it?"

No, God and nature make us not superior but simply better citizens. "Gals" like you just set about confirming it.

Why do our representatives not have toll free numbers to call? I called the Washington offices of most of the reps, but I had to pick up the cost. I have personally had a toll free number in the past and it was not that expensive, so why do our representatives insist on our paying the cost for our calls to them?

Seriously? Because they want to make it as inconvenient to call them as possible.

Why do our representatives not have toll free numbers to call? I called the Washington offices of most of the reps, but I had to pick up the cost. I have personally had a toll free number in the past and it was not that expensive, so why do our representatives insist on our paying the cost for our calls to them?

Probably because if they had toll-free numbers, people would ask "why should I (through my taxes) pay for your calls to your representative?"

Personally, I'd rather have publicly-funded toll-free numbers for reps and publicly funded postage to reps, but have them pay for outgoing mail out of their own pockets. But that ain't gonna happen.

OTOH,

I don't suppose the record is online yet.

It's here.

Kucinich voted for it.

Can we also stop the tax breaks we are giving to people who breed?

I'm with the Republicans on this one, I just wish they'd be consistent. I don't want to subsidize other people's efforts at passing their genes on.

Can we also stop the tax breaks we are giving to people who breed?

We don't give tax breaks to people for breeding, we give tax breaks to people who have financial responsibility for raising children.

You can breed without doing that, and do that without breeding.

I'm with Nick. I'd like to see a child-tax to cover the externalized cost that each additional mouth imposes on the planet.

Alas, shortstop, I'm not up to speed on my typologies. For crying out loud, I didn't even realize that the troll in question was really a trollette. Oy -- I'd be a lousy chaperone at that dance.

"Okay, I see that the REALLY smart people are left, so I'll let you guys go back to your echo chamber (which you so prefer)."

LOL... I do so love a drama queen, don't you? Poor RW ... unable to find a single substantive thing to say on the entire thread, and yet so absolutely sure that all we want is an echo chamber and that the responses she got were all because of our own stubbornness and obtuseness.

"Might as well call me a Martian."

Anything you say, dear heart.

"When an unintelligent, emotional, adolescent attack is thrown"

ROFL.... As in your every post on this thread, dear, beginning with the very first post? You really should be careful about those stones you're throwing, dear; your glass house is quite fragile.

"as PaulB's constant attempts to garner my attention has shown"

Dear heart, I'm just exposing you as a fool and a liar. I could care less whether you read or respond to anything I post. You're here for my amusement; nothing more.

"But, it made you feel good to type that, didn't it? And, after all, that's the most important thing; making yourself feel superior to those assholes on the right; isn't it?"

Wow.... An almost perfect example of projection, if ever there was!

"I don't recall attacking anyone personally or calling anyone an asshole"

LOL.... Can't read your own writing, dear?

"but that aside, I wasn't bitching about any treatment."

No, dear, you're just using it to attack everyone here in rather clumsy ad hominem attacks -- anything to avoid actually discussing the issue.

"I was just amused that someone would actually get MAD, to the point of admitting their emotionalism, because of someone's political disagreement."

No, dear, nobody here gets "MAD" at disagreement. Some are just irritated at utter foolishness and partisan drivel. The rest of us are enormously amused by it.

"You know it's true"

No, dear, it's not, but it's rather sad, not to mention pathetic, that you think so.

Trolls? Trollettes? No diff.
Persecution complex much?
Their MO's the same.

PaulB wroye:
"I do so love RW. He manifestly doesn't know anything at all about SCHIP, nor about the bill that was just vetoed, and yet here he is posting mindless partisan drivel and attacking all and sundry here. How can you not love someone so willing to display such abysmal ignorance?"

Anyone see anything wrong with PB's soliloquy?

No?

Ok, Dear Hearts, here's a hint........Oct 3rd

Apollo :)

The length of this thread is a testament to the fear of the right wing and its shills resulting from Bush's wildly unpopular veto and the lemming-like response of Republican congressmen (any women?) to it, lining up to dive into the sea.

Posted by: RW on October 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You really do need to shut up....your child's condition is not the fault of anyone here or the fault of other children.

Try to imagine a chid whose parents can't pay for his handicap or illness.

I feel sorry for your son, not because he is handicaped but because he obviously has a selfish, bitter little person for a parent...that's going to be his real problem.

I have two objections to the SCHIP as it was proposed. I think they are pretty reasonable, though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

The first is to the manner in which it was funded. I'm not thrilled that we're adding yet another cigarette tax. It allows politicians to pretend that they provided the program for free (at least to non-smokers, and everyone knows that it's really for smokers own good that we're convincing them to stop). Also, it's a bad precedent to be funding the government on the backs of a disfavored minority. Smokers today, the morbidly obese next year, maybe binge drinkers after that? (And by that ridiculous federal standard too. 5 drinks isn't a binge, it's a pre-game)

My second objection is that this isn't really health insurance. You buy insurance against low likelihood but catastrophic events: house burning down, city being flooded, that sort of thing. You also buy it in advance.

SCHIP doesn't really work like that. No one signs up for the program when their kids are healthy. Rather, like the Frosts, they apply for SCHIP assistance after a catastrophe. This makes SCHIP the health care funder of last resort for any family that would be eligible for it regardless of whether they have signed up for it yet.

Effectively, such people are therefore insured by default. It would be foolish for them to spend money out of pocket for redundant private health plan. (This not to say some of them won't, people can sometimes be fools, but given the costs involved, it's unlikely to be many) So far this is actually quite good news. But there is a flip side to all this. When SCHIP provides the benefits of what is effectively universal insurance for its eligibility pool, it also assumes the cost. So we basically have the single-payer that dare not speak its name.

Now, I support universal coverage for children (25 seems a bit adultish, but that's a marginal issue here.) I'm more generally more libertarian that liberal, but on this issue I'm firmly in your camp. However, it's important enough that we do it right that I don't want to see it slip in the back door, pretending it's not universal, just emergency care with a very wide stance. Plus, unless they're willing to pay $40 a cigarette, smokers are never going to cover the expense.

Please be civil, I have a very fragile psyche. I just couldn't deal with it if someone said something hurtful.

Cara mia! Yow!

: )

Okay. I can do civil. It isn't my default position, but I think I can stay the 'bitch' for a minute. I'll try to just start at the top. (I'm not googling anything tonight. I'm buzzing on pain meds...)

The first is to the manner in which it was funded. I'm not thrilled that we're adding yet another cigarette tax.

I don't know the exact stats, but every time cigarette prices go up, and it's pretty much always for taxes, the smoking rate goes down, and fewer children start smoking. So I have no problem with raising cigarette taxes.

SCHIP doesn't really work like that. No one signs up for the program when their kids are healthy. Rather, like the Frosts, they apply for SCHIP assistance after a catastrophe.

This is a misperception. The kids who are covered by this program are pretty much pre-enrolled. I don't know if you have kids or not, but they are expensive little buggers. They have well child visits and vaccinations and they get ear infections and bronchitis and pinkeye and every gawd-awful version of the creeping crud that gets passed around the playground. My oldest made four trips to the ER before he was 5 - the middle one was a klutz and the youngest put her brother to shame where daredevilry was concerned.

Now, ER visits never cost me anything - I raised Air Force brats - but my sister did not marry the military. She spends out of pocket, with coverage, about five grand a year. My nephew is a type I diabetic. My sister is a respiratory therapist, and when she was offered a job as a department head at a small hospital - that needed her worse than she needed them, she would have had to pass without SCHIP - she could not afford the $2K per month that COBRA would have cost with Sam's diabetes; and her new job had a coverage gap on pre-existing conditions. So in a way, you could say that because SCHIP was there, an entire community that relies on that hospital benefited.

I'm a healthcare type, too, and I volunteer occasional shifts in a public health clinic. When SCHIP came in, it took a lot of pressure off of us and allowed us to do a better job of caring for our Medicaid kids. We had been providing all the vaccines and well-child care on a sliding-scale.

It benefited people all up and down the scale.

"Anyone see anything wrong with PB's soliloquy?"

ROFLMAO.... And another moron joins in. I do so love the games these people play. Note the complete lack of substance, the inability to stay on topic, the inability to address any of the legitimate responses to this topic. What we're left with is ... nothing.

Man, I do so miss the days when we had decent conservative commenters here -- people who knew what they were talking about, had a connection with the real world, had some basic integrity, and could muster logical and coherent arguments. Contrast that with the bilge we've seen on this thread, with not one genuine, well-supported argument from the right on the entire thread. Sigh....

"...doesn't know anything at all about SCHIP, nor about the BILL THAT WAS JUST VETOED, and yet here he is posting mindless partisan drivel..."

"Man, I do so miss the days when we had decent conservative commenters here -- people who knew what they were talking about,..."

So, PB,does not knowing that the bill was vetoed over two weeks ago and it was the vote to override the veto that "just" failed constitute someone who does not know what they're talking about and are just posting mindless partasan drivel?

Yes or no? Don't wait for the translation. Yes or no? [:-)

Yes or no? Don't wait for the translation. Yes or no? [:-)
majarosh

Now that's funny. Are you afraid to comment when the thread is active or do you just like talking to yourself?

Yes or no? Don't wait for the translation. Yes, yes or no, no? Or yes and no?[:-)

No and no. Been out and about doing other stuff.

You got your answer, doubt if I'll get mine. :-)

So, PB,does not knowing that the bill was vetoed over two weeks ago and it was the vote to override the veto that "just" failed constitute someone who does not know what they're talking about and are just posting mindless partasan drivel?

You must be kidding. Because you don't think the word "just" captures a veto that took place under three weeks ago on a bill that was still in play and only failed yesterday you're trying to pretend that Paul doesn't "know" something??? When clearly he does???

When you have something of substance to bring to the table, please let us know. Until then we'll remember you as the person who didn't know shit about the Guantamo/Black Prison/torture issue but shot off their mouth anyway.

THAT was a major error of a substantive nature.

"So, PB,does not knowing that the bill was vetoed over two weeks ago"

ROFLMAO.... Is that really the best you can do, dear? Oh my ... you poor guy. You really thought you had something, didn't you? You've been salivating over this "gotcha" not realizing that there is literally nothing there.

Not only are you wrong, of course, but I'm on record commenting on that veto when it took place, noting, in particular, the political foolishness of the veto and its impact on the Republican Party.

For the record, dear, "just" is a loose term that can mean seconds ago, hours ago, and days ago. Guess which sense I used the word, dear?

"THAT was a major error of a substantive nature."

a. In the discussion we "just" had, the day after the SCHIP veto, I was speaking in the present tense, not the past tense.
b. All the examples you cited to refute my comments are from 2 to 3 years ago, hence your conclusion that I "didn't know shit about the" topic is a non sequitur.
c. Thanks to the links you graciously provided, I was able to learn that some of your claims were true, some were partially true and some were, at best, possible but unsubstantiated and rely on a shaky source.

Man, PB/trex, you fellas really are touchy. All I did is ask a question.
Of course I know you knew. I think you "just" got ahead of yourself, didn't mean to write it that way and I was giving you a hard time about it.
Try this next time, "Yea, I misspoke there. Thanks for pointing it out to everybody, you nitpicking asshole."
See, isn't that much better?

You got your answer, doubt if I'll get mine. :-)

Oh contraire.

When a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a noise?

When a troll demonstrably lacks the intelligence to comprehend the extent to which he's been thoroughly discredited, is mocking him still fun?

Yes and yes.

Off topic just a bit but regarding any kind of health care issue and cigarette smoking:

I would like to see someone do a real analysis of the cost/savings imposed by cigarette smokers. I have heard off-the-cuff estimates of the increased cost paid for by States and the Federal gov't because of the higher incidence of illness in smokers, end of life ICU care, etc.

I have also heard the counter argument, also off-the-cuff, that there are net savings due to the fact that cigarette smokers die earlier and therefore don't require care for heart disease and diabetes and all that other stuff they would have needed care for if they hadn't died. Also, they don't collect social security for 20 years since they died early.

Anyone ever see an actual analysis of the the numbers? It would be interesting.

"When a troll demonstrably lacks the intelligence to comprehend the extent to which he's been thoroughly discredited, is mocking him still fun?"

Damn right. That's something that many of our trolls here fail to understand. I absolutely loved RW's remarks above that I was trying to get her attention, or some such nonsense. I could care less whether the trolls respond or not; I just have fun pointing out how ultimately silly and uninformed they are.

"Man, PB/trex, you fellas really are touchy."

LOL... What part of "ROFLMAO" did you fail to understand, dear? To be "touchy," I'd first have to care what you write. I thought your pathetic attempt at a "gotcha" was fricking hilarious!

"All I did is ask a question."

Yes, dear, you did, and in the process you delighted us enormously since it revealed you to be the fool you are. We can hardly wait to see what you come up with next.