Hey, the 12-year-old started it

[BT]

Whatever Bush vetoed, it would have given more money for more kids for health care than they are going to be receiving after the veto.  So the net effect was to cut benefits for somebody, and that somebody was a whole lotta kids.

Not true for the Frosts. The law Bush vetoed would raise the fed guidelines to 300% of the federal poverty level.

MD currently is at that level.

What seems to be downplayed is that in many states adults are also covered and the new laws takes that coverage away from them . So a single mom might have healthy kids but she might not  be healthy herself. Way to go dems. And then they want to fund this with a tobacco tax, get this, as a way to discourage smokers, so how do they plan to fund it if their discouragement program succeeds.

This is a half ass attempt to backdoor national health and it is build on funding designed to fail.

What the hell are these people thinking.

Do it right or don't do it at all.

[Brassmask]

And has Bt has demonstrated, was appropriately vetoed, despite your effort to paint distortion & emotion all over the issue

Please don't even ATTEMPT to imply that somehow the veto of this bill is somehow logical.  Bush's veto is purely ideological.

[sirs]

The "Right Wing" wasn't attacking this boy, the Right Wing is attacking what' it's always attacked, the Left Wing placing someone in front of the cameras that dare not be criticized, otherwise you're by design attacking (insert- boy, or poor person, or homeless, or disabled person, or military veteren, or family member that lost a loved one to the war, etc., etc., etc)

 

In the end, you're attacking a kid and attacking giving poor kids health care while whining like crybaby bitches because some of us don't want to poor another $200 billion into Bush's Iraqi money pit.

No, in the end, the effort is to continually try and shield any criticism of leftist POV's with emotional trump cards, when postulated by a vietnam veteren, a mother of a fallen soldier in combat, or a 10yr old boy

You're morally corrupt and reprehensible, live with it.  WWJD, dumbass?

Well, he wouldn't cuss at me & call me names, that's for sure.  Boy, you sure do have a twisted vision of the 1st amendment

Yeah, they're called trump cards because they trump all other arguments. 

Well, there you go....emotion trumps reason.  And use of emotion by the left is their twisted way of trying to deflect substantive & reasonable criticism aimed at completely irresponsible and fiscally wreckless proposals/plans, be it condeming someone from daring to criticize a military veteren's anti-war position, or a 10yr old boy's pro healthcare spending position

I would be willing to bet that Jesus was not the altogether benevolent and chaste and cartoonishly polite type of person your myths have made him out to be.  I'd be willing to bet that Jesus had to do some cussing and name-calling in order to get to the ripe old age of 30 and his wisdom.

Hey, you can think anything you want.  You just demonstrated that train of thought with the repetation of how 911 was an inside job        I'll stick with how he's actually portrayed in the Bible, if you don't mind

Besides anyone who is against poor people getting a little help in order to keep their kids alive and anyone who is for trying to smear the kid who got that assistance DESERVES to, at the very fucking least, be called names.

And of course, the last beacon of leftest desperation is to claim that anyone who's not supportive of their POV must be against children, their health, the poor, mankind in general.  And throw in some cuss words to boot, to really accentuate the desperation

[Brassmask]

BT, the reality is that no smoker is going to give up smoking if it costs another 61 cents or 61 dollars.  No, price is too high to pay for their fix.

Wouldn't you agree?

The "discourage smokers" angle is a pure talking point.  What else did Trent Lott say Sunday?

[Michael Tee]

<<Then you're not paying attention>>

Oh, I paid close attention to BT and he never even bothered to address the Big Fat Fucking Lie that Graeme and his sister Gemma were costing the family $40K annually in education when in fact the actual figure was $500.  BT never mentioned it.  So if you were paying closer attention than I was to BT, why don't you just show me?  Show me where BT demonstrated my "distortion" in calling that lie.

<<You mean the OPINION you have (in the same vane as those that has concluded Bush as a moronic version of Hitler, our troops are a bunch of low hanging raping fruit, it's all for the oil, stolen election, imminent threat) of what was supposedly lied about.  Yea, I got that the 1st time around as well>>

No, lunatic, I mean the FACT that a humongous lie was told about the cost of Graeme's and Gemma's education.  The FACT that $40K is NOT the equal of $500 and is not even close.  The FACT that a family which spends $40K on education for its kids is generally considered to be pretty well off and the further FACT that spendind $500 annually to educate two kids is not generally considered to indicate great wealth.

And BTW, BT demonstrated absolutely nothing about the appropriateness of the veto, other than that it deprived a hell of a lot of kids of a hell of a lot of health care.  But OTOH, I guess that in Republican eyes, that IS appropriate.  Very appropriate.

[BT]

Oh, I paid close attention to BT and he never even bothered to address the Big Fat Fucking Lie that Graeme and his sister Gemma were costing the family $40K annually in education when in fact the actual figure was $500.  BT never mentioned it.  So if you were paying closer attention than I was to BT, why don't you just show me?  Show me where BT demonstrated my "distortion" in calling that lie.

I didn't address that point. This is true. Saw no need to. Would be simple to clear up though. The school can release financial records and perhaps we will see state or family assistance also plays a large part.

And BTW, BT demonstrated absolutely nothing about the appropriateness of the veto, other than that it deprived a hell of a lot of kids of a hell of a lot of health care.  But OTOH, I guess that in Republican eyes, that IS appropriate.  Very appropriate.

What i did demonstrate was the big lie from the noise machine that Bush vetoed health care for children. We both know that is untrue.

[sirs]

And BTW, BT demonstrated absolutely nothing about the appropriateness of the veto, other than that it deprived a hell of a lot of kids of a hell of a lot of health care.  But OTOH, I guess that in Republican eyes, that IS appropriate.  Very appropriate.

And we thank you for that rank far left opinion, as well       

[BT]

BT, the reality is that no smoker is going to give up smoking if it costs another 61 cents or 61 dollars.  No, price is too high to pay for their fix.

Sure they will.

The "discourage smokers" angle is a pure talking point.  What else did Trent Lott say Sunday?

No idea what Lott said. Don't watch the Sunday talking heads shows.

Studies show that the poor smoke more than the more wealthy. So in a perverse way the funding for the additional 35bil is not far off from my sales tax funding plan. At least the poor pay their fair share this way , especially since they are eligible and more wealthy non smokers aren't.

 

[Brassmask]

you're forgetting second hand smoke which causes as much illness as regular smoking.

The secondhanders pay NO cigarette taxes and still have to have health care.  ESPECIALLY KIDS!

[BT]

Which is greater long term danger to kids?

Second hand smoke or happy meals?

Seems to me a sedentary obese lifestyle would be.

[Brassmask]

Which is greater long term danger to kids?

Second hand smoke or happy meals?

Seems to me a sedentary obese lifestyle would be.

You see how pathetic the argument is?  Which is worse dying of lung cancer or diabetes?

Why not do away with both?  One way to do it is to have health care for all be readily available for free that way when the signs stop popping up like asthma and obesity, a regular doctor visit might give the person some time to make a change and not have to spend weeks in the hospital when nothing else is possible and costs EVERYONE lots more.

I would think the savings of the almighty dollar might be a plus for the right.  The cost comparison of regular checkups and doctor visits in a single payer universal health care world is radically less than the emergency care and extended stays in a free market society that will treat anyone in desperate need.

Either way, those of us with insurance or the ability to pay wind up absorbing the cost.  I'd think you'd at least won't to spend LESS MONEY on the poor.

There are so many pluses for universal health care but you guys hold your ideological tenets up and decide that your face needs to be rid of your noses.  There's a real intractability there.  And the Dems/libs run around trying to find ways to work with you and have discussions and come to compromises never acknowledging that you guys will never budge and it would just behoove everyone if we just mowed you down (metaphorically speaking, of course) and did it anyway.

[BT]

I would think the savings of the almighty dollar might be a plus for the right.  The cost comparison of regular checkups and doctor visits in a single payer universal health care world is radically less than the emergency care and extended stays in a free market society that will treat anyone in desperate need.

I'm all for UHC at the state level funded by a sales tax. No one seems to want to jump on that bandwagon. Seems they would rather have someone else pay the freight, whether it be the rich or smokers or drinkers or whatever group is a minority.

[Brassmask]

I would think the savings of the almighty dollar might be a plus for the right.  The cost comparison of regular checkups and doctor visits in a single payer universal health care world is radically less than the emergency care and extended stays in a free market society that will treat anyone in desperate need.

I'm all for UHC at the state level funded by a sales tax. No one seems to want to jump on that bandwagon. Seems they would rather have someone else pay the freight, whether it be the rich or smokers or drinkers or whatever group is a minority.

If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality.  But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.

[BT]

If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality.  But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.

You could under my plan.

Too bad the cheap bastards who want it all using other peoples money don't want to compromise.
Guess they don't care about the children.

[sirs]

D'OH