RSS feed for comments on this post.

96 Responses to “It’s “Bush hates children” day in the media, leftosphere”

Comments

1. Big Bang Hunter says:

   August 21, 2007 at 7:08 pm

   “Show me all the “Liberal” outrage over our Vice President secretly (and against the law) meeting with energy companies to form our energy policy. It’s simply not there.”

   - If you take all the Ill-Liberal claims and boil them down in a big pot, the “conspiracy theory for every occasion” meme is always where you end up.

   - They have no real facts or provable evidence, no witnesses, or sourcible testimony. Zippo. Nada.

   - They just “feel” it absolutely has to be true. They just know it is. I heard someone on a documentory the other night that focused on the WTC conspiracy buffs, and he said something that I think catches the spirit of this imperious attitude of unassailable beliefs that the Left holds, against all debate, facts, or evidence. He said the fervor you see in these people is almost “Mesionic”, and I aggree. When you start to effectively deconstruct their silly idea’s they panic, like so many membets of a cultist commune.

   - BBH –
2. Sister Toldjah says:

   August 21, 2007 at 7:12 pm

   BBH, I know what happened now. I put the name “blogenfreude” in my blacklist when I meant to put it on my moderated list. My bad to you, and anyone else who used his name whose post never appeared.

   It’s just been one of those days!
3. Terrye says:

   August 21, 2007 at 7:13 pm

   Matt:

   I know people who need and use that drug program and it has been helpful to them. The only reason you say it is awful is because Bush came up with it.

   As for the no bid contracts in Louisiana, you have to be kidding. If the locals had used the money the feds gave them to take care of their infrastructure half of New Orleans might not have ended up under water.

   You are just silly.
4. Baklava says:

   August 21, 2007 at 7:15 pm

   iaintbacchus makes ST’s point for her by saying, “What was clearly shown was that Bush puts kids behind lowering taxes ”

   You are part of Bush’s mind… objectively reporting here that you know that Bush places a higher priority on lowering taxes than kids…

   What is your next objective reporting going to show? That yes Bush puts the elderly and non-whites behind lowering taxes…. Good work iaintbacchus. You take the reward today for making ST’s piece reflect you all’s reality!!!

   1 – Spending has increased on ALL programs for kids EVERY year Bush has been in office.
   2 – Tax rates were lowered (effectively helping the economy out of a recession) and brought double digit revenue increases into the government in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

   Given #1 and #2 we can see clearly that your Bush priority opinions are NOT based on facts.

   iain… wrote, “And I sincerly hope that the Dems are smart enough to rub voters noses in that plain fact for the next 15 months.”

   It would be nice – I can’t wait for the placards to come out showing that 400% above the poverty level is giving health insurance to families that are in the top 20% of income earners ($82,600 is more than I make here in CA). I can’t wait for the black and white statistics to show how much MORE has been spent on each program each year under Bush and how much lying Democrat politicians will do to stay in power in Congress and acquire power in the White House.
5. Terrye says:

   August 21, 2007 at 7:16 pm

   iaint:

   And the Democrats care right? Oh yeah they love poor people, that is why they go to such lengths to make sure there is always a new supply of them.
6. Big Bang Hunter says:

   August 21, 2007 at 7:24 pm

   “And I sincerly hope that the Dems are smart enough to rub voters noses in that plain fact for the next 15 months.”

   - There you go. Thats the ticket. Confrontational politics is just exactly the way to treat people you’re trying to get to vote for you. Forget about plans and solutions for pressing problems. No one cares about that boring stuff anyway. Lets go for the “see stupid…see how dumb you are….Now vote for me because I’m ever so much smarter tha you” approach.

   - Just to make it air tight, lets get a feckless candidate who has taken every possible position on every issue, a win from every voters viewpoint. Unbeatable.

   - After all, look how well it worked in 2000 and 2004.

   - Oh wait……

   - BBH –
7. Big Bang Hunter says:

   August 21, 2007 at 7:32 pm

   - No prob ST….ancient history….I was just puzzeled because I knew I didn’t use any sailor words in the post….

   - BBH –
8. forest hunter says:

   August 21, 2007 at 7:56 pm

   The Democrats, in all their comical handwringing, don’t even have to campaign on anything resembling oppositional politics.

   I suppose that’s one way to describe the plan-less clue challenged drones on the left. Factually starved BDS carriers, who’s only motivation is to gut America and whine incessantly about any strategy, especially if it feels oppositional, is now the plan. Congratulations on missing the point of this post, as well as being progressive.
9. Ryan says:

   August 21, 2007 at 8:00 pm

   What was clearly shown was that Bush puts kids behind lowering taxes and making nice with china and large corporations in his list of priorities.

   Unbelievable. I can’t believe China made it’s way into the fray, considering how the Clinton administration dealt with that country.
10. TedintheShed says:

    August 21, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    Yes, the ever present doomsaying of progressivism.

    Indeed- an agenda of state controlled/owned corporations and bottom up control of the economic system which amounts to communism is “doomsaying”.

    I am glad we agree on that point.

    There’s only one pinata taking a beating from the majority of the public, Big Bang. And it isn’t the Left.

    You are obviously overlooking or ignoring the left controlled congress abysmal 14% approval rating.

    That said- Bush’s expansion of the government and his horrible immigration policy are among his huge failures. However, the Republican candidates do not seem to be distancing themselves of economical or the Iraq issue. These are the two areas in which I think they are reading the American public correctly, especially if news continues to brighten bit by bit over the next 18 months regarding Iraq and the economy remains strong.
11. Squeedle says:

    August 21, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    You know what, this “the liberals”/”the conservatives” trashing has to stop. Criticise specific people and organizations for things they actually say and do, not vague, unidentifiable non-groups like “the liberals” who are acting and thinking only in your imagination.

    Who exactly are “the liberals?” Who are “the conservatives?” What do these groups believe? If you can’t answer that question then you’re not addressing a real group or a real problem or a real set of beliefs.

    Also, if you’re actually trying to convince anyone to change their minds on here then maybe you shouldn’t insult them so much. If you’re not trying to convince anyone then why are you wasting time typing instead of doing something productive? Personally I’m not willing to listen to anyone who suggests I’m “clue-challenged” or a “zombie” simply because I disagree (perhaps only on a few things!). At that point you’ve already given up on compromise and aren’t going to listen to a thing anyone else says. Maybe it’s you who’s wrong. Maybe the disagreement has to do with priorities and fundamental beliefs about people. Do you even know WHY you disagree? If you can’t or won’t understand the other point of view all that’s left is a bunch of screaming and tug-of-war. Unfortunately it seems like that’s all politics is these days.

    Do you people honestly think that everyone who disagrees with you must be stupid/uninformed/asleep/$INSULT? Seriously, grow up.
12. Baklava says:

    August 21, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    Squeedle wrote, “Maybe it’s you who’s wrong.”

    While I appreciate the tone of your post and recognize that I called a few people liars here in this thread… tell me where I was in error factually.

    Maybe it’s I who is right and the leftists people casting aspersions at the right/Bush about their lack of “caring” about the poor are out of line on tone AND facts.

    Let’s do some growing up.

    I, Baklava, apologize for not only the passion but the words I used when describing people who were casting aspersions on conservatives/Bush for not “caring” when the facts show the contrary – that priorities with conservatives and Bush are to not dilute these government programs with non-poor people but to actually strengthen these programs for the poor AND enhance the government’s fiscal ability to provide resources at other priorities (specified in the constitution) also like:
    1) national security
    2) national security
    3) national security

    OK. So moving forward Squeedle, what do you have to say on the TOPIC at hand? Do you reserve some final words for the instigations/aspersions the left people in many media news outlets chose here? There was a first snowball thrown and growing up past that – what words do you have for those snowball throwers…

    Turn the cheek? Let the lie get half way round the world before truth gets it’s boots on?

    Am interested in what you have to say on the topic.
13. Big Bang Hunter says:

    August 21, 2007 at 11:52 pm

    - So lets review. I ask a simple straight forward question that most 9th grade civics class students can readily answer, and 32+ posts later I get scolded for name calling, and told my problem is I don’t deal in specifics. As for any sort of answer I get….

    *crickets*

    - And that friends, is all you need to know about the typical level of maturity of your average Secular Progressive agenda and “Narrative”.

    - BBH –
14. forest hunter says:

    August 22, 2007 at 1:43 am

    Squeedle: Who are the *You’s* you’re talking down to now?

    Who exactly are “the liberals?” Who are “the conservatives?” What do these groups believe?

    If you don’t know that answer by now, it’s more than clear why you’re so far off topic, lefty. Do you have anything to add to the topic at hand or is smoke and mirrors all you’ve got?
15. Drewsmom says:

    August 22, 2007 at 6:01 am

    Bang, Forest, you can’t talk logic with loons, it can’t be done, I’ve given up, it’s impossible.
16. Big Bang Hunter says:

    August 22, 2007 at 10:26 am

    - I know drewsmom. Trying to debate intelligently with a SecProgg, or teach them anything, is similar to trying to knit a Volkswagon out of steel wool, or discuss astrophysics with a lump of goat cheese. Total waste of time.

    - BBH –
17. PCD says:

    August 22, 2007 at 10:44 am

    65,66, I am to the point where I just bust their chops to open them up if possible, especially the more arrogant ones.
18. Robert says:

    August 22, 2007 at 11:58 am

    Sister,

    I’ve seen the stories from the liberal media about Edwards hypocrisy in getting $400 haircuts while saying he cares about the poor.

    Where are their stories about Cheney’s company making the majority of its revenues from tax money, while he harps on about how much he’s against taxes?

    Ditto for W getting a tax-paid baseball stadium for his team.

    The media is owned by corporations.
    Are you saying that liberals benefit corporations more than conservatives?
    Or are you saying corporations don’t report to the benefit of their own self interest?

    Either way, I’d have to call you 100% wrong.

    But if Rush, Newt and the entire RNC says the media is liberally biased I guess that should be good enough for a thinker like you.
    LOL
19. Vegas Art Guy says:

    August 22, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Robert,
    The media is biased. Even MSNBC has had articles stating that fact. Go do a bit of digging. And yet the left still wants the fairness doctrince…

    And how many stadiums got build with public funds anyway? Nice try.

    And so any private contractor that actually makes a profit from a government entity is bad? Or is just Cheney? Why be in business if you can’t turn a profit?
20. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Robert asked a non-question, “Where are their stories about Cheney’s company making the majority of its revenues from tax money, while he harps on about how much he’s against taxes?”

    Guess what, I have a company here in CA and 100% of it’s revenues are from the state of CA and guess what I would love to see lower tax rates.

    Robert – Even journalists see how whack that kind of question is. Companies provide services and governments pay for those goods and services. Companies can have between 0% and 100% revenue stream from governments as governments are customers also.

    Robert continues his lack of perspective with, “Ditto for W getting a tax-paid baseball stadium for his team.”

    Everytime these idiotic propositions come up for a SF or Sacramento stadium for this or that team, THEY PASS !! But guess what? More conservatives voted against these idiotic tax payer funded stadiums… The same with the earmark battles going on in Congress a week or two ago. Every earmark passed overwhelmingly except the approximate 170 Republicans that voted against each one. This country’s government has GROWN each year for over 6 decades so the problem IS leftism. The answer IS conservatism. We haven’t had a working majority of conservatives in Congress this century or last century.

    Robert without a clue wrote, “The media is owned by corporations.”

    During Clinton years corporations gave more soft money to Democrats by a wide margin. That shifted a little when Bush took office. Corporations mostly are apolitical and donate to whomever they think they need to. There are the few corporations whose head is liberal or conservative and they make political statements but those are actually rare instances comparitively.

    Talking points based on irrelevance does not make a convincing or persuasive argument.

    Surveys in the past showed journalist’s voted between 87% and 89% for Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton and between 7% and 9% for Reagan, Bush, Bush. They put a kabash to those surveys but do have other indicators as to journalists leanings.

    On the topic at HAND robert, would you say the NEWS pieces were on target, leftist leaning or conservative leaning? If you say on target or conservative leaning … What would be a leftist leaning piece for you?
21. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    ST, Another AP story that wasn’t “on target”

    There’s one every day….
22. TedintheShed says:

    August 22, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    All media is bias anymore- to one side or the other- whether it is the MSM for the left or Fox/talk radio for the right. I dare anyone to present a non-biased news outlet.

    The challenge (at least for me) is seperating the bias from the fatcs.
23. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    Another NY Times story that wasn’t on target.

    The lies continue every day…
24. Lindata says:

    August 22, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    George W. Bush had colon polyps removed in 2002 and 2007. This procedure prevents colon cancer. A colonoscopy costs around $8000. You can’t get one in an emergency room. Insurance companies don’t want to cover people who are “at risk” for colon polyps. To have medical insurance after a finding of colon polyps you must have an unbroken chain of insurance without exclusion for “previously existing conditions”. George W. is rich enough to bear the cost even without insurance. A lot of people aren’t.

    Some “previously existing conditions” exclude even people making $82,000 from getting medical insurance for their children. Pediatric heart conditions, diabetes, cancers, etc. can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

    I’m happy for people who are able to be responsible for themselves. But not all responsibilities are created equal.

    Have some compassion.
25. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    If you make $82,000 you buy the $8,000 treatment Lindata.

    This year because I own my own business I spent $900 per month times 12 = $10,800 for health and dental and last year I also plunked down $4,000 for lasik surgery.

    Demonizing insurance companies seems like your motive. If you need care you get it done.

    Lindata wrote, “Have some compassion”

    The POINT of the story is the LACK of TRUTH that leftists/liberals have when attacking the Bush administration for it’s lack of “caring” for the poor.

    Truth is – these are people earning up to $82,600.

    That isn’t poor.

    And since the colon ISSUE you brought up isn’t even covered by insurance companies it wouldn’t even matter if the 400% above poverty level limit was set – it still would have to be an out of pocket expense.

    Before you go attacking people on your belief that they don’t “care” or lack compassion you should get an argument crystal clear. Do you want honest journalism or not? Do you want people not presenting the facts of the story and editorializing in the news room? This certainly isn’t how I want to receive the news…

    I’d rather all the facts laid out on the table and I’ll make my own determination as to whether or not the 400% limit is harmful or hurtful.

    To me it is hurtful because it dilutes our countries ability to help the poor as people with means sap resources.
26. tommy in nyc says:

    August 22, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Baklava I wouldn’t consider 82,000 a year income for a family of four manageable lower middle class. Heck that is not a lot of money to raise a family on here in NYC, or San Fran,LA etc,etc. Shoot you should seen the bills I got for my surgery and afterwards my chemotherapy. Thank(ALLAH,GOD,WHOEVER) that I had insurence for that calamity.
27. tommy in nyc says:

    August 22, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    Oh I’m sorry I to forgot to mention Labor Union. More Americans would be better off if labor unions organize more folks. That’s the way I see it.
28. Lindata says:

    August 22, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    I pay $1100/mo for insurance. It’s a bargain.

    I estimate I have paid $150,000 as my portion of employer based medical insurance over the last 25 years.

    Without it we would have paid more than $200,000 in medical costs…

    BrBiopsy $2,000
    BrCA left side $6,500 (1984)
    Chemothrapy $6,000
    BrBiopsy $1,000
    BrCA right side $12,000 (2000)
    Chemothreapy $10,000
    Reconstruction $10,000
    Foot surgery $5,000
    Gall Bladder & Ovarian cysts $16,000
    Acute care for bacterial abcess $4,000
    Tosillectomy $5,000
    Broken Arm w/ plate and 13 screws $10,000
    Hysterctomy $10,000
    Thyroidectomy w/ CA $8,000
    Open heart surgery to correct valve $85,000
    Removal vocal cords nodes $8,000
    Repair of Esophagial Reflux (preCA) $16,000
    3 Colonoscopies ($24,000)

    These are approximations and leave out trips to the doctor for the odd cat bite, knife wound, broken elbow, bladder infection, sciatica, etc. but insurance clearly works out for us.

    But people making $82,000/year who are not illegible for insurance who have a kid with pediatric cancer, diabetes or a serious heart condition are in no position to pay out of pocket for their kid’s care which can be way more than their total income.

    And people who work for Walmart at $12/hour – $24,000/year if they are lucky enough to get full time work – are not going to lay out $8,000 for colonoscopy.

    As I said, have some compassion.
29. Lindata says:

    August 22, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    My insurance does cover colonoscopies. It is cost effective for them because dying of colon cancer is expensive.
30. Lindata says:

    August 22, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    I punked down $4,000 for Lasik also. That was pretty cost effective but them it was largely vanity so it shouldn’t be covered.
31. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    Lindata you still aren’t clear in anything but your animosity which is ironic given your last sentence.

    You wrote, “And people who work for Walmart at $12/hour – $24,000/year if they are lucky enough to get full time work – are not going to lay out $8,000 for colonoscopy.”

    The topic is about a program giving kids a benefit up to $82,600. That would cover those making $24,000/year.

    You mix in something that isn’t covered anyway no matter if you are rich or poor and then get on a high horse about your compassion or my lack thereof.

    You can’t argue your way out of a box but yet you can surerly be un-persuasive…. if that’s a word.

    To be persuasive – you can start by apologizing for your snide remarks about my compassion or others on this site (it’s not about me).

    Then you can stick to the topic of why a family making $82,600 can’t buy insurance just like I do and I make less than $82,600.

    It’s about being responsible and preserving a program for those who ARE in need. That’s compassion….
32. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    On post #78,

    It is a completely separate topic and debate as to whether colonoscopies should be covered by insurance companies all the time.

    HIPAA is a separate topic that gets people health insurance for a higher price also…

    This thread is about what the press is doing – throwing about opinions not based on facts and not reporting the whole story. It happens time and time again….
33. Lindata says:

    August 22, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    As I said insurance companies don’t like to cover people who are expensive to cover. Hence, “preexisting condition” rules. In fact, many “insurance companies” do not underwrite insurance at all they simply manage the client’s medical expence fund. The client, in turn, doesn’t like employees who are expensive to cover…i.e. older people, full-time people, etc.

    I do not feel animosity toward insurance and other corporate entities caught in this vise. It is the nature of the beast. Perhaps this is why we decided to pay for fire departments out of government funds instead of leaving fire control to the insurance companies alone.

    In any event, there are lots and lots of people who can’t get medical insurance. 30-40 million. Not all of them are dead beats…some of them are just sick. These are the people I am asking you to consider.

    I am glad that you are concerned about the children of deadbeats. We agree that they didn’t ask to be born to irresponsible parents.

    But I will admit that I am really annoyed at Bush and others who say we have universal coverage already because people are not turned away at emergency rooms. That part of the health insurance argument is bunk, and one of the clearest, and most ironic, examples are colonoscopies. Which, as I said, was covered by my previous Blue Sheild Plan, by my current United Health Care Plan, and is also covered by Kaiser plans.

    If you are over 50 or have had any sort of carcinoma, I suggest you pay your money and/or get better insurance.

    But you aren’t going to get it in an emergency room.
34. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    The government does it even less efficiently Lindata.

    The recipient traditionally receives on ly 25 cents on the dollar for a government program.

    It isn’t compassionate to run things that way.

    No matter what entity does it the dollars are “managed”. We’ve gotten away from realizing that insurance should be for catastrophes and the insurance companies have morphed into what we want them to be – there for our ever doctor visit when we have a cold.

    Well, I for one would rather pay my own way most of the time until a catastrophe (high cost due to a large problem).

    What Americans expect it seems is more received than paid. Neither the government nor insurance companies can do that on a general basis for all clients.

    The topic of the thread was still not addressed Lindata. While I appreciate your slight tone change, I want to know what your feelings are about being told by the media one thing and finding out it’s not true…. So many stories like that and so little time….

    Did you see my link to the Stossel piece above in comment #73?
35. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Tommy wrote, “Baklava I wouldn’t consider 82,000 a year income for a family of four manageable lower middle class. ”

    I make less in CA. I choose to live here in the high tax state. Anybody, including myself can choose to move. There are great jobs (despite the stereotype otherwise) in many areas of the country.

    The fact remains that $82,600 is in the top 20% of income earners and those leftist run states yes have high taxes….
36. Lindata says:

    August 22, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    Do you have a source for your 25 cents on the dollar number? The person who prepared the paper cited below is obviously an apologist for the private health management and even he can’t make the case.

    Medicare’s Hidden Administrative Costs:
    A Comparison of Medicare and the Private Sector
    (Based in Part on a Technical Paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc.)
    By Merrill Matthews, Ph.D.
    January 10, 2006

    Executive Summary

    One of the most common, and least challenged, assertions in the debate over U.S. health care policy is that Medicare administrative costs are about 2 percent of claims costs, while private insurance companies’ administrative costs are in the 20 to 25 percent range.

    It is very difficult to do a real apples-to-apples comparison of Medicare’s true costs with those of the insurance industry. The primary problem is that private sector insurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare’s
    administrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic reporting and tracking systems used by the government. This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are included.

    In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant value for those additional dollars.

    We also raise an important, although heretofore unrecognized, issue that gives Medicare an inherent advantage on administrative costs. Because of the higher cost per beneficiary, Medicare administrative costs appear lower than they really are. If the
    numbers were adequately “handicapped” for comparison with the private sector, they would be in the 6 to 8 percent range. Finally, like the private sector, Medicare also has to obtain funds to pay claims. But the cost of raising that money, or borrowing it if the government doesn’t collect it from taxpayers, is excluded from Medicare administrative cost calculations. While we don’t in this paper draw any conclusions about what we shall call the “cost of capital” and its impact on Medicare’s administrative costs, we do want to highlight that those costs
    exist and that taxpayers, both today and in the future, must bear those costs.

    Copyright © 2006 The Council for Affordable Health Insurance

    So we have at worst for Medicare 6-8% (although why higher benefit payments on behalf of the patient should be factored out (”higher cost per beneficiary” as Dr. Matthews says – without that factoring even Dr. Matthews only gets the overhead to 5.2%) and 8.9% for the private sector 16.7% when commission, premium tax, and profit are included (and just why should they be excluded?).

    So my reading is that private companies, at best, have roughly 3 times the overhead that medicare has. Completely ignoring the argument that the States pick up the extra emergency room costs that would be cheaper to cover under SCHIP.
37. tommy in nyc says:

    August 22, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Well if you are saying Baklava that an $82,000 a year income for a family of four income is in the 20% of wage earners in the country then what is so unreasonable about expanding Government health coverage to insure children of parents whose folks make that kind of money but don’t have the excellant coverage that my fortunate backside has?
38. Ryan says:

    August 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Medicare doesn’t pay taxes and doesn’t make a profit, so they should be excluded if you are going to compare the two.
39. masaccio says:

    August 22, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    The rules were designed to force people to buy private insurance, or go without. The SCHIP program varies from state to state, but a number of states allow families with up to 2.5 or 3 times the poverty rate of income to get the insurance for their children. So, suppose a family of four with two working parents make $40,000. In some states, particularly the larger states, they might be able to insure their kids. Say you live in Pittsburgh. You work at a fast food joint as a night shift supervisor for $16000 and your spouse works for a restaurant as a grill chef for 24k. Where is the money coming from to pay for the private insurance for the kids? Where on earth do you buy that insurance?

    Bush may not hate kids, but he sure loves insurance companies a lot more that whatever his feelings are for kids.

    What about you? Would it kill you if some of your taxes went to pay for insurance for the kids? Especially when you realize that without insurance, the kids are a burden on the state, and it’s only a question of which one you are paying for?
40. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    Lindata wrote, “So my reading is that private companies, at best, have roughly 3 times the overhead that medicare has. ”

    The way to look at it (which even your author didn’t) is to look at total expenditures for a program – for instance the WIC program here in CA. Look at how much CA spends for WIC total versus how much in benefits the recipeient receives.

    Welfare is 28 cents on the dollar, Medicare is similar, WIC is similar, AFDC, etc. ALL of them are under 50% of the dollars get to the recipient.

    IF you are giving me sources like the one above who do not look at the total dollar spent versus the benefits the population receives (simple proportion) then they are BLOWING SMOKE.

    Insurance companies have efficiency built in (it is laughable that you said 3 times higher administrative costs) because they cannot have the lazy government employee working for them – do not have the ability to have high costs and need to administer as best as possible to keep costs low.

    Capitalism works Lindata. Believe it or not. Capitalism’s definition is the people choosing who gets what resources. When government chooses who gets what resources resources are squandered and there is no reward for efficiency and the tendency is to receive more and more of taxpayer dollars every year.

    America’s ability to defend herself has gone down as what has been spent on defense per year has gone from 50% of expenditures 40 years ago to 19% today.

    Government programs have grown, we are very compassionate and yet people like you and the NY Times cast aspersions on our compassion with no evidence to back it up.

    This children’s health insurance program has had increased funding every year since inception. Bush has signed increases every year. PERIOD.
41. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    Tommy,

    Because the intent of the program is to help people who are poor. People who aren’t poor should be responsibly and should go them more efficient route.
42. Ryan says:

    August 22, 2007 at 7:46 pm

    Bak,

    If a true comparison in administrative costs of each were made, one would also have to include IRS costs when it comes to Medicare.
43. Baklava says:

    August 22, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    When you create dependence on government – dependence grows.

    That is not compassion.

    When you reform and provide incentives for being responsible then people become more responsible, they actually prosper and children benefit.
    
    Evidence from Welfare reform in the mid 90’s..
44. Great White Rat says:

    August 22, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    A couple of points here…

    1. When you subsidize something, you always get more of it. Expanding “free” medical care to people making upwards of $80K per year is going to result in a lot more people wanting it…not because they need it, but because it’s free and someone else is paying for it. So why not use the emergency room to take out that splinter…it won’t cost you anything! That’s already happened in many places where this sort of giveaway program’s been tried.

    2. Except it’s not free, of course. The taxpayer will get shafted once again with this program. And if you think their cost estimates have any connection with reality, you’re wrong. Every time the left has proposed a new government health care program – Medicare, Medicaid, take your pick – their estimates for the cost have been low by a couple of orders of magnitude. Tommy, for one, still apparently believes in Santa Claus – all you need to do is “expand Government health coverage” and presto, no more problems. It materializes out of thin air, I suppose.

    3. I’m bemused by the Lindata’s appeal to compassion for our poorest citizens, when the program expansion would water down the care for them. Note the focus of the administration’s position:

    Administration officials said the changes were aimed at returning the focus to low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage, the Times said.

    In other words, let’s provide these services to those least able to afford them. I’d think your well-placed compassion would have you supporting that. The program expansion has one obvious objective: buying votes with new freebies. Given the choice of using the money to help the poor get medical care or to help the politicians get votes, I’m all for the first option. What about you?

    4. Baklava’s right – government operations are intrinsically less efficient than private organizations doing the same job (obvious exception: military or police functions), as they have little incentive to manage costs.

    And to bring this back to the original point of ST’s post, what we have here is the MSM shilling for another big government boondoggle and casting aspersions on the idea of making some sort of attempt to focus scarce resources on those who need them the most.
45. Sister Toldjah says:

    August 22, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Check out the picture Google News displayed next to articles about the issue of expanding children’s healthcare here.

    Coincidence?
46. Great White Rat says:

    August 22, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    ST, I’m sure that was just a coincidence. I believe the MSM when they say they’re impartial.

    Now where do I sign to buy that bridge in Brooklyn again??

© 2003 - 2009 Sister Toldjah • All Rights Reserved

Powered by: WordPress • Design by: E.Webscapes • Hosted by: Hosting Matters