If I told you that more kids can get healthcare coverage by raising taxes on cigarettes, you'd say, "Of course we have to do it. That's a no-brainer."
Leave it to the Republicans to have no brains.
With more than six million kids already covered, and four million children eligible to get health care coverage under the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), on Thursday, the House is prepared to vote to override the President's veto of the SCHIP expansion.
The expansion of the program would amount to $35 billion over five years. For some Republicans, that's too much money to provide health care to kids.
They believe that $5 billion per year can be put to better use.
But for the last few years, when they were in charge, the Republicans have been spending money as if Isiah Thomas was their Majority Leader.
For instance, with the Republicans in charge, we are now stuck spending about $5 billion on the war in Iraq -- every two weeks, even though our plans are not working, have never worked, and will not work in the future.
Because of the Republican love of the other white meat, pork, we spend $2.4 billion a year on the V-22 Osprey, which Time put on its cover just a few weeks ago as an example of wasteful spending because, guess what, the V-22 does not work, has never worked, and will not work in the future.
The brilliant Republicans authorized $176 million a year on abstinence only sex-ed programs that are ignored by the kids they are meant to educate. The program has been proven to not work, it will never work, and -- notice a theme here?
And yet, the Republicans consider it wasteful to expand a proven program by $5 billion so that more kids can get health care.
Can we just agree to change the Republican emblem from an elephant to Scrooge?
Who hates their kids this much? Who would be this irresponsible? And don't respond "Britney Spears," thanks.
You know what? Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps it's not kids that the Republicans hate -- perhaps it's responsibility.
Perhaps what really offends this president and the Republicans in the House is that the Democrats have a plan to pay for their proposal.
As opposed to the Republicans, who looked at all of their big-spending plans over the past few years, and then decided that instead of finding a way to pay for blowing up the budget, they'd instead slash taxes for the richest Americans, which has put us deep in debt. To China.
Or perhaps the Republicans are really just upset because they view health care as being the province of the rich.
Yes, maybe the Republicans are just upset because they view America as "Lord of the Flies." Survival of the fittest. If your kid can't get health insurance, then we don't need him on our island. Just as Piggy wasn't needed because of his asthma.
Which is it, Republicans? Do you abhor responsibility? Detest kids? Oppose equality?
Well, I guess we'll find out soon enough, on Thursday, with your votes.
More Children to Get Health Coverage? Republicans Say "No Way!"
Question ???
Why is this s-chip - subsidizing big-biz insurance company's ???
A Kid's in a accident - get's free health-care under this s-chip - but insurance company's are not held liable ...
Giving big-biz washington-insider's another tax-payer subsidizing bill ...
TAX THE POOR - FOR SUBSIDIZING THE RICH-GREEDY INSURANCE COMPANY'S ...
BIG-AG
BIG-INSURANCE
BIG-BUILDING
BIG-HOUSEING
BIG-SERVICE
MARK-OF-THE-BEAST - TAX THE POOR FOR BIG-RICH-GREEDY-BIZ ....
.
If children's health is important, then why not deal with it directly. Politicians of both parties are just yanking the public around.
Everybody wants "health care." Nobody wants to pay for it.
Look at the comments here and you'll see what the bill's purpose was -- it wasn't to provide health care for kids.
RickO's comment is exemplarly: "I guess the Republicans are more than happy to sacrifice the health of millions of kids rather than side with the Democrats on anything.
Is that the thing they call "values voting"? No wait, that's when you vote to make abortion illegal but then let the kids die AFTER they're born (very-late-term abortion) and if they do make it to adulthood, send them out to be cannon fodder just to make sure they don't put any unnecessary strain on Social Security."
Duh. I suppose Republicans don't have children. Oh, I forgot. THEY are all rich!
Yeah, right. Well, not this one, RickO.
The only real difference is that they're being a lot more blatant about it lately.
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007135.html
Note that such abuse would not be detectable under the current bill. Why don't the Dems make it easier to detect such fraud and try again? Unless, of course, they support such fraud.
Is that the thing they call "values voting"? No wait, that's when you vote to make abortion illegal but then let the kids die AFTER they're born (very-late-term abortion) and if they do make it to adulthood, send them out to be cannon fodder just to make sure they don't put any unnecessary strain on Social Security.
I can't take 'em seriously given their own insurance plans. If they're so sure state insurance is wrong for these kids, let's see 'em surrender that care for their own kids. How many you think are willing to do that?