Oh, yea. Thats totally what I said. So did you do any research on FPL before you made these comments? I’m seriously asking. I wasn’t trying to be a jerk from the start but you seem to be commenting on our comments rather than FPL itself and its actual worth.
Also, a four person family on $80,000 isn’t really an obscene amount of money. I mean its not chump change. In fact, the USDA claims that it costs around $8,000 per year to raise a child. Anyone who has raised a child knows thats the most hilarious number ever. So its not like the government is known for being so stellar at math (slash logic).
I’m sorry but poverty statistics and issues are something I work in, and not in a partisan manner. I’m not like the Director of the Communist Health Care Organization or anything. Raising kids is expensive. In my job I constantly have to deal with reality (i.e. federal budget) versus kids and families who aren’t really poor but can’t afford things like health care and child care. I’m no bleeding heart but its not like this country is known for its stellar health care system so you can put your eye brow down now.
I brought up that number because that’s who we are talking about here. Bush supports limiting SCHIP coverage to those living in families making up to 200% of FPL. The tax credits are aimed at the higher incomes that the Democrats want to allow to use SCHIP.
Actually, I’m well aware of the SCHIP program and its intricacies.
The amount they pay differs froms state to state. Yes, they pay a little something for it. But so what? They are still getting subsidized insurance. Under the Democratic proposal, poor people would still be taxed to pay for subsidized care for the well-off.
If it’s budget-neutral at that level, as you claim, then why do states need federal money to pay for the program? It would seem that the Bush plan, which would limit it to just poor people, would allow states to continue offering coverage because these other folks cover “what it costs the state.”
No, it’s to cover poor children whose parents cannot afford coverage. Even the CBO estimates that at least half of the kids that would be covered under this new plan would have otherwise had insurance.
Sure it is. But if you can afford your own health insurance, then you should pay for it. If you make $80,000 a year, I don’t think you should get subsidized care.
Thanks, because what I believe is backed up by facts.
Sheesh. You guys are liberals. This is what you do. You call people “friend” ironically as if it were clever, and post misleading Ops that omit germaine information. You wax eloquently about the sins of others and how you wish to tax them as if you were qualified to judge. Your elected representatives make grandiose gestures like holding sleepover parties to “debate Iraq” as simple publicity stunts. Your biggest heroes are mentally unstable mothers who camp out in other people’s back yard and whose pain and loss you manipulate for political gain. Your greatest recent success story is a past president whose most notable achievement was his success as a consummate liar. You invest in Janus funds, and use global warming as an excuse to penalize companies you don’t like.
You are the masters of the indirect attack, the friendly smile preceding the shivving.
No offense, but nobody in your party has done anything directly for like 40 years.
Do you think that Limbaughesque glurge bolsters your argument? I don’t think RTF’s characterization of your post was too off base. And even if your analysis was spot on, it was nothing more than your own personal opinion. Where you got that huge strawman of a response is beyond me…
The trouble with that approach is that Bush and all the others are trying to apply some kind of splint to the present system to get by.
According to this site Canada’s per capita health costs were a little over $1800 (US) per year as compared to our per capita figure of $3300 for the same year.
Let’s pretend like we do something rational, like emulate Canada. Taking the US population as 300 million and using total US income tax collections as about $4.5 trillion we would need a surcharge on income tax of about 12% for everybody. Our $2000 a year taxpayer would pay about $240 a year extra tax for health care. That extra tax might hurt a little but but in return you get the peace of mind from knowing that your health costs are covered. True the guy paying taxes of $10 million would be paying 1.2 million for his but I doubt that would cramp his lifestyle all that much.
Lot’s of anti government health plan people in the US point to horrible waits for service in Canada and other supposed failures. We had a thread not too long ago asking Canadians for comments on their system and I didn’t hear much complaining from them.
How about if you personally pay the insurance for a half-dozen or so, just straight from your pocket and the goodness of your heart. Wouldn’t that be fair?
It’s pretty much the mindset of the socialist worldview. Problems with the riff-raff are out of sight and out of mind. It is easier to toss a few bucks into the well and leave the work of charity to someone else than to take the effort required of genuine caring onto one’s own shoulders. Wrap this flippant disregard for the suffering of others in stenchful mounds of touchy-feely psycho-babble and you have the modern American “liberal” manifesto.
Until someone can explain why those numbers are different, I’m reluctant to give that much weight. As I used to tell my lab partners all the time: never accept data that isn’t backed up by a good theory.
Huh? The entire federal budget is “only” about $2.3T, so how do you get income tax collection of $4.5T?
You guys slay me! You peer into the minds of people you don’t even know, and take inventory! You know what evil lurks in the hearts of liberals, because, after all, how can they be sane and sincere and yet disagree?
Please post your Certificate of Omniscient Telepathy, so we can be reassured you are not talking out of your asses.
As a matter of fact, I did cite by referencing Liberal’s post where he quotes you directly.
But more importantly, No!
No!
Cites are not what this place is about no matter how much of aknee- jerk reflex it is to ask for them.
any monkey can ask for a cite, and pretty much any monkey can provide one.
The ability to provide a cite in support of a given proposition has no bearing on the validity of that proposition.
If this place is supposed to b about anything it’s critical thinking, not cites.
I don’t see you ponying up with cites concerning your attributions of motivations like I and liberal have cited. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so listen up Kreskin; until and unless you’re willing I reveal the source of your mind reading abilites don’t ask about the source of mine.
