President George W. Bush. . .

[kat8585]

Perhaps if they had to rely on Social Security after their terms were up, or had to use some different health care system than the one supplied by the government that they have, free of charge, they would be a little quicker to actually fix things.

They are so rich they wouldn't know the difference.

[boblandis]

They are so rich they wouldn't know the difference.

Thats problem one.

[JustinM]

Wait a second. Is the taxpayer right now not paying for much of your healthcare and your early retirement right now? I mean talk about hypocrisy, you say your own disability, that is the single largest federal handout out of all general outlays. By far I might add.

Nope I earned this disability and I paid in over 120,000 into social security. I don't get welfare SSI. I am retired. I earned my retirement thank you! No handout happening here!

First off, I am a firm believe that people ought to be able to get early Social Security benefits if they are disabled to the point of being unable to work. However, Social Security, especially early Social Security is by any definition pure Socialism. Anyway you slice it, Social Security, Medicare, and early Social Security is a form of Socialism. Its not a savings plan and most people over the course of their retired life, especially if they are disabled and thus retired early, will draw out far more than they ever paid in. The programs are a transfer of wealth from current workers to beneficiaries. Essentially one generation pays for the next generations base retirement and healthcare.

Therefore, it is blatant hypocrisy for you to benefit from what is by far the largest government socialistic program, but claim that we have no moral responsibility as a society to ensure that no child in America of the working poor goes without health care simply because their parents are unable to provide health coverage for them. If as a society we have a moral responsibility to you, then we certainly have a moral responsibility poor and near poor children.

So, you are going from "it's for the children" to attacking disabled retired veterans and calling them hipocrits. Nice forrestkc, really nice. Is this your hearts and minds approach, cause right now, my heart and mind is telling me not to take you seriously.

I think when the Americans approved of the social security program, they didn't think the government would steal from it. Now, we see what happens when we give the government money, they do not use it efficiently or honestly. To me, SCHIP and all derivatives thereof are just tools the government is using to tug on our heart strings. I do not believe that every dime that they suck from me, to fund this program, will be used to fund it.

Oh, but you would say, "we must appoint an oversight committee. . ." yada, yada, yada. We have oversight of what the government is doing with our social security and we have no influence on how the government spends our money.

It's like petty cash, it's in the drawer and every year/month it gets refilled, but eventually there is no more room in the box, because it is full of IOU's. So, one year someone decides to do an audit discovers that, the annual funding of the petty cash, for the next 10 years won't be able to pay off all the current IOU's, and you still have programs that need to be funded.

So we get more debt, more IOU's and it goes on and on and the only way you can catch up on those IOU's is to get more funding. Funds are limited, so you have to pull them from other obligations.

Do you seriously believe the government is going to use the money from SCHIP, solely for the health and well-being of "the children?" My guess is, that when social security finally goes belly-up, they will use the SCHIP funds to cover it, so guess what, we got people getting their social security checks every month, but now healthcare is being underfunded, cheated and robbed.

You know, if we had a government that was responsible with our money, we may not be so opposed to helping "the children" the "1-25 year old children."

You are unbelievable forrestkc, people here are opposed to socialized medicine, you have few allies on you side, so you lash out and call names, you ridicule, you are alienating everyone here that falls into the retired, disabled, veteran categories, by calling them hipocrits, because they disagree with you.

You aren't making any new friends here and alienating those that have tolerated your POV up to this point, but it's clear you do not care about anyone else's opinions and you aren't here to learn or teach, but to try and indoctrinate the impressionable with liberal, secular-humanistic propaganda.

[forrestkc]

You are unbelievable forrestkc, people here are opposed to socialized medicine, you have few allies on you side, so you lash out and call names, you ridicule, you are alienating everyone here that falls into the retired, disabled, veteran categories, by calling them hipocrits, because they disagree with you.

You aren't making any new friends here and alienating those that have tolerated your POV up to this point, but it's clear you do not care about anyone else's opinions and you aren't here to learn or teach, but to try and indoctrinate the impressionable with liberal, secular-humanistic propaganda.

I am not calling anyone names, I am simply pointing out the obvious. If someone claims that the are against what they see as socialism, but are themselves the recipient of what is the largest socialist program in America, then its worth pointing out the irony there. Moreover, I am not attacking anyone disabled on the battlefield. If you think I have, then please point out where I did.

As to stealing from Social Security. They are not stealing from it, they are borrowing against it to fund all of the liabilities we have placed in the public sector but refuse to foot the bill for. What do you think the war in Iraq and these tax cuts are paid out of? They are borrowing against Social Security surpluses to pay for them. This is everyones fault, not just some government entity.

Moreover, if your opposed to Socialized Medicine, then don't take it. Its funny how these so called rugged individualists never refuse Medicare when they get old enough for it, or when they are disabled. You know, if your all for personal responsibility, then you can always cary disability insurance, I have it. I have enough coverage to ensure that if I were disabled I would have income until I reached retirement age. But if your drawing disability, then you need to pick another battle than this one. Its like a welfare recipient bashing people on food stamps. I mean come on. The fact is, Medicare, Disability, and Social Security costs the tax payers exponentially more than SCHIP does, or even welfare for that matter. Seems like a lot of people want a safety net for themselves, but they don't think anyone else needs it.

SCHIP is not even socialized medicine, its a block grant. Its not like Medicaid or Medicare. In fact, in most cases private insurers provide the coverage. Of course, if you bothered to learn about the program before you set off to bashing it, you would know that. This is a Republican Program. It was originally enacted in 1997. This renewal's biggest supporters are senior senate Republicans. In fact, his veto will almost certainly be overrided in the senate. I mean come on, we are talking about 35 billion over 5 years. We will spend 190 billion next year in Iraq alone.

I am all for getting rid of a good bit of these programs. They ought to get rid of Hud and most of welfare tomorrow, but its just shameful that we can spend 800 billion thus far in Iraq with what they are requesting for next year, but we cant spend 35 billion over the next 5 year to make sure that kids in this country get health coverage regardless of their parents means. I mean come on. That is not Christian. Its just plain immoral.

[rehydrated_for_Christ]

I am all for getting rid of a good bit of these programs. They ought to get rid of Hud and most of welfare tomorrow, but its just shameful that we can spend 800 billion thus far in Iraq with what they are requesting for next year, but we cant spend 35 billion over the next 5 year to make sure that kids in this country get health coverage regardless of their parents means. I mean come on. That is not Christian. Its just plain immoral.

I have to disagree. I do not think it is Christian to enable people. My daughter has government health care simply because I am in school and I will certainly repay that many times over after I graduate. It is pathetic though how very close we fall to the line of not recieving anything when my husband works 6 twelve hour shifts a week to keep us going but if neither of us put up any effort they would give us food stamps, insurance, and cash benefits. How messed up is that system? I know that if we didn't recieve health benefits for our child, we would sacrifice all we had to to get it for her, most parent's would. The parent's that wouldn't sacrifice for their kids have far bigger problems and will damage their children in the long-run anyway. So, why enable them now? As a soon-to-be healthcare worker I run and scream at even the hint of socialized health care! Down with Hillary!

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

As a soon-to-be healthcare worker I run and scream at even the hint of socialized health care!

The Lord Bless you dear sister and Amen.

Every Health Care worker I know and I know a few because my Wife is a RN is scared stiff from this plan. It means that all the years they sacrificed to make a better salary and living for themselves will be for naught. Socialized Health Care will leave some Gov't. official deciding what is a fair salary for a Doctor or RN. They will also choose what "Quality of Life" determines what Gov't dollar spent.(Got any elderly parents? ) However these same hypocrites will never agree to cap the amounts you can sue for.

That would go much further towards reform than telling people what field they can practice in and how much money they can make for their sacrifices.

It will also make scarce procedures that are profit makers like Sonograms. If there was no profit motivation involved there would not be a Sonogram available in practically every town in America. It was the profit and the need that graduated this technology to the point that it is now saving Children, unborn children, from death at the hands of murdering abortionists. When women see the truth of the life that God has Created within them through sonography. They simply are mre likely to make the right choice.

Think of what technology and innovations will be stifled. Think of the lives that will be affeted and quite possibly never exist due to some Progressive somewhere deciding that it's too expensive of a procedure. Yet we do it all for the children. More children have been spared death by this supposedly broken Health Care system than any in the world.

I say ship all the Progressives to Cuba for their Health Care and any future Emergency medical care they might need.

I also suggest that they see how much money "Il Pappa" will pay them for their sacrifice and experience in this field. "Oh' but "Il Pappa takes care of all my needs cradle to grave." (Has he removed the rifle from the back of my neck yet? )

Peace,

Dave

[forrestkc]

I am all for getting rid of a good bit of these programs. They ought to get rid of Hud and most of welfare tomorrow, but its just shameful that we can spend 800 billion thus far in Iraq with what they are requesting for next year, but we cant spend 35 billion over the next 5 year to make sure that kids in this country get health coverage regardless of their parents means. I mean come on. That is not Christian. Its just plain immoral.

I have to disagree. I do not think it is Christian to enable people. My daughter has government health care simply because I am in school and I will certainly repay that many times over after I graduate. It is pathetic though how very close we fall to the line of not recieving anything when my husband works 6 twelve hour shifts a week to keep us going but if neither of us put up any effort they would give us food stamps, insurance, and cash benefits. How messed up is that system? I know that if we didn't recieve health benefits for our child, we would sacrifice all we had to to get it for her, most parent's would. The parent's that wouldn't sacrifice for their kids have far bigger problems and will damage their children in the long-run anyway. So, why enable them now? As a soon-to-be healthcare worker I run and scream at even the hint of socialized health care! Down with Hillary!

So let me get this right. Your taking advantage of the SCHIP program (or something like it) to provide health-coverage for your daughter because you don't really have the means to do so right now because your in college. Yet, your against the SCHIP program?

[rehydrated_for_Christ]

I am all for getting rid of a good bit of these programs. They ought to get rid of Hud and most of welfare tomorrow, but its just shameful that we can spend 800 billion thus far in Iraq with what they are requesting for next year, but we cant spend 35 billion over the next 5 year to make sure that kids in this country get health coverage regardless of their parents means. I mean come on. That is not Christian. Its just plain immoral.

I have to disagree. I do not think it is Christian to enable people. My daughter has government health care simply because I am in school and I will certainly repay that many times over after I graduate. It is pathetic though how very close we fall to the line of not recieving anything when my husband works 6 twelve hour shifts a week to keep us going but if neither of us put up any effort they would give us food stamps, insurance, and cash benefits. How messed up is that system? I know that if we didn't recieve health benefits for our child, we would sacrifice all we had to to get it for her, most parent's would. The parent's that wouldn't sacrifice for their kids have far bigger problems and will damage their children in the long-run anyway. So, why enable them now? As a soon-to-be healthcare worker I run and scream at even the hint of socialized health care! Down with Hillary!

So let me get this right. Your taking advantage of the SCHIP program (or something like it) to provide health-coverage for your daughter because you don't really have the means to do so right now because your in college. Yet, your against the SCHIP program?

Expand your mind for a moment....yes, I do get coverage for my daughter, but the program is so far from perfect that I would not be sad to see it go. I certainly don't want more funding for it. Like I said, we barely qualify and we work our butts off. It is not set up to help those who want to help themselves...it is set up to reward laziness and unproductivity..so I am against it. And if you would read, I said that if it wasn't available I would sacrifice what I had to to provide for her, but that would mean hardly seeing her for the next year if I had to work full-time. Things aren't always black and white-I can take advantage of a resource, but still wish to see it reformed, or even gone if that's not feasible.

[kari21]

If Social Security, Hud, and welfare are such bad ideas, I'd love to hear your solutions, forrestkc.

Communism, perhaps?

[forrestkc]

If Social Security, Hud, and welfare are such bad ideas, I'd love to hear your solutions, forrestkc.

Communism, perhaps?

I think that Social Security is good. I think we should have disability. I think we should have medicare. I think we should have SCHIP. What I don't get is people that are on them having the audacity to claim that others should get them. There is more than a small amount of hypocrisy in that. Don't you think?