Slog - Comments on Rep. Hastings Vetoes Health Care for 11,000 Children

Comment by Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:39:34 -0800

that's my hometown district!

Hastings was the surprise guest speaker at my high school graduation breakfast. Total d-bag.

Comment by Sargon Bighorn

Sargon Bighorn — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:48:04 -0800

Will the heteros stand up for their children or leave it to us Gay folks to fix?

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:56:17 -0800

Yeah, but Senator Dodd just killed Bush's reauthorization of the FISA law.

Two can play that game, and Doc Hastings gonna find out who gets recalled faster!

Comment by Spoogie

Spoogie — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:30:21 -0800

@1, it's OK to say "douche." Or type it. Fuck, scream it at the top of your lungs.

Comment by Bauhaus

Bauhaus — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:26:26 -0800

I reckon ol' Doc wants to take care of all those chillens hisself instead of leavin' it up to the guv'ment. Yee-haw, ya big douche.

Comment by Touring

Touring — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:10:00 -0800

Do more than 11,000 people live in Central Washington? Hastings could blow some guy in the Wenatchee International Airport bathroom and still get re-elected (apart from CWU). Funny one of his districts in Yakima (I think the 14th) has the largest percentage of people on welfare in the state - 25% of the population.

Comment by laterite

laterite — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:47:14 -0800

The good doctor embodies entrenchment so well.

Comment by David Wright

David Wright — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:38:27 -0800

300% of poverty level, for a family of four, is over $60K/year.

Given those numbers, it is really hard to deny that the real intent of this legislation is to get an ever large fraction of the population insured by the government, until finally the remaining taxpayers footing the bill say "screw this, I want mine, too" and vote for the government to insure everybody. And if that's your goal, then this is fine legislation.

But if you instead judge this legislation as it's being sold, which is as a way to extend insurence to children whoose families couldn't possibly afford to insure themselves, that number shows that the sales pitch is total bunk. $60K/year is well above the median household income in Washington, so this legislation would extend government insurance deep into the middle class.

Comment by monkey

monkey — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:31:14 -0800

@#8, I make about $45k a year and I only support a cat and I live check to check. Imagine a family of 3 (or 4 or 5) living off $60k a year and then go fuck yourself.

Comment by old timer

old timer — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:42:45 -0800

@ 8

David, you poor, asppiring to be something, climber.
Don't you realize that the lowest of rung of 'middle class' begins at an income of $150,000?

And, at that level, a few pennies spent on the health of children not your own is noblesse oblige?

Grow up greedy boy.

Comment by derek

derek — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:47:36 -0800

@8 The monthly premium for medical insurance for a family of four would be over a thousand a month if they were self-insuring. That's a lot of money, and just carrying catastophic coverage doesn't lower it much at all. Children need preventative care and they get cuts and colds which are not covered in catastrophic policies. When you put off routine care kids end up in ER's with more severe, and thus, more costly illnesses. Public aid children's health care is money well-spent.