Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Tax Slaves for Ron Paul | Today on Line Out »

Thursday, October 18, 2007

What He Said

posted by on October 18 at 15:06 PM

Speaking of SCHIP…

Here’s a taste:

[The] Republicans are worried we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where ya gonna get that money? You going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement. This bill would provide healthcare for 10 million children and unlike the President’s own kids, these children can’t see a doctor or receive necessary care.

But President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up. In Iraq, in the United States and in Congress.

RSS icon Comments

1

Bush loves war in general. It's his hobby.

The war on drugs.
The war on terror.
The war on terrorism.
The war in Iraq.
The war in Iran (?).
The war on teenage sex.

...when he's bored with his wars, he buttfucks children with a pen stroke.

Nice guy.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 18, 2007 3:14 PM
2

ballsiest thing i've heard a democrat say in a whileme. how long til half the democrats vote to censure him?

Posted by bing | October 18, 2007 3:15 PM
3

I would throw my bra at him if I were there. He's a rockstar.

Posted by Carollani | October 18, 2007 3:19 PM
4

Amen!

Posted by monkey | October 18, 2007 3:20 PM
5

Oh you beautiful, beautiful man!

Posted by Hernandez | October 18, 2007 3:21 PM
6

So, we're now we're getting into an area where middle class (and upper class) families will forego buying health insurance for their children beause now the taxpayers will pay for it.

Then when Mrs. Clinton gets elected, taxpayers will be subsidizing day care for parents who could otherwise afford it.

See where this is going?

Posted by raindrop | October 18, 2007 3:27 PM
7

Was that our own Jim McDermott?

Could he risk it from his district?

Posted by whatever | October 18, 2007 3:29 PM
8

From other my commonts in the other post:

Aaagggghhhh thanks asshats! because I don't qualify for any child care assistance, help with helath insurance, or any other programs that allow me to continue to be productive and keep my head above water. This is just one failsafe closer to meaning the difference between catashtrophe and full on homelessenss, maybe welfare dependancy or alternatively, an at least marginal existance until I can recover in the event that anything happened to me or the kiddo. punish my son because I'm a middle income single parent that had no business having a kid until I could afford to keep him in luxury- and while you're at it- please make sure there are plenty of hand guns around and easily accessible so that when people are backed in a corner and pissed of they can start blowing people away. Gah ASS HATS!!!

Posted by NELBOT | October 18, 2007 3:33 PM
9

and I also said this: Peter @5: usually I suffer from so much outrage fatigue that its just another drop in the bucket but this is one program that could potentially really personally screw me everyday- I would feel the consequences of this one not on the nightly news like I have experienced so much of Iraq, I am not upset bcause I know this wrong deep down in my immoral bones but I will likely feel this one in my wallet and heaven forfend that I blow a tire on my car or something seemingly minor if you have means screws my budget and there is one fewer safety net that could keep my family from the streets. I am not saying that to be dramatic but I could potentially be one ordinary daily set back away from real distress.

And Dan- I really love you but I can't spend that much on a fundraising dinner to see you Saturday no matter how worthy the cause- and it is a great cause- nor could I ask my sub to cough it up- I will have to leave that level of fundraising to folks of means less modest than my own- but I am waiting for your next book to come out and will purchase that so my son can grow up knowing the important things about sex education- namely how to get girls or boys to sleep with him safely...

Posted by NELBOT | October 18, 2007 3:34 PM
10

@7:

That was Pete Stark a representative from Maryland, I believe.

Posted by Tlazolteotl | October 18, 2007 3:41 PM
11

so rain drip @6, I won't say there aren't people who would abuse the system. Can I pay for day care today? by the skin of my teeth, if they raised teh rates? I'd have to decide between gas to get to work or something equally basic like fresh vegetables for dinner to cover the difference. I have health insurance today but what if something happened at my job? THe company is having some trouble right now and the CEO was so kind as to remind us that he isn't required to offer health benefits if it comes down to it. Can I afford a trip to the ER if the kid fals out of a tree and needs stitches? I had stitches after a nasty fall this summer and I'm about to go to collections on even that bill with health insurance picking up part of the tab... I make a little more than 35K a year. Does that make me a welfare queen? It is programs like this that function as a safety net that keeps people like me from falling through the cracks and becoming welfare queens.

Posted by NELBOT | October 18, 2007 3:43 PM
12

Bravo for the California Rep. GHEEZUZ that takes guts.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | October 18, 2007 3:45 PM
13

Tlazolteotl, that was Fortney "Pete" Stark, CA-13, who has represented the southern portion of the East Bay (currently from Alameda to Fremont) since 1973. Like McDermott, he's a subcommittee chair on Ways & Means, though his is the more important Health Subcommittee.

Pete's an unrepentant progressive ... like Jim, but with appreciably more seniority and power in the Democratic caucus.

Posted by N in Seattle | October 18, 2007 3:55 PM
14

@5,

Oh I hear you -- my wife's a social worker and I'm an artist and we're drowning in medical bills despite both having coverage through work. We're less than a paycheck away from dire consequences for our family. At least our kids are healthy. Hopefully that much good luck continues.

Posted by Peter | October 18, 2007 4:25 PM
15

I heard on Air America earlier that the Republicans are calling for Pete Stark's resignation because of these comments. They are repeating the same tired old crap about SCHIP being socialized medicine, even though the program had bipartisan support before these idiots decided supporting Bush was more important than health insurance for children.

What are we going to tell our children and grandchildren about this administration 40 years from now? They will probably be so incredulous that they will wonder if we are in the early stages of dementia.

Posted by david | October 18, 2007 4:41 PM
16

Bush is a lying sack and raindrop is his toady.

Posted by elrider | October 18, 2007 4:45 PM
17

Wow, great stuff. Now if we could get some other Dems to start telling it like it is, we might just start down the path to getting our country back.

Also, if I remember correctly, I think Stark is also the highest-ranking holder of public office in America to acknowledge that he's an atheist.

Pete Stark is bulletproof in his district, so the Rethug crybabies can call for his resignation until they're blue in the face. Fucking fascists....

Posted by Mr. X | October 18, 2007 5:15 PM
18

I'm not saying yea or nay, I'm just telling it like it is.

Posted by raindrop | October 18, 2007 6:10 PM
19

5, even if you make the case that a family of four is making up to the limit ($63K or so), paying $14,000 a year for health insurance isn't easy. Perhaps you've got health insurance and don't care, but it's expensive if your employer doesn't offer it.

As far as the question of where this is leading, hopefully it's leading to universal health care. I know that bothers neocons, because that means that Democratic children will live longer and hurt the R's election chances, but we already spend more per capita than most European countries for much less health care because our system is so inefficient.

Paul Krugman discussed this yesterday with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/17/1352236

Posted by Ebenezer | October 18, 2007 7:56 PM
20

@17
I don't think we'll get the country back. The Democrats have shown, repeatedly, that they will not stand up against Bush and Cheany no matter how bad things get or how high their crimes. The Republicans have sold their souls to their party's leadership and continue to ignore the destruction of our democracy. And the people of this nation are more informed about Brittany Spear's problems than they are about the loss of their rights.

Hillary won't fix things, either. The war will continue into the next decade and we'll be fighting Iran any day now.

When we look back at this time in the future, those of us still around, will regret that we knew what was happening but did nothing to stop it. We let the US fall...

I think it's getting time to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights before we lose that one, too.

Posted by montex | October 18, 2007 8:54 PM
21

@18

Really? Just telling it like it is? Repeating the lies of the R-pubs doesn't make it true.

I can understand the idiot bastard Bush making these statements about SCHIP because he's too stupid to know bettter.

What's your excuse?

Posted by elrider | October 18, 2007 9:35 PM
22

Does my heart good to see some passion about goodness in Congress.

Posted by Bauhaus | October 18, 2007 10:15 PM
23

There are pain points in each direction of the health care debate. The more socialized, the less competition and costs remain high as the government will pay set prices that donít ever come down. Then thereís inevitably longer wait times for treatments. Conversely, of course, well Ė I donít think I have to enumerate the problems of people that donít have and canít afford health insurance.

Elrider, please take a breather for a moment from your rabid, tiresome, perpetual Bush-bashing hysteria (although it is often deserved, I admit) to engage in a more thoughtful evaluation of other points of view.

Posted by raindrop | October 18, 2007 10:21 PM
24

I wonder if Mars offers free health care.

Posted by otla | October 18, 2007 10:50 PM
25

@23 - the argument that gov't paying the tab means no cost control is such a red herring. If that were the case, how do explain Medicare? If anything, because it is government-funded, reimbursements are less than private insurance.
This whole thing stinks, all around. Bush sez 83 grand is sooo much money for a family to make per year and get help with healthcare. I'd like to see HIM try to live on 83 grand. He's probably put that much up his nose.
Yep, the Greedy Old Pricks, claiming to be pro-life, only up until birth.

Posted by madashell | October 18, 2007 10:55 PM
26

Yes, for what you're paying for a red herring you could buy beluga caviar.

Posted by raindrop | October 19, 2007 12:00 AM
27

@23 I come from a country with socialized medicine and i am shocked by the cost of health care in America the more i hear about it the gladder i am to have access to the social health care system

Posted by kate | October 19, 2007 9:04 AM
28

Compare this to the Republicans' incisive take:

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7590.html

Hahahahaha...talk about a walking parody. At first I thought that was a bit from the Colbert Report.

Posted by chi type | October 19, 2007 9:07 AM
29

Also: all the ranting about the dangers of pinkocommie socialized medecine is irrelevant.
The vast majority of Americans favor expanding SCHIP and in a *democracy* it's the government's job to carry out those wishes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/opinion/polls/main3378278.shtml

Posted by chi type | October 19, 2007 9:22 AM
30

Actually, in a Constitutional Republic, purely democratic wishes of the public must be vetted against the restrictions placed on what government, especially the Federal Government is permitted to do.

There is an amendment process if enough of the vast Americans wish to change those ground rules.

Posted by chunkstyle | October 19, 2007 9:50 AM
31

Maybe W got confused again and has been competing for the Nobel War Prize?

Posted by kk | October 19, 2007 9:51 AM
32

And the "restrictions placed on what government, especially the Federal Government is permitted to do" in this case would be??

Posted by chi type | October 19, 2007 10:01 AM
33

Well, the basic cycle is the US federal code, subject to Supreme Court judicial review, tempered by case law and ultimately the Constitution.

My main point was that we have a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. 50%+1 of voters do NOT have an automatic right to enact anything their hearts wish. There are constitutional constraints. The US Constitution says what the Federal gov't is allowed to do. Much of the language of the Bill of Rights is reinforcing that the gov't can not do such and such (shall pass no law...). Similarly, later amendments add to the purview of the Federal gov't as to what is authorized or addressed explicity.

For these reasons and others show why many programs desired by citizenry are better dealt with at a state and local level rather than from a federal level.

Posted by chunkstyle | October 19, 2007 10:32 AM
34

No, Pete Stark is from California (c'mon people, how fucking hard is it to use Google to find these things out before you post?). Jim McDermott would never say anything like that because he's probably fucking off in Africa or doing something else that has absolutely nothing to do with being a representative from Seattle.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | October 19, 2007 10:50 AM
35

@33: Um, well, thanks for that elucidation of the entirely obvious. In the future I will attempt to be much more literal and pedantic. Perhaps I shall employ footnotes.

Posted by chi type | October 19, 2007 11:02 AM
36

@ 11

I hear your pain with the health bills, even with health insurance my husband's poor health this year has us paying thousands of dollars. Every health provider I have talked to has been willing to work out a payment plan, and he's had to see many of them. Try calling them and asking for one, it's embarrassing, but has saved our skins. Our local hospital is letting us pay over almost two years.

Posted by SpookyCat | October 19, 2007 12:39 PM
37

@ 26 - You just don't get what I said. It's more like a tin of cat food than Beluga caviar...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003961526_medicare19m.html
I'll say it again: government-funded healthcare reimburses for less than private insurance!
One more thing- Medicare admin costs are 3 cents on the dollar. Private insurance? 25 cents! Government-run health care is cheaper!

Posted by Madashell | October 19, 2007 2:19 PM
38

Woot! He's our legislator!

Fremont is the second-largest district in Alameda county after Oakland.

From Wikipedia: According to a 2006 estimate, the median income for a household in the city is $88,335, and the median income for a family was $97,499.[1] About 3.6% of families and 5.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.9% of those under age 18 and 6.2% of those age 65 or over.

Posted by Jessica Margolin | October 20, 2007 8:48 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).