CHIP expansion bill gets through House, heads to Bush -- themor...

Jim Gerlach's logic is fundamentally flawed. We're not pitting seniors against children--it's exorbient insurance company profits vs. children. And guess who Gerlach would let win? I don't think Gerlach is naive enough to believe his own rhetoric; he's probably in the grips of his insurance industry friends. Why can't those who wish to privatize Medicare acknowledge that such attempts cost more--and waste taxpayer money-- than traditional government-run Medicare?

So you can make nearly 62 grand a year and qualify for assistance and they want to raise that?
That doesn't sit well with me. Skip the PS3 and send the kid for a checkup for God's sake. It seems that if fully socialized healthcare can't get passed they'll just do it a bit at a time.

E Pluribus Unum wrote:

So you can make nearly 62 grand a year and qualify for assistance and they want to raise that?
That doesn't sit well with me. Skip the PS3 and send the kid for a checkup for God's sake. It seems that if fully socialized healthcare can't get passed they'll just do it a bit at a time.

Lets' see the choice is making sure our nation's children, our future, get vital healthcare or greedy and souless insurance companies get more $$$$$. Care to guess what side I am on? Oh and spare me the bit about how a line must be drawn here because if it isn't in a blink of an eye we will have socialized healthcare. Are you capable of critical thought or do you always fall for the politics of fear????

This bill is a DISASTER. It covers way too many people, including those who make a combined $83,000. That is too much- people at that salary have jobs that have health care. The last thing you would ever want is people dropping their employer's plans in favor of a free government plan! Plus, this bill covers way more people than just children, ones who do not need to be covered under a supposedly children's bill.

And that doesn't even address the cost issue- this is a huge expansion of the federal government. This is just a baby step towards socialized medicine. Plus there are numerous tax increases written into it, including a ludicrous 3000% cigar tax increase. It is just a horrible piece of legislation posing as a "children's health care" bill. Please hope Bush vetoes it!

I doubt that so-called "socialized medicine" would be such a nightmare for a problematic health care system with runaway inflation. In the 1960s, when Medicare was an issue, Ronald Reagan, working for the insurance industry, sent a recording to familes of members in the AMA warning that Medicare would precipitate an era of socialized medicine and that American would lose their liberty "and we would would only be able to tell our grandchildren what it meant to be free." Now Medicare is one of the most popular federal programs. I suspect that national health insurance would meet with a similar positive reception.

A child does not make the decision to have a PS3 or go to the Dr. So why should a child "our future" not be medically covered. A different time and different place but children need healthcare..

Justice wrote:

<quoted text>
Lets' see the choice is making sure our nation's children, our future, get vital healthcare or greedy and souless insurance companies get more $$$$$. Care to guess what side I am on? Oh and spare me the bit about how a line must be drawn here because if it isn't in a blink of an eye we will have socialized healthcare. Are you capable of critical thought or do you always fall for the politics of fear????

You say choose between greedy insurance and our children and I am supposed to be the uncritical fearful one? Are you for real?
I can't afford insurance but my taxes should go up or our infrastructure should suffer to support middle-class entitlements that are passed not because of caring but because of VOTES.
The truly poor already get free healthcare so your argument never gets off the ground.

What about the kids wrote:

A child does not make the decision to have a PS3 or go to the Dr. So why should a child "our future" not be medically covered. A different time and different place but children need healthcare..

I don't understand where you're coming from. Are you saying parents who make sufficient income but blow it on luxuries and then neglect their children should be rewarded by the federal government?

I can't believe how many people want the govt to take over everything,this country is in sad shape because the govt got involved in matters the founding fathers never intended it to.Look what happened with katrina(no not bushes fault)bridges falling down,infrastructer falling apart,why? our govt spends all our money buying votes with free handouts to lazy people and big corperations instead of doing there No.1 job.secure our boarders,national defense,infastructure,security at home.Our system worked fine for a long time and is now broken beyond repair by the greedy people we put in office thinking were going to get something for free.Sometimes i pray that the enemy detonates a nuke in washington D.C. when all of our scumbag leaders and there staff are there so we can start from scratch.Then the military can impose martial law ,remove all the perks these people get ,elect peoplethat will work for the good of the country instead of themselves.

Parents who make sufficient income should take care of their own children. Why should I have to take care of them through taxes to pay for this ridiculous program. Maybe these parents should give up the plasma tv or the SUV and take care of their kids first. This is just another step towards socialized medicine which will be a disaster.