Shocking, I know. For government healthcare before she was against it. Now, back to stalking little children for Ms. Magalang.
» Breaking News
Soldiers Join Military To Avoid Weak Economy
Michael Phelps Getting Video Game
Digg Denies Its For Sale
Jenny Hendrix: Princess [Breaking Beauty]
Bill Richardson To Be Obama Commerce Secretary
Um, where does it say she was for government healthcare?
You guys really need to improve your reading comprehension skills because they suck.
She complains about the inadequacies of the existing system, then goes ballistic when Dems propose fixes to it.
She didn’t say she was for government health care.
Her position is inconsistent, but there’s no need to exaggerate what she said.
So when Democratics complain about inadequacies in Missle Defense and go ballistic (pardon the pun) when fixes are proposed, they are being hypocrites also. Right?!?
Wussat? Faux outrage from our resident wingnuts? I do think Oliver is exaggerating her inconsistency, and we all know that you right-wingers NEVER do that! Right?!?
Her saying that people “opt to go uninsured” is like me saying that I “opted not to buy that $25 million mansion.” I didn’t opt to do anything.
That basic lack of comprehension, empathy, and understanding is what fuels the Republican disdain for the poor and uninsured. They are uninsured because they CHOOSE to be (out of laziness, no doubt), not because the high cost of insurance would cripple them financially or is totally out of reach.
I thought that was pretty amazing, even for Malkin.
She complains about the inadequacies of the existing system, then goes ballistic when Dems propose fixes to it.
That’s a far cry from what you initially stated. In addition she did not “go ballistic.” All she did was point out that instead of Democrats being able to support the programs they support on the merits, they trot out ‘victims’ to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Using a 12 year old boy on their radio address as a political prop is a freaking disgrace.
What kills me is that you would sit there and howl like a banshee at the notion of the kid’s grandfather being able to pass on more money to his grandson and family as the result of eliminating inheritance taxes, but you’re ready to offer the same family a free ride for healthcare on the taxpayers tab.
Who’s the hypocrite here?
they trot out ‘victims’ to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Using a 12 year old boy on their radio address as a political prop is a freaking disgrace.
Who’s the hypocrite here?
You are, seeing as how Republicans/conservatives do this ad nauseum with everything from terror to censoring libraries and television to “protecting marriage” from teh gays with nary a peep from the wingnuts.
Remember Bush’s precious “snowflakes”?
Here’s a photo right here.
Oooh, I’ll bet you were in a tizzy with bitter outrage, Jay! What a “freaking disgrace” for Bush and the Republicans. Right? I’ll bet you trolled the right-wing blogs all day pointing this out, too, didn’t ya?
The more the GOP presses this issue, the worse they’ll do. The only time they succeed in economic policy debates is when they lie about them, as they did with their “middle class” tax cuts. When they come right out and say that this family deserves not to be able to afford health insurance, they lose the debate.
So let’s let them.
they trot out ‘victims’ to appeal to the lowest common denominator
Hey Jay,
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
I could point out a half dozen times that Republicans have used private citizens to tell the human side of a political story. Let’s just take a trip in the way-back machine to 2005 when Bush sat in front of 21 snowflake babies to veto a stem cell research bill. Snowflake babies were a non sequitur in the debate about stem cell lines that couldn’t become snowflakes, but nobody on the left impugned the parents, sought them out in their homes or questioned their motives personally.
Malkin did go over the line - waaaaaay over the line. I guess it also turned out she’s a hypocrite. What’s new? The real question is why you would choose to share political space with this scumbag.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7439.html
I’m sure the wingnuts can point to those posts condemning these, how can we say it, ” ‘victims’ to appeal to the lowest common denominator.” Or is it IOKIYAR?
Hey Z, as Al Pacino said, “Fuck you too!!”
Why is it that when pointing out the shortcomings of Democratic politicians, the best you can do is, “But…b.b..but….Bush did it too!!!”
“They do it too” is not an adequate defense.
Snowflake babies were a non sequitur in the debate about stem cell lines that couldn’t become snowflakes, but nobody on the left impugned the parents, sought them out in their homes or questioned their motives personally.
The President didn’t have any of them delivering his radio address. In addition, the left squealed louder than Ned Beatty in ‘Deliverance’ when he did that so don’t even go there.
“…they trot out ‘victims’ to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Using a 12 year old boy on their radio address as a political prop is a freaking disgrace.”
I don’t understand this. The kid was able to get health care BECAUSE of this program. Without the program, no health care. Or else the ki gets healthcare as the cost of a crippling debt that would have put the entire family under, which in turn, would have impacted the larger community, as another business fails, another family forced to move.
Which is cheaper to society in the long run, paying for this kids freaking health care or letting the family go under?
It isn’t even close …
Why is it that when pointing out the shortcomings of Democratic politicians, the best you can do is, “But…b.b..but….Bush did it too!!!”
Uh, because we don’t have a problem with this sort of thing. You claim to have a problem with it, but only bring it up when Democrats do it. Then you lie, and say your REAL problem is the fact that Democrats have them delivering the radio address. Why don’t you just admit to the fact that your objection is purely partisan and irrational, Jay?
“Why is it that when pointing out the shortcomings of Democratic politicians, the best you can do is, ‘But…b.b..but….Bush did it too!!!’”
Jay, you’re the one complaining about using kids here. You are the hypocrite. Pointing out that you are you hypocrite is not the same as saying, “But, but, but Bush.”
And what shortcomings are you pointing out? The fact that there are real people who are going to suffer because Bush thinks his political philosophy trumps reality. Oh yeah, that’s such are horrible thing for the Democrats to do.
Face it, on S-CHIP, as in nearly every issue out there, the Republicans are wrong and the Democrats are right. And people support the Democrats over the Republicans.
Jay,
Are you a as dumb as Malkin or do you just play that way on the internet? Every politician uses “real life” people to score political points. Name the last State of the Union Address that didn’t feature a work-a-day citizen or two sitting next to the First Lady. They are in ads, radio addresses, props behind politicians, babies getting kissed, whatever. It will be that way no matter who is running for office or who is in office. It should be that way. This is still a democracy “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Remember?
This is NOT about whether using people in ads is a valid form of political manipulation. It is about Malkin encouraging “citizen journalists,” i.e. thugs and miscreants, to seek out dirt against this family. That is unconscionable and by playing a chorister in this disgusting play, you are proving yourself to of that base level of humanity.
Please don’t feed the paid shill-trolls. And calling them names/swearing at them doesn’t help the cause. Thanks in advance.
In a sane world, there would be convictions for this shit Malkin’s pulling.
Uh, because we don’t have a problem with this sort of thing. You claim to have a problem with it, but only bring it up when Democrats do it.
Oh I didn’t realize there was some sort of procedural system that requires me to talk about somebody doing it and then saying, “Oh and Republicans do it too and it’s bad.” Please.
Then you lie, and say your REAL problem is the fact that Democrats have them delivering the radio address.
WTF are you talking about?
Jay, you’re the one complaining about using kids here. You are the hypocrite.
How does complaining about the Democrats exploiting a child by having him deliver a radio address for political purposes make me a hypocrite?
The fact that there are real people who are going to suffer because Bush thinks his political philosophy trumps reality.
Oh right because we know that this the only version of this bill that could have been passed. What is this, Mission: Impossible? Did the chance to expand the program self destruct right after Bush vetoed it?
Name the last State of the Union Address that didn’t feature a work-a-day citizen or two sitting next to the First Lady.
Sorry, but you’re talking apples and oranges here. If the President had some woman or guy come up to the podium with him to say a few words that struck at the Democrats politically, you guys would be apoplectic. The liberal blogs would would be in overload with activity.
This is NOT about whether using people in ads is a valid form of political manipulation. It is about Malkin encouraging “citizen journalists,” i.e. thugs and miscreants, to seek out dirt against this family. That is unconscionable and by playing a chorister in this disgusting play, you are proving yourself to of that base level of humanity.
Actually, I don’t support at all what Malkin and others did. That doesn’t change the fact that what the Democrats did was wrong. The Democrats can’t have it both ways. They can’t demagogue the debate by using a 12 year old to make their argument for them and then scream bloody murder when the GOP question the Frosts qualifications for government assistance. The program is means-tested and that is the center of the debate! That puts assets, income and other issues on the table.
That being said, having people speculate about the family’s finances or questioning their motives is wrong.
I’m still like to know why taking $30 billion from poor and working class Americans to subsidize health care for people better of than them and for childless adults (I couldn’t believe how much states spend in that regard. Perhaps if the program were reformed, they wouldn’t need to add $30 billion to the tab and more CHILDREN could be covered but as is often the case with Democrats and liberals, intentions mean more than results.) is a good thing.
Oh right because we know that this the only version of this bill that could have been passed. What is this, Mission: Impossible? Did the chance to expand the program self destruct right after Bush vetoed it?
The bill was a compromise among progressives in Congress who wanted further expansion and conservatives who wanted no increases and in some cases reductions. Short of unanimous resolutions, this is probably the most negotiated and bipartisan piece of legislation to come out of both houses in years. Over 2/3 of the senate voted in favor of it, and almost 2/3 of the House voted in favor of it. Why in god’s name does the most shining example in recent history of Congress working the way it’s actually supposed to terrify you so much?
The Democrats can’t have it both ways. They can’t demagogue the debate by using a 12 year old to make their argument for them and then scream bloody murder when the GOP question the Frosts qualifications for government assistance.
You know, you’re apparently spending most of your time trolling numerous sites with this same talking point that has already been smacked down. Can you at least spam people’s comments sections with some new material?
You know, you’re apparently spending most of your time trolling numerous sites with this same talking point that has already been smacked down. Can you at least spam people’s comments sections with some new material?
Why is it that when people are challenged on their point of view, they accuse those of being ‘trolls’ or engaging in ‘comment spam.’ If you guys want a nice big echo chamber than just say so. Otherwise, stop whining about ‘trolls’ and ’spam’ and respond in kind.
Now, are you going to respond to what I asked about the $30 billion and the apparent mis-use of the program as it currently stands or are just continue with the snark?
I can find that $30 billion for you Jay, Save Farris brought it up earlier. We could cut the funding for the National Missile Defense program, that doesn’t work anyway. You are welcome Jay.
Jay is arguing that Bush was for Children’s health care before he vetoed the bill. In 2004 speak that makes him a flip flopper.
Lastly, Jay, if you someday lost your health insurance and had to come up with $12,000 yourself, or had a sick family member with a chronic condition that made you an undesireable to your insurance company, I know you would be singing a different tune.
“Oh I didn’t realize there was some sort of procedural system that requires me to talk about somebody doing it and then saying, “Oh and Republicans do it too and it’s bad.
Obviously there isn’t one. The reason we bring up Bush’s similar tactic is because we think you’re lying in this case. You want to hurt Democrats, so you attack with whatever material you have, whether you are honestly outraged by the issue or not. The only honest outrage you have is your permanent, unwavering Malkin-style hatred of your fellow citizens.
And despite your hate, we will still make sure you and your family get health insurance, Jay, so you can hate your fellow Americans from a position of greater economic security, and so that the American people you hate are more prosperous. That is liberalism’s gift to you.
How does complaining about the Democrats exploiting a child by having him deliver a radio address for political purposes make me a hypocrite?
Because they were not exploiting a child. The child in question has many reasons to support taking the position he espoused, with the primary one keeping him and his family from living in a station wagon following financial ruin.
It’s fair to argue that SChip goes to far by extending it to certain income levels or by not having some sorts of means testing, but even then there are needs to be some point where it becomes unacceptable in society that good folks lose everything they worked a lifetime for because their kid got sick. John Kerry’s proposal for catastrophic care coverage was on the right track. It would help the middle class and insurers both.
Please don’t feed the paid shill-trolls.
The only one here that gets paid by a political organization to create web content is … Oliver! Just something to keep in mind the next time you accuse someone of being a paid shill-troll.
Why is it that when people are challenged on their point of view, they accuse those of being ‘trolls’ or engaging in ‘comment spam.’
Because… ummm… you’re posting the exact same claptrap that was already address on multiple sites? You know… spamming? And trolling?
This has been “Internet Terms Most People Learned in 1998.” Thanks for joining.
DUhh..
The Malagang made the same STUPID mistake that Jay made here.
The program Graeme is in is MEANS-tested. NOT ASSETS-tested. Under means-testing the family qualified.
Yet the rightwingnutsphere went all-out draggin the ASSETS of the family in, stupidities such as rumors of granite counters and the square footage of their home, in order to kick the boy’s teeth in.
If Bush puts in the piddling increase he wants, maybe when they re-certify, as all participants are required to do on a regular basis, maybe they WOULDN’T qualify. And that’s why Graeme’s family thought it important to speak out.
And now, there’s a hint that te pile on was ordered by the national GOP through McConnells staffers.
Tell you what, Jay and SaveFarris, you trolls go right ahead. Make your best case using the best points you’re fed, and see where that puts the GOP in the next election, ok?
More and more, people are getting wise to the fact that the GOP stands for mean, short-sighted, stupid government, just like the people that support it.
The child in question has many reasons to support taking the position he espoused, with the primary one keeping him and his family from living in a station wagon following financial ruin.
Ok, and what does that have to do with Democrats using him for their radio address?
It’s fair to argue that SChip goes to far by extending it to certain income levels or by not having some sorts of means testing
Chum, the program is already means tested. The current expansion would allow families making $70,000 a year to qualify for the program (in New York, it would be $82,000). Now on this very blog, we had Oliver arguing that familes who make $100,000 per year are “rich.” If that’s rich, then what is $70K a year? $82K? I realize that some of these top levels have to go through a waiver process, but in Florida for instance, the current bill would allow a family of four making $61,950 to qualify. The original bill was 400% above the poverty line which would have made a family of four in Florida making $82,600 eligible.
Because… ummm… you’re posting the exact same claptrap that was already address on multiple sites?
Well gee, maybe it’s because I’m responding to the same claptrap. Commenting on two freaking blogs does not reach ‘troll’ or ’spam’ status so get a grip.
The biggest mistake the GOP could make is to tell the truth about their economic policies, which is that they are indifferent to the economic condition of the middle class, and act only to help the top 10%.
In this debate, they are exposing their true indifference to the squeeze happening to middle class families and small businesses. Their priorities are too out in the open. That’s why they’re losing the debate. That’s why actual politicians are backing off from Malkin’s frenzied mob — because they can’t follow her, electorally, even if her part of the conservative movement is the animating force among the conservative grassroots these days. Michelle Malkin and the base are electoral poison.
Jay, you’re right that the current bill is not perfect, and that there’s no way to formulate the bill so that it is completely fair in all cases.
So if you don’t like it, why don’t you join the rest of us in supporting a national health-care system, so that EVERYBODY can have health insurance, regardless of income.
Or you tell me your great plan for fixing this beached whale of a profit-driven system that is bankrupting us, ruining the global competitiveness of our corporations, making us the laughingstock of the developed world and still leaving millions of children (and grown-ups) uninsured and underinsured.
GOP for years have been telling us all we need is a little tweak there and a little tinker here and everything will be swell. The American People are finally calling bullsh*t on that.
Her position is inconsistent,
Well, at least she’s consistent.
…the notion of the kid’s grandfather being able to pass on more money to his grandson and family as the result of eliminating inheritance taxes,…
Bullshit and you know it, Jay. Unless the grandfather has more than $4million, he pays no inheritance tax.
And it would be reckless to speculate about another family’s dynamic. Wouldn’t it?
Oh I didn’t realize there was some sort of procedural system that requires me to talk about somebody doing it and then saying, “Oh and Republicans do it too and it’s bad.” Please.
Haw!
I’m going to save this. Expect to see it again next time you pull the same stunt, Jay.
As for the original post, Ms. Malkin may be hypocritical about many things but not this. Read carefully, boys. She and Jesse took out a private insurance policy! She did not enroll in a government-supported plan.
“The only one here that gets paid by a political organization to create web content is … Oliver! ”
Prove it or STFU.
“They can’t demagogue the debate by using a 12 year old to make their argument for them and then scream bloody murder when the GOP question the Frosts qualifications for government assistance.”
Jay, you’re a fucking idiot. Seriously. The family was QUALIFIED for the program. There was absolutely no reason for ‘citizen journalists’ to start digging into the family’s finances unless they suspected the family of fraud. Now if you suspect someone of fraud, you should have your fucking facts straight before you start spewing shit about them all over the web. Malkin and the rest of them simply starting spitting out innuendo and misinformation. It’s disgusting.
“They can’t demagogue the debate by using a 12 year old to make their argument for them”
Jay doesn’t actually believe Democrats “demogogued” the debate. He’s simply lying when he claims this, in order to conceal the fact that he shared Malkin’s sadistic glee at tormenting a Democratic family.
Well, sure, Dr. H. He’s gotta be able to defend his staff.
Duros, your link doesn’t work (maybe it’s just me).
But Malkin and Jay put me in mind of a classic Jack Handey quote you might appreciate:
“It’s sad that a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs.”
Jay, you’re a fucking idiot. Seriously. The family was QUALIFIED for the program. There was absolutely no reason for ‘citizen journalists’ to start digging into the family’s finances unless they suspected the family of fraud.
No shit Sherlock and I wasn’t talking about the ‘citizen journalists’ but the GOP in office. What, a kid makes the radio address and because he’s a kid, the media nor the GOP are allowed to make sure the story is on the up and up? Did I miss something here?
The questioning regarding their counter tops, the value of their home, their kids being in private schools, etc. were way out of line. But simply checking up to make sure the speech the Democrats wrote for the kid to deliver is accurate is perfectly acceptable.
Jay doesn’t actually believe Democrats “demogogued” the debate. He’s simply lying when he claims this, in order to conceal the fact that he shared Malkin’s sadistic glee at tormenting a Democratic family.
The only thing that would give me glee at this point would be for somebody to shove a boot up your ass Doc. You’re an idiot and as usual, you avoid discussing the issue to make baseless character assassinations.
Getting back to the issue at hand. Considering Oliver (and I didn’t see anybody disagree with him) believes a family making $100,000 a year is RICH, I wonder how he can reconcile that with expanding the CHIP program to cover families that make $65-$82K a year? If $100K a year is “rich” then $70K is on the high end of upper middle class, no? Why is such an expansion necessary? In many areas of Florida, $62K for a family of four is good money. Why should lower income people subsidize their health insurance costs?
If $100K a year is “rich” then $70K is on the high end of upper middle class, no? Why is such an expansion necessary?
The expansion is necessary because of the number of families that can’t afford private insurance if it’s not subsidized by their employers. When it comes to being able to afford health insurance, conservatives seem to think a family of six with an income of $45K is rich enough to handle it on their own.
For someone who keeps insisting on “getting back to the issue at hand” you sure do ask a lot of questions you should already know the answers to.
If $100K a year is “rich” then $70K is on the high end of upper middle class, no? Why is such an expansion necessary?
The expansion is necessary because of the number of families that can’t afford private insurance if it’s not subsidized by their employers. When it comes to being able to afford health insurance, conservatives seem to think a family of six with an income of $45K is rich enough to handle it on their own.
For someone who keeps insisting on “getting back to the issue at hand” you sure do ask a lot of questions you should already know the answers to.
“you avoid discussing the issue”
Seeing as how your demented focus on Graeme’s family is a specific ploy to *avoid* discussing the subject, you lack credibility on this point, Jay. Stick to what you’re good at: savaging the left with every tool at your disposal, and carrying water for the rich at the expense of the rest of society.
Enlightened…
I am unaware of any moneys you personally may be receiving from a 501(c)(3) that would render my comment incorrect but Oliver has always been upfront about his employment (It’s listed on every page of this website.)
So what? I am employed by a company and they don’t pay me for my blogging. Media Matters doesn’t pay Oliver any different whether he has his web site or not. And if they did STILL you’re deflecting.
“What, a kid makes the radio address and because he’s a kid, the media nor the GOP are allowed to make sure the story is on the up and up?”
Um, dipshit, the media reported on the speech and the family before the right wing attack dogs went to work:
This is the story that set the Freeper off on a rampage. Guess why? Because the reporter didn’t find anything untoward about the family and why or how it got coverage. And why was that? Because, as you clearly are loathe to admit, THEY QUALIFIED FOR THE PROGRAM AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO QUESTION IT. There was no way for this freeper idiot to know what the reporter had or had not looked into. But as a matter of course, if the reporter had checked the family’s qualifications and found them up and up, he would not have included that side of his investigation in the article. he woudl have simply done what he did: Reported on the facts as they stood.
But that wasn’t good enough for the rabid right wing. Not with the notorious “liberal bias” of all reporters everywhere who want us all praying to mecca and treated by Cuban doctors. Now if this Jackass and others had a problem with this news story and how it was reported, they should have done what people have been doing since forever: WRITE A FUCKING LETTER TO THE EDITOR. They could have sent all of their “facts” to the reporter for further investigation. WTF would have been wrong with that?
The media and the GOP have every right to question the veracity of the family’s claims but they should do so in private until they have proof of something. Now we know that Mitch McConnell’s office was actually pushing Malkin’s garbage to the media as if it was the scandalous truth.
“Considering Oliver (and I didn’t see anybody disagree with him) believes a family making $100,000 a year is RICH, I wonder how he can reconcile that with expanding the CHIP program to cover families that make $65-$82K a year?”
Because everyone should be and would be enrolled in a universal health care system, you idiot.
“The only thing that would give me glee at this point would be for somebody to shove a boot up your ass Doc.”
On a personal note, Jay, what’s up with you and the threats of physical violence? You seem to always resort to this sort of language. Does being called an idiot upset your fragile masculinity that much?
When it comes to being able to afford health insurance, conservatives seem to think a family of six with an income of $45K is rich enough to handle it on their own.
I didn’t say $45K Quaker. I said $70 and $80K. The logic seems to be that a family making $80K a year needs to have their healthcare costs subsidized at taxpayer expense, but after about 4 years, that same family is making $100K a year, they are then RICH and don’t need a reduction in their taxes.
It seems nobody wants to reconcile how a family making $65-$80K a year should be eligible for a government subsidized healthcare plan, but $25K later worthy of scorn as greedy rich people.
Seeing as how your demented focus on Graeme’s family is a specific ploy to *avoid* discussing the subject, you lack credibility on this point, Jay.
You’re the one that keeps brining up Graeme’s family moron, not me.
They could have sent all of their “facts” to the reporter for further investigation. WTF would have been wrong with that?
Nothing. I don’t know you’re getting your panties in a wad for. I’ve already said that I didn’t agree with the tactics used by Malkin and others.
Because everyone should be and would be enrolled in a universal health care system, you idiot.
Stunning.
On a personal note, Jay, what’s up with you and the threats of physical violence? You seem to always resort to this sort of language.
I always do? When? Also, I didn’t threaten anybody. I said it would give me glee to see somebody shove a boot up his ass. Where did I threaten him?
Get a grip.
“Enlightened” Lib…
Go back and re-read my post. You’ll note I carefully crafted it to avoid saying that MMfA pays Oliver to post here. If you missed that, well, I’m sorry you can’t read good.
And I would be guilty of deflecting … if I was the one who accused their opponents of being “paid shill-trolls”. If you wanna get mad, get mad at duder for taking the discussion off-topic to begin with.
“I didn’t threaten anybody. I said it would give me glee to see somebody shove a boot up his ass.”
And it will give me glee to see the Democrats enact legislation that permanently guarantees access to health insurance to you and your family, all at a cheaper cost to society.
You’re welcome!
Hey, isn’t it about time you wingers dug up your own hero (Terri Schiavo) to trot out in opposition of government run healthcare (”see what happens when you let the government help you ? ‘Nuff said!”)
“Go back and re-read my post. You’ll note I carefully crafted it to avoid saying that MMfA pays Oliver to post here. If you missed that, well, I’m sorry you can’t read good.”
Then why did you bring it up, douchebag?
Victor, it’s really sad that the most vocal critics of universal healthcare are a wide swath of the Republican base including trolls- people trying to raise a family on $30k a year. But instead they decry “socialism” while being bankrupted by the ever increasing premiums at their company’s plan- if they have one.
Maybe they’re all expecting to get higher paid net shill jobs like Caruso if they parrot Republican talking points.
It seems nobody wants to reconcile how a family making $65-$80K a year should be eligible for a government subsidized healthcare plan, but $25K later worthy of scorn as greedy rich people.
Do you want to debate the cutoff line? Or whether we should have a CHIP program at all? Either way, families making $80K aren’t covered by the bill the President just vetoed.
Either way, families making $80K aren’t covered by the bill the President just vetoed.
Oh they most certainly would be in New York. It would be close to $72K in New Jersey. And 300% above the poverty line in all other states. That means if you earned $60K in a state like Montana or Wisconsin where the median income is like $33K, you’d be eligible.
I’m not opposed to the CHIP program. But I also don’t believe it needed to expanded as radically as the supporters wanted it to be.
I didn’t say $45K Quaker. I said $70 and $80K.
And I didn’t say $100K a year was “rich,” but that doesn’t stop you from yammering on about it. If you get to insert someone else’s argument into the comments you address to me, then it’s only fair that I’m allowed to do the same, isn’t it?
I.
Did.
Not.
Bring.
It.
Up.
Mr.
Name-Caller.
duder accused me (& Jay) of being paid shill-trolls. Which, if we’re supposed to be getting money for this, I want my check!!!
Hey, did you hear Mitch McConnell’s office was behind the swift-boating of the 12-year-old kid? Wow! From the GOP leadership direct to Free Republic and Michelle Malkin’s baying mob! A new low for the Grand Old Party!
A new low indeed, but certainly not as low as they can go! Actually, seeing the con candidate ad on sadly no where they had a little girl basically call her mother a murderer because she had a partial birth abortion, this is just business as usual for con-servatives.
I hadn’t heard about that ad, EL. I’ll check it out. But at least their loathsome tactics backfired on them this time. They tried to portray a decent working family as a bunch of thieves, and wound up exposing themselves as the hateful bloodthirsty mob that the Malkin/Glenn Reynolds Right is.
“I’m not opposed to the CHIP program. But I also don’t believe it needed to expanded as radically as the supporters wanted it to be.”
And why not? And why is stunning to suggest that a universal health care system should include every American regardless of income? that’s what ‘universal’ means. The only reason why right wing idiots are arguing against SCHIP is not because they program doesn’t work. But precisely because it DOES work. Which is also why they have to baseless attack a 12 year old instead of debating the program on its merits.
Jay isn’t even debating the policy on its merits. Only on who should be eligible for it. Health care should be available to all Americans. That’s my position so it doesn’t matter how much money someone makes. The whole question of “means testing” and “cut offs” is simply a way to cut off debate on the real issue: Should all Americans have access to a universal health care system? The answer is simply, Yes.
If that’s stunning to you, Jay, so be it but you should at least try to defend your position and say why.
“I’ve already said that I didn’t agree with the tactics used by Malkin and others.”
And Jay, claiming you disagree with someone’s tactics while the same time bending over backwards to diminish the truly disgusting nature of them make you jackass. Or do you not also write above:
Jay is against schip expansion because liberals are for it. The rest is just bloviation.
Yes, the attack on the 12-year-old backfired this time. Probably because most Americans identify with his family, and can see themselves potentially in similar circumstances.
Apparently in Republican world, the middle class should be impoverished if they can’t afford insurance and suffer an injury. The Frost’s should have sold their house, went into bankruptcy (oops! Can’t do that either now!!!), and gone to soup kitchens rather than take a penny from the government. Fortunately, Republican world isn’t the world that most Americans want to live in.
“Now we know that Mitch McConnell’s office was actually pushing Malkin’s garbage to the media as if it was the scandalous truth.”
And of course everyone knows that McConnell’s funding comes straight from the Mossad and from Bush 41’s clandestine crack dealing empire. C’mon guys. Even for a kooky tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, this is pretty lame.
As for myself, I am going to continue to push the core issue here, and I am not going to be thrown off-track by the use of the Frost family as “human shields” in order to stifle a much-needed policy debate.
Ed Morrisey writes:
Those are things that the Democrats seem to want to avoid explaining at all costs. Why is it fair for cigarette smokers to pay for SCHIP? Why is it fair to take money away from subsidies currently allocated to fund “medi-gap” insurance for senior citizens, to pay for SCHIP? Is it honest for SCHIP to be sold as a “children’s insurance” program when a significant percentage of the program’s enrollees are adults between the ages of 18 and 25, many of whom have no dependents? And should there be other methods, such as asset testing, used to determine who qualifies for government assistance that is described as being primarily for the needy?
I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of a civilized response.
I forgot to mention that under California law, which does not include “unearned income” (that is, income derived from sources other than wages, e.g. interest and dividends) when determining SCHIP eligibility, Paris Hilton might qualify for SCHIP benefits if she has a child out of wedlock.
Oliver went nuts over the thought of Paris Hilton getting a tax break. Let’s see what he thinks about her potentially qualifying to receive government aid.
Sure, Mike, you *really* care about politicians using personal examples to promote their pet legislation. That’s why you go after Bush so hard when he does it. Oh wait, you don’t, because you’re lying desperately to distract from your movement’s shameless and destructive tactics. It is a fact that Mitch McConnell’s Communications Director, Don Stewart, was behind the swiftboating of the 12-year-old to the Malkins and Instapundits. Then came the death threats.
Ed Morrisey, are you saying SCHIP should be funded on a more progressive basis? Sure, I agree, but these damn Republicans keep getting in the way, trying to enact flat taxes and cutting the top brackets back and whatnot. Why should anyone give a damn about your criticisms from the left, when you’re a Malkinite yourself? You’re clearly not arguing in good faith, and you refuse to denounce the GOP’s flat-out evil tactics on this, so you might as well drop your whining for a “civilized response,” okay? Come back when you have an honest conservative argument, like “kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out” or “let them eat cake.”
Paris Hilton has income from her modeling and TV shows. Nice try—- actually not.
Since you’re concerned with fairness, why is it fair to allocate $10 billion a month for killing mooslems and take health care away from kids who lost the sperm lottery?
And why is stunning to suggest that a universal health care system should include every American regardless of income?
I didn’t say that was stunning. The stunning comment was in reference to you using the word ‘idiot’ like a parrot.
he only reason why right wing idiots are arguing against SCHIP is not because they program doesn’t work. But precisely because it DOES work. Which is also why they have to baseless attack a 12 year old instead of debating the program on its merits.
Actually, it is those who support the expansion of the program that cannot debate on the merits which is why they felt the need to use a 12 year old kid to fight their battles.
Jay isn’t even debating the policy on its merits.
Actually, I am the only one here debating the policy on its merits along with Mike at the bottom of these comments.
The whole question of “means testing” and “cut offs” is simply a way to cut off debate on the real issue: Should all Americans have access to a universal health care system? The answer is simply, Yes.
Oh that’s rich. You agree with something and therefore the debate is over. Tell us how you’ll pay for a program that covers every American (and non-American) when we already have two systems that cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year and only cover a small percentage of the population? You don’t win the debate because you feel you have the better position. You win the debate when you can advocate a policy that is going to cost a lot of money and explain how it gets paid for without taxing the absolute hell out of everything.
All she did? You’re an idiot.
Don’t be such an intellectually dishonest jackass. I was talking about she did in that particular entry she wrote you moron.
Mike, you raise a good point. All Oliver did (with a happy chorus behind him) was talk about Bush issuing a veto for THE POOR. He did so here and here. Now, instead of defending a program that will now offer medical insurance to upper middle class people (the same people we often hear “don’t need” tax relief), they’re framing the debate in terms of universal health care coverage.
Great. If that’s the goal, why didn’t Democrats just say so? Instead of being the chickenshits they were, talking about “the poor” and using 12 year olds as shields, they could have come forward and said, “We’re doing this as a first step in getting universal health care.”
Why didn’t they just do that if it is such a winner?
That’s why you go after Bush so hard when he does it. Oh wait, you don’t, because you’re lying desperately to distract from your movement’s shameless and destructive tactics.
Another lame ass accusation of ‘lying’ done only to deflect.
Since you’re concerned with fairness, why is it fair to allocate $10 billion a month for killing mooslems and take health care away from kids who lost the sperm lottery?
More deflection.
“Tell us how you’ll pay for a program that covers every American.”
gee, how about taxes?
Oh right, you preclude taxes as a means of paying for a program that will in the long run improve American competiveness and general well-being. How intellectually honest of you.
Actually, it is those who support the expansion of the program that cannot debate on the merits which is why they felt the need to use a 12 year old kid to fight their battles.
You’re kidding, right?
Of course we can “debate on the merits” why young Master Frost was asked to give the Democratic position. He’s an actual beneficiary of the program in question! When Republicans carry on about eliminating the “Death Tax”, don’t they point out people who have will actually lose their businesses if they have to pay the tax?
OK, bad example.
At any rate, the kid is a real person who was successfully helped by SCHIP and that’s why he was asked to talk about the program. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
Jay, if you are against politicians using human examples in their speeches, even though Bush has done in every SOTU and every major policy initiative — and then you turn around accuse the Democrats, when they do the same, of using “human shields,” then it is literally impossible to take you seriously. The only one who’s pissed away your credibility with your hilarious, desperate “human shield” rhetoric is you.
You are not interested in a good faith debate; you are interested in deflecting attention from your own GOP leadership’s shameless, despiccable tactics. The trouble is, Michelle Malkin and her bloodthirsty mob is literally the most vital part of the conservative movement these days. THERE IS NO DISTANCING CONSERVATISM FROM MALKINISM ANY MORE. You passed the point of no return on that long ago. Your choice is either to stay where you are, defending the Malkin Party, or to leave it. So far, your hatred of liberals has trumped your love of America. Will you always feel that way, Jay?
Jay, to follow up on the point Dr. VDH made, you don’t understand the damage you’ve done to your own cause. People like me - educated, self-employed, upper middle class - think you and your Malkinite friends are scum. We don’t want to be a part of your party any more and in all probability will never come back to the Republicans. When you lose my class, you are left with the shit-kickers and thugs, which is not enough to win elections outside of Knoxville, Tennessee and Jefferson, Georgia. Enjoy your errand into obscurity.
gee, how about taxes?
Wow! I never would have thought of that! And what pray tell, are tax rates going to look like with such an expense?
At any rate, the kid is a real person who was successfully helped by SCHIP and that’s why he was asked to talk about the program. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
Because there was no danger to the programs existence Quaker! The kids speech made it appear as though with the strike of a pen, Bush eliminated the program. So the program has been successful. The President wasn’t opposed to the program, just the expansion that was proposed?
Why is it so difficult for people to see the difference? Good God almighty. It’s like talking to a wall.
Jay, if you are against politicians using human examples in their speeches, even though Bush has done in every SOTU and every major policy initiative — and then you turn around accuse the Democrats, when they do the same, of using “human shields,” then it is literally impossible to take you seriously. The only one who’s pissed away your credibility with your hilarious, desperate “human shield” rhetoric is you.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
You are not interested in a good faith debate; you are interested in deflecting attention from your own GOP leadership’s shameless, despiccable tactics. The trouble is, Michelle Malkin and her bloodthirsty mob is literally the most vital part of the conservative movement these days. THERE IS NO DISTANCING CONSERVATISM FROM MALKINISM ANY MORE. You passed the point of no return on that long ago. Your choice is either to stay where you are, defending the Malkin Party, or to leave it. So far, your hatred of liberals has trumped your love of America. Will you always feel that way, Jay?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Sheesh. It is always the same old boring shit with you. You see Doc, unlike you, I am not beholden to any particular ideology or party. That’s your problem. Not mine.
I’m a married Christian male. I am not supportive of gay marriage but have no problem with civil unions. I am a strong opponent of the death penalty and a contributor to the Innocence Project. I am opposed to abortion, and while I support restrictions, I do not support a stupid constitutional amendment to outlaw it. I think pornography is harmful to families and is some of the worst exploitation of women I can think of, but I do not support any attempts to restrict access to it. I deplore the use of illegal drugs, but I support the decriminalization of drugs. I’m an evangelical, but I think they waste far too much time going apoplectic over homosexuality and abortion instead of focusing more on things like world hunger and AIDS. I’m a walking contradiction and proud of it because I don’t rly on other people to do my thinking for me.
You on the other hand, are pathetic. Your entire life revolves around movements and whether or not a capital ‘D’ or ‘R’ follows a persons name. Where is your individuality? Have no capacity to think on your own? That’s why you sit here put people into neat little groups. That’s easy for you. Because you’re a drone. You never stop to think about something on your own. Democratic say or do it: Good! Republican say or do it: Bad!
Pathetic.
you don’t understand the damage you’ve done to your own cause.
I don’t have a cause Z. Like I said, I think on my own. Others don’t have to do it for me.
Try it sometime.
“You on the other hand, are pathetic. Your entire life revolves around movements and whether or not a capital ‘D’ or ‘R’ follows a persons name. Where is your individuality? Have no capacity to think on your own? That’s why you sit here put people into neat little groups. That’s easy for you. Because you’re a drone. You never stop to think about something on your own.”
Geez, project much?
Because there was no danger to the programs existence Quaker! The kids speech made it appear as though with the strike of a pen, Bush eliminated the program. So the program has been successful. The President wasn’t opposed to the program, just the expansion that was proposed?
Made it appear Bush eliminated the program?
I don’t think so. But maybe you can look at the transcript of what the kid said and straighten me out. Anyway, I thought we were going to “debate the merits” of using the kid to give the speech, weren’t we? You seem to have shifted to taking issue with the content, not with who gave it.
As for you, Mike, you should know better than to listen to Captain Ed.
Let’s leave the Frosts alone and get back to the real policy debate — and ask ourselves why we’re taking $30 billion from poor and working-class Americans to subsidize health care for people better off than they are,
That wasn’t the original plan, you know. In the beginning, the plan was to stop overpaying private insurance companies for providing Medicare Advantage plans. That would have come pretty close to covering the entire expansion of SCHIP all by itself, with NO NEW TAX DOLLARS! However, four senators (2 Dem–Kerry and Kennedy, 2 GOP–Smith and Snowe) proposed the tobacco tax hike instead and that’s what went forward. The Senate Finance Committee approved it by a vote of 17-4, with both Republicans and Democrats approving.
I may be a drone, I may not think for myself, and I’m certainly no “walking contradiction,” but at least I don’t get off on the GOP sending its brownshirts to torment brain damaged children.