*BONK* I still can’t get my terminology straight. It is Medicare Advantage, not MediGap. They are two different things.

Quaker,

Good post. But perhaps a better idea would have been decreasing the SCHIP expansion, rather than raiding Medicare Advantage subsidies in order to fund it. I think that option would have been far worse than the combination of tobacco taxes and redirected Medigap funding that we ended up with.

In another thread I said that Medi-Gap policies were threatened; I stand corrected, it is the Medicare Advantage subsidies.

From Medicare.gov:

These plans may cover more services and have lower out-of-pocket costs than the Original Medicare Plan. Some plans cover prescription drugs. In some plans, like HMOs, you may only be able to see certain doctors or go to certain hospitals to get covered services.

Funny, but doesn’t this sound a lot like the original goal of SCHIP: expanded coverage at a lower cost? Except SCHIP covers children, and the Medicare Advantage subsidies help cover the cost of providing better coverage to senior citizens.

(For the record, I am pretty familiar with Medicare HMO’s — my father was enrolled in one when he developed terminal cancer. Our total out of pocket expenses for his treatment and subsequent hospice were very reasonable, far less than if he had only had Medicare A.)

Perhaps this serves as an important lesson in what happens when the government has too much healthcare to pay for and not enough money to pay for it: part of the programs (in this case, for senior citizens) get depleted in order to pay for other programs (in this case, for children and young adults).

Which raises an interesting question: is this the beginning of an emerging pattern, sacrifice senior citizens (think: fixed income) in order to provide a steadily-increasing supply of benefits to lower-middle and middle-class families?

Jay’s a bitch, Jay’s a lover, Jay’s a child, Jay’s a mother!

Jay’s a sinner and a saint!

Jay does not feel ashamed!

Whatever you say doc….

Holy cow. What a self-righteous prick!

Self righteous? Nah. Thats reserved for those who talk about being “their class” of people. Like you.

Please explain then why your “own” thinking is basically the daily talking point from the RNC. You are as horse-collared and bit-fed as any dittohead.

Uh huh. Anything that strays from the narrow minded viewpoint of the left is considered a “talking point” that originates from the RNC or Limbaugh’s show. Such talk is really lame.

Holy cow. What a self-righteous prick! Please explain then why your “own” thinking is basically the daily talking point from the RNC. You are as horse-collared and bit-fed as any dittohead.

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.

Geez, project much?

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.

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 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?

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?

gee, how about taxes?

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.

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?

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?

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.”

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.