The Campaign For DA


Mid Week Slump

After the shocking "what happened in the middle school closet?" story yesterday, the news has slowed down considerably.

Fox 4 had a story about how Waxahachie ISD banned a kid from wearing a John Edwards T-shirt since it violated the rules about shirts "with words" on them. Silly.

And I just heard that President Bush vetoed (a rarity) legislation that would have expanded a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years. I've got too much Tired Head to figure out if that's good or bad. But since when does he care about spending your money?

Finally, I really haven't given it much thought, but the Hard Line Conservatives are thinking about creating a third political party. It'll never happen.


Anonymous said...

That kids looks like his parents might have been related .

Anonymous said...

More power to them! The current dems and republicans look and act like the same party anyway.

Anonymous said...

Let's hope that Bush vetos that silliness. $35 B is way too much to spend on our children's health. Insane. Whey would the liberal weenies proposed such a stupid thing?

Luckily, we haven't spent nearly that much in Iraq and with the surge, we're starting to get the results we want.

Go Bush! Mission Accomplished!

Anonymous said...

Somebody should start a non-moron party.

wordkyle said...

I agree with your sentiment about Bush's lack of restraint on spending.

While I'm not familiar with the details of the exact bill taht was sent to the President, according to the Wall Street Journal, "Schip was supposed to help the uninsured; the House plan is consciously designed to "crowd out" private coverage and replace it with federal welfare. The bill goes so far as to offer increasing "bonus payments" to states as they enroll more people in their Schip programs. To grease the way, the bill re-labels "children" as anyone under 25, and "low income" as up to 400% above the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. As if this all weren't blunt enough, the House's Schip bill also includes a new tax on private insurance policies."

So it appears to have been designed to force people out of private insurance and into state-run insurance programs.

We can debate honestly the merits of such a program, but let's not fall for the emotional false labels that its supporters use.

Anonymous said...

What a freaking dork.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards will win the Dem nomination and will carry Texas in the elections.

Anonymous said...

This kid obviously does not get his hair done at the same place as his man, John "Silky" Edwards?

AnObiter said...

Waxahachie isn't just a sleepy little town anymore, huh?

mzchief said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Think Frustrated said...

I say go for it. I would make it easier for the Democratic candidates to win. Maybe not. The Green Party and Libertarians haven't really affecte elections too much. However, this could work well for undermining Republicans.

As long as our childrens is educated, who cares if they're healthy?

mzchief said...

Historically, the United States government could be depended on to COMPETENTLY attend to FOREIGN affairs, maintaining the sovereignty of the nation and individual rights of U.S. CITIZENS, air traffic control, highways and wage war however, not so much the past couple of DECADES. In light of NOT being able to COMPETENTLY attend to the aforementioned items as well as overseeing the debacles that are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid do you HONESTLY want the United States government ATTEMPTING to manage health care in the United States?

Anonymous said...

Thanks, wordkyle. Unfortunately we so seldom look at the total picture behind the headlines or photo ops.

While this program may have many positives, this reauthorization is not about's about control. The government was not created for....should for it's citizens what they can and should do for themselves.

Consider another example...extreme but factual...of a county in Virginia where rent is being underwritten in subsidized housing or rental programs for families making as much as $216,325.

At some time in many many if not most lives there is the real possibility of needing help. Is this what most of us have in mind when we think of helping.

We have moved slowly and now more rapidly from providing a safety net in times of actual need to creating an "entitlement" mindset.

In so doing it is my firm belief we have sold short those who are capable of rising beyond their immediate circumstances and the children, as always, pay the highest price.

Bush will get the bad press...but regardless what he has or hasn't done in the past...he is right to veto this bill as currently written.

TXsharon said...

Thank you for your veto George! He just gave Democrats a gift that will keep on giving right on through to November 2008.

ABC News/WaPo Poll

"There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Supporters say this would provide insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. Opponents say this goes too far in covering children in families that can afford health insurance on their own. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?

Support 72
Oppose 25
Unsure 3"

43 governors sent George a letter yesterday urging him to sign the bill. Mr. 39% Goodhair was not one of the 43.

Ah, Wordy...some of those facts are a little off there but that's nothing new.

Anonymous said...

txsharon, you are clueless.

wordkyle said...

TS: If they took a poll of to see who wanted a free cheeseburger, it would get a high percentage of "supports" also. A poll asking people if they want something for "free" is ridiculous.

I would say I'm getting tired of your technique of insinuating that my post is inaccurate without offering proof; but to be honest, I take a sadistic pleasure in watching you wriggle like a worm on a hook.

My point was that supporters of such programs invariably tie emotional labels on them, then sneak their real agenda items in when they think no one is looking. (E.g., Kennedy's "hate crime" bill attached to defense spending.)

With few exceptions -- the Rural Electrification Act and Interstate Highway System are two -- the government NEVER performs a service effectively and efficiently. Even narrowing it down to healthcare, when was the last time you heard anyone brag about Medicare or the VA systems?

TXsharon said...

From little old "clueless" me. =)

The biggest conservative talking point is that this is a "backdoor for socialized medicine." The truth is, the implementation of SCHIP in some states could not be more up-and-up. States like Illinois can cover children in families up to 400% of poverty b/c there's enough money in the SCHIP budget. Why is there enough money in the SCHIP budget? Because state's like Texas have returned money to the federal government (over the past six years, Texas has returned over $913.4 million to the federal government in unused SCHIP funds). The only reason states can go above the 200% poverty level is because there are states like Texas. therefore, if you follow the logic, "socialized medicine" in Illinois is a by-product of the conservative policies in Texas. (Ha!)

Additionally, conservatives are arguing that some states are using SCHIP to cover parents, which was never intended. Again, CHIP in Texas includes perinatal coverage --- health care for mothers with child -- which is great, but is really only there to give the conservatives an argument that "there is life before birth, if there wasn't why do we provide perinatal coverage?". Therefore, they are hypocrites to not grant health coverage "beyond the intended recipient --- children" unless they want to stop programs like perinatal coverage in Texas.

Fundamentally, this is a state's issue. A state has the right to extend coverage if it chooses. In order to receive federal matching dollars for any amount beyond the normal SCHIP allocation, a state must submit a waiver to the federal government. And President Bush's administration has been granting waivers to states --- therefore, the expansion of "socialized medicine" today through SCHIP has been signed, sealed, and approved by Bush's cabinet.

Anonymous said...

Txsharon isn't clueless. She's a mushroom. She keeps herself in the dark and thrives on the shit she's fed by the Daily Kos and socialist wannabes. It makes her feel like she's a part of something relevant when she spews their party line. Txsharon, Wordkyle, Denney Crane are like most Americans who find it easier to regurgitate their party's line than to actually think about what they're saying.

Anonymous said...

Bush 43 is the big spending President. Oh, and he cuts taxes and still spends, spends, spends. (Let us not forget that he inherited a budget surplus from Billy-C.) Bush 43 FINALLY vetos a spending bill, it's never too late, but it's the wrong bill to veto. Doh!

Don't we think ever American child deserves health care?! Seriously?

No, seriously.

Don't you think ALL American children deserve the right to health care? Me and my husband makes lots of money and we both have great health insurance, I'm not worried about our future children. I AM worried about all the uninsured children in our Republic. I'm sure many of you reading this blog might not have insurance. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO START MAKING HEALTH CARE A PRIORITY IN THIS COUNTRY?! Come on people...

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan is brainless.

Anonymous said...

WordKyle is right. Never look at a bill to see WHAT it says it will do--examine it to see HOW it will do what it says it will do! Also, look at it to see how it defines terms. Terms like "low-income" and "poverty" can sure take on new meanings when you play loose and fast with the definitions. By the way, I'm getting where I don't like Republicans OR Democrats very much--I don't think anybody in Washington has much of a grasp of reality anymore.

Crud Bonemeal said...

From this story appeared on September 27, 2007, written by Catherine Donaldson-Evans: A teacher in a second grade class in Massachusetts read a story about two princes falling in love. A law suit against the teacher and the school district was filed as a result. The story was called "King and King", and it dealt with a gay couple.

During the debate of Democratic candidates, the three frontrunners (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards) suggested that they would support reading such a controversial book as part of a regulary curriculum. The moderator asked them if they would like this book read to their children in school.

"Edwards gave the first and most definitive answer--a resounding and instant 'yes, absolutely'--although he added that it 'might be a little tough' for second graders."

The story notes the positive responses of Clinton and Osama, oh sorry, Obama.

Clearly, Edwards is some kind of a nut who wants his school teachers talking not only about sex to his young children, but perverse deviant sex. This is why we don't need a third conservative party. The Republicans just need to see what kind of deviant thinkers are running the democrats every time they consider cooperating or compromising with them. I don't see how any normal, decent people can support a bunch of socialistic liberals like that.

Anonymous said...

1:42, Haven't you heard that no person can be turned away from a county hospital because of their non ability to pay? But I bet you have heard of hospitals closing because they are bankrupt from illegals overloading the system. This is just an attempt by the liberal weenies to shove socialized medicine down our throats. Where in the constitution does it say that every American has a right to health care? While you are at it, could you get them to pay my car insurance and utility bills?

Anonymous said...

I just assumed small town places like Ellis County and Wise County found it easier to outlaw shirts with words on them. Since no one can read anyway.

Anonymous said...

3:03, I can't relate to your points. Do you really think your utility bill is the same as health care for our children? My point is this: I live in an upper middle class family. We have great insurance. We don't have anything to worry about. However, are my children more important than the children of a poor family? Health care is life/well being vs. death...this isn't about buying stuff. This is about taking care of our poor children's health.

I don't care what you think of Michael Moore. Everyone needs to see his film Sicko.

What would Jesus do? Would he ignore the poor children without health insurance? That's what we're doing. That's all I'm saying.

TXsharon said...

Wordy said:

To grease the way, the bill re-labels "children" as anyone under 25, and "low income" as up to 400% above the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. As if this all weren't blunt enough, the House's Schip bill also includes a new tax on private insurance policies.

That's not true. That is what New York wanted but it was not written into the bill.

Sorry, but I don't have a whole lot of time to follow you around correcting you.

wordkyle said...

Let's see here:

TS - You claim that Illinois used Texas money to cover people who had enough money to pay for their own insurance. In what way is this good?

Your best argument seems to be "there was more money, so they spent it." Again, in what way is this good?

You make a big deal out of claiming certain people are "hypocrites" because...uh, why? If the program covers adults, then say so. Don't make a big deal out of "the children," when it also covers adults. Just call it what it is.

Again, government enforces what it wants by using money -- in this case, "matching" funds for states to enroll more and more people in this program. What politician ever turned away money? (e.g., Hillary Clinton and Chinese money) The fact that politicians are bought off doesn't make the program any more credible.

1:42 - President Bush cut tax rates, not taxes. Tax revenue went up after the cuts had a chance to kick in. And I agree with you that he didn't do enough to cut spending.

Having said that, should all of us pay for insurance for families making $80,000 a year? If your answer is yes, then why not for families making $100k? or a million dollars?

Should those who choose not to participate in this program have to pay higher taxes than those who do? Should not using the program cost more than using it?

Opposing this program does not mean I want children to suffer in any way. Health care should be cheaper (begin by taking away some of the onerous taxes and regulations the government imposes; or restricting the amounts that attorneys can receive from lawsuits.) Insurance should be cheaper (see previous points.)

Finally, all of us should be better educated on personal finance, and on the fact that choosing medical insurance ahead of luxury items might be a good idea.

TXsharon said...

Wordy: is your friend

Go read up on it then come back.

Anonymous said...

TS: If they took a poll of to see who wanted a free cheeseburger, it would get a high percentage of "supports" also. A poll asking people if they want something for "free" is ridiculous.

Wordless, Hannity used hotdog instead of cheeseburger on his show today for this example. You missed it a little.

Anonymous said...

4:56, You didn't mention anything about where it is in the constitution about the right to free health care. And what would Jesus do? I am fairly sure he would urge the church and charities to step up and help, not the government. Sorry that you can't relate.

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan trying to slip one past us once more. She gets her facts or so called facts from a democratic think tank called Urban Institute which is making estimates(those are called guesses for those of you in Wise County) where as intelligent people get their facts from the Wall Street Journal or actually reading the bill itself. Sheehan busted again. Please tell your senate majority leader thanks for stepping in it again by calling for the silencing of Rush Limbaugh. It exposes the whole liberal party for who they are. You invite a dictator that wants to destroy us to speak at a taxpayer funded university but will not let a group called the Minutemen who are trying to defend our country speak at the same university. Good luck in 08.

Anonymous said...

1:42, if you believe that strongly in all children having health care, then go buy some policies for some poor families.

Anonymous said...

What would Jesus do? Maybe he ought to step in and help little babies and kids not suffer terrible illnesses.

Anonymous said...

One out of every three Americans do not have health insurance for many reasons. Health care is being provided every child when they go to the emergency room and this is very expensive.

Who pays when children without health care insurance go to the emergency room? We do.

Health care premiums goes up and co-pays go up. The employer passes increases on to their employers.

States take care of children whose parents cannot pay for health care through medicaid. Taxpayers pay for their care.

The health care system of employer providing health care is broke! If you lose your job, you pay lose your insurance. If you have a health problem, you may not be able to be insured.

Anonymous #3, we are approaching almost one trillion dollars in Iraq. One month spending in Iraq would provide health care for our children.

The health care issue will be the second issue for voters in the 2009 election.

Anonymous said...

im 42 years old, i smoke so ill be providing healthcare for all, you should thank me for smoking in resteraunts and bars, because im paying for your childrens healthcare and for your local teachers saleries. this makes me a good citizen. i recomend that you all start smoking as soon as you can to help pay for these "rights".

btw when was the last time anyone in the US died because they couldnt get treatment? ive never heard of one yet.

TXsharon said...

Just some facts:

SCHIP is one of the most cost-efficient government programs in history.

It was started by a Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich

It was renewed with the overwhelming support of Republicans in Congress. Of course, TX Sen John Cornyn is so completely out of touch with what’s important that he voted in lock-lip, oops! I mean lock-step with Bush.

43 governors sent a letter to Bush asking him not to veto but of course Governor 39% Goodhair was not one of those governors.

In an ABC News/WaPo Poll when asked
Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?

Support 72
Oppose 25
Unsure 3"

Bottom line: The overwhelming majority of Americans in both parties support this bill.


We can’t afford it: We are approaching $1 Trillion dollars for a war that Americans don’t want.

Provides health care for families making $83,000. NY asked for a waiver because the cost of living is so much higher there. To quality for the waiver, states have to match the grant with their own money. Texas has the same opportunity but, unfortunately we don’t take advantage of it. The waivers can be denied.

SCHIP was designed to help poor children: Actually Medicaid was designed to help poor children. SCHIP was designed to help children whose family incomes fall between the Medicaid limit and the point where private insurance becomes affordable. Obviously, that gap is going to vary from state to state.

It takes money away from insurance companies: It provides a mechanism for recouping overpayments to insurance companies. It isn't "creating a new tax" on them as the WSJ claims, it is cutting corporate welfare and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

The veto was political grandstanding by a president who has completely shattered the myth of the fiscally conservative, compassionate Republican Party. (in 2001 discretionary spending increased over 56%!) It’s his attempt to redeem himself with what’s left of his base and it’s completely out of touch with what the vast majority of Americans want. He is enabled in this by our own out of touch, grandstanding sycophant senator John Cornyn.

Yes, people have and do die every day because they are denied medical care.

The Devil said...

I have said it before, and I will say it again, I am allergic to poor people!

wordkyle said...

TS said: ”SCHIP is one of the most cost-efficient government programs in history.”

This is pretty much an oxymoron. Sending money to Washington for politicians to send back with strings attached is, by definition, not efficient.

It also bypasses the question as to whether the program should exist at all.

But given that you made the claim, let me ask these questions:
By what measure? What did you (or the Liberal website you copied it from) compare the program to to arrive at this conclusion?
What is the source of the data by which you make the claim?

Your claim that the program was started by Republicans isn’t much of a defense. My (and other Republicans’) dissatisfaction with the Republican Congress and its spending has been well-documented.

From a column in the New York Post:

“Democrats in Congress want to open the program to families of four earning $83,000 per year or more. President Bush is OK with expanding SCHIP to cover well-off families - but only if the states enroll 95 percent of those lower-income children first”

“According to a study in the journal Inquiry, 60 percent of children eligible for SCHIP already had private coverage when the program was created….

"Inevitably, many families simply substitute SCHIP for private coverage. Economists Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Kosali Simon of Cornell University find that, in effect, when government expands eligibility for SCHIP and Medicaid, six out of every 10 people added to the rolls already have private coverage. Only four in 10 were previously uninsured.“

“In other words, SCHIP and Medicaid cover four previously uninsured Americans for the price of 10.”


mzchief said...

People with Medicaid REGULARLY go to emergency rooms because they or their children have a COLD. I have actually heard a patient on Medicaid say, "It's cheaper for me to come to the doctor and have the doctor give me a prescription for cough medicine and antihistamines than it is for me to buy the stuff at the drug store." An ER doctor told me of a female Medicaid patient who showed up in the ER complaining of abdominal pains claiming to be unsure if she was pregnant. The moment she found out the results of a pregnancy test she said she was fine and left. She spent $400+ of tax payer dollars because she was too cheap to pay for her own home pregnancy test. These are NOT isolated instances.

People without insurance or the means to pay for health care should be provided the MINIMUM of care but should also be expected to pay a REASONIBLE fee for NON EMERGANT care.

People without insurance or the means for which to pay for an organ transplant should NOT be entitled to such medical care.

Before anyone goes feather plucking insane, consider this FACT. All citizens pay for roads even though not all citizens drive an auto. Non taxpayers pay through the purchase of items transported on a road, buying transportation passes and such. Taxpayers pay even more than non taxpayers through taxes. People who drive and use the roads more than nondrivers pay for their additional use of the roads through tax on gasoline. Some people can AFFORD to drive BMW's and others can ONLY afford and or elect to drive a 1976 Ford Pinto. In MOST states people MUST have an auto in order to conduct their daily lives. However, do you honestly believe the government should pay for the fuel of poor people because they cannot afford to drive as much as those who can afford to pay for the fuel? Do you honestly expect the government to provide a BMW to EVERYONE just because SOME people can AFFORD to drive or transport their children in a BMW? The same COMMON SENSE should be applied with regard to providing ADVANCED medical treatment to people who cannot AFFORD such treatment.

My husband and I elected to have ONLY one child because that is all for whom we felt we could provide the BEST. We did not ELECT to deprive ourselves of a second child or our son a sibling so we could be FORCED to care for the children of IRRESPONSIBLE people.

Just because some children are born to IRRESPONSIBLE people does not mean it is FAIR for RESPONSIBLE parents to be FORCED to take from their own children and provide for the children of IRRESPONSIBLE people.

TXsharon said...

Wordy: I didn't copy that from any website. That was the script I developed from my research and that I used for the radio interview I just gave on a predominately right leaning radio station that is, like most, upset about the veto.


I've heard all that before and yes, some people are more responsible than others and some people have catastrophic, life changing events over which they have no control.

I am not willing to let little children suffer because of the afore mentioned circumstances.

I am not willing to step over sick people on my way to getting treatment that I can afford from a doctor.

I do not mind paying taxes to help others so that I don't have to drive down the roads and see homeless and sick people.

I think most Americans agree with me. Thank God that the attitudes on this silly blog do not reflect the majority.

I took a break from this hate for several weeks and it felt really great. Time for another one.

Anonymous said...

Mzchef, quit making sense. It takes Txsheehan all day to find liberal weenie replies from, media matters or dailykos.

Anonymous said...

I for one am sick and tired of paying for someone else's problems. I work too hard for what I have. I pay my taxes and my own insurance to let some low life take advantage of the system which is probably 90% of the people on Medicaid and Welfare right now. What is the government going to do for me? Not a damn thing but, milk me for everything it can and then give it to someone who knows how to scam the system.

We are all given the same opportunities in this life. It’s what you do with that opportunity that matters. The government makes it too easy for low lives to cheat the system and too hard for people who actually need the help to get help.

mzchief said...

To TxSharon...
Since YOU do not want to step over/around sick and homeless people and are WILLING to pay additional taxes to provide for such people then put YOUR money where your mouth is and GIVE 2% of your GROSS ANUAL INCOME to a charity that provides for the sick and homeless. Please note, I have NO problem with GIVING a percentage of my ANUAL income to charities that provide for sick and homeless individuals. However, it is UNFAIR of the government to REQUIRE taxpayers to pony up the money to fund ANOTHER attempt of the United States government at social engineering.

One of the problems I have with MOST rabid liberals is that they are not satisfied with making a choice to PERSONALLY better society/the world unless EVERYONE is FORCED to make the same effort with the exception of having the segment of the population who has achieved a higher income making a GREATER contribution to whatever hair brained scheme dreamed up by some liberal social engineer. Perhaps this explains why REPUBLICANS give more money to charities. Incidentally, there are far more INSANELY WEALTHY Democrats than Republicans in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

Thank God TxSheehan is taking another break. Now if she would move like she said she was going to.

mzchief said...

To TxSharon...
As for you experiencing hate on THIS blog you might want to take a look at the heaping helping servings of malignant vitriol you serve up on YOUR blog.

Hating "W" and the Republicans with the blind rage you exhibit on YOUR blog cannot permit you the liberty of an OBJECTIVE view or opinion on what is REALITY.

I do not believe you are stupid but I do believe your bigotry has caused you to become ignorant and resulted in you becoming unwilling to seek any view other than those by which you seem to have been indoctrinated.

Please note, ignorance is the result of a LACK of knowledge. Stupidity is the result of ignoring knowledge. Ignorance can be cured by education. There is NO cure for stupidity.

Anonymous said...

TxSharon, if your actually having to step over sick people to get medical attention you should think about going somewhere other than John Peter Smith Hospital.

Your more than welcome to visit my doctor, I've never had to step over sick people there.

Anonymous said...

I thought raising the minimum wage was going to end poverty in America? Now that we let the liberal weenies have their wish, can't these uninsured people afford their own insurance? According to TxSheehan, this should be a non issue.

wordkyle said...

TS - It's amazing how you interpret questions about your claims as "hate." I notice that although you mention an interview with a "right-leaning" radio station, you again fail to give specifics.

No offense, but every time you're pressed for an original thought or conclusion, you evade and fall back on Liberal cliches, generalizations and feel-good platitudes.

Maybe you should take a break.

CapitolAnnex said...

mzchief noted:

People with Medicaid REGULARLY go to emergency rooms because they or their children have a COLD. I have actually heard a patient on Medicaid say, "It's cheaper for me to come to the doctor and have the doctor give me a prescription for cough medicine and antihistamines than it is for me to buy the stuff at the drug store." An ER doctor told me of a female Medicaid patient who showed up in the ER complaining of abdominal pains claiming to be unsure if she was pregnant. The moment she found out the results of a pregnancy test she said she was fine and left. She spent $400+ of tax payer dollars because she was too cheap to pay for her own home pregnancy test. These are NOT isolated instances.

I reply:

Well, well, well. Back in the 1980s, when "welfare reform" was all the rage, Ronald Reagan kept telling Tip O'Neil about this black lady who would drive up to the post office in her brand new Cadillac to pick up her welfare checks--while wearing a full-length mink coat with diamond rings on every finger. However, when Speaker O'Neil asked Reagan to tell him where, Reagan had no clue. Why? Because he--like you--simply repeated some crap that essentially amounts to an "urban legend."

Furthermore, if it is true, I'd like for you to give me the name and place of employment of this "ER Doctor" you mentioned who told you about that pregnant lady so I can turn his hospital into DHS for HIPPA violations and so I can turn him in to the medical board for violating doctor-patient privilege.

mzchief also noted:

People without insurance or the means to pay for health care should be provided the MINIMUM of care but should also be expected to pay a REASONIBLE fee for NON EMERGANT care.

I reply:

I'm not even going to address the remainder of your comment because this statement in and of itself is so sick and twisted.

Let's say that you have a two-parent household where both parents work minimum-wage or slightly above minimum-wage jobs and they have one child, but neither is able to afford to pay for the insurance to cover their child and pay for housing, but they are just above the threshold for CHIP. Say that child needs a heart transplant.

According to your rationale, our society should take the attitude of "screw that child; let him die because he is poor.

That is a sick attitude, and it is why, following the 2008 elections, Republicans and the "conservative right wing" will never be in power in this country for the next three or four generations.

That family in my scenario is a hard-working family. They pay their bills, pay their taxes, and have no control that their child may be born with some heart defect.

Hubert Humphrey once said, "It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

That is true. Conservatives talk about morals, but is ALL TALK. Conservative government doesn't pass the "moral test." Sure, you want to make sure nobody can abort a fetus or take someone off life support, but GOD FORBID that a sick child get a heart transplant on taxpayer dollars.

I'd much rather my tax dollars go to pay for a heart transplant for a sick child than to the black hole that is the war on Iraq.

You people in the "conservative" and "religious right" bunch are simply hypocritical. Evidently, you all must engage in very selective reading of the Gospels or something because there is nothing whatsoever in Christian teaching I have ever seen that would justify such a comment as the one you made that essentially sentences the poor to death if they encounter serious health problems.

The Devil said...

Have I mentioned I am allergic to poor people?

Denney Crane said...


I think you are exactly right! There will never be a 3rd political party in the USA.

The next party will be similar to the Boston Tea Party and be the biggest party ever held in America!

Denney Crane said...

To the brave 1:39 PM and you're valiant attempt to make an anonymous point...

I quote you as saying, "Txsharon, Wordkyle, Denney Crane are like most Americans who find it easier to regurgitate their party's line than to actually think about what they're saying."

I am independant. I am not affiliated in any way with a political party. I am a conservative simpleton with no political ties... but you go ahead and keep talking out your Canadian arse. Especially since you are full of talk, not facts...

Oh, and by the way...when you say I speak without thinking, please remember that your level of intelligence is no substitute for wisdom...dumba$$...

Denney Crane

Anonymous said...

capitalannex, your middle name should be denial. If you honestly think that no one is scamming the system your crazy. Wake up. You and your cronies need to all WAKE UP. It's done everyday.

I complete numerous forms each year for employees who are trying and succeeding in getting basically free medical care. These are full-time employees who make good money and, it pisses me off. I want free healthcare.

In regards to your husband and wife scenario, there are plenty of programs out there already in place that could assist them. Why produce another one? If the government would start controlling the programs currently in place, in other words, clean out the riff-raff, then maybe people who actually do need help can get it.

One can only imagine how much money is wasted on people who do not need it. I bet it’s in the billions. The government needs to get off their asses and start auditing and investigating these programs. We as taxpayers should demand it. It’s our money, after all.

And sir/madam, whatever you are, I take offense to being called any label. I am neither a Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, and definitely not a Christian whatever. I am an American only. An American who is sick of being taken advantage of.

Denney Crane said...


Much of your post is valid...but, our government is unable to operate our retirement program, what makes you think they can do the really difficult jobs; such as taking care of our children, our sick, our elderly, our needy and our handicapped?

CapitolAnnex, just answer the question, because I want to know how and I don't think you have the answer!

I mean really, there are companies making 10's of millions of dollars annually managing retirement funds and our government has almost bankrupt its own peoples' future. But go ahead and blame someone if it makes you feel better!

It never fails...the blame game always prevails! Don't fix it, just blame someone! It won't fix anything, but it helps me make my point and that's all that really matters anyway...cause I want to be right...

Sorry to tell you pal, but your tax dollars ain't sh@t compared to what our children will face with your liberal reorganization and wealth redistribution. Let's face it, we vote for whoever gives us the most of "what we want", not what we need.

I know I'm a hypocrite, but I give money to families in crisis; almost on a weekly basis. I don't ask my government to do it. It's a$$e$ like you who want our totally disfunctional government to fix the world when they can't...only people can, and it starts with me... It sure doesn't start with you, that's for damn sure!

Denney Crane

mzchief said...

To CapitalAnnex...
You TRULY are not as all knowing and all seeing as YOU believe.

For SEVERAL years a retired registered nurse, a certified medical office manager and I VOLUNTEERED two 10 hour days EACH week for a semi-retired general surgeon so that he could see at NO or minimal charge people on Medicaid or making too much to be on Medicaid. I PERSONALLY have been told by Medicaid recipients that it is cheaper for them to see the doctor for a cold than to purchase OTC medicine from the drug store. The ER doctor told me of the situation with the woman who wanted and received a pregnancy test in the ER because she was one of the patients the Dr., for whom I volunteered, REGULARLY saw in the office. The ER doctor wanted to know why she did not just have "my" Dr. give her the test. When I spoke with the patient she responded that she did not want to wait until Tuesday to find out if she was pregnant and since it did not cost her anything to go to the ER, she went.

Since I have NOT mentioned a name of the patient, Dr. or hospital there has been NO violation of patient privacy.

The Dr. stopped seeing Medicaid patients when a patient's 6'3" 250 pound parent assaulted the AGED Dr. for refusing to continue to see his son with asthma. The reason Dr. stopped seeing the boy was because BOTH parents continued to smoke in the house resulting in SEVERAL late night calls a week to Dr. from the ER as well as the patient needing to be seen during NON Medicaid days. Hence, my EXPERIENCE is PERSONAL and not some "urban legend."

Incidentally, it is the RIGHT of EVERY doctor to REFUSE to treat ANY patient who is NONcompliant or has NONcompliant parents.

Not providing EXTREME medical treatment to those who cannot afford it is not only fiscally responsible it is the responsible thing to do for those who CAN afford such treatment.

One more thing Yoda, I am NEITHER a Republican, Conservative or Religious. If you had been paying attention rather than shooting from the lip you would know, to the annoyance of the MAJORITY of the people who read this blog, I do NOT believe in the "Big Book of Myths and Fables" aka "The Holy Bible." Clearly I am aware I have a PERSONAL responsibilty to attend to the needs of those less fortunate than myself. However, I am not some crystal gripping hippy, spewing self righteousness demanding OTHERS step up and do what I PERSONALLY have ELECTED to do for those less fortunate. Oh, one more thing. EXACTLY how much have YOU PERSONALLY contributed to improve the plight of those less fortunate than YOU?

Next time you decide to call someone a liar you might be well advised to know whose character you are ATTEMPTING to question.

Anonymous said...

dear house,

"there are plenty of programs out there already in place that could assist them."

and those programs would be?????

"One can only imagine how much money is wasted on people who do not need it. I bet it’s in the billions."

one can only imagine...$800 billion, so far..........

"The government needs to get off their asses and start auditing and investigating these programs. We as taxpayers should demand it. It’s our money, after all."

maybe they could start with all the money that's gone missing in iraq??? or maybe they could investigate all the no bid contracts..... why would we want to waste $$$ on children when we can waste it in iraq??????

wordkyle said...

I always love those "Conservatives and the 'Religious Right' [whatever that is-kw]are a bunch of hypocrites who don't care about other people." It's tempting to cite the studies that show Conservatives give more to charities than Liberals, but I'll resist. (Oh, okay, look here.)

Just today I found an interesting quote in a book I'm reading:

"[The President] stated that the purpose of government welfare programs is "to help our less fortunate citizens to help themselves....We must find ways of returning far more of our dependent people to independence."

The President was John F. Kennedy in 1962, introducing his "War on Poverty."

The New York Times said: "President Kennedy's welfare message to Congress yesterday stems from a recognition that no lasting solution to the problem can be bought with a relief check....[The] aim is to keep men, women and children from having to rely on public assistance..."

Not quite the modern Democrat message, is it?

Anonymous said...

You gotta love how txsheehan comes back and makes comments as annonymous 7:48. She's still bitching about the same old thing. In her mind everything that's wrong with the world is Bush's fault.

Anonymous said...

capital, what are you txsharon's twin? You guys need to get over the war. Imagine living through the previous ones. I assure you, your not the first and you won't be the last. Not everything in this great country of ours is based on this war. It's happening. It is what it is. Let's try to move on now, shall we?

Like I said, clean up the programs that are already there instead of forcing Americans to shell out more and more of their hard earned money to help those who can't help themselves. You mentioned 8 billion, use that.

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan can only bitch about the government, you know the one that was in charge of cleanup of Katrina, the post office, Amtrak,and billions wasted on fraud and waste, yet she wants them to come to the aid of the "children" and provide them with medical insurance from cradle to grave. What a blithering idiot. When I need a hammer, I surely won't go to the Pentagon that charges a thousand dollars. I will trust the free market and trot on down to Lowes.

Anonymous said...

Kylie posted:
No offense, but every time you're pressed for an original thought or conclusion, you evade and fall back on Liberal cliches, generalizations and feel-good platitudes.

Maybe you should take a break.
Good thing you have all original thoughts. Contact Hannity and tell him to stop stealing your material. Cheeseburger.

Bet Rush the "viagra Man" does not influence your verbage either with non-original thoughts. Rush has talent on loan from Oxycontin.

Gary said...

Wordkyles now tries to claim that conservatives are more generous than liberals.

From the book by a WSJ writer he cites: "So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer."

The real big difference in the book is that the book almost entirely looks at charitable giving and church dues or tithes are counted as a charity. Even when you break it out religious vs. non-religious conservatives and liberals the conservative religious people are more apt to belong to denominations which have a higher definition of tithes.

The real irony is that he is doing this in a thread that conservatives have piled into claiming that little boys and girls shouldn't have help with medicine and doctor visits.

TXsharon said...

Heck yeah! Everybody knows that any link I supply is only going to present the "rabid liberal" view and use such whacked out references as:

United States, Congressional Budget Office. "H.R. 976, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007." 24 Aug. 2007.

United States, Congressional Budget Office. "H.R. 3162, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act." 1 Aug. 2007.

Alliance for Health Reform. "Who’s Counting? What is crowd-out, how big is it and does it matter for SCHIP?" Conference transcript. 29 Aug. 2007.

Kenney, Genevieve M.; Cook, Allison; and Pelletier, Jennifer. "SCHIP Reauthorization: How Will Low-Income Kids Benefit under House and Senate Bills?" Urban Institute. 17 Sept. 2007.

Baumrucker, Evelyne P.; Fernandez, Bernadette; et al. "Medicaid and SCHIP Provisions in H.R. 3162 and S. 1893/H.R. 976," Congressional Research Service. 15 Aug. 2007.

Sheils, John, and Randy Haught. "President Bush's Health Care Tax Deduction Proposal: Coverage, Costs and Distributional Impacts." The Lewin Group. 29 Jan. 2007.

Heck, I'd just keep reading that Compassionate Conservative rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Take a break Sheehan, we've got this one taken care of for you. buh bye

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan - If you believe Mzchief's definition of ignorant it looks like you proved Mzchief was wrong.

"Please note, ignorance is the result of a LACK of knowledge. Stupidity is the result of ignoring knowledge. Ignorance can be cured by education. There is NO cure for stupidity."

You're not ignorant you're stupid.

Denney Crane said...


I went to and read all about estimates, not facts. When did you learn that "fact" was synonymous to "estimate".

Also, factcheck reported, "The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, ($80,000) and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law." I guess you see what you want to... I see that between 1%--30% might be eligible even if they made upwards to $80,000.

How about listening to another media source that said, "Rather than keep S-chip's cap at 200 percent of poverty ($41,300 for a family of four), the bill would raise it to 300 percent ($61,950) nationally and even higher in New Jersey ($72,285) and New York ($82,300)." Now I understand this is not a left wing arm of the media, but I have to question if the middle class is being brought into a program developed for people who really can't afford health insurance.

Show me real facts from a real media source and I will be glad to take you seriously... I care about children very much, but not enough to allow liberals to buy middle class votes...which they will get any way due to the spin. Mission Accomplished!

wordkyle said...

11:09 - Glad I caught your attention. The rest of us are discussing the topics. Wish you were here.

gary - Actually I was citing a site and the link broke. However, I did another search and found the book by Arthur Brooks, which I think you mean. Brooks, by the way, in addition to being a contributor to the WSJ, is also a Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University, with a PhD in Public Policy Analysis.

His book belies your claims, namely:

* Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes

* Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%

* Conservative "red" states give away far more of their incomes than liberal "blue" states do

* Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches - religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities

* Religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time. For instance, a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person

"When Brooks started his research, he fully expected to find that political liberals would be the most privately charitable people. When early findings led to the opposite conclusion, he assumed he had made an error. He re-ran analyses and got new data, but in the end he had no option but to change his views."

And you, Gary, were incorrect in your comment on my blog, too. You're batting .1000

wordkyle said...

After a night's sleep, I realized that I meant "batting 1.000" -- sorry, Charlie.

Gary said...


You link to a far right source for a quote about SCHIP and then complain about TXSharon quoting a respectable think tank familiar with the issues.

I quote the author himself discussing his book findings and you replay with a blurb from the back cover.

Sheesh, go factcheck yourself.

Anonymous said...

The wording of our social public programs should be screened to read for "American citizens" tax payers are paying not charity.