BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Democrats And Republicans Hit New Lows; Not Surprisingly, Republicans Lower

SATURDAY OCTOBER 13 2007 12:00 PM

Submitted by Formus. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: SCHIP, health care, kitchen remodeling, 90s rappers

Politics in this country is a sick, sick beast. Every day we fall lower into a cesspool, every day we close our ears in disbelief to the utter utter mess that Washington thrusts about us like titties at a strip club. Politics have been stuck and bled like a Memphis hooker, stripped of dignity, whored to the highest bidder, and made a public mockery of consistently for almost three decades now. Yes, everything is Reagan's fault, and if you disagree with me, you are wrong.

Today's example comes in the form of SCHIP, or S-chip, because we here in American politics like to spruce everything up by giving it hip nicknames. And you can call it "schip" if you want, and be a fucking Kraut, or you can be with it and call it S-chip, the P-Diddy of the children's health insurance world. Nigga.

For those of you who missed Stephen Colbert's acute summary of the issue, it is as follows, convoluted as it may be:

Essentially, the new improved S-Chippy is a Medicaid-based program to provide free health insurance for "lower middle class" (a bullshit phrase if there ever was one) children who just barely don't qualify for Medicaid. Yes, they are poor, no matter what pundits say. Aside from being a spectacular idea, if passed, the S-chip initiative would also be a way to ease into some of the more radical (and I use that term loosely) universal health care programs that are being expounded by the Democratic Presidential candidates. (For the record, vote Edwards.)

Much of the opposition to free health insurance is based on the Reaganomical assumption that people - namely poor people, homeless people, black people, and the uninsured - are responsible for their own states of being, and that the modern United States government should take a policy of outdated Social Darwinism towards them, despite the fact that Social Darwinism hasn't been legitimate since the late 1800s. These people are fucking idiots. The issue is more complex than that. And the sheer volume of uninsured Americans suggests that a hands-off approach by the government has never worked, especially since the government has given no incentive for these people to pull themselves out of their terminal state in the first place.

Not to mention the fact that these are children. Not working adults. Who should be responsible for insuring them? If you said "their parents" then you deserve a quick chop to the throat because you weren't paying attention. If a parent can't even insure him or herself, how in god's name can they insure their children, who by basic nature accumulate far higher medical bills than adults do?

Now that we've shown that free health care for kids is an exceptional idea, we can move on, because the rest of the article depends on us finding that notion inscrutably important. And if you don't think it's important? Well, that makes you a child killer and probably a rapist. I have Chris Hansen on speed dial, so shut your fucking mouths, K?

Congressional Democrats, in one of their few successes since taking control of the Hill, have decided to address the issue, and that's where Puff Chippy comes in. Conceived by the Congress of the 1990s (having been enacted in 1997), which, it should be noted, was controlled by the Republicans, it is a measure to provide free health care to all children who live within a certain income bracket. Under the old plan, that income bracket was essentially Medicaid. Under the new proposal, the ceiling has been extended - adding about four million eligible children to the old total of 6.6 million. (Unfortunately, the funding for this expansion comes from an increase in the cigarette tax, which is overwhelmingly paid by the lower-to-middle classes over the wealthy, and is strike one against the Democrats, though certainly not their low point - we'll get to that later.)

Taxation aside, raising the ceiling is a fantastic idea, because Medicaid has a very low ceiling, and more families than those who make $20,000 per year (the poverty ceiling for a family of four) have difficulty affording their lives. Unfortunately for the Republicans, Bush doesn't think so.

"Policies of the government ought to be to help poor children, and to focus on poor children," he insightfully philosophizes, a rather intelligent thing to come out of the mind of this stagnant retard. But then he continues: "And the policies of the government ought to be to help people find private insurance, not federal coverage."

Unfortunately for that fucking moron, his government has done absolutely nothing to enable the poor to find their own private insurance. The income gap between the rich and the poor has reached historic levels during his presidency.

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Tell me, George, how will low-income people ever have enough to insure themselves when their share of the gross income of the United States is at its lowest point of the modern age? And then there are his infamous tax cuts, well documented on this site among other places, which grant tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while leaving the burden on the poor at the same level. Talk about "helping people find private insurance." Because if there's one way to get poor people insured, it's to not do anything to help them.

That is strike one against the Republicans. The utter failing for the poor of this country, whom they claim to represent, and who vote for them in drones. It's certainly not their low point - that's coming up - and it's definitely nothing new.

They, as expected, relied on Bush to veto the proposal, and he certainly did.

Bush vetoed the bill in private, absent the television cameras and other media coverage that normally attend even routine presidential actions.

Though he may be vehement now in his own defense (as evidenced in the video linked above), if there's one thing history has shown us, it is that actions speak louder than words. He did it "quietly." No TV cameras. No press conference. It's almost as though he didn't want anyone to know what he was doing. It's almost as though he felt ashamed.

Unfortunately for the House Democrats, the margin with which the bill was passed, 265-159, is not a large enough majority to override a Presidential veto, and so the possibility of the program taking effect is fading rapidly.

Aides say because the $35 billion expansion of the program originated in the House, that chamber will go first in its attempt to override Bush's third veto ever as president.... That vote is likely to come during the week of Oct. 15, leaving two more weeks for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to exert political pressure on any wavering Republicans.

And so the Democrats have pulled out all the stops, and have, in their attempt to sway the necessary number of Red Staters, brought the issue of poor kids full in the face of the Republican Party, thereby administered the largest guilt trip since George Washington cut down the cherry tree. And the twisted tale that follows can only be described as a national political low.

There have been moments when the fight between Congressional Democrats and President Bush over the State Children�s Health Insurance Program seemed to devolve into a shouting match about who loves children more.

So when Democrats enlisted 12-year-old G----- F----, who along with a younger sister relied on the program for treatment of severe brain injuries suffered in a car crash, to give the response to Mr. Bush�s weekly radio address on Sept. 29, Republican opponents quickly accused them of exploiting the boy to score political points.

The Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, wrangled themselves a sick kid, a twelve-year-old boy named G----- F---- (I refuse to print his name here, because I am not a heartless bastard, though if you want it, it's all over the links), and exploited his existence on a scale perhaps larger than Dannielynn Smith - nah, nothing is. They had this young, naive 12-year-old give a response to Bush - on the radio - nationally. They didn't have this boy, say, have face-to-face talks with Republican leaders behind closed doors. They paraded him around the entire country, like a midget in a freak show, to achieve their own political ends. That, my friends, is a low point.

But it's not the low point - oh no. Not by a long shot.

That honor goes to the Republicans, who snapped at the bait like hungry walleyes and instantly mounted a mudslinging campaign - not against the Democrats, but against the 12-year-old boy.

In recent days, G----- and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats� plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They scrutinized the family�s income and assets � even alleged the counters in their kitchen to be granite � and declared that the F----s did not seem needy enough for government benefits.

It's bad enough to throw dirt at political candidates. They are adults. They can take care of themselves. But this is a child. A fucking prepubescent boy. And they're attacking him. The boy! It's the equivalent of a fully-grown man walking onto an elementary school playground and taunting a kid with braces, then subsequently taking his lunch money. "Not needy enough"? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

(For the record, if you still do not think that the "conservative bloggers" do not represent the opinions of the Republican Party, then you are ignorant and should not comment on this piece at all.)

And in its weird, sick, and twisted way, it has become emblematic of their policy toward the Notorious C.H.I.P expansion in the first place. What they're doing to poor G----- is no different than what they're doing to the four million other children whom the expansion would aid. Telling them they're not deserving enough. Taking away their means. In a way, dooming them to additional pain and suffering because Republicans are the ultimate moral authority in this country, wink wink, and they determine, I guess, who deserves to live and who deserves to die. And poor G-----, like four million other kids, just isn't poor enough to deserve their aid, and not rich enough to deserve their respect.

Take them both behind the shed and shoot them. Never before has there been a situation more emblematic of the utter dogshit that has become the once-venerable insitution of American democracy. Leave it to ChipPac to remind us all of the change that is needed so desperately.

Formus thinks every child in America should be insured, god damn it, and every adult too. Also, for any NSA spies that may be reading this, he was being facecious when he suggested we shoot the Congress. He only meant with a high-grade horse tranquilizer, that's all.

167 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 12

Innocent_Sid

Providence, RI

June 2007

OCT 13, 2007 12:09 PM

Stop! Stop! Stop! I am so fucking depressed.

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

OCT 13, 2007 12:31 PM

As long as their are health insurance companies there will never be national healthcare.

Remj

Seattle, WA

April 2003

OCT 13, 2007 01:01 PM

The Republicans could have attacked the Democrats, if they felt using a 12 year-old was bad style. Instead, they went for the family, and got enough attacks wrong, that I would consider their points 'lying'.

It won't pass unless there is enough votes to override the veto. Going apeshit over incorrect facts smacks of desperation. The desperation of seeing this bill come up every 6 months, the noose tightening around (their) necks, while the Republicans in Congress protect a lame duck who they don't want to even mention.

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN

July 2003

OCT 13, 2007 02:06 PM

Colinism said:
As long as their are health insurance companies there will never be national healthcare.

Here - a Canadian company that offers health insurance.
link.

Going to try to tell me Canada doesn't have national health care?

jpaul256

Spring, TX

June 2006

OCT 13, 2007 02:18 PM

The House and Senate sent a bill which would greatly expand the SCHIP program to the President. As promised, the President vetoed the bill.

For the George Bush, Dick Cheney, and All Republicans are the Embodiment of Pure Evil (GBDCAARATEOPE) crowd, this means that Republicans hate children and want to ensure that healthcare in this country is reserved only for those that can afford it (rich, white people) and that the rest of you can just go to hell.

Unfortunately, as with most of the posts on SG made by the GBDCAARATEOPE crowd, the facts and details of this situation have been left out so that we can simply bash and defame those with whom we disagree (As a side note - I am fascinated by the degree to which others in society are vilified on this site simply because they don't toe the leftist GBDCAARATEOPE line - this from a group of people who supposedly encourage individualism and tolerance).

The fact is, the original CHIP program was adopted in 1997 having been a bipartisan effort supported by President Bill Clinton and the Republicans that controlled Congress at the time. The idea was to provide health insurance to children whose families are too poor to afford the premiums on their own, but make too much to qualify for coverage under Medicaid. The program covers young Americans up to the age of 18 with a family income of not more than twice the official poverty level.

According to the Department of Health & Human Services, a family of four was deemed living at the poverty level if it had an annual income of not more than $20,650. That level of income for a family of four would qualify as poverty in 2007 under any fair assessment. Officials in the Bush administration agreed that these numbers needed to be adjusted and the program expanded so that the original targets for support could obtain the healthcare coverage that was needed. No one on the Hill or at the White House argued the notion that the last 10 years had changed the parameters of the debate and that the legislation needed to be revised. So, negotiations were initiated between the administration and Congress to hammer out the details.

This is where the fun began. The Democrats suggested that the new legislation raise the income level for a child to qualify to $83,000 - FOUR times the poverty level (at least in New York) which is an income stretching the definition of "poverty" to the point of snapping. Not only that, but the Democrats' bill redefines a "child" as someone up to age 25, stretching the definition of "child" to well, you know, complete fantasy

There may be people who believe that if you can't afford health insurance for your kids, that's just too bad, but I am not one of them. The kids didn't ask to be born - and they certainly did not ask to be born into a family earning just 200% of the poverty level. But of course, the Popular Press (and the GBDCAARATEOPE crowd) has joined with its allies in the Democratic Party to portray President Bush as being anti-child, anti-healthcare, anti-government support of those in need, blah, blah, blah. The Washington Post's Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman led their piece by saying:

President Bush yesterday vetoed a $35 billion expansion of a popular children's health insurance program, a move that left him as politically isolated as he has ever been and had even Republican allies questioning his hard-line strategy.

President Bush made it clear, on multiple occasions, personally and through he staff, that he wanted Congress to send him a re-authorized program which he could sign, but Democrats sent up a bill which the White House had warned was veto-bait.

Why?

So that could establish the parameters for this very discussion:

Bush (who along with Dick Cheney and all Republicans are the Embodiment of Pure Evil) will argue in favor of tax cuts for the rich, while he vetoes health care for poor children.

I know its hard for the Popular Press and the GBDCAARATEOPE crowd to accept this, but the reality of the situation is this:

Congressional Democrats were willing to trade the health of children to score political points against the President.

It is also true that if they can expand coverage to families up to 400% of the poverty line and individuals up to the age of 25, Democrats can go to 800% of poverty ($160,000 per year) and individuals up to 65 (when Medicare kicks in).

Hello National Health Insurance.

I read a quote in the New York Times which said that for many - if not most - Republican primary voters, this expansion of the SCHIP program proposed by the Democrats was not a step down the slippery slope of national health care - it was a four man bobsled on an Olympic run.