Lolschip

Today in child-hating comes, via Garance, this graphic on the subject of S-CHIP and the Republican Party's merciless war against sick children. Some readers have objected to the shrill nature of my posts on this subject, insisting that George W. Bush and his allies among congressional Republicans aren't, in fact, motivated by a desire to see sick children suffer. And, of course, that's technical true. The real point is that Bush and the GOP want to make sure that sick people in general don't get public sector health care and remain, instead, at the mercies of insurance companies or else are just left to their own devices. The sick kids are, basically, just innocent bystanders -- hostages to Bush's fealty to private health insurance.

Comments

It's times like these I want to kill their leaders, carpet-bomb their countries, and convert them all to christianity. Then I realize they are the leaders, they are all allegedly Christian, and i live in their country, so... Dammit Ann Coulter, teach me how to rage!

Posted by Gregorio | October 12, 2007 6:42 PM

Funny that I haven't seen your buddy Brendan Nyhan going after you for your shrillness the way he's been going after Alterman for characterizing the administration's motives in just the same way you do. It's almost enough to make you think it's all basically a positioning exercise for Nyhan -- 'look how reasonable I am, I distance myself from lefties'.

Or maybe Nyhan has been going after you for this and I've missed it. Either way he's being a dick. You and Alterman are, of course, quite correct about Bush's motives.

Posted by Ryan | October 12, 2007 6:43 PM

I'm with you Matt. This is a prime example of the outlandish extent to which forum has eclipsed the polis in our nation. If Bush had any sense of moral proportion, any at all, he wouldn't pimp himself out to insurance companies on this one. Principled fiscal discipline my ass.

Posted by fnook | October 12, 2007 6:56 PM

Yeah, I think you're miscalculation on the phrase, "just left to their own devices." People generally like being left to their own devices.

When an individual is in desperate straits, of course, he wants the help. But as a voter, if you say to me, "that other guy just wants to leave you to your own devices," I'm not exactly offended. In other words, it's bad if your argument for a huge public sector policy depends upon convincing voters that they can't arrange their own affairs. I'm aware that there are better arguments; all I'm saying is that this is a bad one from an electoral standpoint.

Posted by southpaw | October 12, 2007 7:05 PM

agreed.

although i'd say that it's not that they don't want *sick* people to get public sector help, they don't really want anyone to get public sector help. and if you *do* get sick and don't have insurance or can't afford the bills, then that's because you've made the choice to be in that situation and if you'd only tried harder or worked more or didn't buy a house and a car then maybe you could pay the bills.

so it's not that they don't want sick people to get help or specifically sick kids, they just don't *care* what happens to those uninsured sick people. it's like what kanye west said. he didn't say, "george bush hates black people." he said, "george bush doesn't care about black people." i really doubt gwb hates black people. they're just not important to him. in this situation, george bush doesn't care about sick kids. it's more important to him that government retreat from this business, not expand it.

and unless you're really really dim, you realize that that indifference and those priorities cause sick children to suffer. and when you don't do something about it, you implicitly want them to suffer because this is basically a binary decision.

Posted by this guy | October 12, 2007 7:08 PM

I believe the phrase is collateral damage.

Posted by Ben Cronin | October 12, 2007 7:15 PM

this guy is wrong. If you happen to be a multimillionaire or even a billionaire they want government help for you to build your stadium. I mean sure Carl Pohlad is like the 7th richest man in the world but how dare people expect him to pay for the Twins a stadium! Its like its a business or something! We must have a Tax Authroity with no elective responsibility!

Posted by Rob | October 12, 2007 7:36 PM

rob is right.

Posted by this guy | October 12, 2007 7:57 PM

>> And, of course, that's technical true.

You might could say that's technical true, but you oughten a mine yern P's and Q's.

Oh yeah, I'm waiting for someone to show up to argue that if you support bombing raids in wars, which inevitably end up killing innocent children, then how can you possibly object to the suffering of innocent children in this case? And thus these "innocent" children should probably be waterboarded...or something.

Posted by jim | October 12, 2007 8:32 PM

"Murder" is a killing with malice. "Malice " in this context is an intent to kill, an intent to do great bodily harm, or a willful and wanton disregard of the fact that the natural and probable consequences of one's acts is death or great bodily harm.

Jury instruction quoted from memory--it has been a while since I did a murder case.

Nevertheless, those for whom the shoe fits ought to wear it. I freely concede that George Bush and his allies do not intend to kill or inflict great bodily harm on any children.

Posted by rea | October 12, 2007 8:39 PM

Completely ignore the said Some Readers.

I have immigrated here from the Kevin Drum's place just because of your facility with clarity and your inability to be a forced moderate in face of vice and pure evil.

Posted by gregor | October 12, 2007 8:55 PM

Welcome to civilization, gregor. Haven't been to Drum's place in a while. Is the comment section still the same noisy and pointless trollpen that it was when I left a couple years back?

If I were Kevin Drum, I'd find a couple interns to moderate, pay Teresa Nielsen Hayden whatever sum she demands to train them, and then turn them loose. That website could be worth something if anyone gave a damn.

Posted by Laertes | October 12, 2007 9:06 PM

Michelle Malkin asks, Question for grown-ups: Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?

Posted by Juan | October 12, 2007 9:12 PM

Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?

If there's one thing this last foofara has taught America, it's that the answer is everyone. After all, the second any sort of distinction between deserving and undeserving is made, there are too many people who will unapologetically lie and lie and lie to try to pretend people are in the undeserving group.

Posted by Bo | October 12, 2007 9:59 PM

Readers might want to wonder whether MattY is a true pundit, or just the internet version of a used car salesman.

Perhaps he could tell us what he intends to do about possible fraudulently obtained benefits under the scheme.

Would he turn a blind eye because such fraud is good for business and good for the Party? Is there some dollar amount at which he'd oppose such potential fraud?

Posted by TLB | October 12, 2007 10:41 PM

Mark Steyn on the Frosts:

"Ultimately it's a reductive notion of liberty to say a free-born citizen can choose his own breakfast cereal and DVD rentals and cable package and, in the case of the Frosts, three premium vehicles, but demand the government take responsibility for all the grown-up stuff.

[...]

But, either way, a two-property three-car family does not demonstrate the need for entitlement expansion."

Posted by Juan | October 13, 2007 2:44 AM

so basically what are friendly right wingers are saying is if something happens like caner or a car acicdent that causes permanent brain damage then fuck you, your on your own, of course you will never be able to pay the 100s of thousands of dollars in medical expenses, but you should sell everything you own, go bankrupt an dpay the miniscule percent of it you can, then when your homeless and broke maybe some nice charity will feed you I guess. And spare me the crap about insurance being available to everyone, a fsmily of 4 or 5 makign less than 50K a year can't afford to pay $1,200 a month for inusrance. ANd these wonderful MSA type plans that Malkin brags about are fine for routine stuff, lets see how well Michelle's plan works if one of her kids gets brain damage. Even if the Frost's had ne of them they would have exhausted the benefits from it long ago and be right where they are now.

I'm seriously starting to thing being a conservative is a form of mental illness. These people can't seem to concieve of the the fact that stuff happens randomly, some people get cancer even though they live healthy lives and never smoke or do anything else that increased the risk, some people hit black ice and get in a car wreck. I think they are terrified of the thought that things are actually out of peoples control, so they create this mythology about rugged individualism and so on.

What most of us on the left are arguing is that health care is like the police department or fire department, an overall societal good that we all pay for even though we don't all need to benefit from it, who gets robbed or has a house fire or gets sick is random. The number one cause of bankruptcy in America is health expenses, not people being irresponsible and buying HDTVs on credit. People who work and do their part contributing to society should not end up poor because they got unlucky in the gene department or had an accident.

Maybe what sperates the left from the right on this issue is the simple udnertsanding of the "phrase their but for the grace of god go I" You don't need to believe in god to agree with the concept.

But keep it up, the more you guys try and make your case the more people see what you really stand for and move to our side. If you bozos keep it up we should have single payer within the next 4 years.

I just watched Tucker Carlson make a complete ass of himself over this on the Maher show, Maher and Krugman we're destroying him, the only thing that kept them from totally anihilating him is he has perfected the art of yelling louder and cutting off the other person before they can finish their point. John Stewart was right to attack him, calling him a Dick was actually too polite though, but I suppose that was all he could get away with on CNN.

Posted by eric k | October 13, 2007 3:27 AM

"Perhaps he could tell us what he intends to do about possible fraudulently obtained benefits under the scheme."

First, he'd probably consider the source of the information. Then he'd probably weigh the relative value of possible fraud against actual fraud schemes like the Iraq war. Then he'd probably reach the conclusion that any damages caused by abusing the SCHIP program can be mitigated via effective prosecution of the fraudsters. Finally, he'd reasonable conclude that any such "possible" fraud does not justify denying assistance to family's that could use it. He probably wouldn't even waste time trying to explain the economic benefits of the SCHIP program.

"Ultimately it's a reductive notion of liberty to say"

Is it just me, or is Beersteyn not using "reductive" correctly in that sentence? I get what the twit is trying to say (and savoring the hypocrisy of the "grown-up" part coming from the recipient of the right-wing "welfare" system, when's the next "charity" drive for NRO, btw) and yes, I know what "reduce" means, but it just seems like an odd bit of phraseology. Well, I guess you get what you "pay" for. Thank you, Juan, for reminding me why I don't care what NRO has to say.

"I just watched Tucker Carlson make a complete ass of himself over this on the Maher show..."

About two minutes into the discussion it was apparent how painful it was going to be to watch Tucker completely out of his depth, so I switched it off and went to bed. Tucker should follow Malkin's lead and stick to "safe" forums (i.e., by themselves or surrounded by sycophants).

Posted by Rihilism | October 13, 2007 7:18 AM

BTW, it sounds like the Repubs are due for another "purge" since Hatch and Grassley don't appear to be carrying their share of the water...

Posted by Rihilism | October 13, 2007 7:45 AM

I don't know why we bother with logical arguments on healthcare. They don't work.

You know what works? Endless demagoguery. I know, you liberals think that it's icky and, and you all care more about process than results, but come on. People are dying because you won't point at Republicans and do more of what's going on in the above Image macro. Point to a Republican and tell people that reps want them to watch their children die for the sake of ideology. Tell them that they think Rush Limbaugh should get to live no matter how many drugs he takes and how many cow-fat milkshakes he drinks, because he has money, while your kid has to waste away with cancer. Point to Mark Steyn, and tell parents that he thinks their children should take responsibility for their leukemia.

This. Shit. Works. Politics is not a game of rational logic and reason. It's a game of emotional impact. Pathos beats Logos every fucking time in the real world. You can make Republican a dirty word, you just have to be willing to put in the effort.

Posted by Soullite | October 13, 2007 8:35 AM

There were actually a lot of Republicans on board for sChip, including many state governors (here in Florida Charlie Crist was in favor). What's weird about the situation is that so many of them nevertheless have jumped to Bush's defense. What's going on here? Bush is about as popular as the stomach flu these days and his veto on this bill runs directly counter to the wishes of a solid majority of the American people. You would think these Republicans would at least respectfully dissent if they want to win reelection next year. And we don't just see this phenomenon in the sChip veto, but in quite a few other matters as well, notably the war in Iraq. Why in the world are so many Republicans deliberately tieing themselves to the sinking ship of BushCo? Do they want to deliver a fillibuster-proof Congress to a Democratic president next year?

Posted by JonF | October 13, 2007 8:49 AM

"You would think these Republicans would at least respectfully dissent if they want to win reelection next year."

It's the futile and self-possessed clinging to ideology that caused me to leave the Republican party fifteen years ago (my anniversary was in August, 15 years after Pat Buchanan's speech that finally put it over the top).

"Endless demagoguery."

Thank God I don't have to rationalize such boorish behavior anymore...

Posted by Rihilism | October 13, 2007 9:27 AM

"reductive notion of liberty"

I guess the usage was correct, although itself revealing a reductive notion that the writer of the sentence is using.

Property rights and purchasing power are the cornerstone of liberty, in that reductive view, and we can pretty much measure how much freedom an individual (or a set of individual) has by figuring how much money does he/she spend of his/her own choice. When the government takes 10% of your money away and provides you with healthcare in some form, your freedom is down by that 10%. As opposed to the situation when you spend not 10, but 15% if your money on a health plan that you freely choose, and by freely, I mean that you do not have to choose at all.

So when a person freely chooses small expenses, and has no choice about big ticket items like health, education, road system etc. we see no abidgement of freedom because we have such a reductive notion of it.

Instead we seem to put an absurd weight on freedoms that have scant monetary value, like uncensored expression, reproductive freedom, freedom to take a walk through the woods (and we sulk if there are not enough public lands to do so), freedom not to be found an unlawful combatatant and put into solitary confinement with years of destructive mind games being played upon us etc. And because they do not see those aspects as important, we thik that libertarian notion of freedom is reductive.

Posted by piotr | October 13, 2007 9:30 AM

Rihilism says:

First, he'd probably consider the source of the information.

Unlike MattY, I'm not a Party hack, and I'm pretty strong on the whole telling the whole truth thing. But, the source in this case isn't me: it's the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, via Rep. Jim McCrery.

Then he'd probably reach the conclusion that any damages caused by abusing the SCHIP program can be mitigated via effective prosecution of the fraudsters.

See, that's the problem. They wouldn't be prosecuted because as a group those fraudsters would be protected by the Dems and big business, just as a crime syndicate would protect people (and with the same goal of making money and obtaining power).

So, the questions above remain, and perhaps MattY would care to answer them. Even a used car salesman is willing to answer objections, right?

Posted by TLB | October 13, 2007 1:24 PM

Stay classy, Soullite. When you're waiting six months for an oncologist someday and price controls have grounded cancer drug R&D to a halt, you can savor your propaganda victory.

Posted by Juan | October 13, 2007 2:38 PM

Fraud is a potential problem in every government and private market ever established. If you aren't willing to confront fraud you're pretty much never going to have a government program, which is presumably why you're so obsessed with it, TLB.

For those of us in the reality-based community the question is whether the expected level of fraud is so great as to overwhelm the benefits to legitimate claimants. In this case we're talking about an extra $35 billion over five years to cover an addition 3.5 million kids. Those numbers "include" fraud in that they're based on characteristics of the current programs which would be expanded.

I'd postulate that fraud would account for far less than 100K of those 3.5 million new enrollees. So are we willing to spend $35 billion to insure 3.4 million kids for five years? Are we willing to piss $35 billion away for another 3 months of occupying Iraq? For the vast majority of Americans the answers to both questions are yes.

(As an operational matter, the programs are administered entirely by the states. States get a capped amount each year and don't get compensated if they spend it on scammers. So the states have every incentive to make sure that the federal money is spent on actually covering kids. In other words, the mix of fraud and benefits in the program is at precisely the level that the states are willing to accept, given the current funding structure.)

Posted by TimG | October 13, 2007 3:27 PM

Fraud is a potential problem in every government and private market ever established. If you aren't willing to confront fraud you're pretty much never going to have a government program, which is presumably why you're so obsessed with it, TLB.

For those of us in the reality-based community the question is whether the expected level of fraud is so great as to overwhelm the benefits to legitimate claimants. In this case we're talking about an extra $35 billion over five years to cover an addition 3.5 million kids. Those numbers "include" fraud in that they're based on characteristics of the current programs which would be expanded.

I'd postulate that fraud would account for far less than 100K of those 3.5 million new enrollees. So are we willing to spend $35 billion to insure 3.4 million kids for five years? Are we willing to piss $35 billion away for another 3 months of occupying Iraq? For the vast majority of Americans the answers to both questions are yes.

(As an operational matter, the programs are administered entirely by the states. States get a capped amount each year and don't get compensated if they spend it on scammers. So the states have every incentive to make sure that the federal money is spent on actually covering kids. In other words, the mix of fraud and benefits in the program is at precisely the level that the states are willing to accept, given the current funding structure.)

Posted by TimG | October 13, 2007 3:29 PM

"so basically what are friendly right wingers are saying is if something happens like caner or a car acicdent that causes permanent brain damage then fuck you, your on your own..."

No, they are saying that if you can afford two properties, three late-model cars, and private school tuition for four kids, you can afford to be prudent and buy a low-cost, high-deductible insurance policy for your family before someone gets sick or hurt. It's called being a responsible adult. It's expensive enough to subsidize care for the elderly (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid); we can't afford to subsidize care for the imprudent and irresponsible middle class adults.

Posted by Fred | October 13, 2007 3:47 PM

Erik K

a fsmily of 4 or 5 makign less than 50K a year can't afford to pay $1,200 a month for inusrance.

I agree that $14,000 or so per year would be almost cripplingly prohibitive for a family of 5 (4, 5, 6? I keep reading different numbers in different places).

But it is true that it would also seem that a family of 4 or 5 making less than 50K per year would be unable to own one nice house, two SUVs, one truck and one investment property.

A lot of Conservatives seem to think that Frost (the father) should just work harder or get a better job. I find that sentiment bizarre.

Another argument that is made is that Grahame Frost's father should have had insurance in the first place.

Well, he didn't. We have no time-traveling phone booths to correct that mistake. What now?

But I think there are two legitimate issues that do require addressing by Leftists(?) such as Erik K (if you consider yourself liberal, then I'll correct myself) that sofar have simply been treated as larks or ignored:

1. Should wealth/assets be a determining factor in qualification for safety nets or should income be the only factor? In other words, should a wealthy person with a miniscule or nonexistant income qualify for government assistance?

2. Isn't there a better way to pay for all the new S-CHIP families than by taking the money from smokers, many of whom are poorer than the families their taxes will be redistributed to?

Furthermore, why fund a program whose costs will forever rise with a tax whose revenue stream begins drying up the minute the tax is implemented?

Isn't, well, just about any tax on anything else--short of food and gas--a more stable and socially equitable way of extending S-CHIP to the children of middle class?

Both of these concerns needed to be addressed before congress passes a bill providing a permanent program (welfare? entitlement? not sure what's a pejorative and what's not). Congress has not. Neither, so far, have the bill's defenders. But taht doesn't mean they go away.

*On a side note, I actually found Tucker to be the most persuasive panelist Maher's had on his show in some time (though competition has not been stiff--Mos Def and Garofalo both seemed drugged out, scratchy and paranoid). Joy Behar was far funnier and cleverer than I expected based on her close relationship with Rosie O'Donnell and the latter's' strange, schizophrenic haiku poems on everything from Lindsey Lohan to oatmeal.

To me, it was Krugman that came off as a partisan little toad, but then again, Krugman always comes off as a partisan little toad. I don't buy Krugman's explanation on why S-CHIP needs to be implemented through regressive taxation any more than I buy Pelosi's arguments for why the Democrats can't end the war.

Why, when the Republicans were in power were they so omnipotent, but the Democrats so impotent with control of both Houses? One Republican Senator can almost get a "Bridge to Nowhere" built but 51 (49) Democrats can't find a stable, non-regressive revenue-stream for a program (ostensibly) targeting uninsured children?

Something's fishy.

Posted by Shinyk | October 13, 2007 4:52 PM

Shinyk,

Thanks for adding a dose of honesty and intelligence to the discussion. As to your question why:

"Democrats can't find a stable, non-regressive revenue-stream for a program (ostensibly) targeting uninsured children?"

The answer is that:

1) Dems know that smoking is politically unpopular.

2) They know a tax will reduce revenues, and they plan on making up the difference from general revenues.

3) They know if they were honest in explaining how they'd pay for this entitlement program, they'd be expected to be honest about how they'd pay for even more expensive ones, like national health care.

4) They also know that Democrat free-lunch programs sound less attractive once people realize how much they will cost, and how much their taxes will have to go up to fund them.

Posted by Glatt Yglesias | October 13, 2007 5:07 PM

I'm seriously starting to thing being a conservative is a form of mental illness.

This thinking is very troubling and exists on both sides. At the end of the day, we're all Americans with a shared investment in our future and we're going to have to work together to acheive anything. Nothing could be less productive than assigning mental defect to anyone who disagrees with you.

This sentiment is a byproduct of Rovism and it's spread from the right and infected the left (possibly more virulently).

But look what Rovism has wrought: it's ripped both the Libertarians and the wealthy, WASPy elites (who are not donating like they used to) out of the Republican coalition. The traditionalists are threatening to create their own party, leaving Republicans only with the NeoCons in their very narrow appeal and empty track-record of successes. In 2006, the Richard Scaife-owned, "reliably conservative" Pittsburgh Tribune-Review endorsed a blank Senate ballot, stating that even a void would be better than Rick Santorum (a wealthy neocon-ish man who nonetheless enrolled his children in a Pennsylvania welfare program).

Is this really what the left wants for itself?

Though, I suppose if someone were to place 9/11 Truth groups or those who would "cure" gays in the "mental illness" category, I might not object.

Posted by Shinyk | October 13, 2007 5:18 PM

"At the end of the day, we're all Americans with a shared investment in our future..."

Not according to some of the commenters on Matt's recent post about patriotism.

Posted by Juan | October 13, 2007 5:34 PM

Re: No, they are saying that if you can afford two properties, three late-model cars, and private school tuition for four kids, you can afford to be prudent and buy a low-cost, high-deductible insurance policy for your family before someone gets sick or hurt.

Problem is Fred there's no such thing. Even high deductible policies are way, way overpriced*. Cut the premiums down to about a third of their current level and then maybe you'd have a point.

(*High decutible policies cost a major fraction of what low deductible policies cost for the simple reason that the extra stuff covered under a low deductible policy tends to be cheap stuff that does not add much to the premium. While the catastrophic costs are exactly that: catastrophic, and therefore major med policies have very high premiums.)

Re: we can't afford to subsidize care for the imprudent and irresponsible middle class adults.

Of course we can. We could afford to cover the whole country if selfish greedheads and latter-day Scrooges and misanthrophic Simon Legree avatars and their apologists weren't running the show, to the vast detriment of the citizenry and the economy both.

Posted by JonF | October 13, 2007 5:54 PM

And the BS from the right continues.

As has been pointed out repeatedly the Frosts live in a house they bought for $55K. You all apparnatly feel they should liqudate all the equity to pay their medical bills, then where do they live?

As Krugman repeatedly tried ot pint out while being yelled over by Carlson, the only reason the Dems used a cigerate taxe wsa because that was the only thing Republican's in teh Senate woudk agree too. You know they have this thing that starts with an F and ends in ster that means it takers 60 votes in teh Senate to pass anything, so 51 Dems can't do anything on their own.

Funny how when the Dems talked about using it to stop Supreme Court appointments they were painted as down right unAmerican, now that he Reps use it to stop everything it is the do nothing Dems who are responsible for not getting anything done.

But then this is just SOP on your side, the ends justify the means, if it means that whatever you argued last year is completely turned on its head, so what.

As you continue to show throughout this and most every other thread on this site any reasoned discussion of an issue with you all is impossible.

Posted by eric k | October 13, 2007 7:44 PM

"Is this really what the left wants for itself?"

Puuuulllleeeeease! Your "above the fray" posturing is both amusing and disingenuous. And yet you don't hesitate to label Krugmann an amphibian, which, though "classier" than calling him an asshole, is still just as insulting and dismissive ("He's just a pathetic little partisan toad, so I choose to ignore his arguments"). I also note that while the "level of discourse" has apparently given you the vapors, you still manage to lower yourself to suggesting that certain parties are mentally unwell.

Your hand wringing regarding the devastating impact the cigarette tax on the poor is no more credible now than when David Brooks made it a few days ago. The amount of rationales the Right is willing to float in order to torpedo the expansion of an effective program is truly remarkable. The Right is still going after and lying about the Frosts, despite being proven wrong, in the hopes that it will muddy the waters and that something, anything will stick. Not for any altruistic reasons, mind you, but so that they can convince enough people that they are "correct" in their desire to hew to their selfish and "up is down" moral belief systems ("You're not being selfish, it's those money grubbing societal parasites who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives that are being selfish").

Of course, I could point out (again), that the bill, despite your feigned concerns about its supposed lack of future funding and its inherent susceptibility for abuse by "brown" people, is supported by actual, real life Republicans. I've still not heard any "reasoned" response as to what is motivating two commies like Hatch and Grassley to sponsor this legislation. Why would they stake their political careers on such "spurious" legislation that may result in "massive" future tax hikes or unsolvable abuse? Spite? Or perhaps they have come to the conclusion that the legislation is reasonable, sustainable, AND morally sound

And excuse me while I smirk when someone says "I actually found Tucker to be the most persuasive...". There are those on the Right that might actually be capable of making cogent, non-contradictory arguments, but a smug, contrarian snake (gotta love those animal metaphors) like Tucker is not one of them. The man has no core beliefs, he simply argues for the sake of argument. And his "righteous indignation" is no more genuine that yours is.

Finally, anyone, and I mean anyone, who finds Joy Behar funny, is out of his or her fricking mind!

Posted by Rihilism | October 13, 2007 7:55 PM

Apparently TimG didn't read or understand the link.

The fraud wouldn't be detected and thus wouldn't count against the states since the names and SSNs would match up.

Surely, if the Dems care so much about this they should be willing to put safeguards in the program to make sure it's not abused by those who shouldn't be here in the first place, right?

Of course, what's actually happening here is that the Dems don't mind if citizens of other countries get benefits, because the Dem leadership is completely corrupt.

Posted by TLB | October 13, 2007 8:29 PM

I think TimG just didn't get the "wacky humor".

So, TLB, why are your fellow Repubs choosing to support the legislation of those dastardly Democrats?

Surely they aren't stupid enough to provide cover for the Democrat's corrupt agenda, right? I think the Repubs need to do some house (and senate) cleaning to remove those who persist in perpetuating this codependent behavior.

Posted by Rihilism | October 13, 2007 9:08 PM

I don't like Krugman. In fact I despise him. The same could be said about Krauthammer.

Two wrongs don't make a right, which is something I think we could all learn from.

Posted by Shinyk | October 14, 2007 2:30 AM

you still manage to lower yourself to suggesting that certain parties are mentally unwell.

If, at my worst, I'm calling 9/11 deniars and "gay fixers" crazy, then I plead guilty and throw myself at the court's mercy.

Posted by Shinyk | October 14, 2007 2:37 AM

Ahem.

"Nothing could be less productive than assigning mental defect to anyone who disagrees with you."

"(though competition has not been stiff--Mos Def and Garofalo both seemed drugged out, scratchy and paranoid)."

"If, at my worst, I'm calling 9/11 deniars and "gay fixers" crazy, then I plead guilty and throw myself at the court's mercy."

"Two wrongs don't make a right, which is something I think we could all learn from."

Yes, agreed, we could all learn from this idiom. Or perhaps a more appropriate "idiom" would be "Do as I say, and not as I do".

On a side note, still no word on why "certain" Republicans are supporting SCHIP? I guess Hatch and Grassley have just become drug-addled, lunatic, paranoid dirty fucking hippies...

Posted by Rihilism | October 14, 2007 6:39 AM

I'm curious about something: Since money is fungible, and the Frosts have all four children in private school, and the Dems are eager to subsidize the Frosts' health care costs -- aren't Dems effectively subsidizing the school choice they dread?

Invert this for a moment: what if the Frosts had decided that buying family health insurance before their kid got hurt was more important than paying to have their kids go to schools without black people. Would the Dems have been willing to give them handouts to pay for private school? Of course not.

Posted by Juan | October 14, 2007 1:06 PM

"I'm curious about something: Since money is fungible, and the Frosts have all four children in private school, and the Dems are eager to subsidize the Frosts' health care costs -- aren't Dems effectively subsidizing the school choice they dread?"

I would if they were, but they're not so I don't.

Keep it up with the curiosity, though, someday you'll get it right...

Posted by Rihilism | October 14, 2007 3:38 PM

It's idiotic that kids on scholarships to private school can't have healthcare. It's idiotic to insist that children must be brought into this world - but if their parents can't or don't make healthcare available to them, they deserve to suffer and die. You can't have it both ways. You can't insist that you want to love and protect an unborn child and insist it does not deserve healthcare because you don't think the parents made all the right choices. Children deserve health care no matter what. I love Matt's posts on the topic. I'd like to see them all over the place!

Posted by rg | October 14, 2007 4:26 PM

rg,

Do you think you squeezed enough straw men into one paragraph? Do you really think this debate is about people who think children should "suffer and die" on one hand and good-hearted Dems who are bravely against children suffering and dying? If that's what you really think, you don't understand the issues.

Posted by Juan | October 14, 2007 5:05 PM

TLB: illegal immigrants are not and never have been eligible for SCHIP, nor would they be under any of the main proposals. The change you refer to would eliminate a documentation requirement for Medicaid, not SCHIP, and would mainly correct a 2006 law that has kicked many legit beneficiaries off the program without netting many illegal immigrants at all. Many US born citizens are unable to document their citizenship in a timely manner. ( PDF)

The change to this provision would tighten the rules for SCHIP and loosen them for Medicaid, and the main effect would be to let those Americans kicked off by the old law back onto the program.

As for whether or not fraud is detected, as I said, it's irrelevant, because the dollars are detected as they leave the treasury. Even if fraud is 100% spending on the program would be capped at $60 billion over five years.

Posted by TimG | October 15, 2007 5:03 PM

TLB: illegal immigrants are not and never have been eligible for SCHIP, nor would they be under any of the main proposals. The change you refer to would eliminate a documentation requirement for Medicaid, not SCHIP, and would mainly correct a 2006 law that has kicked many legit beneficiaries off the program without netting many illegal immigrants at all. Many US born citizens are unable to document their citizenship in a timely manner. ( PDF)

The change to this provision would tighten the rules for SCHIP and loosen them for Medicaid, and the main effect would be to let those Americans kicked off by the old law back onto the program.

As for whether or not fraud is detected, as I said, it's irrelevant, because the dollars are detected as they leave the treasury. Even if fraud is 100% spending on the program would be capped at $60 billion over five years.

Posted by TimG | October 15, 2007 5:04 PM