Saturday, October 20, 2007

Sick and Tired of This SCHIP

You must have heard something by now about how evil President Bush vetoed health care for millions of children.

Actually, aside from the political games some lawmakers are playing with kids' health, "SCHIP is a discretionary spending program run by the states and designed mainly to provide private insurance for children of low-income families that are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. About 92 percent of the children receiving coverage under this bill would be from families earning up to twice the federal poverty level. The bill would expand coverage from 6.6 million children to 9.8 million children and deny SCHIP eligibility to children of illegal aliens and adults." (from Thomas Voting Reports' Roll Call, 10-19-07)

Did you read that? Did you notice the line, "About 92 percent of the children receiving coverage under this bill would be from families earning up to twice the federal poverty level" ...?

To me, that's key -- that is the difference between helping the "needy" get medical insurance and the liberals' goal of completely socialized health care (that you pay for).

Listen to me: If your income is twice the poverty level, you are not poor.

If your income is twice the poverty level and you do not have health insurance, then you are not spending your money wisely, period.

If you make that much money and don't have enough cash left for health insurance, then your priorities are screwed, and the rest of us taxpayers should not have to cover for your stupidity.

You know? I'm so sick and tired of people trying to take my money and give it to other people who are irresponsible.

Here's the worst part -- I can't even blame this solely on the Democrats, or libs, or lefties, or whatever you want to call the gang of whiners that usually have their hands in our pockets, because Chris Shays, that dope, voted to override the veto.

Just one more reason to get that guy out of office. It's bad enough when left-wingers try and screw us out of money, but when people from the "conservative" party encourage such behavior, and follow it, it's time for them to get the boot.

Kick out Chris Shays, and get someone who has a clue.


Karen Olson said...

Do you know what the poverty level is for a family of four? $20,650. So double that and it's about $40,000-$41,000. Okay, do you know how much it costs for insurance if you are not provided a crappy plan by your employer? Maybe you could get a private plan for about $600 a month. But that usually carries deductibles of at least $1,000 or more, usually more. And don't even get me started on prescription costs. That doesn't leave a lot left over for a family of four. Under Connecticut's HUSKY plan, which is one of the programs that works, kids can get health insurance if their family qualifies.

Why do you think this is a bad thing to expand this sort of program nationwide? What's so wrong with it, taking care of our nation's kids who are not privileged enough to have health insurance?

Al said...

I'm pretty serious. I don't believe in a nanny state.

To me, $41,300 a year, or $3,441 a month (2007 federal poverty level for a family of four) is plenty. Housing, food and utilities are what someone needs to live just fine, and $41G is more than enough to provide that.

Why do so many people have such difficulty discerning luxuries vs. necessities? The key is choosing to buy yourself health insurance instead of luxuries. Here, right off the top of my head, here are some items I pay for regularly that I totally could do without if I had to:
Cell phone - $50/month
Cable TV - $70/month
Internet service - $45/month
Smoking (figuring 1/2-pack a day, so 15 packs a month, at $5 a pack -- which is actually a "light" smoker) - $75/month
So, there's $240 a month that I truly don't "need" to be spending.

My family health insurance plan costs me $190 a month. I could pay for it and still keep my cell phone.

And when you get into being conservative with your energy use, and frugal in terms of groceries and clothing, there's a savings there as well that can really add up.

You know, no one ever said it was fun not having money, but that's the way it is. Sure, second-hand clothes may not be as nice as new designer ones, but it's a choice that someone has to make. So, I should pay because someone else has their priorities all twisted around?

Funny thing is, we already pay to have governmental programs to teach people how to manage their lives. So we get hit twice for the same irresponsible people?

I don't like people expecting the government -- state or federal -- to keep paying for things for other people: The less of my paycheck the government takes, the more I get to keep.

Part of my problem with this whole SCHIP thing is that no one is looking at it realistically. Someone making $41G a year is likely in a position where there are health benefits available -- if not, then that person should attempt to find a job that does provide such benefits -- for chrissake, Wal-Mart gives part-timers health insurance at a lower cost then what I pay in my "professional" job.

You know, I'm a compassionate guy. If someone is dirt-poor, then we should help them while they figure out how to do it themselves. But we don't, we just keep giving people money and too many just piss it away.

I'll feel better about food stamps when I stop seeing kids use it to buy soda and candy in the convenience store.

I'll feel better about housing aid when I stop seeing satellite dishes on the roof and Acuras in the parking lot.

Basically, I'll feel better about the government giving people handouts when Democrats allow the government to make sure those people are making an effort to not need a handout.