Creeping socialism is at full gallop in the Senate and quite a few on the right side of the aisle support its continued growth, it appears.
2 posted on
08/02/2007 9:58:34 PM PDT by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Welcome to FR. The Virtual Boot Camp for 'infidels' in waiting)
To: NormsRevenge
Senate OKs wider kids’ health program
Wider is code for FAT!
4 posted on
08/02/2007 10:00:06 PM PDT by
endthematrix
(He was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of crap to me.)
To: NormsRevenge
Is this the bill that defines “kids” as people up to age 24?
To: NormsRevenge
"It's moderate, it's bipartisan, it helps low-income kids. ... It's" MARXIST!
6 posted on
08/02/2007 10:03:41 PM PDT by
endthematrix
(He was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of crap to me.)
Through federal waivers, the program has expanded in many states to include middle-income children and adults. That has led Republicans to argue that it has become a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an increasing number of people.
8 posted on
08/02/2007 10:07:39 PM PDT by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Welcome to FR. The Virtual Boot Camp for 'infidels' in waiting)
To: NormsRevenge
I see that idiot Smith (RINO-OR) voted for it. Gonna have to go to his office next week and let him know I don't go for socialism lite from someone I voted for. I hear there's going to be a rolicking campaign for his seat this time around. Just when you need committed supporters to work their hearts out for your re-election is an ideal time to stab them with this kind of antic.
Nam Vet
10 posted on
08/02/2007 10:10:16 PM PDT by
Nam Vet
(Timely reporting from Attila's right flank)
To: NormsRevenge
Can anyone tell me what the tax increase on cigarettes is going to be?
11 posted on
08/02/2007 10:20:43 PM PDT by
torchthemummy
(Democrats: "Invincible In Peace - Invisible In War")
To: NormsRevenge
Hmmm. I would think “wider kids” would be less healthy. Why would the government want a “wider kids” health program?
To: NormsRevenge
The health program is designed to subsidize the cost of insurance for children whose families earn too much to participate in Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance. That's what this is "designed" for, but in reality what will happen is, millions of middle-income people who already have private health insurance will drop it for the subsidized (read: taxpayer-funded) handout. And the road to socialized healthcare rolls on......
18 posted on
08/02/2007 10:55:07 PM PDT by
hcd707
To: NormsRevenge
Bush has proposed spending $5 billion to extend the State Children's Health Insurance Program. He says the Senate's $35 billion expansion would balloon the decade-old program beyond its original mission of covering working poor children and would move more people toward government-run health care. And what would a Medicare medication enhancement program do?
This reasoning sounds as if it was some reporter's substitute explanation. I'm not convinced this administration is all that opposed to a government run healthcare program.
19 posted on
08/02/2007 10:57:12 PM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
To: NormsRevenge
Socialism at its best, on display in the halls of OUR congress, and with the support of so-called Republican, small-government types. This bill, if I understand it correctly, is to be funded in part by a $1.00-per-pack cigarette tax. Wait until the great unwashed amongst the entitled get a whopping dose of that brand of income distribution. There’ll be Hell to pay unless Dubya has the nads to veto this POS legislation.
21 posted on
08/02/2007 11:09:08 PM PDT by
thelastvirgil
(Lest ye put all your faith in the government to provide for you, check their track record.)
To: NormsRevenge
I calculate already the government spends 1 trillion on healthcare. Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, government employee and retiree and family health care insurance... and now programs like this for kids.. I might even be a little low.
Well that is 3300$ per capita we spend. France spends about that, but they have free universal health care for all. So why do we have to pay for that much publicly.. then pay that much again privately.
23 posted on
08/02/2007 11:38:58 PM PDT by
ran20
To: NormsRevenge
It also gave Democrats, who secured a veto-proof margin, a chance to draw a stark distinction between their priorities and Bush's on an issue that resonates with voters.Veto-proof in the Senate, but not in the House.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson