Republicans Not Only Hate Kids...
Labels: Children, Congress, Healthcare, Republican Party
posted by The Local Crank | 10:22 PM
The Local Crank
Musings & Sardonic Commentary on Politics, Religion, Culture & Native American Issues. Bringing you the finest in radioactive screeds since 2002! "The Local Crank" newspaper column is distributed by Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.
About Me
- Name: The Local Crank
- Location: Cleburne, Texas, United States
Just a simple Cherokee trial lawyer, Barkman has been forcing his opinions on others in print since, for reasons that passeth understanding, he was an unsuccessful candidate for state representative in 2002. His philosophy: "If people had wanted me to be nice, they should've voted for me."
- Keeping Our Word
- Signs & Portents
- Righting a Wrong
- Super Duper Tuesday After Action Report
- Dubya vs. Indian Country, the Saga Continues
- The Canadian Menace!
- WWJD?
- Goodnight and Thank You
- I Am the Book
- News Round-Up
Links
- Google News
- Remembering Tocqueville
- Media Matters for America
- Mr. Tourguide
- The Moderate Voice
- Blue Gal
- Grits for Breakfast
- The Defense Perspective
- Common Sense
- Ragebot (formerly Blognonymous)
- Crooks & Liars
- Somervell County Salon
- IAVA, formerly Operation:Truth
- Cleburne Times-Review
- Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.
- The (Liberal) Girl Next Door
- Three Wise Men
- The Quaker Agitator
- Rabble Rouser's Forum
- Rachel's Tavern
- Tsalagi Think Tank
- John Cornsilk's Place
- Wampum
- Sean Nordwall for Cherokee Tribal Council
- Elohi Gadugi Journal
- The Native Blog
4 Comments:
The program had major problems, like the fact that it was intended as a sort of welfare health-care system for needy children who could not afford but ended up including a growing number of rich people and adults. The expansion would have brought more rich adults into it. A means-test and age-test cutoff should be a must.
"The expansion would have brought more rich adults into it."
Define "rich." And define it in such a way as it applies equally in Manhattan, rural West Virginia and the Navajo Reservation.
Those making 70K are quite well off, regardless of where you are. I don't think they belong on welfare programs.
I'm all for welfare programs. but for the poor only. I think they should be expanded, but for the poor only.
And what about the adults in it? Is the "Children" in the name nothing more than a rhetorical trick to sell it as a "We care for the children" program?
"Those making 70K are quite well off, regardless of where you are"
So, $70K is "rich" in Manhattan? And San Francisco? What's the average cost of living there as opposed to, say, the Navajo Reservation?
"I don't think they belong on welfare programs."
SCHIP is welfare? You do know you have to pay for it, right? And co-pays? And you don't get it unless you have a job?
'Is the "Children" in the name nothing more than a rhetorical trick to sell it as a "We care for the children" program?'
I think the Democrats were deliberately trying to expand it to adults under the radar, so to speak. But you'll notice that the House Minority Whip didn't brag about keeping "rich adults" off the program; he bragged about keeping "more kids" off.
Post a Comment
<< Home