Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Psst! Dems Hint They Haven't the Votes to Override SCHIP Veto”

« Sing Along With Sanchez - Minor Update | Main | Midnight by the Morphy Watcher »

October 15, 2007

Psst! Dems Hint They Haven't the Votes to Override SCHIP Veto

Hatched by Dafydd

The Squeaker squirms

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 95%) has as much as admitted yet another Democratic failure: They don't have the votes to override President Bush's veto of the bloated and metastisized Democratic version of renewal of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.

But let's not start backways-round; before we jump into the current Democratic travails, let us dress the stage...

We commence with the first oddity: In the current bill, the massive Democratic expansion of SCHIP into a middle-class entitlement program would be funded by an increase in the federal tax on cigarettes and cigars -- which, funnily enough, would be a very regressive tax that primarily hits the poor. Thus, under the new Democratic plan, the poor are taxed to subsidize the middle class.

Worse, if smokers respond to the tax hike by cutting back on smoking, the feds lose the revenue stream that is supposed to pay for the expansion; this would turn the federal government into a cheerleader for increased smoking.

This element fits a growing Democratic-Party pattern: The use of taxes to force social change. Now, this is not the exclusive property of Democrats; consider the home mortgage interest tax deduction, the purpose of which is to get more people to buy homes instead of rent. Its origin in shrouded in mystery, but no Congress or president since, Democrat or Republican, has actually pushed for its abolition (several have talked the talk).

However, rather than use tax incentives to encourage good behavior, Democrats have made a fetish of using punitive taxation to punish behavior they don't like, such as smoking. But not just cigarettes:

Many Democrats (Mort Kondracke, for one) have argued in favor of huge taxes on gasoline to "force" people to drive less; similar ideas include a "gas-guzzler" tax or specifically an SUV tax.

The proposed "carbon tax" is suppose to punish people for using energy.

Democrats have also proposed taxes on fatty foods and transfats;

Guns and ammunition;

Luxuries (including the infamous yacht tax that led to a collapse of the yacht-building industry, resulting in mass layoffs of middle-income workers -- and the swift repeal of the yacht tax);

A proposed tax on houses larger than 3,000 square feet;

And taxes on alcohol.

In each case, Democrats have proposed the tax primarily for the purpose of controlling behavior, not raising revenue. (And except for the proposed taxes on fat or transfat, these nanny-state taxes are aimed squarely at Republicans.)

Punitive, behavior-modifying taxes distort the market, thereby damaging the economy. But that's not the worst market distortion caused by the Democrats' proposed expansion of SCHIP.

The program was originally intended to cover the gap between children below the poverty line, who can get health-care through Medicaid, and children whose families earn up to 200% of poverty (twice $21,000 per year, or $42,000) but still have a tough time paying for health insurance. But when it came up for renewal, Democrats forced through a massive expansion of the program to cover children whose families earn far above the previous ceiling -- in some cases, up to four times the poverty line, or $84,000 per year -- as well as covering these "children" well into their twenties. Thus, they took a program aimed at helping the working poor and transmogrified it into a new middle class entitlement program.

[Corrected Medicare to Medicaid above; thanks, commenter Cdquarles!]

Worse, analyses by many economists showed that with such an expansion, the most likely outcome would be that many upper-middle income families who already have private health insurance would simply drop it and take the much cheaper, smoker-subsidized SCHIP insurance instead; that is, the net effect would be to shift millions of families away from private health-care insurance and onto government-run health care -- basically, Medicaid for all.

Republicans argue that this was precisely the reason the Democrats want to expand SCHIP in the first place: To shift health insurance from the private to the public sector, thus vastly expanding the reach of government... and creating thousands more government workers, who will join the Service Employees International Union and raise more millions for Democrats.

SCHIP was originally crafted in 1997 by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA, 100%) and then First Lady, now Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Carpetbag, 95%); but the Politico recently reported about a White House memo from four years earlier, 1993, in the swirling aftermath of the failure of Hillary's first attempt to nationalize health care.

The memo was from Hillary's staff, arguing that the best way to push socialized medicine onto the American people was first to expand government health-care programs for poor children into the middle class, then use that as the camel's nose, pulling the rest of the beast into the tent:

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured....

“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”

It's hard to read this memo, note the SCHIP program enacted three years later, and then study the expansion pushed by Democrats today, and not see a pattern unfolding, just as in the memo promises.

President Bush repeatedly warned Democrats during the current debate -- from which negotiations the administration was shut out -- that such an expansion and change from the original intent of SCHIP (covering poor kids) would force him to veto the bill. He kept his promise. This gave the Democrats what they appeared to want... a big confrontation with President Bush over health care.

The idea was that Republicans, frightened and gunshy of being attacked for wanting children to die through lack of health care, would vote to override, and Bush would be crushed. Certainly all the inside-the-beltway pundits, including those on the Right (such as the Republican side of the "Beltway Boys," Fred "the Grump" Barnes, and syndicated columnist Charles "the Sauerkraut" Krauthammer) opined that Republicans would be mauled so badly they would have to relent. The Democrats decided to delay the override vote by two weeks, to give the natural paranoia of Republican senators and representatives time to flood their nerve endings, reducing them to lime Jell-O.

But now it appears the opposite has happened: The two-week breathing space gave the GOP time to calm themselves, marshall their arguments, and find a spine... and the Democrats have as much as admitted they will lose the fight. From the AP article linked above:

House Democratic leaders said Sunday they were working to gather votes to override a veto on a popular children's health program, but pledged to find a way to cover millions without insurance should their effort fail....

In talk show interviews, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer did not dispute claims by Republican leaders that the GOP will have enough votes to sustain Bush's veto when the House holds its override vote on Thursday.

But the confrontation gets even more churlish -- and even more surreal. Consider this:

At the same time, the White House sought to chide the Democratic-controlled Congress as the obstructionists in reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It said Democrats were the ones who had shown unwillingness to compromise.

Deputy press secretary Tony Fratto quoted President Bush as saying he is "willing to work with members of both parties from both houses" on the issue....

Pelosi and Hoyer promised to pass another bipartisan bill if needed....

"We'll take one step at a time. And, again, we'll maintain our bipartisanship and our fiscal soundness," she said. "And we'll talk to the president at the right time, when he makes an overture to do so, but not an overture that says, 'This is the only thing I'm going to sign.'"

Fratto said it was untrue that Bush had never sought compromise in the vetoed legislation, contending that Democrats had shut out administration officials in the original negotiations. House Democrats have countered that they had already compromised enough because they wanted $50 billion [extra] for the program but dropped it down to $35 billion to appease Senate Republicans.

In other words, Democrats admit that they did not trouble to consult with the president while crafting the bill; they decided instead to treat him like a beggar at the window, presenting him with a take-it-or-leave-it fait accompli. Presumably, they thought this would be more likely to force a confrontation, which (at the time) they were confident of winning.

But now that they have failed, they still won't admit there was anything wrong with the first approach. Rather, they're trying to make lemonade out of a sow's ear by passing a completely new bill... on which they will presumably make the very compromises they refused to make on the first bill!

The tenure of Nancy Pelosi in the House and Senate Majority Leader Harry "Pinky" Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 90%) has been disastrous for the Democrats. Rather than become a strong and effective voice opposing the White House and serving as a springboard for Democrat-written bipartisan legislation, the Not Ready for Prime Time Congress has become a laughingstock:

Failing to pass critical legislation (such as any of the appropriations bills required to run the government);

Frittering their time away with endless partisan "investigations" of the president's policies, attempting to criminalize political differences;

And lunging for more Legislative power at the expense of the Executive -- trying either to end or at least micromanage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, creating huge new middle-class entitlement programs, and trying to conduct their own shadow foreign policy in opposition to the president's.

In 1994, when the Republicans led by Newt Gingrich took over Congress following Hillary's failed socialized-medicine coup d'état, they immediately set about passing actual bipartisan legislation... and they worked closely with President Bill Clinton on such critically needed reforms as tax cuts, protecting traditional marriage, reducing the welfare rolls, health-insurance portability from job to job, lobbying disclosure, and the first major telecommunications act in more than six decades. Each of these acts was passed by a Republican Congress with Democratic support and signed by a Democratic president.

But when the Democrats took over Congress last January, they appear to believe that meant the president and congressional Republicans were now irrelevant. Like the Jacobites of the French Revolution, the Democrats' battle cry seems to be "We are the masters now!"

And not unexpectedly, their results have been nonexistent and their impact nil. Democrats may still coast to a few more pickups in November 2008, though it's far to early to rule out Republicans recapturing one or both houses. But it's clear that Democrats are unable to do the heavy lifting and make the compromises necessary to turn their perfect-storm victory last year into a lasting majority: Their tenure will be brief and unremembered, like the two-year Senate interregnum caused by Jumpin' Jim Jeffords' defection.

The only legacy that will be left from the Pelosi-Reid Congress -- will be the Boehner-McConnell Congress.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 15, 2007, at the time of 12:12 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2495

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

I hope the veto can sustained, however, I also think that even if it is, this ain't over.

I do not think that expanding the S-CHIP program to 400% of poverty is the thing to do. However, I have to say that some of the tactics I have seen employed by some people on the right in regards to the Frost family have not helped their cause. {It was not necessary to do drive bys of their home and grill the neighbors and try to dig up dirt on them, etc} Those votes in Congress can be gotten without going after people personally.

Which is just what you did. I commend you for it.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 15, 2007 3:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

"Thus, they took a program aimed at helping the working poor and transmogrified it into a new middle class entitlement program."

Transmogrified! I love it.

Jaylord a commenter over at CQ said the other day:

Two guys sitting in a filthy living room on a ratty couch playing a violent video game, pizza boxes and beer bottles lying everywhere. The guys are obviously in their early twenties, scraggly facial hair, bad tatoos, unkempt hair and dirty concert teeshirts.

Guy One: (stops playing and shakes hand) Dude! I've been playing for three days straight and my hand really hurts! Time to go to the doctor.

Guy Two: But dude! You haven't had a job since you dropped out of college. How you gonna afford a doctor?

Guy One: No sweat dude! Hillary and the gang's got my back. They passed that SCHIP thingy and now I get free health care. Who needs a job when Hillary's taking care of you? (Takes a big swig of beer and belches out) Thanks Hillary!

Guy Two: (Also takes a big swig of beer and belches out) Yeah, thanks Hillary!
Both laugh and start playing the video game again...

Those votes in Congress can be gotten without going after people personally.

While I agree with your premise here Terrye, it should be pointed out that it was the Democratic party that selected and marched this family into the public spotlight. And this was not the best choice the dems needed with the family's questionable assets.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin at October 15, 2007 7:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: patrick neid

While the events, bills, votes etc change the central problem remains. Repubs, Bush in particular, lack speaking skills to convey in any meaningful manner the logic behind their positions.

If both party's spokespersons were reversed the dems would be an extreme minority. Look how the repubs have let Cheney be turned into satan. Watching or listening to average repub on TV is sometimes akin to going to a debate on mathematics. Repubs would have a hard time selling heat in the arctic. I do realize that the MSM has a lot to do with this but still....

The above hissed in response by: patrick neid at October 15, 2007 10:23 AM

The following hissed in response by: SlimGuy

The exposure of the Frost situation showed how the program is already touching people who by lack of responsibility and personal choice are being subsidized by the system.

Expansion into higher income brackets will only result in more of the same.

Sure there needs to be a recognition of the fact that 40k in Mississippi goes farther than 40K in California or NYC but other than that this expansion should fall under it's own weight.

If they don't over ride the veto, plan B will be to see how much they can still up the ante GW is willing to give beyond the 5Billion he wants.

He said 5, they wanted 35.

There are plenty of posts on the web that show even the Dem proposal would require over 22 million new smokers to fund their project without taking into account casual smokers just quiting and lowering their revenue projections and thus have to make it up from the general funds.

Also look at their cost projections over the five years and you will see that they cut rising yearly costs in half in the last year to make the numbers fit.

Oh an the Family is supposed to be paraded out on CountDown tonight.

The above hissed in response by: SlimGuy at October 15, 2007 10:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: SlimGuy

Kos over in his lair has his take posted on the matter today.

He is trying to make political mileage out of it rather than argue it on the merits.

Why am I not shocked.

The above hissed in response by: SlimGuy at October 15, 2007 10:53 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

The Frost family did not need to be "exposed", they did not commit a crime. In fact I think the right walked right into a trap where the Frosts were concerned.

This program was not intended for destitute people, that is what medicaid is for.

Going after the Frosts personally only complicates the issue.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 15, 2007 12:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Terrye:

The Frost family did not need to be "exposed", they did not commit a crime. In fact I think the right walked right into a trap where the Frosts were concerned.

Terrye, the problem with this position is that it comes disturbingly close to what your bête noire, Ann Coulter, noted about the Jersey Girls, et al: the Left is claiming that Graeme Frost has "absolute moral authority" (as Coulter put it in the other context) because of his age, hence it's not allowed to argue with him -- or the position he espouses.

If we allow this position to hold, then such "untouchables" will be trotted out for every political argument, and we'll be utterly stymied. Thus, at some point very soon, we must take a principled stand against the despicable practice of putting aggressively political, liberal arguments in the mouths of widows and orphans, the handicapped, and innocent babes.

True, the argument requires delicacy that Coulter is likely incapable of displaying; but give her credit at least as a dialectical diagnostician!

We need to make the argument that, even though the argument for the Democratic expansion of SCHIP is made by a 12 year old, rather than by Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer, we're still allowed to argue back. One way of doing so is to expose the essential fraud of the Graeme Frost meme.

No, they're not criminals; but they are bunko artists, trying to trick the American people into believing that Bush wants to throw young Graeme under the bus. It's important to show that contrariwise, rather than the poor victim of a heartless Republican machine, Frost is in fact the emblem of just what the GOP is saying: That SCHIP is working just fine and should be reauthorized as the president said.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 15, 2007 1:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

Unless there is some evidence that the Frosts did something illegal or unethical spending our time and energy going after them only plays into the hands of the Democrats. No doubt they can easily find people who are far more sympathetic to take the place of the Frosts if that is all that is necessary to gain support for the program.

The point is the Frost qualified for the program as it now stands, they do not need for it to be expanded to 400%.

Personally I find the idea of doing drive bys of their home and grilling their neighbors just because they came forward and supported the program to be tasteless.

And I think it will backfire on Republicans. I agree with you, in that the program should not be expanded, but I really think that going after the Frosts is tone deaf politically.

I liked your post because you made such a good case without even mentioning the Frosts. It was informative and classy.

As far as untouchables is concerned, we on the right do not really care for it when people go after the troops. Nor would I think it was acceptable for someone to dig up dirt on some family in the snow flake baby program just because they appeared at the White House to endorse a poltical position.

So while I am not saying that people should be untouchable, that does not make it ok to attack these people on a personal level for utilizing a program that was available to them.

After all, they are not the only people on that program, there are undoubtedly many others. If they admit to using this program can they expect the same kind of treatment?

I work in health care and I know a lot of people who live very comfortable lives and they have family members on some support of government funded health care. Who is going to be looking into their finances and their personal lives?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 15, 2007 2:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

This is the kind of thing that concerns me. I think it is bad politics and counter productive.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 15, 2007 2:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Terrye,
The Frosts did nothing illegal. They merely lied and used their child to promote a lefty take over of our health care system. And hopefully the law will not be changed to give them access to a program they have no real need for.
Going after the fact of their manipulative posing on behalf of Hillary-care lite is not a bad thing.

The above hissed in response by: hunter at October 15, 2007 3:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

What I am trying to say is that there are hundreds if not thousands of people on this program. If all that is needed to make a case for it is the perfectly vetted family...then what happens if the Democrats find them? Will the entire case against expanding the S-SHIP program collapse?

I hope not.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 15, 2007 3:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

hunter:

Is there any indication that these people lied to the US Government? Really? Or is that just something the right is saying they said?

These people could have lost their children. Maybe you don't think that is any big deal, but I think it is tacky attacking them after something like that.

In fact I am beginning to feel more sympathetic to them, not less.

As for this being a lefty program, it has been around for a decade and the issue here is not whether or not to kill the program but whether or not to expand it. And that expansion would not have effected the Frosts in any case.

But if being in good with the right means I have to go after these people, then just forget it. I want no part of that.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 15, 2007 3:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

After all, they are not the only people on that program, there are undoubtedly many others. If they admit to using this program can they expect the same kind of treatment?

Terrye, it's not about those that are qualified for the program AS IS!....It's the fact that this is a slippery slope will lead to another unfunded entitlement that WILL be extended and expanded to the point where we are today with social security (which is broke)

This is why if we don't go after the Frost, who (in my opinion) had the assets to purchase private insurance before the accident. I'm glad the kids were covered for humanities sake, but if the dems still have controll down the road, they will add to the low number (40k,50k,60k etc.) until it becomes an outright government socialized and funded care for all.

This is why I posted the story above about the lazy 20 year olds bragging about being qualified for SCHIP......because it will be true soon enough.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin at October 15, 2007 6:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Rovin:

These people {the Frosts} qualified for and got this program after Bush became president right? The Bush administration did not keep them from getting it did they? They must have felt they qualified.

As far as the 20 something year olds I agree, but then I had a friend who had to pay child support even after his child was old enough to buy beer so there are a lot of rules about 23 year olds I don't agree with.

And I also think the program should not be expanded, the slippery slope thing is part of that.

However, I think the president can make a good case without character assasinations of the Frosts.

What is the point to that in the long run? If we make it all about the Frosts, the Democrats will just come up with a more sympathetic family. And besides that it just looks petty.

The thing to do is make it about the policy, because I really think the Republicans do better when they talk about it in those terms. Just tell people what 400% of poverty really is, that kind of thing.

The president has a good case.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 15, 2007 7:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Terrye,
They were not under oath, and they were merely lying to advance another democratic agenda item - the destruction of private health insurance. Just like the Pelosi led attempt to destroy the GWOT, put our troops at grave peril and help the terrorists, their lies are mere roadbumps. The point is that Schip does not need to be expanded so that upwardly mobile but cheap parents are covered.
Would it not be great if the democrats would encourage private medical savings accounts, instead of undermine private industry?

The above hissed in response by: hunter at October 15, 2007 8:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: Fat Man

# Many Democrats (Mort Kondracke, for one) have argued in favor of huge taxes on gasoline to "force" people to drive less; similar ideas include a "gas-guzzler" tax or specifically an SUV tax.
# The proposed "carbon tax" is suppose to punish people for using energy.

Not so. Lots of conservatives are on board with this idea, including Greg Mankiw, Charles Krauthammer, and me.

The above hissed in response by: Fat Man at October 15, 2007 8:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Terrye:

Terrye, will you please stop arguing like a liberal?

I said only one thing: That the Democrats have put forward Graeme Frost precisely because they believe, as a 12 year old, he has "absolute moral authority;" and we ought not stand for it.

You immediately responded as if I'd applauded people "going after them" and doing "drive bys" of their house -- you mean shooting them? Where on earth did you get the idea that I condoned violent attacks on the Frosts?

Please answer my point, not its second cousin, twice removed: Do you believe that all the Democrats need do is get a widow, orphan, handicapped person, or child to be the spokesperson for some liberal cause... and we are thence barred from disputing anything he says?

If not -- if you believe that we have the right to respond to the political pronouncements of 9/11 widows, paraplegics, street bums, and children -- then you agree with my (only) point. Everything else you argued against came from somebody other than me.

[W]e on the right do not really care for it when people go after the troops.

Like Scott Thomas Beauchamp? Al Gore? John Kerry? Being a current or former soldier also doesn't confer "absolute moral authority;" even civilians are allowed to argue politics with a serviceman.

What matters is the exact definition of "going after." If the term means spreading lies and false accusations about someone, or maliciously revealing irrelevant personal details as a means of hurting him, then that's wrong unless the target is a serious threat who must be stopped (like a Hussein or Ahmadinejad).

But if by "going after him," you mean only demolishing his arguments one by one, showing that he himself does not practice what he preaches, or that his case is special pleading... there is nothing wrong with that, even if the target has some pathetic infirmity.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 15, 2007 10:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Terrye:

This is the kind of thing that concerns me.

You link to a Baltimor Sun article. Did you notice that the author, Matthew Hay Brown, couldn't find the time to interview anybody but the Frosts and their supporters? Doesn't that seem a bit one-sided to you?

Did you notice that Brown didn't even provide a link to the anonymous commenter on Redstate, the only person reported as writing anything remotely close to a "drive by?" Without a link, we cannot tell who the commenter is -- a regular or an outsider. We cannot see what the other commenters said about that comment, or how the blogowner responded. We don't even know whether it was a comment by an actual conservative, or by some liberal posing as his caricature of a conservative, just to promote the Frosts.

(If you think that's just paranoid, that nobody engages in such disinformation campaigns, then I conclude you haven't been following this story out of George Washington University.)

The Baltimore Sun piece is propaganda, plain and simple: They're running interference for the Frosts and the Democrats who used them.

And here is a link to the full text of Graeme Frost's remarks. Reading this little speech, what image do you get about the economic level of the Frosts? I get the picture of a poor family, barely scraping by, hovering on the brink of poverty.

I certainly would not think of a family who earns, each year, the entire cost of their nice-sized house in 1990. Terrye, the Frosts are not impoverished or even lower middle income; they are solidly middle.

But that isn't the impression they chose to leave via Graeme's speech. Were it not for all these people on "the right," we would still be thinking that the wretched President Bush just wants to hurt poor kids. As Graeme put it:

I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP.

Aren't you at all concerned about a 12 year old accusing the president of being a child-hating thug? I don't see anything in what you wrote to indicate that you are.

Is there any indication that these people lied to the US Government? Really? Or is that just something the right is saying they said?

Who on "the right" is saying this? That unknown blogger at Redstate? "Icwhatudo" at the bulletin-board system Free Republic? Don't you see how absurd this is?

On the left, we have the Majority Leader in the Senate, the Squeaker of the House, the House Majority Whip, the Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and the likely Democratic nominee for President of the United States bearing false witness against a talk-show host, falsely and maliciously accusing Rush Limbaugh of having called every vet who opposes the Iraq war strategy a "phony soldier" (which we all now know he never said).

So to balance that, we have to note that some nameless troglodyte left a comment on some blog! Isn't there somewhat of a distinction here?

These people could have lost their children. Maybe you don't think that is any big deal, but I think it is tacky attacking them after something like that.

I'm sorry, I missed this point. Did someone on Big Lizards say he wouldn't think it was a big deal if a couple of kids were killed in a car crash? Or was that Michelle Malkin or Sean Hannity? Terrye, what on earth are you talking about?

However, I think the president can make a good case without character assasinations of the Frosts.

Bush has been assassinating the Frosts' characters? Where are you reading all this? I haven't seen anything of the sort.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 15, 2007 11:27 PM

The following hissed in response by: MarkJM

Thank you Dafydd for trying to enlighten Terrye. AJ Strata at Stratasphere picks up on the same Rep bashing (by picking up 'commenters' comments (some good, some bad)) and generically applying it to the entire party. This does not help strengthen the base to expose the lies being perpetrated here. And they ARE lies, not their eligibility for the program, though perhaps questionable, but that GWB is denying coverage! They (Frosts) received coverage with the current plan, to say that GWB is denying coverage for like circumstances by not signing this middle class entitlement is PURE FALSEHOOD and needs to be exposed for what it is.

The above hissed in response by: MarkJM at October 16, 2007 7:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: TheBeardedDragon

I know this is a little off topic seeing how serious the comments are getting, but...

Every time I see "Pinky" associated with that Senator from NV I cringe as I think back to one of the all time greatest cartoons ever created, "Pinky and the Brain".

I hesitate to even bring up this matter as it may result in a certain senator from NY (President of the US) and her spousal counterpart (Secretary-General of the UN) being collectively referred to as the "Brain" for their aspirations to "Take over the world!"

The above hissed in response by: TheBeardedDragon at October 16, 2007 9:07 AM

The following hissed in response by: MarkJM

Ha! Dragon. A perfect interjection of levity! One of my favorites, as I think the same thing whenever I hear 'Pinky'. Have a great day!

The above hissed in response by: MarkJM at October 16, 2007 9:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

One minor nit. Medicare is the Federal "insurance" program for the elderly and disabled. Medicaid (Medi-Cal for you) is the State matched "insurance" program for the poor, mainly children and nursing home residents.

Will someone explain why this is a government function anyway?

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles at October 16, 2007 6:18 PM