Don’t Think of a Sick Child: Bush and SCHIP

Yea, the fine print that I'm paying for health insurance for someone up to 25 years old. How about the fine print that covers a family of 4 up to 64K a year. Thats more than many with no kids make.
How about NOT having kids until you can pay for them.
We cover the poor and children now.
Its called Health Families.

This is the kind of sick incorrect reporting you are exposed to in California. This bill is ridiculously flawed. The bill is for POOR CHILDREN not their in-laws who make upwards of 80,000. What is so hard to understand. You sorry Democrats are using children to push your agenda of universal heathcare....first you find a kid who was investigated as being a fraud...to put in front of the tv cameras....I for one do not want to pay for families that make this much, and choose to drop their private plan to live off the government..if you choose a plasma tv over healthcare..that is a choice all Americans should never have taken away from them. I gather we are supposed to rejoice at giving illegals the full ride they are demanding???

Stop the propaganda- I may not agree with Bush on everything but he found a backbone on this one, and thank goodness he did!!!

Build the fence-

Lasonya: You may want to check out Swift-boating a 2-year old.... http://www.health-access.org/2007/10/swift-boating-2-year-old.htmwritten by Anthony Wright of Health Access California with links to articles about the politics of patient stories, with the now-infamous case of conservative media going after 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who benefited from SCHIP coverage and Wonkette's "Time's Swampland," with the lowering of the bar even further, to attack a 2-year old who got SCHIP coverage.

As Wright asks: Does it even matter that the attacks are full of holes? A full rebuttal of the heinous National Review article, is at
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13254.html

I'm confused. These childern qualify under the law as it stands now. With a Veto it does not take the insurance away form anyone who has it. This program you can put all your kids on, the more kids you have the more money you can make. A family of 5 can make 60K.
The poor get Medi-cal that is FREE.
What income level sould we stop paying for somone's Children health insurance? 100K 150K.
This new funding pays for Adults as well UP to 25. If it passes I'm sure they will want to raise it next year. 30? 35? How about them putting the Starbucks down and having some responsibility .

Jeff: There are many who fall through holes in the safety net now. And, unless I am mistaken, this is for a reauthorization of the program for which funding will expire with some changes made in eligiblity. Perhaps someone else can confirm this.

Someone please jump in.
What are the problems with the way it is running now, Bush was also adding 5 billon.
I'm sure some don't like paying the 7.00 a month, buy 3 months get your 4th month free program and don't sign up. If you google "Health families" it looks great program as it stands.

Frank, you need to access Michellemalkin.com-she is the one who uncovered the fraudulent story the Dems were purporting...since then they have found another family to use. Contrary to popular opinion, Conservatives uncovered the truth, as an example of "going after someone." you need only look at Senator Reid and Media Matters. Contact Rush Limbaugh if you have any problems gleaning the truth from the biased liberal media.

This SCHIP program has a stop-loss so children are still covered. The president is willing to add 5 billion dollars.for poor children, the Dems want to up the age range to 25, and families that make 83,000.00. If I am not mistaken, SCHIP is for POOR CHILDREN. Additionally they (Dems) want to increase it to 35 billion to cover families.

Jeff you are absolutely right, it is a great program the way it stands, with an increase of 5 bil-that makes it more than sufficient for POOR CHILDREN.

As I stated before this is a great foot in the door for universal healthcare--

By the way if Boxer was so worried about children why did she vote against them by supporting Hillary Clintons woodstock earmark? ( This is the first earmark is 15 years that has been crushed by an amendment.)

Frank, you need to access Michellemalkin.com-she is the one who uncovered the fraudulent story the Dems were purporting...since then they have found another family to use. Contrary to popular opinion, Conservatives uncovered the truth, as an example of "going after someone." you need only look at Senator Reid and Media Matters. Contact Rush Limbaugh if you have any problems gleaning the truth from the biased liberal media.

This SCHIP program has a stop-loss so children are still covered. The president is willing to add 5 billion dollars.for poor children, the Dems want to up the age range to 25, and families that make 83,000.00. If I am not mistaken, SCHIP is for POOR CHILDREN. Additionally they (Dems) want to increase it to 35 billion to cover families.

Jeff you are absolutely right, it is a great program the way it stands, with an increase of 5 bil-that makes it more than sufficient for POOR CHILDREN.

As I stated before this is a great foot in the door for universal healthcare--

By the way if Boxer was so worried about children why did she vote against them by supporting Hillary Clintons woodstock earmark? ( This is the first earmark is 15 years that has been crushed by an amendment.)

Frank, you need to access Michellemalkin.com-she is the one who uncovered the fraudulent story the Dems were purporting...since then they have found another family to use. Contrary to popular opinion, Conservatives uncovered the truth, as an example of "going after someone." you need only look at Senator Reid and Media Matters. Contact Rush Limbaugh if you have any problems gleaning the truth from the biased liberal media.

This SCHIP program has a stop-loss so children are still covered. The president is willing to add 5 billion dollars.for poor children, the Dems want to up the age range to 25, and families that make 83,000.00. If I am not mistaken, SCHIP is for POOR CHILDREN. Additionally they (Dems) want to increase it to 35 billion to cover families.

Jeff you are absolutely right, it is a great program the way it stands, with an increase of 5 bil-that makes it more than sufficient for POOR CHILDREN.

As I stated before this is a great foot in the door for universal healthcare--

By the way if Boxer was so worried about children why did she vote against them by supporting Hillary Clintons woodstock earmark? ( This is the first earmark in 15 years that has been crushed by an amendment.)

Eric,
George Bush does not want you to think about the sick childern! Great first line, now please educate me. What is wrong with the Health Families program the way it stands? You wrote a good piece now follow it up PLEASE.

Jeff: If you want to know about what the reauthorization bill did to cover more children, including in Califfornia, you should look at Anthony Wright's article
we published a while back.

Thanks Frank,
I read that and I don't see what the big deal is. CA is not disenrolling anyone. I looks like they just did not raise the financial qualifications to get it. It can't be that simple paying for health insurance for a famiily that makes 80K+

don't forget, socialized medicine is the agenda....I cannot believe the level of stalinistic liberalists California is harboring...patriots definitely have their work cut out!

Post a comment