Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

A very intelligent and honorable man, but the articles leans severely to the right.....sm

Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-03-03
In Reply to: I'm Tired... - sm

I tipped over twice reading it. I am not trying to be mean or facetious, I think sometimes people feel so strongly in their beliefs,and I agree with many of his beliefs, that they comes get "tunnel vision", they lose their peripheral vision for that part of humanity that has been good and honest, but has been dealt some very bad, unfair blows and needs help. In my own heart and opinion, there is a difference between radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and mainstream, peaceful, truly religions Muslims, and have have met and worked with many with lovely families. Basically, the author seems to want to cling onto an idealistic life where everything is fair, the good guys always win, and there is only black and white. Well, there are lots of shades of gray in between, and like it or not (and I grew up in the Beaver Cleaver generation), the earth has moved on, time has moved on, and we have to deal effectively with WHAT IS. Yup, I am tired too, especially since my husband and I both have health issues, we certainly aren't kids anymore, and retirement is looking more and more like a pipe dream, even though we invested, sacrificed, and saved. But whining or wishing will not solve anything, as Americans we are famous for pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and getting the job done, and our job now is to work together, search out viable answers, care for each other, and pull through this depression INTACT AND WHOLE. Off my ratty soapbox now!


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Well, they should've done the honorable thing

and not invite the president if they hate him so much.  Its obivious the only reason he was invited was to be humiliated which shows the total lack of class of the whole group.  I'M SURE that no matter how much Mrs. King disagreed with GWB she would have had the class and consideration not to turn her funeral into a zing fest of the president.  She was a very gentle and kind woman.


Anyway the NAACP knew what they were doing.  They invited him so if he did come they could humiliate him, and if he didn't come they could crucify him in the press for not coming.


This should disturb every honorable citizen

Our own government won't even let us be free.......


http://52.thelastoutpost.com/video-4/police-state/cia-embedded-in-every-state-government.html


 


When he was the honorable senator from Illinois...
Amnesty is the largest of these rewards and gives illegal aliens a path to citizenship or makes them instantly legal. Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Senator Barack Obama has voted in favor of giving illegal aliens further rewards and other incentives to come such as in-state tuition, educational benefits, welfare and health care services.

As have most of the members of his party. And they do it because they want their votes...heck if you were in this country illegally and one of the parties was for giving you everything but the kitchen sink, wants you to be allowed to vote, etc....wouldn't YOU vote for them???

No, I don't blame him personally...although he has to take personal credit since he voted for it...I blame the PARTY. For you to deny it is, in your words...UNFREAKINBELIEVABLE. But then all the Obama worshippers are pretty unfreakinbelievable...sigh.


Snopes.com leans to the left

Snopes.com leans to the left


July 29th, 2008 · No Comments · General Politics, Politics



Like many others I have used Snopes.com to check things out and make sure what I am reading is actually true.  I never really questioned them before, but then the other day I was reading an item on AL Gore and I began wondering to myself, why are they trying to justify why Gore said this.


I then started to look at other items and found the same thing.  Even when accusations were found to be true about liberals, Snopes would try to either explain it away or defend the position.  Unbeknown to me, this has already been well documented by others for items on the Clintons, John Kerry, Gore, and Barack Obama.


I did a little research and found that the site is run by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a couple from California.  From all accounts I have read, they are Obama supporters, but then of course probably support other Democratic candidates as well.


Now I am not saying that Snopes.com is a completely useless site because they usually do a good job on hoax emails…especially outside of politics. But you should always read what they say with a critical eye and be wary when they don’t just give the facts and start to defend a position.  If you see this I would suggest you check out other fact checking sites to collaborate what they say.


Snopes leans to the left

I can see a blind conservative thinking that perhaps Snopes is politically motivated toward the left. However, just for fun, I looked up the issue of Osama Bin Laden’s family being flown out of the U.S. immediately following the 9/11 attacks, when most air traffic had been grounded. Snopes says this, too, was false. Here, it quotes heavily from the 9/11 commission. Members of the Bin Laden family, the commission concludes, were not flown out before air space were re-opened.


But Snopes, via the 9/11 commission citations, does show that the Bin Ladens were flown out September 20th. The FBI questioned them, but then let them fly out. The commission also says one of the FBI agents who questioned the family was a pilot for the flight, though the vagueness of the report could lead one to conclude that the FBI agent was a pilot in general and not the pilot of the flight. Which begs the question, why mention it at all unless they meant that an FBI agent was the pilot flying the Bin Laden escape plane in question…


Anyway, the point of the whole Bin Ladens leaving the States is that they were allowed to leave so effortlessly and with our government’s help. It sounds great to say the government flew them out when all air traffic was grounded, but that’s just icing. That Snopes claims the rumor is false while the underlying point that the U.S. flew the Bin Ladens out of the States is true shows that Snopes is no more left-leaning than right-leaning. It’s admirable. They seem to take the tack that “if part of statement is false, the whole statement is false.” Very mathematical.


http://www.lekowicz.com/wren_forum/2006/03/14/705/


 


and leans right other times, but makes
Gourdpainter, you go girl!
Well, actually he leans more Marxist than socialist...
I did not know that until I studied up on it. However...I have always said I do not agree with McCain on everything and this is certainly one of those things.
Well, Leno leans pretty far to the right, so
#
kyoto, one of many articles
INDEPTH: KYOTO
Kyoto Protocol FAQs
 April 13, 2005

Depending on who you talk to, the Kyoto Protocol is either a) an expensive, bureaucratic solution to fix a problem that may not even exist; or b) the last, best chance to save the world from the time bomb of global warming.

Those are the extremes in what has become a polarizing debate that has engaged governments, consumers, environmental groups and industry all over the world for more than 20 years.

The problem the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address is climate change, and more specifically, the speed at which the earth is warming up. Whether Kyoto can accomplish this is very much a matter of debate.

For the record, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country – except the United States, Australia and Monaco. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of the emissions that have been blamed for global warming.

Two of the world's biggest – and growing – polluters also have not signed on. India and China don't have to – they're considered developing countries and are outside the protocol's framework.

First, the science behind Kyoto.


Is the climate changing?

The United Nations certainly thinks so. And so do most (but not all) scientists who study climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the work of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts. Its latest report (2001) makes for some sobering reading.

Yes, the world is getting warmer, the report concludes. The IPCC says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years.

The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in noticeable retreat in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.

Simply put, the world is getting warmer and the temperature is rising faster than ever.

What are the very long-term climate predictions?

The IPCC predicts more floods, intense storms, heat waves and droughts. Its study forecasts a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the global mean surface temperature over the next 100 years, with developing countries most vulnerable.

Other studies are even more apocalyptic. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund predicts dangerous warming of the earth's surface in as little as 20 years, with the Arctic warming so much that its polar ice could melt in the summer by the year 2100, pushing polar bears close to extinction.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment predicts that caribou, musk ox and reindeer would find their habitats severely reduced. Northern aboriginal peoples around the world would find their way of life changed forever, the study said.

What is causing the world to warm up?







The 6 greenhouse gases Kyoto targets
Carbon dioxide.

Methane.

Nitrous oxide

Sulphur hexafluoride.

Hydrofluorocarbons.

Perfluorocarbons.

Most scientists blame industrialization. Since the 19th century, the richer countries of the Northern Hemisphere have been pumping out ever-increasing volumes of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Industrial societies burn fossil fuels in their power plants, homes, factories and cars. They clear forests (trees absorb carbon dioxide) and they build big cities.

Greenhouse gases allow solar radiation to pass through the earth's atmosphere. But after the earth absorbs part of that radiation, it reflects the rest back. That's where the problem lies. Particles of greenhouse gas absorb the radiation, heating up, and warming the atmosphere. The increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing too much energy to be trapped – the so-called greenhouse effect.







Greenhouse gas emissions targets apply to 38 industrialized countries and economies in transition
For a list of these countries and their emissions targets, click here:

UNFCCC

Isn't there a lot of debate over the whole issue of climate change?

While scientists tend to agree that the earth is warming, not all agree that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the culprits. A vocal minority say the earth's climate warms and cools in long cycles that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

Some dispute the data concerning rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Others dispute the projections, which are based on computer models. But again, those views are those of a minority. Most climatologists agree that global warming is causing unprecedented climate change…and that things will get worse unless something is done.

What does the Kyoto Protocol require?

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in late 1997 to address the problem of global warming by reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered a first step and is not expected to solve the world's climate change problems by the time its first commitment period ends in 2012.

Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although economies in transition, like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012).

All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.

Kyoto also allows some industrialized countries to make no cuts, or even to emit more greenhouse gases that they did in 1990. Russia's and New Zealand's emission levels are capped at their 1990 levels. Iceland can emit up to 10 per cent more greenhouse gases, Australia eight per cent more. (Like the U.S., Australia has announced it won't ratify Kyoto). Developing nations are not subject to any emissions reduction caps under Kyoto.

Much of the criticism around the Kyoto Protocol is over political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Critics say a five per cent cut will accomplish little, especially with the United States not on board. Some Canadian critics say our economy will pay a heavy price for meeting our Kyoto commitments because we'll have to compete with an American economy that faces no such restrictions. Many doubt that Canada's target cuts can be reached in Kyoto's first phase that ends in 2012.

Others say the money to implement Kyoto would be much better spent on improving land usage and infrastructure in poor countries.

How are emission targets met?

Emission targets can be met several ways. The most obvious way is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions – more fuel-efficient cars, fewer coal-fired power plants. But Kyoto also allows for three other mechanisms.

Countries can buy emissions credits from countries that don't need them to stay below their emissions quotas. A country can also earn emissions credits through something called joint implementation, which allows a country to benefit by carrying out something like a reforestation project in another industrialized country or economy in transition. There's also what's called a clean development mechanism that encourages investment in developing countries by promoting the transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies.

Each developed country must develop its own strategy to meet its Kyoto commitments. Industrial countries that ratify Kyoto are legally bound to see that their emissions do not exceed their 2008/2012 targets.

What happens if a country fails to reach its Kyoto emissions target?

The Kyoto Protocol contains measures to assess performance and progress. It also contains some penalties. Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.

Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter
permit the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I read your articles - all of them - and...
In the first link you provided, the fourth paragraph in the gray box says, "Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position."

Also, in this article it clearly states that Obama still plans to withdraw in the 6th paragraph:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_obama_position_on_iraq.html

Also, Obama's website still states the same information of 16 months -
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
There are several articles...goggle it....see inside...
this is just one.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_09_13_Obama_s_female_staffers_shortchanged:_He_s_no_great_equalizer/
Many interesting articles on this site...
http://clintondems.com/2008/09/obama-admits-dual-citizenship-with-kenya/
There have been numerous news articles......sm
stating that Obama's mother was a self-proclamed atheist. You can find them if you Google and check out news web sites.

The beliefs of the Catholic church are very different in some respects than those of most Christian denominations. Catholics, as I understand, believe that without baptism (infant christening) that even a baby is not saved. Most mainstream Christian denominations believe that a person makes a choice to believe in Christ and accept him as Savior once they reach the age where they have the capability of making that decision. I am not saying all this to get into a long theological discussion with you but simply to point out the differences between the two. If you want to discuss religion, we have been asked to use the Faith board to do that.
Oh please. We just post articles of Obama
x
There are all sorts of articles; just google
x
I won't read these articles - the last time I did so,
No thanks!
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election.  His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride.  The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel. 

I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes.  I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first. 

My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night.  Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least.  He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 

Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point.  I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone.  Times are indeed getting scary. 
Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.

The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.

See: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html


Excuse me. Did you bother to read the articles and
In every single reference I provided for you, the phrase "OFFICE of the President Elect" appears....in 1969, 1989, 2000 as well as in the language of the Act. Don't care what your fringe sites say....especially Malkin. Wouldn't be the first time they invented phoney outrage over fairy tales they spin, and it won't be the last. Read the language of the ACT that created the OFFICE of the President Elect, then the articles I provided, and you might see what I mean....or NOT. You seem to have an affinity for make-believe.

BTW, I know my history, but I believe you were trying to ask me specifically about civics. The electoral college makes the election official. However, it has always been customary to refer to the successful candidate on the Nov 4 election as the President Elect. The media is not the driving force behind this...tradition is.
She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)

Lots of articles on Churchill and Henry Ford and sm
Jews and communism.  It doesn't matter if the pillars were made of salt (of course, history tells us that they were eventually).  It matters that historically this was what Hitler built his Reich on.  This is indisuptable and absolute.  Henry Ford's hatred for Jews was legendary, BECAUSE of communism. 
Excuse me, but you will not dictate whether or not I include articles in my post.

I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles.  In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.


All you want to do is tear down, not build anything.  I gave my reasons for posting this article.  In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity.  Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult.  To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance.  I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us.  It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation.  I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.


If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so.  That is the reason I post the entire article itself.  I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.


You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet.  The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.


No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity.  Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.


For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board.  It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that.  You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is.  Get over yourself already.


And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing.  I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.


Am I paranoid?  I sure am these days.  I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.


If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it.  You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally.  Please enlighten me.  With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel.  Please explain how Israel is an ally to us.  Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us?  (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.)  What have they done for us in return?


I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them.  This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions.  We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not.  You know nothing of me, including how I believe.  Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree.  I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope. 


I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that.  Another example of your hypocrisy.  No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.


It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
Lies? What we show are facts, links, articles.
What about poor Palin?  She is a human being and look at the ATTACKS on her.  By the way, she is a republican and I would say Dem's are bashing.  We are not bashing Obama, we try to show you articles, links from CNN who by the way supported Obama, and you state we are bashing Obama.   
Yes, let's post articles to mother's of military. So helpful. Geez. nm

I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:

Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.

Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."

Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.

In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....

Opposing view: President's plan is better

Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.

By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.

Just my take on it.

If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
That was intelligent
now wasn't it, and quite disrespectful!!!!!  I am a Christian and I took great offense to this post!  People like you are the ones who are always saying how we as Christians are disrespectful and narrowminded, well ...... EXCUSE ME!  What did this prove.
Oh, now that's really intelligent....NOT! NM
xx
Nothing intelligent to say? How like you.
Yawn.
Do you have anything intelligent to say?
Seriously, BigBlah, you're a broken record.

Do you have anything to say about the topic, or are you just here to blah blah blah like you usually do?
That's all you got.....nothing intelligent to say?
!!
LOL, and not nearly as intelligent!!!

I like to turn on Beck from time to time to remind myself that, unfortunately, the Boogie Man really does exist!!  I picture him as the kind of nutjob that goes home and secretly downloads kiddie porn ...he gives me the creeps!


You win. You are far more intelligent than
overarching superiority. I am leaving now and will never return. You have shown me the light. I am not worthy of your time, and I apologize profusely for ever having posted here in the first place. Btw, the comment above was not mine, but perhaps they too will see the light. Thanks ever so much.
Thanks for an intelligent response
and for the information you supplied. 
one intelligent woman
The fact that you can write that in such a classy way should make the libs choke on their words.

Nice job and don't let anyone ever silence your beliefs.

My favorite part of what you said was this "There is nothing wrong with nor to be ashamed about in the way we feel and we are as much entitled to that as liberals are to liberalism".

For the party that claims tolerance, they are the most intolerant people I encounter.

Happy Friday girl
Wow, that was an intelligent answer.
nm
No, you just have no intelligent answers
xx
So did you have any intelligent comments about what you saw...
Or were you just posting to spew your schtick?

Yeah, we get it. You don't like conservatives.

Was that your point? Because that's old news and adds nothing to the convo.
Thank you for your intelligent answer.

That's what I thought. So, now, do we really need this bail out? Maybe not.  I'm still watching Glen Beck and he is really interesting tonight.


I wanted to watch Casey (D-PA) interview on the local station, but decided to go with Glenn Beck. The interview with him will be on tomorrow morning, so I'll watch it then and report back if possible.


Such an intelligent remark from

nm


Very INTELLIGENT Post
Thank you for pointing out that it isn't a Republican or Democrat problem. This is an AMERICAN problem.

Your message is the first one I have read that gives me hope that we can put aside bipartisanship and work together to fix this country.

We need all the great minds we can to get out of this mess (no matter who created it, that doesn't matter) and get OUR country back on the right path.

It is so refreshing to read an intelligent post that isn't full of blame and bile. Thank you for giving me hope again.
Okay, and thanks for being getting me off this board, wow, it has been fun and intelligent.nm
nm
This is not an intelligent explanation
First, if the administration was pushing for good things for our country, not taking the country down the path of socialism/communism and had a good plan for the future to get us on the road to recovery, everyone would want him to succeed. But since he is not and we're on the brink of depression/socialism with no hopes for the future and no plans to help Americans, more unemployment ahead, more people losing homes, etc, yes we want "that" to fail (not "him", we want "that" to fail). If it was anyone else in the seat doing the same actions I would wish for the same thing. If Hillary, Mit Romney, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, etc had the same exact failing policies that are being pushed on us now I would have the same opinion.

I've listed to plenty of their lies they are spewing. This is not an "intelligent explanation about the plan for this country". This is another distortion and lies to us and we are tired of it.

Calling people un-American because they are tired of being lied to is really un-Patriotic.
You laugh because you have nothing intelligent
--
Thanks God that there are also intelligent people
on this board! Not many, but there are.

There are people who think only to their NOSES who should get out of their BOXES and breath some FRESH AIR.
Wow, what an intelligent answer, and thoughtful.
nm
You don't think there are strong, intelligent women...
who express their opinions in favor of Palin?

The conservative posters on this board are no more sensitive about Palin than the other side is about Obama.

It is not personal for me either. I'm sure Obama is a nice person...and I am personally sure he is not the right man for the #1 job. He has a socialist agenda and socialist policies and I think that would be disastrous for America. That in a nutshell is my problem with him.
So intelligent...but all the symptoms of Tourette's, how sad nm
x
F: Obama more intelligent, better educated. nm
.
Do you consider yourself to be an intelligent educated person?
.