If thats what they needed to confirm what the Democrat plans are for socialized medical care in this country God help us all.

They've already said if you're happy with the healthcare you have you can stay with it. What's the matter with everyone having coverage? Is it the cost? Do you have the same problem with us pouring five hundred million dollars A DAY into Iraq?

You can say what you want about Hilary, but you have to admit she's smart, or at least clever.

Few people in politics would dare say "no" to free healthcare for children, and those who did would be easy to demonize. After all, it's "for the children!" (they really should trademark that phrase if they haven't already). Using the same logic, coverage can be expanded, both in income limits and coverage groups until one day we wake up to nationalized healthcare - exactly what Ms Clinton wanted.

Really, why would Joe Schmoe want to fork over hard-earned money to his health insurance provider if the government will pick up the tab? The fact that taxes will inevitably have to increase to cover the system - possibly to points beyond what Mr. Schmoe was paying for private insurance - is much less obvious to the average American (especially when it's labeled as well as FICA - what's FICA again?) than those premium payments.

Given that I just received notice from Blue Cross today that my deductible is going up from $5050 to $5600, I'm oh, so tempted. It's very seductive, to think of something as "free." And it's very seductive to think, "Well, I'm going to get stuck with my $5600, PLUS pay for a boatload of other people who can afford it, so I might as well pile on too." But that kind of attitude will destroy us.

Mind you, I'm not against welfare, properly applied. Twenty years ago I was on welfare for less than a year, after my husband died. Long enough to have my baby and get a job. That's what a safety net is for. This is not a safety net. It's socialism, a system that is proven to fail. If people understood that they're going to get rationed healthcare, not "free" healthcare, they'd think very differently about it.

Republicans are responsible for creating this program in the first place. It was entirely foreseeable that, the minute the Democrats regained the majority, it would be high on the list to expand.

GJC ~ It's not "choice" between paying for something and getting it for free. When you grow up and get a real job, maybe you'll be the janitor at a college and can mop up outside the Econ 101 class - you might pick up a thing or two. Remember to put those yellow "slippery floor" signs up, though . . .

Republicans were all too happy to subsidize health care costs for Seniors AND without any means testing, but not for struggling families with kids?

A plan to tax big tobacco companies to pay for part of serious health problems such as asthma, ear infections, cancer or SIDS that they cause with secondhand smoke is only fair. Other defective and dangerous products are recalled from the market.

I don't agree with comparing making a business that markets defective, deadly and dangerous products as any slippery slope towards universal health care. There's worst ways to spend money, like approving hundreds of billions of dollars for war to kill people rather than help them.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Last post was to Barney.

There's worst ways to spend money, like approving hundreds of billions of dollars for war to kill people rather than help them.

Posted by Paul Hooson | October 2, 2007 2:32 PM

Are you saying that you would rather help terrorists? Because that is who we are killing over there. In case you haven't been paying attention, it is the terrorists, NOT the military, that are trying to kill the innocent citizens in Iraq.

One merely needs to take a close look at the farce that is TennCare to know that socialized health care is a disaster waiting to happen.

Further, aren't the Dems known for pointing out how awful the care our vets receive via the VA is? And how bad Medicare is for seniors? So they want this for everyone?

Fact is, we do not have any sort of right to free healthcare. No one does, and no one gets it. There is a price to be paid somewhere, somehow. However, we all have the right to access the level of health care for which we are willing and able to pay for ... that means going out and getting a job to PAY for it.

BTW, for the record, I have no medical insurance at this time.

Of course Paul Hooson has it wrong. If tobacco is detrimental to the health of everyone, instead of making money off it, just ban it as an illegal substance. Why should our government make money off a product that harms its citizens? I know the left loves to tax anything that moves, but this is rediculous. ww

I believe the Bush veto on this will tell the 70% of Americans who support it...
Hey You are aint The Decider...
I predict a Republican landslide......

The elected Republican officials in Washington who oppose expanding the amount of children covered by SCHIP themselves receive taxpayer- funded health insurance. Yeah, I know, denying to others (undoubtedly in the name of Jesus Christ) the benefits you yourself receive is a Republican thing -- I wouldn't understand.

herman, that's a false arguement. government officials, elected or not, are employees of the government. it makes sense that their health care is provided by the government since the government is a health care provider.

personally, i'd like to see that change, but i don't think that is going to happen. too many beaurocrats in the way.

Whats the demacrats idea of child health? forced ritlin injections the food ploce at the door of the schools to inspect the childs lunch and send the child back if it dont meet the standards of the CSPI,PCRM jerks?

Some days it actually seems like they've pulled out a copy of "Atlas Shrugged", found a particularly heinous section of consensuarian villany/idiocy, and said, "Oooh, this one's a good idea!"

A plan to tax big tobacco companies to pay for part of serious health problems such as asthma, ear infections, cancer or SIDS that they cause with secondhand smoke is only fair. Other defective and dangerous products are recalled from the market.
7. Posted by Paul Hooson | October 2, 2007 2:32 PM

Too bad over 75% of studies show that there are NO harmful effects from second-hand smoke. Also too bad that advocacy groups such as ACS and ALA ONLY cite the other 25% of studies. The harm from second-hand smoke is the biggest DISINFORMATION campaign in history!!

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=enstrom&searchid=1063712558723_4332&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10

"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality."