An Arbitrary Line in the Sand

Submitted by Sherlock on Wed, 10/17/2007 - 3:37pm.

The current SCHIP debate has sparked a lot of emotions on both sides of the issue. This post is not about whether or not you believe that children should have healthcare, but rather questioning the supreme hypocrisy that Sam Graves is showing.  Last evening, many groups organized in front of his Liberty, MO office to urge him to support the program and vote to override Bush's veto. Apparently, Graves believes that some poor children should get health insurance while others should not. Graves mouthpiece Jason Kilndt stated that:

"$5 billion is something we can afford...It's what we can afford and covers the poorest of the poor first."

What is the poorest of the poor? The very definition of poor is that they cannot afford basic necessities...such as healthcare for their children. This debate is not one about government programs. Children must not be forced to suffer as a result of their parents place on the food chain.

By stating that it only "covers the poorest of the poor," Graves is admitting that there are children who cannot afford healthcare, and that they do not deserve to be covered.  At what point does Sam think that poor children should be allowed access to healthcare? Where is the line drawn between the poorest and just the poor? If two poor children are standing next to each other, how does Sam decide which one deserves heath insurance? Does he look at the one with only one shoe and say "That's one more shoe that the child standing next to you, so we have decided to give him healthcare?"

Sam Graves gets full health coverage paid for by taxpayers; something given to all Congressman. However, Sam is not poor. Why should he get healthcare when there are POOR children that do not?

Shame on you Sam Graves, shame.
 

»

SCHIP

Submitted by happydaysareher... on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 3:29pm.
I call on Hulshof and Graves to introduce a bill immediately ending the health coverage program for Congress and the President. This should include the time they are in office and afterwards. Then they too can experience the pleasure of purchasing health insurance from the private sector. I would also expect to see Hulshof on C-Span, as I did yesterday, warning us of the evils of government-provided health care for adults. At that time, he will have my respect. Until then he is a rank hypocrite.
»

Are you capable of telling the truth?

Submitted by NedK19 on Wed, 10/17/2007 - 7:12pm.

The President's veto took no one off the SCHIP program.  None, nada, zilch.  All those "poorest of the poor" are still on the program and still will be on the program.

I repeat, are you capable of telling the truth or are you so corrupted that you have to lie to make democrats look good?

»

Wrong again my friend

Submitted by Sherlock on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 9:11am.
In his FY 2008 budget request released in February, Bush sought a $5 billion increase over this period, for a total of $30 billion in funding. In May, the CBO estimated that "maintaining the states' current programs under SCHIP would require funding of $39 billion for the 2007-2012 period and $98 billion over the 2007-2017 period -- increases of $14 billion and $48 billion, respectively, over the baseline spending levels. http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210015
»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.