Forums | MacLife

They're just poor kids. It's not like they have a future anyway.

These welfare heirs should get off their asses and get jobs.

I think a more relevant point is a comparison between how much Bush has spent on the occupation of Iraq compared to his refusal to put anywhere near as much money toward the healthcare of children.

His reason for being opposed to this bill is ironic.

It will only encourage them not to get private insurance. As though these kids' parents could afford private insurance.

Like his daddy, he would be amazed at the scanners on the checkout lines.

ScifiterX wrote:

matt wrote:

These welfare heirs should get off their asses and get jobs.

Generally those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid actually have jobs, just ones that pay crappy wages and have no real benefits. Besides, their kids fall under child labor laws.

You do get that I was being sarcastic, right?

I thought "welfare heirs" would be enough hint that I was sarcastically saying that children on welfare should get jobs.

Mustapha Mond wrote:

sturner wrote:

Like his daddy, he would be amazed at the scanners on the checkout lines.

Did that seriously happen?

Snopes says no.

But even there it's a difference of opinion between the NY Times and Newsweek. I think there's a bit too much personal editorializing for a Snopes article, also.

But I doubt it's true myself.

Why give a smurf about abortion if you're just going to let them die a year from now anyway?

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11753

SCHIP stands for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It was created in 1997 by Congress and President Clinton, and this year it is up for reauthorization.

SCHIP was intended to cover children in families who made too much to be eligible for Medicaid. The law was originally supposed to limit eligibility to families making not more than 200% of the poverty line ($40,300 for a family of four), but seven states set eligibility above 200% anyway. Furthermore, fourteen states have applied loose enough definitions of "child" to extend coverage to parents, pregnant women, or childless adults.
Bills sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY) and Rep. John Dingell (MI) would permit states to expand SCHIP up to 400 percent of the poverty level. For a family of four, that means $82,600 a year. Thus, children in families that are in the top 25 percent of income-earners would be eligible for government-funded health insurance. We'll bet you didn't know that poverty reached so far up the income ladder, did you?

That same legislation would expand the definition of a "child" even further. Under the Clinton-Dingell legislation, states could offer Medicaid coverage for families who have "children" up to age 25. According to the Democrats' vision, those who are old enough to drive, vote, enter the military and drink alcohol are still in swaddling clothes when it comes to health insurance.

OMG, Save the Children!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except mine actually shows just what these modest democratic proposals are.
While I know several 25 year old losers, I feel no need to call them children nor can I define someone in the top 25% of income, poor.

It seems that particular programme is set up specifically to target families not in poverty. The line from Spectator org is telling; "..We'll bet you didn't know that poverty reached so far up the income ladder, did you?"

I think that's called a strawman.