# States are at risk for running out of money for CHIP



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

This just isn't right, kids need healthcare. 

"Sixteen states will run out of federal funding for CHIP -- the Children's Health Insurance Program -- by the end of January, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Three-quarters of all states expect to exhaust funds by the end of March unless Congress can agree to fund it. _(Scroll to the bottom for the full list.)_

CHIP provides health insurance coverage for just shy of nine million children whose families have too much income to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford the cost of insurance. It is increasingly used by families whose employer-provided insurance is too expensive. CHIP is provided for free or the program's premiums are pegged to an amount based on a family's annual income."

From: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/chip-extended-states-funds-kimmel-authorization/index.html


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Well I know the reason for that. Got to cut the federal spending so big rich companies can get huge tax cuts. Pure plain and simple.
This country is being ran by the rich for the rich,and the rest be damed.

 Al


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Oh dont forget all the hush money to pay off are perverted leaders. Millions going over seas. The huge grant dollars to study the sex life of a blue tick.ectectect


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

From _NYMAG (no conservative rag, there)_:

_On Wednesday afternoon, Republican senators Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander confirmed that their party plans to take a vacation before giving working-class families some peace of mind about their children’s health coverage:

“We have asked Senator McConnell not to offer this week our legislation,” the senators, who are sponsoring a bill that provides funding intended to stabilize the individual insurance market, said in a statement. “Instead, we will offer it after the first of the year when the Senate will consider the omnibus spending bill, the Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization, funding for Community Health Centers, and other legislation that was to have been enacted this week.”
_
In short, the majority party wanted to pass the tx bill without other distractions this week. I doubt very seriously Republicans are going to kill the CHiPs program. Maybe if some of the Dems will actually sit down with the Republicans and hammer out a deal, the program will be funded as soon as Congress comes back from recess.


----------



## Bungiex88 (Jan 2, 2016)

If you can’t afford kids don’t produce them. Quit relying on goverment to tuck you in at night.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bungiex88 said:


> If you can’t afford kids don’t produce them. Quit relying on goverment to tuck you in at night.


But, but, but..... That would require thought and planning and possibly even www,,, woo,,, work. Wonder if that dirty word will get passed the auto-censor?


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Then the goverment should stop taking so much of our money to support foreign country.

 Al


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I simply wish that people would at least skim an article, I even quoted the pertinent parts for Pete's sake: "CHIP provides health insurance coverage for just shy of nine million children whose families have *too much income* to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford the cost of insurance. It is increasingly used by families whose employer-provided insurance is too expensive. CHIP is provided for free or the program's premiums are pegged to an amount based on a family's annual income." As far as I know, income includes work for wages. 

BungieX88, what state do you live in? Have you ever had a good job and lost it through no fault of your own? Ie. the company moved overseas, filed bankruptcy, just closed it's doors, etc.? Anyone in your family had a catastrophic illness? Perhaps losing everything? Ever had a really sick kid like the one detailed in the article? Don't judge people without a clue as to how they've lived their lives, it's unkind.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

CHIP services and patient cost vary from state to state. No state that I know of (I haven't researched it) covers serious or long term illness under CHIP, usually that's a Medicaid thing. Back when I was in the biz, our state would cover a visit provided by MD or NP, paying $56 to the provider. That reimbursement also covered some rudimentary labs, such as a CBC and a U/A (usually the CLIA waived portions). Lead screening would also be paid for, as would vaccinations.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

CHIP was created by a Republican house and Senate, signed into law by Bill Clinton. Even in the earliest days of the bill, people worried about being able to fund CHIP as enrollment grew, since the Feds pick up 70% of the cost. Obamacare helped expand need for services, as it adjusted percentage of FPL guidelines.

As with many things in government, it's all a matter of priority and funding, but my opinion is it will be funded. At what level, I don't know.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I was told the passage of the aca would eliminate this problem.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

its a parents responsibility to provide health care , plain and simple.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

M5farm said:


> its a parents responsibility to provide health care , plain and simple.


And if some kids die or their health is compromised because of illness, it's OK because their parent's shouldn't have had them in the first place? You're anti abortion if I recall correctly, isn't that hypocritical?


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> And if some kids die or their health is compromised because of illness, it's OK because their parent's shouldn't have had them in the first place? You're anti abortion if I recall correctly, isn't that hypocritical?


Your just looking for a fight this morning. A hypocrite thinks that kids shouldn't die but an unborn kid is ok to murder.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

alleyyooper said:


> Well I know the reason for that. Got to cut the federal spending so big rich companies can get huge tax cuts. Pure plain and simple.
> This country is being ran by the rich for the rich,and the rest be damed.
> 
> Al


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

M5farm said:


> Your just looking for a fight this morning. A hypocrite thinks that kids shouldn't die but an unborn kid is ok to murder.


Nope, not at all. I simply asked you a question, and you didn't answer it, which is fine you don't have to. *ETA*: I'm sorry, apparently I wasn't specific about which question "And if some kids die or their health is compromised because of illness, it's OK because their parent's shouldn't have had them in the first place?"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jolly said:


> CHIP was created by a Republican house and Senate, signed into law by Bill Clinton. Even in the earliest days of the bill, people worried about being able to fund CHIP as enrollment grew, since the Feds pick up 70% of the cost. Obamacare helped expand need for services, as it adjusted percentage of FPL guidelines.
> 
> As with many things in government, it's all a matter of priority and funding, but my opinion is it will be funded. At what level, I don't know.


^^^^^^^^^
This.


Is this a problem?
Yes.
Could the D's and R's work together to solve it and quit acting like 4 year old's on a playground?
Yes.
Will they?
God, I hope so. Otherwise they need a boot in their backsides and that goes for Chuck and Nancy too.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, not at all. I simply asked you a question, and you didn't answer it, which is fine you don't have to.


yes , I think abortion is MURDER. Nothing you can say can or will justify killing babies. at least if they are born they do have a chance to survive.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

It'll get funded I'm sure. I'm curious though. Most of the people here up in arms are the same people who show that link about how much Federal funding goes to the individual states. They gripe about it then ask for more money to be sent. Just seems kind of counter bias to me. 

I believe they will fund it though.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> It'll get funded I'm sure. I'm curious though. Most of the people here up in arms are the same people who show that link about how much Federal funding goes to the individual states. They gripe about it then ask for more money to be sent. Just seems kind of counter bias to me.
> 
> I believe they will fund it though.


I'm not being facetious or snarky in any way, but which link are you referring to? I want to be sure I'm understanding the issue.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

But didn't Obama Care ensure that EVERYONE would have coverage?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

hiddensprings said:


> But didn't Obama Care ensure that EVERYONE would have coverage?


I assumed this was common knowledge, but here is an overview:

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that tens of millions will gain insurance, but the ACA was never expected to cover everyone. CBO says there will be 25 million fewer uninsured because of the law, as early as 2016. That leaves 31 million still uninsured.

Some may choose to pay the tax penalty rather than buy insurance. Others may get an exemption from the requirement to have coverage. Those who make too little to file a tax return can be exempt, for instance, and the same is true for those who can’t find affordable coverage — meaning if insurance would cost more than 8 percent of their household income. “Hardship” exemptions could be granted for several reasons, including bankruptcy, being a victim of domestic violence, a death in the family, unpaid medical bills, and having an individual market plan canceled and not finding “affordable” coverage among marketplace plans.

Plus, there’s a hardship exemption for those who could have been eligible for Medicaid if their state had expanded the program under the law. Since 24 states haven’t expanded Medicaid, that leaves millions of below-poverty Americans falling into a gap between their state’s Medicaid eligibility level and being eligible for subsidies, which are available for those earning 100 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. (The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated in December 2013 — when 25 states weren’t moving forward with expansion — that nearly 5 million would fall into this coverage gap and likely remain uninsured.)"

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/not-everybody-is-covered-under-aca/


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> but the ACA was never expected to cover everyone. CBO says there will be 25 million fewer uninsured because of the law, as early as 2016. That leaves 31 million still uninsured.


That's not how Obama sold it. 
*Improving Health for All Americans*
President Obama promised that he would make quality, affordable health care not a privilege, *but a right.* 

His plan sucks....did nothing to cover those you are describing; increase cost to most others, and still we have folks that don't have coverage. We keep throwing money after money after money WHEN what we need is more competition between insurance companies (ability to cross state lines), Tort reform, and such.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

hiddensprings said:


> That's not how Obama sold it.
> *Improving Health for All Americans*
> President Obama promised that he would make quality, affordable health care not a privilege, *but a right.*
> 
> His plan sucks....did nothing to cover those you are describing; increase cost to most others, and still we have folks that don't have coverage. We keep throwing money after money after money WHEN what we need is more competition between insurance companies (ability to cross state lines), Tort reform, and such.


The article I linked indicated the same thing, did you read it? ACA is definitely not perfect, and we *need* universal healthcare. 

Do you realize that the CHIP program has nothing to do with ACA, only involves children, and is a state program that is partially funded by the federal government? It's a "gap" coverage between regular insurance and medicaid so children have healthcare. It's a good thing.


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

So let's talk about the effects of this. Maybe that will promote a different way to view this. Let's say CHIP gets cut. Even if it's only SOME people from SOME states, that's still going to be a large portion of children now medically uninsured. Now since it was mentioned that CHIP doesn't cover more serious things, that means we can at least feel better knowing that the government won't cover cancer children and those kids have to find another way. Alright so now we're talking what? Broken bones? Illnesses? Vaccinations? 

Maybe you don't care about those kids but what about if your kid goes to school with them? Maybe now your kid is sick because the child that used to have CHIP got sick this year. Oops. But don't worry, your child has health insurance so it's fine. Hopefully they didn't catch anything too serious.

I understand being upset with people that abuse a program. But technically the purpose of CHIP is to help children that have parents who can't afford to give them healthcare. Every system has abusers. The tough part here is that we're talking about children suffering because of the choices their parents make. And people can say all day long that the parents shouldn't have had the kids then. First off, you're talking about just getting rid of a life now so let's not pretend like it's that simple. Furthermore, time travel isn't possible so where is the relevance of talking about undoing the life of a child that is here NOW that needs healthcare NOW.

The average adult gets the flu and they're fine. The average young child gets the flu and it's a heavy hit. The flu still takes lives each year. That's sad. We live in a first world country with modern science and medicine but people are still dying to the flu? That's not even taking into account things like small pox. I couldn't find the statistics on adults (apparently states are not required to report influenza caused death of anyone over the age of 18 years) but here it is for pediatrics from the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/. And on this page you can see which states belong to which zones as well as the current spread percentage in each region https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/overview.htm. Here is a quote from this page https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm


> "many seasonal flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as bacterial pneumonia) or because seasonal influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)."


 This brings up a good point that you are now more open to getting something else as well as if you have some preexisting condition, getting the flu could be life threatening. So what about children who have preexisting conditions? They should just tough it out?

There's many other systems and places that tax payer money goes to beyond access to healthcare that people should be more upset by. There is a lot more to consider beyond being upset that grown ups are abusing a system. The focus should be on how that can be rectified. But we should always remember that we're talking about the health and well being of CHILDREN. No child deserves this.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Like buying American I would like to see my tax dollors at work in the USA or reduce my tax coverage.

How much of this really gets to the people of the countrys and not thoise in power.

*$25.8 BILLION*
*planned in foreign assistance for FY 2018*

*$25,795,618,000


*
And you don't want funding for American kids health insurance. But funding a health program in some African country is fine. Middle East country. Some Island countrys in the gulf of Mexico.

Spend my American tax dollars in American for Americans.

 Al


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

alleyyooper said:


> Like buying American I would like to see my tax dollors at work in the USA or reduce my tax coverage.
> 
> How much of this really gets to the people of the countrys and not thoise in power.
> 
> ...


I’m not against all foreign aid but I do agree that American children should come first. And American veterans. It’s shameful that we even have organizations like Wounded Warriors. We should be taking care of our veterans.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> I’m not against all foreign aid but I do agree that American children should come first. And American veterans. It’s shameful that we even have organizations like Wounded Warriors. We should be taking care of our veterans.


I agree. I'm OK with foreign aid for healthcare, especially kids, in impoverished countries, and it should be a given that we take care of our veterans.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Please discuss the topic as posted.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Koda said:


> But we should always remember that we're talking about the health and well being of CHILDREN. No child deserves this.


this puts me in mind of a line in the movie unforgiven.... "Deserve has got nuthin to do with it."
Does anyone think children deserve being born to parents that are ne'r do wells? Junkies? Drunken slobs? Child abusers? Maybe we should just sterilize those folks, solve a lot of problems before they start? Kids don't deserve irresponsible parents period, but they have them sometimes.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Trump campained on AMERCIA FIRST and MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN. so lets us spend American tax dollars here first then if there is any left dole out some to health care for children in other countries.


 Al


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> this puts me in mind of a line in the movie unforgiven.... "Deserve has got nuthin to do with it."
> Does anyone think children deserve being born to parents that are ne'r do wells? Junkies? Drunken slobs? Child abusers? Maybe we should just sterilize those folks, solve a lot of problems before they start? Kids don't deserve irresponsible parents period, but they have them sometimes.


Of course kids don’t deserve to be born to Irresponsible bums, but let’s not equate
parents whose kids are on CHIP with the mythical welfare queens. I’m all for free birth control, abortion and I’d have no real problem with people who are on the dole for a certain length of time being required to be on birth control. But CHIP has nothing to do with this.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

A modest proposal....Why don't we take the $500M/year we are giving Planned Parenthood and instead give that money to the CHIPs programs?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Rich people, that would be families earning over $50,000 per year, according to some Washington Democrats, buy insurance for their children. Poor people, that would be any of several yearly annual incomes, let's say $25,000. So CHIP helps those above the income limits of Medicaid but below the rich, $50,000 yearly family income.
Who can afford insurance sometimes depends on priorities. Faced with giving up internet, cable, smart phone and Netflix or buying a catastrophic health plan, should the tax payers be funding your child's health care?
If health care is a "right", is it also a parent's "requirement" to provide health insurance before one dime is spent on booze, soda or lottery tickets?
Once it becomes another government entitlement, it never gets into the family's budget.

This morning, on the radio they were taking calls, discussing the new federal tax reform. A guy called in that had 5 children and a low income. He has been paying the ACA penalty, I think he said $2000, but not sure. So, without having that $2000 penalty and the $5000 increase in deductions, increased standard deduction, he was expecting several thousand in increased income. When asked if he would use that extra money to buy health insurance, be hesitated and then talked about staying healthy. Clearly, health insurance isn't the highest priority for many.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> Of course kids don’t deserve to be born to Irresponsible bums, but let’s not equate
> parents whose kids are on CHIP with the mythical welfare queens. I’m all for free birth control, abortion and I’d have no real problem with people who are on the dole for a certain length of time being required to be on birth control. But CHIP has nothing to do with this.


Welfare queens are quite real, nothing mythical about them, but those are not the kids in question as they have Medicaid. I was referring to this other group who don't see the need to provide health care insurance to their kids.


----------



## Bungiex88 (Jan 2, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> I simply wish that people would at least skim an article, I even quoted the pertinent parts for Pete's sake: "CHIP provides health insurance coverage for just shy of nine million children whose families have *too much income* to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford the cost of insurance. It is increasingly used by families whose employer-provided insurance is too expensive. CHIP is provided for free or the program's premiums are pegged to an amount based on a family's annual income." As far as I know, income includes work for wages.
> 
> BungieX88, what state do you live in? Have you ever had a good job and lost it through no fault of your own? Ie. the company moved overseas, filed bankruptcy, just closed it's doors, etc.? Anyone in your family had a catastrophic illness? Perhaps losing everything? Ever had a really sick kid like the one detailed in the article? Don't judge people without a clue as to how they've lived their lives, it's unkind.


Wasn’t judging nobody all i said was if you can’t afford to raise kids don’t have them. My grandparents didn’t have any of this when starting a family and they turned out just fine. No matter what you make it work. And my grandparents were children that lived through the Great Depression. So no I’m not judging nobody just simply stating that don’t rely on the goverment. And yes I worked at a place that shut down and moved out of the state I had a new job in 3 days.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Blarg, I don't miss ya'll right-wingers, bye again.


----------



## Dustin (Apr 20, 2011)

Galatians 5:14

For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

1 John 3:17

But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Proverbs 14:31

He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bungiex88 said:


> Wasn’t judging nobody all i said was if you can’t afford to raise kids don’t have them.


Sometimes things change.
Once they are born you can't dispose of them if you lose your job and have to work for less money.

Twice in my life I've lost good paying jobs because the businesses shut down and moved.
One was a place I had worked for 12 years.
The first time also caused me to lose about half of my IRA savings due to tax penalties.

Luckily I had enough money to hold me over until I found other jobs, but not everyone can do that.

I also didn't have any insurance, but was still young and healthy enough I rarely needed to see a Dr.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Blarg, I don't miss ya'll right-wingers, bye again.


I dunno if I can take it either... They are a small amount, but the truly ignorant make me wonder about the fate of the human species.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The GOP made funds available for CHIP until the middle of January. I just think that children's health is being used as a bargaining chip, and I don't like it. 

"The federal government was set to shut down Friday as Republicans grappled with how to fund it before the end of the year. The GOP passed another short-term solution Thursday that will get them through the middle of January."

From: http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/21/news/economy/chip-funding/index.html


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I dunno if I can take it either... They are a small amount, but the truly ignorant make me wonder about the fate of the human species.












Yep we are a small bunch


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

From Irish Pixie's link above:
"The bill will also extend the Children's Health Insurance Program through March." which also included this:
"Earlier this week, Pelosi encouraged her members to vote against a short-term continuing resolution."

Which was immediately followed by this:
"At a weekly meeting for the House Democratic whip team Thursday, leaders reiterated that there have been no efforts to engage in any bipartisan talks and they are urging their members to vote no on both the stopgap funding bill and the disaster aid package."

My take on this is it appears one team is protecting the chips kids, the other team seems to be playing politics.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Heritagefarm said: ↑
> Blarg, I don't miss ya'll right-wingers, bye again.


And yet here you are.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> From Irish Pixie's link above:
> "The bill will also extend the Children's Health Insurance Program through March." which also included this:
> "Earlier this week, Pelosi encouraged her members to vote against a short-term continuing resolution."
> 
> ...


And my take is that one team would like to be invited to sit down and work out long term solutions to problems that all sides can live with and the other side will continue to offer short term fixes for political reasons that only kick the problems down the road to the next deadline.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And my take is that one team would like to be invited to sit down and work out long term solutions to problems that all sides can live with and the other side will continue to offer short term fixes for political reasons that only kick the problems down the road to the next deadline.


And use the money to fund as a bargaining chip for their other endeavors, so it will continue to be short term fixes for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> And my take is that one team would like to be invited to sit down and work out long term solutions to problems that all sides can live with and the other side will continue to offer short term fixes for political reasons that only kick the problems down the road to the next deadline.


I haven't heard either side propose any "long term solutions" to very many problems lately. Mostly just a lot of bickering and blaming. I've never held a seat in congress but from what I have heard both sides are allowed to present, discuss and debate any legislation they think might be workable. Ok, there was that lockout of one team by the other during the push to get the ACA passed but that's a pretty rare thing as far as I know.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I haven't heard either side propose any "long term solutions" to very many problems lately. Mostly just a lot of bickering and blaming.


Hmm, bickering and blaming, seems to be a national pastime.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

no really said:


> Hmm, bickering and blaming, seems to be a national pastime.


Thank goodness those attitudes never find their way into discussions here in HT!


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thank goodness those attitudes never find their way into discussions here in HT!


LOL!!!! Laughed so hard I spilled coffee everywhere!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I haven't heard either side propose any "long term solutions" to very many problems lately. Mostly just a lot of bickering and blaming. I've never held a seat in congress but from what I have heard both sides are allowed to present, discuss and debate any legislation they think might be workable. Ok, there was that lockout of one team by the other during the push to get the ACA passed but that's a pretty rare thing as far as I know.


You’ve heard wrong. The side in power gets to set the agenda and decide what gets discussed or not. Evidence our new tax bill.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> You’ve heard wrong. The side in power gets to set the agenda and decide what gets discussed or not. Evidence our new tax bill.


So, the minority party is not allowed to participate in these discussions, nor to present their thoughts as to solutions?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, the minority party is not allowed to participate in these discussions, nor to present their thoughts as to solutions?


Often, no.

Here’s some reading for you

“In June and July 2009, with Democrats in charge, the Senate health committee spent nearly 60 hours over 13 days marking up the bill that became the Affordable Care Act. That September and October, the Senate Finance Committee worked on the legislation for eight days — its longest markup in two decades. It considered more than 130 amendments and held 79 roll-call votes.

The full Senate debated the health care bill for 25 straight days before passing it on Dec. 24, 2009.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...blicans.html?mtrref=en.wikipedia.org&referer=

“We’re not going to do this with Democrats,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican.”


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Often, no.
> 
> Here’s some reading for you
> 
> ...


Is it faulty memory or selective remembering? There have been a couple of instances this morning alone...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Here’s a bit more reading for those lacking an understanding of the legislative process.

“A "closed rule" sets strict time limits on debate and forbids the introduction of amendments. “

https://lowenthal.house.gov/legislation/bill-to-law.htm

They really should have taught this sort of thing in school.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is it faulty memory or selective remembering? There have been a couple of instances this morning alone...


It’s simply repeat something often enough and it becomes the reality for some.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Interesting reading.... But I'm pretty sure democrats have the opportunity to discuss, debate, and vote on any proposed legislation. They may also present new legislation.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Almost any bill requires compromise, either within the party or with the opposition. Lots of compromise within the party was just seen in the new tax bill passed this week.

Now, if the opposition truly cares about CHIPs, other than as just a bargaining chip, sit down and compromise with the majority party.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting reading.... But I'm pretty sure democrats have the opportunity to discuss, debate, and vote on any proposed legislation.


You can be pretty sure of whatever you wish. But maybe you can explain how one side was able to “lock out” the other in the past as you claimed (even though it wasn’t remotely true in that instance) but the same conditions for “lock out” don’t exist today.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Invoking cloture within the Senate:
https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Invoking cloture within the Senate:
> https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm


Thanks for proving my point. Conditions do exist to limit debate and not allow amendments.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Closed rule definition from the Dem House of Representative site:

_(4) *Closed Rules*: _Under a Closed Rule no amendments may be offered other than amendments recommended by the committee reporting the bill. However, the Rules Committee is prohibited under the rules of the House from reporting a special rule providing for consideration of a bill or joint resolution that denies the minority the right to offer amendatory instructions in a motion to recommit.

https://democrats-rules.house.gov/about


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for proving my point. Conditions do exist to limit debate and not allow amendments.


But note how far you have to go, and even then, the filibuster option is open.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Almost any bill requires compromise, either within the party or with the opposition. Lots of compromise within the party was just seen in the new tax bill passed this week.
> 
> Now, if the opposition truly cares about CHIPs, other than as just a bargaining chip, sit down and compromise with the majority party.


Compromise requires both sides to be willing to give something up. Compromise requires being invited to sit at the table.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Closed rule definition from the Dem House of Representative site:
> 
> _(4) *Closed Rules*: _Under a Closed Rule no amendments may be offered other than amendments recommended by the committee reporting the bill. However, the Rules Committee is prohibited under the rules of the House from reporting a special rule providing for consideration of a bill or joint resolution that denies the minority the right to offer amendatory instructions in a motion to recommit.
> 
> https://democrats-rules.house.gov/about


Yep, they can offer an amendatory instructions within any amendments to instruct how that amendment might function but they cannot offer their own amendments to such bills once they hit the floor. Amendatory instructions don’t change the substance of a bill or amendment. They simply outline how they might be implemented.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> But note how far you have to go, and even then, the filibuster option is open.


But even those rules are subject to change by those in control of the Senate. And House rules are quite different. As are committee rules. There are numerous avenues to shut down debate and limit or even eliminate the influence minority parties have on legislation.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Compromise requires both sides to be willing to give something up. Compromise requires being invited to sit at the table.


That's part of the definition of the word and what is normally thought of by most people, using it as a noun.
As a verb, it can mean other things too, such as to 'compromise your principles'.

In this case, several emergencies were considered, CHIP, hurricane relief and others for immediate funding.
That's when a 'compromise' is most important.
How bad is the emergency and what are you willing to do or not do, to solve it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

no really said:


> LOL!!!! Laughed so hard I spilled coffee everywhere!


You should have known what would happen with a set up like that.
If YH hadn't seen it first I'd have said the same thing.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I see a number of problems which extend well beyond the issue of continuing federal funding for one program. Our entire health care mess is the product of decades of federal meddling preventing the free market from working since World War II. The first result was increasingly unrestrained health coverage in the sense of going to the doctor every time a kid sneezed--a situation which likely would never have developed without the wartime wage freezes leaving health care as the most viable tool for employee poaching, which soon came to be expected. Add to this the later rise of preposterous malpractice judgments and the insurance costs for that, more government meddling, more entitlement programs, and we are left with a dysfunctional conglomeration of bad ideas. At this point, I doubt that we can turn back the clock and restart the evolution of health care and really don't know how to clean up the mess. The obvious choices are to either pull back the government and let the market do a hard reset or go to single payer. In one case, the casualty count would be terrible and in the other we would all have equally bad health care reminiscent of the present state of the Veterans' Administration. In any event, using the most vulnerable among us as political footballs is completely unacceptable and as previously explored in this thread, both parties are doing so with reckless abandon.

At the time of its creation, the ACA had the potential to solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, adding a couple more feet of water to the swamp is not a solution.

The even more unfortunate truth is that both political parties benefit from the perpetuation of problems rather than actually solving them, thus denying themselves any issues for the next election cycle.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Compromise requires both sides to be willing to give something up. Compromise requires being invited to sit at the table.


Neither side should have to give anything up... They could simply work together and come up with good solutions to problems. Last I heard the people invited each and every member of congress to the table.


----------



## catsboy (May 14, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Neither side should have to give anything up... They could simply work together and come up with good solutions to problems. Last I heard the people invited each and every member of congress to the table.


Sides are too far apart for no one to give up anything. Some want universal health care others want market based system. You cant do both at the same time. Some want a wall at the border, some want open borders. This country has lost the ability to reach compromise because they consider their side to be totally right and the other side to be totally wrong. We no longer debate issues, we attack ideas that we don't agree with.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

catsboy said:


> Sides are too far apart for no one to give up anything. Some want universal health care others want market based system. You cant do both at the same time. Some want a wall at the border, some want open borders. This country has lost the ability to reach compromise because they consider their side to be totally right and the other side to be totally wrong. We no longer debate issues, we attack ideas that we don't agree with.


I don’t know of any side who wants open borders but I think our two party system may have run its course. I’d like to see a more centrist, moderate party open up. Tired of the far right and the far left.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> I don’t know of any side who wants open borders but I think our two party system may have run its course. I’d like to see a more centrist, moderate party open up. Tired of the far right and the far left.


You got my vote with a new centrist party.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

catsboy said:


> Sides are too far apart for no one to give up anything. Some want universal health care others want market based system. You cant do both at the same time. Some want a wall at the border, some want open borders. This country has lost the ability to reach compromise because they consider their side to be totally right and the other side to be totally wrong. We no longer debate issues, we attack ideas that we don't agree with.


So how about solving the health care "problem" with something other than either of those solutions? For example, why not have both? Let folks who want to use insurance do so, and create a universal health care system for those who prefer that method? Those who don't like either pay out of pocket or do without?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So how about solving the health care "problem" with something other than either of those solutions? For example, why not have both? Let folks who want to use insurance do so, and create a universal health care system for those who prefer that method? Those who don't like either pay out of pocket or do without?


Because by definition a universal system isn’t universal if some get to opt out. I’d be happy with a basic, universal system that provides for a standard level of care. If you wish to have better you can pay for it out of pocket or carry extra insurance.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> That's part of the definition of the word and what is normally thought of by most people, using it as a noun.
> As a verb, it can mean other things too, such as to 'compromise your principles'.
> 
> In this case, several emergencies were considered, CHIP, hurricane relief and others for immediate funding.
> ...


Is there a specific question there or is it rhetorical?

Emergencies come in different types. Something like putting off real discussion of long term government funding and stumbling from one short term resolution to the next create contrived emergencies. Emergencies that can and do affect real people but could be avoided. Things like wildfires, floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters cannot be avoided and the response should be different.


----------



## catsboy (May 14, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So how about solving the health care "problem" with something other than either of those solutions? For example, why not have both? Let folks who want to use insurance do so, and create a universal health care system for those who prefer that method? Those who don't like either pay out of pocket or do without?


That's what we have with the ACA. People like me who pay for mine and my employees are subsidizing the poorer, less healthy with our higher premiums. I get a rate increase every year since it was enacted. Where is that $2000.00 decrease Obama promised me?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Because by definition a universal system isn’t universal if some get to opt out. I’d be happy with a basic, universal system that provides for a standard level of care. If you wish to have better you can pay for it out of pocket or carry extra insurance.


Ok, perhaps we should define universal health care first. Does that mean everyone standing on American soil? Just American citizens? Citizens above or below certain ages? How would this care get paid for? Tax the rich? Everyone pay an equal share of the overall cost?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, perhaps we should define universal health care first. Does that mean everyone standing on American soil? Just American citizens? Citizens above or below certain ages? How would this care get paid for? Tax the rich? Everyone pay an equal share of the overall cost?


We can go with American citizens. It’s a pretty easy system to set up. Some call it Medicare for all. Simple payroll deduction. Everyone, from birth onward, is covered for some set of basic medical care. If you want more than the basic you can purchase secondary coverage much as you can Medicare advantage plans or pay out of pocket.

How about answering the same questions about your universally non universal plan.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> We can go with American citizens. It’s a pretty easy system to set up. Some call it Medicare for all. Simple payroll deduction. Everyone, from birth onward, is covered for some set of basic medical care. If you want more than the basic you can purchase secondary coverage much as you can Medicare advantage plans or pay out of pocket.
> 
> How about answering the same questions about your universally non universal plan.


Has anyone done the math? That "simple payroll deduction" would have to be huge compared to Medicare. Medicare covers a small portion of citizens, or all citizens for a small portion of their lives, and provides very limited coverage even then. We pay for that coverage all of our working lives, if unfortunate enough to live too long, only then do we get a few benefits (well below minimum ACA standards) for a few years at most. Then there is the quite unfair matter of who pays..... Only those with jobs... This places the burden squarely upon the backs of the working man, but providing coverage to those 95 million or so without jobs.
My proposal would allow people to purchase insurance that suited their needs, OR contribute to your one size fits all universal health care program. Personally I like having choices.


----------



## LAFarm (Mar 8, 2015)

Dustin said:


> Galatians 5:14
> 
> For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
> 
> ...


Matthew 25:36-40 English Standard Version (ESV)
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Seems like these are the scriptures that get ignored and forgotten the most by the self-righteous posturing zealots...


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

LAFarm said:


> Matthew 25:36-40 English Standard Version (ESV)
> 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
> 
> Seems like these are the scriptures that get ignored and forgotten the most by the self-righteous posturing zealots...


You have raised a good point. I am not sure that the cold hands of government dispensing aid based on conditions seen through blind eyes is the solution we are looking for, but then again I am greatly distressed that we have the situation where there is enough of a need for it to become a government issue.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> You have raised a good point. I am not sure that the cold hands of government dispensing aid based on conditions seen through blind eyes is the solution we are looking for, but then again *I am greatly distressed that we have the situation where there is enough of a need for it to become a government issue*.


I'm not so sure it is.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Has anyone done the math? That "simple payroll deduction" would have to be huge compared to Medicare. Medicare covers a small portion of citizens, or all citizens for a small portion of their lives, and provides very limited coverage even then. We pay for that coverage all of our working lives, if unfortunate enough to live too long, only then do we get a few benefits (well below minimum ACA standards) for a few years at most. Then there is the quite unfair matter of who pays..... Only those with jobs... This places the burden squarely upon the backs of the working man, but providing coverage to those 95 million or so without jobs.
> My proposal would allow people to purchase insurance that suited their needs, OR contribute to your one size fits all universal health care program. Personally I like having choices.


Lots of people have done the math. All those countries that have universal health care and provide for their citizens at much lower cost than we do did it. My plan isn’t one size fits all any more than yours is universal.

A holiday looms and I have little desire to spoil another minute discussing such matters with someone who cannot help but mischaracterize others positions and refuses to answer the same simple questions he poses to others let alone any others. I hope you get what you wished for Christmas. I know what I wish for you.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Dustin said:


> Galatians 5:14
> 
> For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
> 
> ...


Written by people, under God's guidance, that owned slaves, during a time that medical treatment was near nonexistent.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Is there a specific question there or is it rhetorical?
> 
> Emergencies come in different types. Something like putting off real discussion of long term government funding and stumbling from one short term resolution to the next create contrived emergencies. Emergencies that can and do affect real people but could be avoided. Things like wildfires, floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters cannot be avoided and the response should be different.


Not necessarily rhetorical.
Your response is what I was looking for.........."Things like wildfires, floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters cannot be avoided and the response should be different."

The topic of the OP was this CHIP program was also an emergency, with lives hanging in the balance.
That could very well be true for some kids, there are many emergencies we all deal with everyday.
My point (and yours) is that when there IS an emergency all political BS should be put aside.
And I do mean ALL.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Written by people, under God's guidance, that owned slaves, during a time that medical treatment was near nonexistent.


The disciple Luke, was a doctor.
Hippocrates, the ancient father of modern medicine lived before the time of Christ.
Just a few facts to add to the mix.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not so sure it is.


I will grant you that there is a great deal of irony in the strongest believers in Darwinism being the most strongly opposed to letting it run its course, but that said, I can't support the notion of simply allowing people, especially children, to suffer and/or die. I will say that in order to do such things we really need a constitutional amendment as there is in fact no authority for such things to be done, but there is a reason why there is an amendment process. 

I heard a story once about the difference between heaven and hell. A man was walked through the door into hell and saw a long table as far as the eye could see filled with bowls of food and lined with starving people with 3 foot long spoons fastened to their arms rigidly with which they couldn't reach their mouths. The man was then taken to another door which was heaven. He walked in to see the same basic scene only with the people happy and well-fed as they took turns feeding each other across the table.

I suppose for the sake of full disclosure, I should share that if I believed it could be made to work I would be more liberal than I am in practice in spite of not believing that government is the ideal agency to dispense charitable giving.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> The disciple Luke, was a doctor.
> Hippocrates, the ancient father of modern medicine lived before the time of Christ.
> Just a few facts to add to the mix.


Yep, there were doctors.... Treatments on the other hand were near non existent.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The disciple Luke, was a doctor.
> Hippocrates, the ancient father of modern medicine lived before the time of Christ.
> Just a few facts to add to the mix.


 Being a doctor or father of medicine twenty centuries ago doesn't fairly equate to the financial burden of today.
I could offer you full medical coverage for $100 a month, if you'd accept only BC procedures at BC rates.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> I will grant you that there is a great deal of irony in the strongest believers in Darwinism being the most strongly opposed to letting it run its course, but that said, I can't support the notion of simply allowing people, especially children, to suffer and/or die. I will say that in order to do such things we really need a constitutional amendment as there is in fact no authority for such things to be done, but there is a reason why there is an amendment process.
> 
> I heard a story once about the difference between heaven and hell. A man was walked through the door into hell and saw a long table as far as the eye could see filled with bowls of food and lined with starving people with 3 foot long spoons fastened to their arms rigidly with which they couldn't reach their mouths. The man was then taken to another door which was heaven. He walked in to see the same basic scene only with the people happy and well-fed as they took turns feeding each other across the table.
> 
> I suppose for the sake of full disclosure, I should share that if I believed it could be made to work I would be more liberal than I am in practice in spite of not believing that government is the ideal agency to dispense charitable giving.


I am not in favor of letting people (especially children) suffer and die either, but I'm not certain that is happening much in this country. Kinda like everything else.... The press is less than honest when it comes to accuracy in reporting. The headlines read one way, just like in this case, then down on page eight they admit this "crisis" doesn't actually exist. Chips funding has indeed been extended.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Healthcare is a finite commodity, bordered by infinite demand. Bernie Sanders even said his plan would cost about $1.4T/year more in the first decade.

That's an increase of 30% in the Federal budget.

https://nypost.com/2016/01/31/bernie-and-the-high-cost-of-free-health-care/


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Being a doctor or father of medicine twenty centuries ago doesn't fairly equate to the financial burden of today.
> I could offer you full medical coverage for $100 a month, if you'd accept only BC procedures at BC rates.


No thanks.
I have great coverage already under The Great Physician.


Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, there were doctors.... Treatments on the other hand were near non existent.


I'm sorry, but I don't believe that.
Not only have I seen documentation of treatments, such as brain surgery by ancient Egyptians, but many other examples as well.
Also see my above reply as to the great care and medical treatment that has been graciously bestowed on us since the beginning of time.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No thanks.
> I have great coverage already under The Great Physician.
> 
> 
> ...


Just got back from a funeral. At 67 years old his Christian Science based prayers failed to cure the melanoma. Your Great Physician may call you home sooner than you might expect.
Sawing off the top of your skull for a look see isn't my idea of brain surgery. 99% of the population wasn't afforded the most basic medical cures.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The press is less than honest when it comes to accuracy in reporting.



Who'da thunk it?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Just got back from a funeral. At 67 years old his Christian Science based prayers failed to cure the melanoma. Your Great Physician may call you home sooner than you might expect.
> Sawing off the top of your skull for a look see isn't my idea of brain surgery. 99% of the population wasn't afforded the most basic medical cures.



I was referring to the delicate drilling of holes to relieve pressure. They found similar skeletal remains in the Andes mountains too, IIRC.
Since the skull showed bone healing and various aging afterwards, it was concluded that the patients had survived.
Of course, not being there, we don't know how well they survived.
We can say we have better treatments today and can certainly document that we spend a lot more, but the practice of medicine isn't as recent as some would think.
It's been around a long time.

As for calling me home, that would be cause for celebration, not mourning.
In another thread, I offered this in comfort to JJ, that the ultimate relief of suffering, present AND future, is often overlooked.........



farmrbrown said:


> Will do.
> Although it isn't often seen that way, for those of us who pray to a loving God, a peaceful passing can be considered the ultimate healing.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> As for calling me home, that would be cause for celebration, not mourning.


Lots of folks want to go to heaven, few want to go right now.

https://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Wants-Heaven-Just-Not/dp/1450746004


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Lots of folks want to go to heaven, few want to go right now.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Wants-Heaven-Just-Not/dp/1450746004


True.
The sanity of that decision puzzles me when I compare the living conditions between the two.


----------



## Jlynnp (Sep 9, 2014)

Bungiex88 said:


> If you can’t afford kids don’t produce them. Quit relying on goverment to tuck you in at night.


While I do agree you also need to remember that sometimes life kicks you in the rear. An illness, job loss or death of a spouse can place even the most stable folks into a tailspin. Never say it could not happen to you because it can.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

haypoint said:


> Lots of folks want to go to heaven, few want to go right now.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Wants-Heaven-Just-Not/dp/1450746004


That reminds me of the old joke of the preacher in a Baptist Church at the altar call wanting everyone to raise their hands if they wanted to go to heaven. Everyone in the congregation but a 90 year old lady in a wheel chair in the back with an oxygen tank raised their hands. On the way out, the pastor leaned down to the lady as she was being pushed out and asked why she didn't raise her hand. She said, "I thought you were loading up the bus, right now. I have a the family coming over for lunch today".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jlynnp said:


> While I do agree you also need to remember that sometimes life kicks you in the rear. An illness, job loss or death of a spouse can place even the most stable folks into a tailspin. Never say it could not happen to you because it can.


Life is like that. Some pick up and go on, others prefer to wallow in the mire.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

IndyDave said:


> I will grant you that there is a great deal of irony in the strongest believers in Darwinism being the most strongly opposed to letting it run its course, but that said, I can't support the notion of simply allowing people, especially children, to suffer and/or die. I will say that in order to do such things we really need a constitutional amendment as there is in fact no authority for such things to be done, but there is a reason why there is an amendment process.
> 
> I heard a story once about the difference between heaven and hell. A man was walked through the door into hell and saw a long table as far as the eye could see filled with bowls of food and lined with starving people with 3 foot long spoons fastened to their arms rigidly with which they couldn't reach their mouths. The man was then taken to another door which was heaven. He walked in to see the same basic scene only with the people happy and well-fed as they took turns feeding each other across the table.
> 
> I suppose for the sake of full disclosure, I should share that if I believed it could be made to work I would be more liberal than I am in practice in spite of not believing that government is the ideal agency to dispense charitable giving.


I agree, healthy reasonably intelligent adults have made their bed, but kids have had no hand in shaping their lives. It's not in their power to make their parents responsible for anything. If the parents can't make sure the basics are provided, others have to step up.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I have been married longer than CHIP has been in effect. Before that it was Medicaid which started in 1965 iirc. Before that nothing. My sister was burned as a child so bad it almost killed her. She spent 6 months in and out of hospitals. My brother had a condition when he was born and he was hospitalized also. Both by the Shriners and before Medicaid. We were sharecroppers so yeah we werent rolling in the dough. 

I'm not saying this to take a side but both sides here have a point. People will find a way to take care of our collective children. People also tend to begin to rely on programs and expect them to always take care of them. One less responsibility for them to worry about. But the fact remains that there will always be children who will need special care with the parents not able to provide it. Or those that choose to buy drugs, cigarettes or alcohol instead of caring for the children. We _should_ do something for them. 

The question we should be asking is what is the best way to get to that solution not acting like our way is the only way and to heck with your way.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> I have been married longer than CHIP has been in effect. Before that it was Medicaid which started in 1965 iirc. Before that nothing. My sister was burned as a child so bad it almost killed her. She spent 6 months in and out of hospitals. My brother had a condition when he was born and he was hospitalized also. Both by the Shriners and before Medicaid. We were sharecroppers so yeah we werent rolling in the dough.
> 
> I'm not saying this to take a side but both sides here have a point. People will find a way to take care of our collective children. People also tend to begin to rely on programs and expect them to always take care of them. One less responsibility for them to worry about. But the fact remains that there will always be children who will need special care with the parents not able to provide it. Or those that choose to buy drugs, cigarettes or alcohol instead of caring for the children. We _should_ do something for them.
> 
> The question we should be asking is what is the best way to get to that solution not acting like our way is the only way and to heck with your way.





Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, healthy reasonably intelligent adults have made their bed, but kids have had no hand in shaping their lives. It's not in their power to make their parents responsible for anything. If the parents can't make sure the basics are provided, others have to step up.


Absolutely.
A great man once said, "As you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."
He wasn't trying to get anyone's vote or persuade a political agenda, He was appealing to our hearts.

Something that should be remembered *every* day of the year.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

There is no redemption for Republicans this time. There is only right, and the Right. Every Republican is getting on a list, and that list is called "Enemies and Traitors of America." And these folks all have something coming for them as they wreck our country, singlehandedly.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Heritagefarm said:


> There is no redemption for Republicans this time. There is only right, and the Right. Every Republican is getting on a list, and that list is called "Enemies and Traitors of America." And these folks all have something coming for them as they wreck our country, singlehandedly.


Can you expand on this or are you going to rest with name calling?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> Can you expand on this or are you going to rest with name calling?


No name calling involved. It's perfectly accurate tho call Republicans, at this point, enemies of the public, since the public includes many people, and the tax bill doesn't impact them, mostly it impacts the super wealthy, who already control most American holdings.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Heritagefarm said:


> No name calling involved. It's perfectly accurate tho call Republicans, at this point, enemies of the public, since the public includes many people, and the tax bill doesn't impact them, mostly it impacts the super wealthy, who already control most American holdings.


I would say that it is a bit harsh to label people traitors for making policy contrary to your views. Personally, I intend to withhold judgment until the final accounting is done. If it causes enough economic growth, we could break even on the immediate taxes, plus more personal income tax money existing through the creation of more jobs. If not, we could be a step closer to a banana republic type two class system. In the past, it has worked as advertised, which is no guarantee that it will generate more revenue or economic growth this time. From the news reports I have seen, the Europeans seem to be pretty distressed that we will attract business that they will lose. That said, when I use labels like you did, they are generally directed at people who flagrantly disregard the Constitution who more often than not are Democrats.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> There is no redemption for Republicans this time. There is only right, and the Right. Every Republican is getting on a list, and that list is called "Enemies and Traitors of America." And these folks all have something coming for them as they wreck our country, singlehandedly.


Dont hold back, say what you really mean.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> No name calling involved. It's perfectly accurate tho call Republicans, at this point, enemies of the public, since the public includes many people, and the tax bill doesn't impact them, *mostly it impacts the super wealthy*, who already control most American holdings.


if it passes yes it will in fact. Saw a Bloomberg (I think) article that said overseas corporate money will now be taxed every year which they were never taxed on before unless they bring it back into the country. This was one thing I liked about it. They will not have an advantage to keeping that money hidden in offshore accounts anymore. You should really look at the bill as a whole instead of just throwing generalities out. 

Do you even know *why* you are mad or is it just the MSM told you be?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> I would say that it is a bit harsh to label people traitors for making policy contrary to your views. Personally, I intend to withhold judgment until the final accounting is done. If it causes enough economic growth, we could break even on the immediate taxes, plus more personal income tax money existing through the creation of more jobs. If not, we could be a step closer to a banana republic type two class system. In the past, it has worked as advertised, which is no guarantee that it will generate more revenue or economic growth this time. From the news reports I have seen, the Europeans seem to be pretty distressed that we will attract business that they will lose. That said, when I use labels like you did, they are generally directed at people who flagrantly disregard the Constitution who more often than not are Democrats.


If it winds up being a good thing, I'll say so. But we already tried trickle down economics with Reagonomics, and it was around that time that lower and middle class wages stagnated while the upper class's wages rose massively. 



mreynolds said:


> if it passes yes it will in fact. Saw a Bloomberg (I think) article that said overseas corporate money will now be taxed every year which they were never taxed on before unless they bring it back into the country. This was one thing I liked about it. They will not have an advantage to keeping that money hidden in offshore accounts anymore. You should really look at the bill as a whole instead of just throwing generalities out.
> 
> Do you even know *why* you are mad or is it just the MSM told you be?


I've been reading about it extensively. Just because I disagree with you is no reason to suspect the news sources I've been reading. The question is not whether or not I'm right, because every expert tax and law source has criticized the wreck of a tax bill.

You guys are pretty dumb if you think there's anything good about this tax bill.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

yeah, economic growth and productivity, having jobs available, the people having more money to call their own are all real nation destroyers.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> I've been reading about it extensively. Just because I disagree with you is no reason to suspect the news sources I've been reading. The question is not whether or not I'm right, *because every expert tax and law source* has criticized the wreck of a tax bill.
> 
> You guys are pretty dumb if you think there's anything good about this tax bill.


Names?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Names?


Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Karl Marx, Barrak Obama....


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> If it winds up being a good thing, I'll say so. But we already tried trickle down economics with Reagonomics, and it was around that time that lower and middle class wages stagnated while the upper class's wages rose massively.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Doubling the standard deduction and still allowing most people to deduct state and local taxes until you get to the really high income levels so you can choose which way you benefit the most. (long form or short form) 
How is that NOT good?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Doubling the standard deduction and still allowing most people to deduct state and local taxes until you get to the really high income levels so you can choose which way you benefit the most. (long form or short form)
> How is that NOT good?


If I heard it correctly it also doubles the earned income credit granted to HELP THE CHILDREN.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Karl Marx, Barrak Obama....


Of course they would. That way they can say "see I told you so, vote for us next time." But that's not much different than Republicans did the last 8 years. 

There are some things I like in it and some that I dont. But like Dave said, its not even a law yet.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I heard it correctly it also doubles the earned income credit granted to HELP THE CHILDREN.


That cant be right. Only Democrats care about children. Everyone knows that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Of course they would. That way they can say "see I told you so, vote for us next time." But that's not much different than Republicans did the last 8 years.
> 
> There are some things I like in it and some that I dont. But like Dave said, its not even a law yet.


Both houses passed it and the president signed it. What else is neccessary to make it a law?

It will put money back into most people’s pockets. It will also increase the deficit. How it will create jobs in an economy with already historically low unemployment and high corporate profits I don’t know, but we’ll see.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> Doubling the standard deduction and still allowing most people to deduct state and local taxes until you get to the really high income levels so you can choose which way you benefit the most. (long form or short form)
> How is that NOT good?


Most of the "expert" articles I can find on the first 5 pages are about how Trump will gain 11 million a year in less taxes. But they dont take into account (on purpose if they are as intelligent as they say) how much more he will pay from the decease in mortgage deductions and all those overseas properties that he hasn't had to EVER pay tax on now he will.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Both houses passed it and the president signed it. What else is neccessary to make it a law?
> 
> It will put money back into most people’s pockets. It will also increase the deficit. How it will create jobs in an economy with already historically low unemployment and high corporate profits I don’t know, but we’ll see.


Well to be fair I havent been reading much lately. I guess it is law now. I have been mostly avoiding media to be with my family. 

I'm not sure it will increase the deficit. There is that gazillions of overseas money that has been a tax haven for the rich and powerful. It will now get taxed like any other money owned by American interest. As to how it *could* increase jobs? If you were a multinational corporation and had money disapearing yearly at 15% do you think you would bring it back home and invest it so its not so big of a bite on you every year. Actually 8 times a year i understand as thats now when the money is due instead of Qtrly. 

I have no emotion one way or the other about this bill really. I only chimed in because HF called all Republicans traitors. My parents are Republican and not traitors.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I've been reading about it extensively. Just because I disagree with you is no reason to suspect the news sources I've been reading. The question is not whether or not I'm right, because every expert tax and law source has criticized the wreck of a tax bill.
> 
> You guys are pretty dumb if you think there's anything good about this tax bill.


I thought you said you didn't miss us and you weren't coming back, but I see both of those statements were false.

Name calling still seems to be all you have.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Well to be fair I havent been reading much lately. I guess it is law now. I have been mostly avoiding media to be with my family.
> 
> I'm not sure it will increase the deficit. There is that gazillions of overseas money that has been a tax haven for the rich and powerful. It will now get taxed like any other money owned by American interest. As to how it *could* increase jobs? If you were a multinational corporation and had money disapearing yearly at 15% do you think you would bring it back home and invest it so its not so big of a bite on you every year. Actually 8 times a year i understand as thats now when the money is due instead of Qtrly.
> 
> I have no emotion one way or the other about this bill really. I only chimed in because HF called all Republicans traitors. My parents are Republican and not traitors.


It’s not quite that simple. The money now being held overseas will be taxed at 15%, I believe, for a one time return to the states. This will likely mean that a lot of investors and corporate boards will get larger dividends and bonuses but there’s no extra incentive to invest this money in new infrastructure or hiring. The same sort of “tax holiday” was tried back in 2004 without a commensurate increase in hiring or investment. My understanding of how ongoing foreign profits will be taxed is that there is a slight incentive to continue to invest that money in overseas facilities in order to lessen overall tax liability.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...anies-to-invest-in-foreign-manufacturing.html

Businesses invest in plants, equipment and jobs when it can make them money. Businesses are already making record profits and having trouble finding workers. Lower corporate taxes won’t magically create more people looking for work or increase demand for products.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I've seen articles in Australian, German and Canadian papers all talking about the decrease in the U.S. corporate tax rates, and what those countries will have to do to keep from losing jobs and investment money to America.

They seem to be very worried about losing business and jobs.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> It’s not quite that simple. The money now being held overseas will be taxed at 15%, I believe, for a one time return to the states. This will likely mean that a lot of investors and corporate boards will get larger dividends and bonuses but there’s no extra incentive to invest this money in new infrastructure or hiring. The same sort of “tax holiday” was tried back in 2004 without a commensurate increase in hiring or investment. My understanding of how ongoing foreign profits will be taxed is that there is a slight incentive to continue to invest that money in overseas facilities in order to lessen overall tax liability.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...anies-to-invest-in-foreign-manufacturing.html
> 
> Businesses invest in plants, equipment and jobs when it can make them money. Businesses are already making record profits and having trouble finding workers. Lower corporate taxes won’t magically create more people looking for work or increase demand for products.


No that not the whole story. Right now they are only taxed on it when it is brought back. Under the new tax plan they will be taxed on it every year whether it is brought back or not. _Non cash holdings_ will also be taxed where they were not before. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-republican-tax-proposal/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Just a reminder from the rules for members posting here on HT.
https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/ht-rules-as-approved-by-members.537625/

Be Nice: Debate and discuss ideas and concepts, but treat each other with respect and courtesy. This really needs no elaboration.

Insults: Please refrain from insulting other members by use of labels, condescending comments, racist or bigoted comments, insults about spelling, grammar, etc.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Still the same, I see. No intelligence, no critical thinking skills, no desire to gain new knowledge or insight. I suspect those of who like this, but moreover, I now greatly suspect my own intelligence for thinking I could have ever convinced any one of you of anything, and also of those who continue to engage you in meaningless drivel I mean arguments.


You are usually too emotional to have a critical thinking debate. You let your emotions rule you. Calm down and join in.


----------

