So, you want a S-CHIP debate..

Nice, looks like the government will pay for my kids' health care!( I'm well within the income limits)

Oh, wait, we're white. Nevermind.

Chef, if your white and are a card carrying dem or a member of the ACLU you can still cash in on these benefits.

All around the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel.  The monkey thought t'was all in fun.  POP! goes the weasel.  

i think goose smoked a little too much wacky weed.

i don't agree with the cigarette tax to pay for this either. what they should do is find a way to have middle class america fund their own programs. tax a home that costs over so much $$. tax boats, motorcycles, four wheelers, plasma tv's, ect. if middle america is not willing to take care of their own kids, then find a way that makes them pay for the cost of doing it.

funny thing is that in 10 years, you neo-cons will have accepted and embraced this practice. it will become a regular american "entitlement" that you all hate so much. you hate entitlements so much that you finally cave in to them because it becomes the norm.

Last time i checked, every one of those things is already taxed; or haven't you noticed that the rolls of tin foil for your hats are always like 6% more than the price tag...

The bottom line is that if your spending money on a new tv instead of buying health insurance then you deserve what you get, fat, lazy t.v. watching kids without health insurance.  Don't come crying to goverment to bail you out, when your kids poor health catches up with your pocket book.  

Another benefit of Darwinism.

I'm going to switch sides for a moment. I understand that there are some middleclass americans that for some reason can't afford healthcare. Some are self employed and can't find affordable individual policies. Some have health problems or have a bad health history which causes them to be uninsurable. Some work for companies that don't pay anything (or close to nothing) towards their employees benefits. Therefore, they end up in the same boat. For these people, I understand. I want it to go on record that I have empathy towards you. What I don't agree with are those who can get health insurance and can afford it if they WANTED to, but don't.

That being said, I also know some people who have been self employed, who couldn't afford health insurance for their family and who have changed careers because they wanted to provide this for their kids and spouse. I am one of them. My brother is another example. At one time he was an independent insurance adjuster. A few years ago he and his wife decided that he would go to work for an insurance company so he could get benefits. He may not make as much $$$, but he has a piece of mind that the $$$ wasn't buying.

With the advent of Medical Savings Accounts, this should become even less of a problem and could help encourage more people to become self employed so they don't have to count on benefits from some corporation.

This is a joke!! I am all for helping out but come on this is wrong it won't help in fact it will cause additional problems as they have to raise our taxes to pay for it. This and having government health care is just a mess. we already have health care run by the government and it is a mess it's the VA. Ask a Vet and they will tell you how messed up the system is.

I am sticking with the idea of Medical Savings Accounts. This is the wave of the future. Because it takes personal initiative, the Dems may talk many people out of it and tell them that the government will take care of them. However, I see this as a rolling stone that will grow no moss until it overshadows the idea of socialized healthcare.

If you think the SCHIP will go away because people would rather handle the matter themselves, given the chance, you have misread history from as far back as FDR.  More recently was the debate over private retirement accounts to supplant or supplement Social Security.  In spite of all the reasons to get the fedgov's grubby mitts off people's retirement funds the majority would rather have the "security" of Social Security.

The primary problem with SCHIP, outside the argument that it is socialized medicine -  which it is - is that it is money given to the states by the fedgov, much the same way as Medicaid.  States see it as a way to get money coming into their states with little responsibility for how well it is spent and without having to answer to their various constituencies.  The consequence will be higher costs for the rest of us because as long at the government is buying there is no incentive to cut costs.  Also, where the government squeezes providers there is additional burden placed on private funding sources to make up the difference.  It is, after all, "for the children".

(not content to leave well enough alone...)Here is a radical idea for solving the SCHIP conundrum: leave it to the states

Have the federal income tax be cut by the amount the fedgov estimates it will spend on the program.  Then, with that tax money in the pockets of taxpayers, the states can levy a tax to pay for as much or as little for universal health care as their voters will stand for.  

This plan would allow the several states to experiment with programs to bring down cost, improve health, and so on.  The additional benefit would be how much more quickly a state bureaucracy could make a needed adjustment than the fedgov.

The down-side for the social planners is that the voters would feel the cost of their "free health care" much more than if it comes from the fedgov; another reason to recommend it, from where I sit.

Jack just made my point. Thanks for reinforcing the idea that you conservatives will give in to liberal agendas. i don't know if it is because you know you lack the power to push your own ideas (and medical savings accounts are a worthy idea) or if deep down jack is right... you really want somebody else to take care of things for you.

I think JR and Melkor are wrong. Social Security is under scrutiny now because too many Americans are concerned that the current situation is not working. The system may be going bankrupt. The strong push for privatizing Social Security is proof of that. I don't think that conservatives are lacking power to push their agendas either. One day, Melkor may wake up in an America were it's citizens take personal responsibility for themselves.

I hope it's not too late to continue this discussion.  Both of the comments which followed mine miss the point I was hoping to make.  

First, I did not mean to imply that conservatives want to be taken care of.  That idea was one of the overarching ideas that grew from the malignant seeds planted by FDR as a consequence of the Great Depression and has served this country ill ever since.  I can think of no government "help" program that has not been the basis for dependency on the government.

The fact, as I perceive it, that people will continue to allow their personal liberty and responsibility to be supplanted by government "help" does not mean I endorse it.  I simply see that there is little interest in the body politic to fend for themselves if they can get taken care of - especially if it is "free".  Politicians know this and sell their ideas wrapped these arguments.

Second, I am so in favor of privatizing Social Security I want the government to give me back my total contribution so I can invest it and take my chances with the market.  I could - and just might - write an entire editorial arguing against the current system and for privatization.  However, the point I was trying to make is: even in the face of a mountain of factual evidence that the concept of Social Security as it is today is (pardon the pun) bankrupt, enough people are afraid of making their own decisions that they would rather have the "guarantee" of Social Security than plan to take care of themselves.  They want it "fixed" so they can continue to not have to take responsibility for their retirement.  It is not as I wish it; I see it as what is.

JR, thanks for the clarification. I like what you're saying. Complaceny is an epidemic.

Even though part of my paycheck goes to FICA each month, I still take "personal" initiative and put a portion away for retirement. I also have part of my pay deposited into savings to build liquid assets. As soon as the government started dipping their greasy little fingers into the social security budget to fund other projects, I knew it would be a downward spiral for SSI. We can't count on SSI being enough to support us when we retire. The current SSI payout is about $950 a month. Good luck living on that... even if your house is paid for.

BTW... if our healthcare does take a socialized aspect like SSI, we can count on history repeating itself.

if the majority wants the govenment to take care of their healthcare, isn't that what we should do in a country like ours? what's the point of a democracy?

That, again is one of the poison seeds planted and nurtured during FDR's time as president:  we have a republic, not a democracy.  Where the democratic principle comes into play would be in the states.  Let the People's Republic of California (for example) insure every one of their citizens against the medical effects of liberalism, if their government can afford it.  Why should the citizens of Utah, who are much more self-sufficient (in my hypothetical example) and want to provide medical assistance for only those who are destitute.  That is completely within the purview of our American federal system.  

A democracy, by definition, is mob rule and according to comments of the Founders, a sure path to political suicide, as we have seen with the erosion of real liberty since democracy replaced republic as our definition of ourselves.  The problem of health care should be able to be solved without burying everyone in debt, even those who do not want to participate, but it should be done at the state level, not the federal.

Before someone points to the SCHIPS money or Medicaid as being state programs funded, in part, by the federal government; that is not the same as a state program.  When your taxes go to the federal government before they go to a state program, it is a federal program.

Jack, I love the fact that you want to make this a State issue.  The Feds have taken waaaaaaay too much power to themselves and we've let them.  

States should do more to take care of themselves and their citizens.  That's why we got rid of the Federalists in the early 1800's.  

"My faith in the right as an inherent attribute of State sovereignty, was adopted early in life, was confirmed by study and observation of later years, and has passed unchanged and unshaken, through the severe ordeal to which it has been subjected."
                                                           - Jefferson Davis

Davis said this upon his re-admittence to the US Senate after the Civil War.  I'm with Jack - Let's make this a State issue and the commie blue states can tax their people into the poor house.

There is too much of a fine line between state government and federal government. Anyway, state governments are bought and paid for by the feds, in escence they are one in the same. If we give states certain powers, then we will complain that the states have too much power and local municipalities or counties should have the power. Case in point... education. The state is too deep into controlling education when this is a local, community, municipal, or county issue.

Once again I side with personal responsibility and accountability over any form of government control.

Whether we tilt at the windmill of separation of state and federal or choose the equally quixotic path of expecting personal responsibility and accountability to be applied to solving problems, there is something we all should be doing - contacting our elected representatives.  It is the only way we can ever expect to move the sticks closer to either goal.

I know that even this seems more a symbolic than substantive exercise but to give up on it is to give up on even the prospect that our government will ever function properly.  And, occasionally it works.  (The illegal immigration amnesty bill comes to mind.)

There is one other thing that will help, and we are all doing it at some level.  We need to fire up our own information machine.  This blog is a potential tool for explaining why we believe what we do.  It has the possibility of informing, and maybe converting, others.