Starlady01

I don't trust Hillary myself. I didn't read the rest of the stuff.

ahippiechic

And no, I don't trust any of them very far......

__________________

Jolie Rouge

October 9, 2007 5:00 AM
For the Children
I won’t be bullied on SCHIP.
By Tim Walberg

Right now if you listen to a popular country radio station in south-central Michigan, you can hear advertisements spreading lies about my position on S-CHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program).

The station selection for this ad seems appropriate for House Democrats, whose blatant twisting of the truth is fit for a remake of Garth Brooks’s classic song “Friends in Low Places.”

House Democrats continue to mischaracterize Republican support of the S-CHIP program, and would like you to believe that Republicans do not care about poor, needy kids. Democrats are using this smear campaign against Republicans to gain support for their tax-and-spend economic policies. Sadly, they are taking the focus away from where this debate should be: meeting the needs of children of low-income families.

I support renewing S-CHIP to provide health care to children in low-income families, but I also believe we need to ensure that the children’s health program is available for children who need it, and not for adults, people who enter the country illegally, or families who already have private insurance.

The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants, while moving millions of children from private health insurance to government programs.

In 2006, 118,501 children and 101,919 adults in Michigan received health care from the S-CHIP program. Incredibly, this means that 46 percent of Michigan’s funding allotment intended to give poor children health insurance actually went to cover adults.

The Wall Street Journal further described this problem in its August 9 editorial: “The bill goes so far as to offer increasing ‘bonus payments’ to states as they enroll more people in their SCHIP programs. To grease the way, the bill re-labels children’ as anyone under 25, and ‘low income’ as up to… $82,600 for a family of four.”

It is unfathomable to think that Democrats want to expand a program that currently does not meet the full objective of covering poor children, and expand it to try to insure single adults. I’m not sure what part of “children’s health care” liberals in Congress do not understand.

And to pay for their huge expansion, House Democrats need 22 million new smokers to begin lighting up over the next ten years. Over two million kids will move from private health care to Washington-based, government run health care under the House leadership’s plan.

This bill and its budgetary gimmicks are certainly the wrong approach. Rather than pursuing a bill that will harm many Americans and socialize our health-care system, this Congress should reform SCHIP and go back to its original intent of helping needy kids. Let’s look for ways to give families tax credits and encourage private health-care insurance.

Our first responsibility is to make health care more affordable and accessible to all Americans, and this includes preventing children’s health funds from going to people who enter the country illegally, families earning $83,000, or those who already have private insurance.

Tim Walberg is a congressman from Michigan’s Seventh District.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...FlOWRjNWNmNmQ=

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

You do not address the fact of adults being included in this program, nor did you mention anything about illegal aliens taking advantage of it either.

You’re cherry-picking numbers and ignoring the meat-and-potatoes facts, including this one:

At age 18, people become adults. They can work, serve in the Military and vote. But yet we’re supposed to offer them free health care as well until they’re 25? How does that promote self-sufficiency?

By weeding out those adults who were covered by this plan in Michigan, that would have allowed another 100,000 children to be covered, if needed.

Isn’t this all about the children?

If this was supposed to be about the American children, why are adults, illegals and everyone BUT children qualifying and covered?

Answer: It’s backdoor socialized medicine.


Also, the 'under 25 provision' just allows many employers that already pay at least part of the premium for it’s workers to stop paying anything for thier employees under 25.

My employer currently pays $600 per month for a single person under age 50 in addition to $3500 of a $5000 deductible. Currently our work force of around 50 employees consists of 32 employees under 25, that’s a pretty good savings.



And consider this, we have the Women’s, Infants’, Children (WIC) program. It provides health care and food for children. The catch is - the food you can buy is ONLY food that’s WIC approved. There are labels on shelves in grocery stores, as well as a list of stuff that’s been government approved.

Which is the same thing that will happen if the government runs all health care. THEY - not you, not your doctor - will decide what procedures you can have and when.

And - in this prime example from the UK - if your care costs too much, the government will cut you off…whether or not it kills you.

Are you ready to have some government bean-couter decide when YOUR life is over? Or what you can eat? How often you should exercise? What you can/cannot feed your children? What sexual behaviors you engage in? All those things, if paid for by the government, are - by rights - the government’s decision to make. For you.

Bottom line this as so many other gov programs are clear violations of the constitution and congresses enumerated powers. The framers made it VERY clear that the gov was not to give charity to the citizens…….If it looks and quacks like a duck it must be a……….

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

See there is part of the problem as well ...

Okay, these guys just never fail to amaze me. They vilify smokers, pass tons of laws to make it almost impossible to smoke anywhere outside of a personal bubble yet they base the cost offsets to increased cigarette taxes? I can see it now, smokers may pay for some (those who don’t finally quit to not being able to smoke anywhere or afford to anymore)But you can rest assured the non-smoking tax payers pocket books will be pilfered over this one.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Since they plan on basing all this on income from taxing 'smokes' I thought this was relevent ... so sorry Adam

Opinion Our view on secondhand smoke:
Anti-smoking movement gets one step closer to home
Tue Oct 9, 12:22 AM ET

For smokers, these aren't happy times. In most of the country, you can find them huddled outdoors, even in winter, indulging their habit. They've been evicted from the office, and tossed out of restaurants and bars. Increasingly, even outdoor sports stadiums, beaches and parks are being declared off-limits.

Want numbers? Try this one: Workplace bans alone now cover nearly 118 million people, according to the American Non-smokers' Rights Foundation.

By any measure, this is a very good thing. Smoking is down. So, too, is incidence of the diseases that smoking causes. But as momentum for bans builds, some inconvenient questions need to be answered. Is any ban acceptable? Or do some bans unjustly trample smokers' rights to use what is, after all, a perfectly legal product?

Wherever the line belongs, some local officials in California seem intent on staking out territory way beyond it. They want to ban renters, and potentially condominium owners, from smoking in their own homes.

The City Council in Belmont, outside San Francisco, is poised to give final approval today to a measure that would make it the first city in the nation to ban smoking in rental units. Calabasas, a small city near Los Angeles, was weighing a similar ban, but the City Council there began pulling back after a story about the proposals appeared in USA TODAY. Details of the cities' original plans vary slightly, and they contain exceptions, but both are out of sync with the simple sense of fairness that revolutionized the country's attitude about smoking.

Memories of smoke-filled rooms might be fading now, but until the mid-1980s, tobacco smoke was as pervasive in the USA as it is in Europe or Asia today. Smoke wafted through offices and restaurants, not to mention airplanes. Non-smokers put up with it, and attempts to ban smoking were routinely defeated by the simple, logical argument that smokers were harming only themselves.

Then, in 1986, a report by the surgeon general set off a tectonic shift. Secondhand smoke, he found, threatens the health of those who inhale it. The more confined the space, the greater the threat.

The smokers' argument was demolished. Their habit now was considered a threat to others, and fairness demanded protection for non-smokers. Smoking was soon banned on airplanes, and the race was on. Over the ensuing 20 years, the effect has been electrifying. The number of smokers has shrunk to just more than 20% of the population, less than half the peak level. Among non-smokers, meanwhile, the number showing signs of exposure to nicotine has fallen by more than 70%.

There is just one downside to all this: The legitimate interests of smokers, a shrinking minority, are now easily trounced by a huge non-smoking majority. That is what's happening in Belmont, where smokers' homes would no longer be their castles, at least if they rent. Smokers could be evicted based on complaints about smoke, not proof of a threat.

This is not only unfair, it's unwise and unnecessary. Landlords, eager to attract non-smokers and trim the cost of cleaning up apartments for the next tenant, are already rushing to market smoke-free buildings.

That's just one more sensible step in what has proved to be a remarkably peaceful evolution away from smoking. By ham-handedly reaching into the home, government only gets in the way.

Bans by the numbers

As of Oct. 1, 2,650 U.S. municipalities have laws restricting smoking:

•* 507 require smoke-free workplaces.
•* 461 ban smoking in restaurants.
•* 344 ban smoking in bars.
•* 239 forbid lighting up in all three places.
•* 1,109 restrict smoking in one or more outdoor areas, such as public beaches and stadiums, or near entrances and windows.

Source: American Non-smokers' Rights Foundation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...F9273ElQj8B2YD



Opposing view:
Health and safety come first
Tue Oct 9, 12:21 AM ET
By Coralin Feierbach

Thirty-eight thousand non-smokers die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke, according to the National Cancer Institute. It causes as many as 300,000 children to suffer from pneumonia, asthma, ear infections and bronchitis, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The California Environmental Protection Agency has determined that infants exposed to secondhand smoke suffer an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome. The surgeon general says there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.

So why would anyone object to a law aimed at sparing healthy citizens, particularly children and the elderly, exposure to secondhand smoke?

In a recent USA TODAY article, a paid lobbyist was quoted as saying, "You should be able to do what you wish in your own home." Apparently, because smoking is a legal activity, some think they have a right to smoke even if it injures non-smoking family, friends and neighbors.

Perhaps some people think they have a "right" to smoke wherever they please, regardless of danger to others. But no state legislature, no court, ever said people have such a right. Individual rights should be restricted when they threaten the safety of another. That's why society acts when a driver drives drunk or a spouse is battered in the sanctity of the home.

That's what the city of Belmont did. An older gentleman from a low-income housing facility asked the city to help reduce the involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke. His complaint resonated because secondhand smoke disproportionately hurts the most vulnerable in our society: infants and children who can't escape exposure, or those of modest means who can't move from smoke-infested apartment buildings.

With decades of indisputable science concerning the danger of secondhand smoke, it's time to shift the concern from the convenience of the unhealthy smoker to the safety of everyone else — much like the need to drive must yield to the safety of pedestrians, particularly around schools.

Why seek elected office if you lack the courage to tilt the delicate balance of individual rights in favor of the health and safety of our citizens? Belmont's law would be a good start and an example for others to embrace.

Coralin Feierbach is mayor of Belmont, Calif.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...tPqDcWX2r8B2YD

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

10/10/2007
A DEBATE THAT NEVER WAS BUT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archive...eds-to-happen/

I believe it entirely appropriate that we conservatives criticize little Graeme Frost – an injured boy of just 12 years old – for…well, I’ll think of it in a minute. I know we should be skewering him for something. Maybe we should go after him for getting in front of the car that caused his injuries? How about for not being born with a silver spoon in his mouth? Perhaps we could come down on him for giving a poor performance during his response to the President for vetoing SCHIP?

I know there’s something that we should be hammering the kid for. After all, if liberals accuse conservatives of something, it’s got to be true. They never exaggerate. They never lie. They never twist words or make outrageously stupid analogies.

The problem as far as I can see it is that conservatives must have erased their blog posts in the middle of the night of all the nasty things they’ve written about little Graeme while no lefties were looking because for the life of me, I can’t seem to find a single example from any conservative blog where one negative word has been written about a 12 year old little boy suffering the pain and trauma from an automobile accident. Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

There has, of course, been plenty written about his parents. Even Rush Limbaugh’s accusations of the kid “lying” are not based on anything the child came up with on his own but rather what he was handed to say. Unless the critics are saying the kid wrote that response all by himself, blowhard Limbaugh (whose shtick is really getting rather tiresome) was spot on. The Democratic response, written we are told by Democratic staffers, was full of lies, exaggerations, and distortions of the conservative position on the issue. This is not the fault of Graeme Frost but of the supposed grown ups – including his parents – who used him as a prop and human shield in their propaganda war against the right.

The point is simple and worth repeating; not one single righty blogger that I have read has criticized a 12 year old boy. Despite all the hand wringing, wailing, fake outrage, and deliberate obfuscation of the truth, to charge conservatives with the crime of piling on an injured child is outrageously false and, since the left knows it’s not true, a blatant lie.

It has, however, given liberals the opportunity to stretch their vocabulary of invectives – including this ignorant analogy drawn by the normally intelligent Ezra Klein: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/20...as-happen.html

I’m glad it would never occur to you Ezra because trying to compare a tax cut to an entitlement program is the most stupefyingly idiotic analogy I have ever seen a lefty make. It’s not even worthy of Oliver Willis. It’s not even comparing apples to oranges – more like peaches to elephants.

But Klein’s analogy is instructive. Not of leftist stupidity although you’d be hardpressed to find a more doltish example of liberal witlessness. Rather, it points up very nicely the difference between a liberal and conservative on the reason and function of government.

Klein has no trouble equating a tax cut with an entitlement program because he sees the tax cut as a gift from government. It is government as daddy giving us a boost in our allowance. More prosaically, it is, like SCHIP, just another responsibility of government – in this case, by “giving money back to the people,” consumerism is encouraged.

But tax cuts have nothing to do with government and everything to do with personal property. That money is the taxpayer’s. It is already in his pocket. A tax cut is nothing more than a law preventing the government from reaching into the taxpayer’s pocket and taking away his property. It is not a gift or a favor or even a responsibility of government. A tax cut has everything to do with expanding personal liberty and nothing whatsoever to do with government being nice to taxpayers.

This simple, basic, liberty loving concept has been forgotten by liberals like Klein who see tax cuts as part of a government “plan” for the economy hence, monies that the government will forgo collecting in order to modify or encourage some kind of economic activity. In short, the money “given back” to taxpayers is really the government’s money to begin with, theirs to do with as they see fit.

To not see how that concept turns the idea of freedom on its head reveals a moral blindness that makes it easy to posit that all property is subject to government approval and control. It justifies eminent domain and host of other egregious threats to human liberty that used to be a concern of liberals but is now seen as an impediment to government management of most every facet of people’s lives.

The struggle here is not over little Graeme Frost who no one has criticized or smeared. The ideological battle over “need” and “want” is what is at issue. Of course the middle class wants SCHIP. Why not? It’s free, isn’t it? But no one is asking if there is a better way to insure those who don’t make a million dollars a year. No one is asking if this expansion of federal largess at the expense of other taxpayers is a good thing or not – certainly no one has queried those taxpayers who are going to foot the bill for families like the Frosts whose situation, while complicated, is not desperate or hopeless where no one would begrudge them the benefit.

But if the left can’t see this fundamental issue as one of taxpayer fairness I don’t hold out much hope for entitlement reform and indeed, see a wild expansion of government programs in the future that would benefit families who aren’t needy but simply don’t want to make the sacrifices other families willingly make in order to get insurance, or send their kids to college, or go on a European vacation for that matter – something I have no doubt the left would use government to subsidize if they thought they could get away with it.

The whole problem with SCHIP and other entitlements is that we have confused “need” and “want” to the point that there is no longer any difference between the two. It is the difference between freedom and capitalism and dependence and socialism. As each incremental increase in government’s ability to make decisions for us becomes law, a corresponding loss of freedom occurs – freedom to make our own decisions about family and our futures. SCHIP does not represent much of a loss as far as our freedom is concerned. Perhaps technically none at all. We simply abrogate responsibility for supplying health care to our loved ones and place the burden on our neighbors.

Compassion has nothing to do with this issue. If it did, liberals would emote just as histrionically for taxpayers. Instead, they obscure the entire issue by hiding behind the problems of a middle class family who have clearly made choices that their neighbors may or may not have made if they were in a similar position. And because of those choices, those same neighbors are footing their health insurance bill.

If it is a socialist state (European model) that is sought by the left, why don’t they come out of the closet and proudly proclaim it to the rest of the country? If not just the needy are to be taken care of by government but also anyone and everyone who has their hand out, why not take your case to the people and run on it?

It won’t happen, of course. And liberals will keep playing Santa Claus while painting conservatives as Scrooge. Damned effective politics, that. Whether it’s the right thing to do as far as maintaining our liberties is concerned just never seems to enter into the discussion. And I have no doubt, we will rue the day that we stopped weighing the consequences of what we give up in freedom for what we gain when abrogating our responsibilities to live as independent, self reliant people.


What could we do with an extra $10,000 a year, if we didn’t have to pay insurance premiums, and instead SCHIP and taxpayers picked up the tab? Fix-up the 46-year old house; buy a new or recent car; hire baby sitters and get some additional sanity from entertainment; eat better than at Jack or the Clown; take an actual vacation; put steaks on the table; have a cellphone, at least for emergencies, get a newer faster computer and faster DSL; buy our clothes somewhere other then thrift stores and yard sales; and so on.

We make choices, in favor of frugality and self-responsibility, and can thus afford to continue to pay insurance premiums.

Sure, it’s not easy being a parent, or living in a high-cost area. Sure, it would be nice to live easier. But, is that fair to other struggling taxpayers?

SCHIP should include reasonable asset tests. In all but three states, it doesn’t have any.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

The ‘C’ in SCHIP Is for Children,
Except When It’s Not
October 10, 2007

According to the states’ budget projections, 13 will spend more than 44 percent of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women.

Michigan tops the list with 71.6 percent of its SCHIP money earmarked for adults who have no kids. In New Mexico, 52.3 percent of the state’s SCHIP dollars will be spent on childless adults.

Source: Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

http://www.examiner.com/blogs/beeler...Health-Warning


We’ve posted the video of John Kerry’s health care poster child abuse on YouTube as a reminder of the tactics the Dems use over and over in their quest for socialized medicine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY2HtjJUPSs&eurl=

Yup. The Left doesn’t want to talk about this, so I’ll keep throwing it back in their faces: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1194469/posts
Graeme and Gemma Frost are not the first political symbols to be exploited by the socialized health care pushers of the Left:

* In 2000, Al Gore propped up elderly widow Winifred Skinner to lambaste high drug prices. Gore repeated her claim that she had to pick up cans on the side of the road to pay for medicine. Dan Rather bemoaned: “She’s no child, but she belongs on a poster about high drug costs.” One problem: Winifred’s own well-to-do son, businessman Earl King, debunked those claims.

* In 2004, John Kerry propped up Mary Ann Knowles, a breast cancer patient who he claimed “had to keep working day after day right through her chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of losing her family’s health insurance?” The conservative Manchester Union Leader editorial page reported: “Knowles chose to work through most, but not all, of her chemotherapy because her husband was out of a job…She and husband John did not want to take the pay cut that would have come with disability leave, so Mary Ann kept working.”

The Democrats sorely resent that they can no longer peddle their Big Nanny propaganda unchallenged. Harry Reid is already throwing tantrums and attacking the messengers who expose their health-care poster child abuse.

---


Hillary Clinton, She Whose Hand Rocks The Cradle, warns S-CHIP critics to “lay off.” Or else what, Mrs. Clinton?

Hillary should lay off the kiddie shields. Last time she exploited a sick child to argue for universal health care, it didn’t turn out so well.

* In 1996, Hillary Clinton propped up young Jennifer Bush, a seven-year-old with mystery ailments whose mother coached her to lobby for universal health care Jennifer was trotted out to present the Clintons a lucky silver dollar “to bring you good luck so everyone can have good insurance.” Jennifer’s mother was later convicted of aggravated child abuse and welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000 in assets on Medicaid forms.


Yep, if you think healthcare is expensive now…..just wait until its “free”. Not to mention the degree to which quality of care will suffer. There is already an extreme shortage of nurses and quality doctors in this country. Can you image what it will turn into if we go to socialized health care??? The bar will be sooooooo low for people to graduate from med school. Going to the Dr’s office will be like going to the DMV….. And I really don’t want somebody at the DMV screening me for cancer or taking my tonsils out. YIKES!

Here’s a free prescription for our stunted politicians: Grow up.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

WHY DO YOU HATE CHILDREN SO MUCH?!
Manipulated-child syndrome.
By Mark Hemingway

For months now, National Review Online has been arguing against the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It’s bad policy for a myriad of reasons — it doesn’t prioritize truly poor children; “children’s insurance” actually covers adults; you can make $80,000 dollars a year in some cases and still qualify for it; it will incentivize people to get off of employer insurance rolls and have taxpayers foot the bill; it’s funding mechanism — a cigarette tax — is effectively a tax on the poor; the way the proposed program’s “funding cliff” is set up will encourage expansion of the program in five years time; it’s a step in the direction of socialized medicine; President Bush’s proposal to provide tax credits for people that purchase their own insurance will encourage market competition and is a better proposal… and so on.

However, the Graeme Frost affair has pushed all of these arguments off the table. In the face of sensible policy arguments, the Democratic response was much gnashing of teeth and wailing about how opponents of SCHIP don’t care about some kid name Graeme Frost who might possibly benefit from the program’s expansion. As per one of the major policy critiques of SCHIP, several people have raised questions about the Frost family’s relative need for taxpayer funded insurance, but for Democrats the only important SCHIP question is WHY DO YOU HATE CHILDREN SO MUCH?!

We here at NRO are in fact deeply concerned about the world our children will live in. But of all the arguments we have presented against SCHIP, we’re most deeply troubled by the fact SCHIP does nothing to protect kids, who like Graeme Frost, suffer from MCS — Manipulated Child Syndrome. Perhaps the gravest public threat endangering our youth, MCS occurs whenever insubstantial claims of child endangerment are substituted for real political argument.

Though MCS has gone largely untreated, the signs are readily visible. Every time you turn on the TV do you see sullen children, half-lit against austere backdrops, opining about the dangers of global warming, despite the fact they’re barely potty trained, let alone able to grasp the intricate dynamics of climate science?

We know — you’re probably asking yourself why you didn’t recognize the signs sooner. Each of these children pictured above are suffering the ravages of MCS. Somewhere right now, one out of every 10,000 children is auditioning for a public service announcement. This can be a harrowing experience. One former casting agent who wished to remain anonymous told NRO of the horrors. “I saw a parent standing off-camera threatening to tear the stuffing out of Mr. Jangles if their little moppet didn’t start crying and telling the camera about an obviously childish and manufactured fear of ‘not being able to see, like, a blue sky or green grass,’” the casting agent said. “It was clearly sickening to the child. I know it made me ill just watching it.”

MCS unfortunately is hereditary in this regard. Ironically, many of the children protesting the existence of global warming today would not be doing so if they were not the product of parents who were themselves once young children suffering from MCS and enlisted in efforts to stop clean, low-carbon-footprint nuclear power.

If left untreated, MCS only gets worse over time. By the time children suffering from MCS reach adolescence, the disease is much harder to combat. The effects are, sadly, plainly evident in this Greenpeace ad.

In younger children, treatment can be simple. Allowing them to play and have fun as they receive a competent education may be all that is needed for them to form their own political opinions at a more age-appropriate time. However, more draconian measures are needed for adolescents and teenagers suffering from MCS. The child in the Greenpeace ad who’s been brainwashed into thinking of adults as the enemy of the environment? Tragically, to the only cure for such an advanced case of this terrible affliction may be four years of military school.

The causes of MCS are even institutional. Don’t let their name fool you — the Children’s Defense Fund has been a veritable breeding ground for MCS since it came into existence. In perhaps the most severe case of MCS seen in recent years, the Fund, led by Hillary Clinton BFF Marian Wright Edelman, forced nine-year-old MCS sufferer Susie Flynn to do the unthinkable: Susie Flynn ran for president of the United States on a narrow platform of children’s health insurance — despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids candidates under the age of 35 for the office of the president.

Sadly, Susie’s untreated MCS proved to be a fate worse than death as the pressures of the campaign trail mounted. Already despondent over her poor showing in the Iowa straw poll, Susie threw herself out the window of her speeding campaign bus just outside Nashua, New Hampshire, immediately after her campaign manager informed her that she couldn’t have another juice box until her interview with the Associated Press was finished.

Unfortunately, the cautionary tale of Susie Flynn didn’t stop the Service Employees International Union from frogmarching children into a recent photo-op criticizing the presidential SCHIP veto. The lesson was also lost on the parents of Graeme Frost. They could have personally argued the SCHIP debate on the merits as adult parents and voters affected by the policy. Instead, they chose to saddle their already unhealthy children with MCS, by having them publicly buttress Nancy Pelosi’s argument.

At NRO, we’re doing our best to stop MCS. While we’re still working on a cure, a preventative approach has thus far proven successful. Understanding the real effects of policy has been shown to have a nearly 100-percent success rate in preventing voters from reacting to cynically calculated appeals about the welfare of children, thus discouraging more parents from exposing their children to MCS.

Months before Graeme Frost became Patient Zero in the most recent MCS outbreak, NRO had effectively immunized its readership by discussing in great depth the pitfalls of SCHIP. This was not dumbed down; it was strong medicine delivered in a way that only could be understood by adults. For only adults are capable of taking the necessary precautions to protect future generations from being fiscally bled to death by their government.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...IyNDM4ZDQyMTY=

http://newsbusters.org/node/13972

http://www.youtube.com/jp.swf?video_...YIl9KruxRrRtW0


http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer

http://www.electsusie.com/


http://www.seiu.org/index.cfm

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Question for grown-ups:
Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?
By Michelle Malkin • October 12, 2007

This question is for grown-ups only:

Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?

What if I told you I drove these three cars:
A Volvo SUV…
A GMC Suburban…
And a nice, big Ford F250 Pickup work truck…

And what if I told you, further, that I owned a large home and commercial property worth at least $400,000 in total–property for which I paid a total of $215,000?

And what if I told you, in addition, that I was resourceful enough to cobble together financing (through scholarships and other means) for private school education for four children?

And what if I told you that neither I nor my spouse were employed full-time–one of us working “intermittently” and the other “part-time”?

Would you consider my family “exactly the kind” and “precisely the type” of family that should benefit from S-CHIP, the government-subsidized health insurance program intended for the “working poor?”

I received an unsolicited e-mail this week from a neighbor of the Frost family, the family held up by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the entitlement expansionist Democrats. He wrote:

In the infantilized world of liberals, it is “sliming a child” to ask a “meanie” question that cuts to the core of the supposed differences between the two major political parties:

Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?

Are Democrats capable of putting down the human shields and answering the question?

And what about Republicans?

Who represents the truly needy?

Who represents the taxpayers, the future generations, who would be forced to send their hard-earned money to fund a massive, middle-class entitlement expansion?



The Wall Street Journal editorial board, last seen attacking conservatives who opposed shamnesty, now sneers at “conservative bloggers” and “the Internet mob” for questioning the Democrats’ S-CHIP poster family’s financial status:

“Just the sort of family,” eh? Yes, the WSJ’s animosity towards the blogosphere runs so deep it would rather recycle Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s talking points than concede anything to the “Internet mob.”

To review quickly: We are now “meanies,” “hypocrites,” “slimers,” and “mobsters” for challenging the wisdom of taking money away from taxpayers of lesser means who are responsible enough to buy insurance before a catastrophic event in order to subsidize two-property, three-car families with four children in private schools and two parents who work “intermittently” and “part-time” who didn’t have the foresight or priorities to purchase insurance before a tragic auto accident.

And they call our conclusions “dubious?”




BitsBlog wonders: http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=7378

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?