Bush to Kids: Yo Momma!
George W. Bush, hugely unpopular, widely known to have issues speaking basic english, and the lamest of ducks, has finally found an emeny his size.
Little kids.
The guy who is for states rights when it suits him, is against it here, since helping poor kids is no better than helping poor black people. What a fucking loser. Can we get a real candidate with a spine please? I’m tired of the wimp luggage and the slimy bastards who carry it.
God forbid he should deny us taxpayers the right to pay for exhorbitantly priced emergency care when cheap preventative care is an option. Ass.
Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.After learning of the new policy, some state officials said today that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children by imposing standards that could not be met. — NYT
I can’t think of a single thing that will drive more people to vote for a Democrat in 2008. These programs are hugely popular (this means lots of voters like them, Georgie. Try to keep up). By all means, fuck with those states now. Then, by the time the elections come round, people who got the shaft will get out the vote. Speaking of which, can we remember to THINK during the primaries, and not vote based on manipulation? Please, google stuff. Find out where the money is coming from and what the agenda is. It’s only our democracy if we work to keep it.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:51 am
New York is wanting to increase the threshold of those families eligible for coverage for their children increased to more than $82,000 a year. The Feds are saying o.k. but first you have to show us you have covered 95% of those at 200% percent of the poverty level or below. The feds are wanting the insurance coverage to go to the most needy before covering the kids of the middle class. Sounds like it is the feds looking out for the poor. What do you have against that?
August 21st, 2007 at 10:48 am
Manapp, you obviously know absolutely nothing about the cost of living in the NYC area!
JMJ
August 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am
JMJ: Your response is irrelevent to the argument.
From the article:
“The poverty level for a family of four is $20,650 in annual income. New York now covers children in families with income up to 250 percent of the poverty level. The State Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level — $82,600 for a family of four — but the change is subject to federal approval.
California wants to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level, from 250 percent. Pennsylvania recently raised its limit to 300 percent, from 200 percent. New Jersey has had a limit of 350 percent for more than five years.”
400% of poverty level is a 400% regardless.
“In the letter sent to state health officials about 7:30 p.m. on Friday, Dennis G. Smith, the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, set a high standard for states that want to raise eligibility for the child health program above 250 percent of the poverty level.”
250% for California.
“Before making such a change, Mr. Smith said, states must demonstrate that they have “enrolled at least 95 percent of children in the state below 200 percent of the federal poverty level” who are eligible for either Medicaid or the child health program.”
Here we see the feds saying go ahead and make the change as long as you are covering those below 200% first. You would rather the poor children take a backseat to the middle class?
What do you have against the poor?
August 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Right, Manapp, “irrelevent.” Lord knows the national poverty line relates to a family from Alabama just as it does a family from New Jersey. Just another typical con who applies states rights selectively.
JMJ
August 21st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Deborah S. Bachrach, a deputy commissioner in the New York State Health Department, said, “No state in the nation has a participation rate of 95 percent.”
And Cindy Mann, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said, “No state would ever achieve that level of participation under the president’s budget proposals.”
In other words the 95% rule is designed to prevent the states from implementing an increase in health care.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:30 am
It’s interesting that you say so… Posted from Blogger
August 25th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
It’s an interesting concept to say the least..