Why Do So Many Go Hungry?

That is the title of Anna Quindlen's latest column. It is a problem she lays directly at the feet of government and this administration in particular.

Poverty has not been discussed much by the current administration, which was
wild to bring freedom to the Iraqis but not bread to the South Bronx.

In the view of Quindlen, and many like her, poverty is a problem for the government to resolve. Poverty is just one of many problems that folks like Quindlen think is the responsibility of the government. Many times they frame the arguement into one of moral responsibility. Here is a comment from an individual of like mind to Quindlen from another of my diaries.

In the name of Jesus, what is wrong with helping to provide for the common good? Did Jesus say at the sermon on the mount, "Blessed are those financially well off enough to pay for private medical insurance?" Did He say "Blessed are the ones who only serve their self interests?"Since when did health become a privilege? Does the Declaration of Independance say "...the privelage of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...?"

Doesn't the Constitution say "...promote the general Welfare...?"I'm sorry I have to disagree with the naysayers who whine about their tax dollars going to pay for the general welfare of our society and our health. That's not big government that's responsible government. That's not the government intruding into your life. That's the government helping its people. A government is only as effective as the people who run it. And as long as we continue to sit idly by and let it "run itself" it's only gonna get worse. If we take the government back into our own hands as a real American society we can curb the corruption
that has left us with unregulated pharmaceutacle pricing practices, and rediculous malpractice insurance premiums that doc's have to pay and pass the cost onto the patient to stay afloat.

Quindlen, not surprisingly, frames much of the rest of her arguement with allusions to Jesus as well. Jesus, of course, meant personal charity not charity taken forcefully by the government. Neither Quindlen, or this commenter, ever extol the virtues of personal charity. Instead, all those things that Jesus wanted for citizens to do for the less fortunate, those like Quindlen want the government, through our tax dollars, to do for everyone.

It is this sort of moral arguement that brought us such government programs as the ponzi scheme known as social security. It brought us Title IX, the Federal Farm Board, Medicare, the Endangered Species Act and many other well intentioned and ultimately counter productive and bloated government programs. In fact, the Great Society, the mother of all government programs, was supposed to end poverty and hunger forty years ago. Despite its obvious failings, Quindlen believes that it still government's responsibility to feed the homeless, and federal government no less. I had a similar argument with a liberal friend of mine about socialized medicine. In his defense of socialized medicine, he asked why, in America, everyone doesn't have the right to free quality health care. (To which I responded that the only rights we have in America are those enumerated in the Constitution) It is this sort of EMOTIONAL arguement that liberals have been using, effectively many times, to convince the public that it is government's role to solve many of our problems: hunger and health care included.

In my business, mortgages, there are two sorts of people: emotional and logical. The logical borrowers are always easy to deal with. They are convinced by the numbers because numbers are logical. The numbers always tell the story in mortgages. If I have a good deal for someone, the numbers will speak for themselves and logical people will always find the answer in them.

Emotional people, on the other hand, are loose cannons. Anything can set them off and you appeal by pushing their so called button. You sell to them by appealing to their basest emotion, and of course, figuring that out is the trick. They of course can be set off by anything. I once had an emotional borrower flip out because an appraiser still hadn't called an hour after they were supposed to. Given that a reasonable mortgage process can take up to a month (and an unreasonable one even longer) you can see what a tight rope an emotional person can be through such a process.

As far as politics is concerned, Quindlen and her ilk, occupy the emotional end of the spectrum. (I pointed out recently how the NY Times used such an emotional arguement in mortgages) Remember, it was the Democrats who trotted out Graeme Frost (just look at the picture, are you really going to say no to him) during the SCHIP debate. There is of course no rational or logical reason for expansion of government, especially into things not found in the Constitution, so the only arguement left is emotional.

There are two problems with those that use an emotional arguement. The first is that it is usually wrong. The logical arguement is the sensible one, and if someone could make a logical arguement, they would. The second problem is that most people aren't sophisticated enough to realize this. That is why the Dems are winning the SCHIP debate. It is why faulty government programs like social security, Medicare, and the Federal Farm Board become law. While there maybe no logical reason for having them, they can be sold by appealing to emotion. Most of the folks, just aren't frankly smart enough to realize what is going on, and ultimately they get sold a bill of goods.

Finally, if we all truly believe in the philosophy of Jesus, we wouldn't need government programs to solve any of these problems. Thus, here are some ways YOU can help the poor and homeless in my hometown of Chicago. If you don't live in Chicago, then Google your hometown like I did mine.

The Echo Chamber of the Right Blogosphere

Let's go over what has happened vis a vis SCHIP over the last month plus. For over a month the Democrats have used SCHIP as a bludgeon to create the perception that Republicans are mean and heartless war mongers who care more about a needless and endless war than they do about poor little kids. They have been able to do this because while the Republicans have relied on facts and reason to argue their case on SCHIP the Democrats have appealed to raw emotion. Reason and logic maybe the better arguement for those that are sophisticated but for the masses raw emotion works best. So, while the Republicans were meticulously breaking down the numbers on SCHIP, the Democrats were busy employing a poor twelve year old to get their message out. Guess which one is most effective. Here is the latest polling on SCHIP.

Now, we in the right blogosphere can continue to pretend that the Democrats are hapless however polls are scientific. Still, every single day the right blogosphere continues to snicker at the Dems. They pick apart each and every political stunt as though that is what is important.

Let me let everyone in on a little secret. The longer this goes the better it is politically for the Dems. I don't know if they realize it or not, however they are much better off politically losing each and every veto and constantly bringing this up for debate over and over again. The longer this stays in the public consciousness the better it is for the Dems.

Right now, the narrative is that the Reps are heartless warmongers who can find money for an endless war but cannot find money for poor little kids. The reason this is so is because the Republican leadership allowed itself to be painted as such. The reason they allowed themselves to be painted as such is because instead of countering the Dems proposal with an aggressive media blitz of their own proposal they allowed the MSM to carry on the narrative that they are against SCHIP. They aren't against SCHIP. The Reps have their own alternative however no one knows it because the Reps apparently want to keep it secret.

Meanwhile, the right blogosphere continues to act as an enabler to the Republican leadership by constantly snickering at each and every Democratic stunt and cheerleading the Republicans for standing firm. I am all for standing firm against this bill because it is an abomination that is a small step toward socialized medicine, however you cannot merely sit there and be against this bill and hope to win politically. If the Reps have any hope of winning politically, there base must stop cheerleading their actions, and start to insist that they fight back and present their counter proposal to the public aggressively.

Which brings me to the latest hit on the blogosphere. It seems that much of the right blogosphere has grown fascinated with the word amygdala. It is a part of the brain that affects emotions and apparently a Democratic operative used it in reference to strategy in presenting SCHIP.

First, the operative is right. In order to win the political battle, each party must appeal to the most primitive emotions. Second, and most importantly, who cares? The Republicans are getting crushed, crushed politically. They are losing two to one. In the meantime, the Democrats continue to milk the issue. They bring in a new cute little kid to act as victim of the week every single week, and it works. I know it works because the polls leave no doubt who the public sides with on the issue.

What is the right blogosphere fascinated with? That's right some scientific term for a part of the brain that sounds funny. Talk about being irrelevant. What is funny is not only how popular this part of the story is but how the leadership in the right blogosphere is driving this part of the story as though it is important. Both Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey have each done major work ups on this. With all due respect to much more successful bloggers from my end of the spectrum, you couldn't have possibly found anything more trivial to make an issue of. If any of you actually thinks it matters at all to anyone but the echo chamber which you clearly have found yourself in that some operative referenced a funny sounding word, you really need to get out of this echo chamber.

The Dems are crushing the Reps on SCHIP. They have now milked it for two vetos and they will probably milk it for many, many more, and each veto will be looked at as sympathetic to the Dems. Come November of 2008, the Dems will paint each and every Republican who voted against SCHIP as a heartless war monger who cared more about an endless war than they did about poor kids, and at the same time, the right blogosphere is utterly ignoring that part of the story. At the same time, there is an orgy of coverage over a funny sounding word used by some unknown Democratic operative when talking about a strategy that the operative is right about.

Wake up folks unless you hit on the right part of the story, you will continue to follow the Republican leadership into the deep dark wilderness of politics where most of the rest of the country finds your position abominable. Unless you insist that your leadership stand up for themselves and finally present their side properly, they won't do it. You can keep cheerleading and pretending that you are on the right side, but you aren't doing yourself or your party any favors.

An Opening on SCHIP

First, it appears the Democrats won't have the votes to override Bush's veto

Democrats tried Thursday to revive a bill expanding a popular government health care program to 10 million children after President Bush vetoed it.

But when the roll call began, they appeared to be at least a dozen votes short of
the two-thirds majority they needed in the House to override him.

What will happen next is anyone's guess, however Roberty Bluey reports on an alternative plan being crafted by Republicans. Here are the highlights.

Reauthorize SCHIP for eligible children. The bill would continue to cover kids in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

• Enact a child health care tax credit. Rather than putting more people on a government-run program, the bill would offer tax credits to families with incomes between 200% and 300% of the poverty level. This would cover the population targeted by liberals with their bill, but instead of forcing them to drop their current coverage, it would provide assistance to keep their current insurance plan.

• Adopt a “federalism” health-care initiative. The bill encourages greater experimentation at the state level to expand health-care coverage.

This is very important because the polls on SCHIP are mixed. Here are the results of one poll.

At this point, the Democrats seem to be winning -- though not dominating -- the public relations battle. According to a new USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 12-14, about half of Americans say they have more confidence in the Democrats in Congress than in Bush to handle the issue. Only one-third of Americans choose Bush, while another 15% have no preference.

That preference for the Democrats reflects Americans' unvarnished perception of the children's health bill. Other questions in the survey that provide information about Bush's arguments against the Democratic bill show more support for his position.

However, the same poll shows the attitudes differently when asked to examine SCHIP.

52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to such families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

•55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.

What this says to me at least is that the Republicans have the edge on policy however the Democrats have framed the issue better. Of course, they sent a poor kid to deliver their radio address. Their whole entire argument comes down to "it's for the children". Of course, there's is the the more sympathetic position. What it also says is that the people aren't fooled as long as you explain yourself properly. They want poor kids covered by government health insurance, however they want those kids to really be poor, and they don't want a program meant for the poor extending to the Middle Class

Now, the Republicans have their own plan. This plan covers the poor kids, and it also doesn't bloat government to include the middle class. It even replaces a bloated government with tax breaks. These are all things Americans will like but Americans must now the party is offering them. They can no longer allow themselves to be demonized as being against the children, however in order to win, they must go out and sell the plan. People agree with them on policy and they have a policy that not only "helps the children" but is also more sound. I can't say it. The leadership must say. The Republican leadership must be all over the airwaves, all over the print media, the blogs, and anywhere else that gives them an audience and explain their plan.

The problem was that this debate was framed as taking the Democrats plan or not allowing poor kids to get health insurance. The Republicans must adjust the frame, and present an alternative that also covers the children, but doesn't irresponsibly expand government so that it becomes corrupt. This is a debate they can win but they must stand up and fight.


UPDATE:

According to Michelle, the veto was not overridden

The veto override fails, falls short of two-thirds majority, 273-156. The roll will be here.

Now, the political battle goes into full swing.

ANOTHER UPDATE:

John Shaddeg makes the case effectively in an editorial everyone should read, however by putting it into Investor's Business Daily he continues the Republicans long strategy of only presenting their ideas to friendly media. This editorial needed to go into the New York Times or the Washington Post, not IBD, in my opinion.

In his State of the Union address last year, President Bush proposed giving all Americans a tax deduction to purchase health care insurance, to be credited against payroll as well as income taxes. His proposal would have eliminated the unfairness in our current tax code that rewards those with group health insurance through their employer and punishes those who do not get coverage through their employer and must buy their own.

The president's proposal targeted those who do not have insurance available through their employer. This is precisely the group targeted by SCHIP. Yet, the same Democrats who are attacking the president now over his SCHIP veto declared his proposal "dead on arrival."

Giving families a refundable tax credit or deduction against payroll taxes to buy health insurance would let them choose a plan that meets their needs, a plan that included the coverage and doctors they want. Also, if they change or lose their job, it would be portable and they wouldn't lose their coverage.

he continues...

I have introduced legislation that would let consumers buy health insurance approved in another state, not just their own, making far more choices available, increasing competition, and lowering the cost. President Bush has endorsed this concept.

People could pick a plan that covers only the services they need and want. They would not be forced to buy state-mandated coverage for services such as hair transplants, acupuncture, or massage therapy that they do not want or need.

This legislation would not only cover the SCHIP population, but millions of others who don't have insurance now.

The Republicans should welcome a debate about how best to insure poor kids. If they present their ideas of tax credits, health savings accounts, and limited government subsidies, that would play almost anywhere against the bloated government proposals of the Democrats. The Reps have to stop presenting their ideas only in friendly settings though.

SCHIP: Middle Class Guilt

I found this letter in yesterday's Chicago Tribune

She was for it before she was against it. My representative, Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), was one of 16 U.S. House Republicans, including Illinois' Mark Kirk, who originally supported the Senate version of the bipartisan children's health care (SCHIP) bill recently passed by Congress. The compromise hammered out in the House closely mirrors the Senate version, but Ms. Biggert voted against it. She was quoted as saying, "It would push Americans one step closer to socialized medicine."

This despite support from 72 percent of all Americans, according to a recent poll, the health insurance industry, the AARP, the American Medical Association, governors from both parties and many children's health advocates.

What happened? The "socialized medicine" tag is a fallacious argument. The SCHIP bill is a state block grant program that protects our children while still being served through private health care providers.

If this measure takes us down the slippery slide toward socialism, what then of our other "socialized" programs? Would she then recommend we abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration services, police and fire protection, libraries or our public schools? Can't these public programs and institutions be better served through the private marketplace?

Fortunately I, and most voters in DuPage County, will not have to take advantage of this health care package for our 10 million uninsured or underinsured children. Most of us already have private health care plans funded through our employers, unlike her own "socialized" government-funded plan.

Regardless of the negative "socialized" tag, isn't this program that was originally enacted by Republicans in our children's best interests? I strongly implore Biggert to change her vote when President Bush's veto sends it back to the House. We owe it to our children.

Chris Wallgren
Downers Grove

Now, for everyone not familiar with the Chicagoland area, Downers Grove is a fairly affluent suburb of Chicago. As this person indicates, they are fairly affluent themselves, and they would probably never come close to needing SCHIP themselves.

Fortunately I, and most voters in DuPage County, will not have to take advantage of this health care package for our 10 million uninsured or underinsured children. Most of us already have private health care plans funded through our employers, unlike her own "socialized" government-funded plan.

Clearly again, the rule of what's in it for me doesn't apply. Here is an individual that cares not about their own situation and wants to the compassionate thing. In fact, they end their letter with this impassioned plea

We owe it to our children.

Not everyone's children of course, this person is perfectly happy with the private health insurance that they get for their entire family through their own employer. In fact, the overwhelming majority of their county, Dupage, will have no need for SCHIP. Yet, this voter wants their representative, Judy Biggert, to support a bill that her constituents will have no use for.

So, what is going on here? SCHIP is a late night infomercial run wild. Instead of helping some poor kids in Africa, the affluent are now ready to help some poor nameless child somewhere in America. Only these children aren't starving, their parents just can't seem to find a way to afford to pay for their own kid's health insurance. The more important difference between the infomercial and SCHIP, is that they don't want this to be optional. No, they want the government to make sure that this is done. As one of my readers put it, it's the Christian thing to do.

In the name of Jesus, what is wrong with helping to provide for the common good? Did Jesus say at the sermon on the mount, "Blessed are those financially well off enough to pay for private medical insurance?" Did He say "Blessed are the ones who only serve their self interests?"

Since when did health become a privelage? Does the Declaration of Independance say "...the privelage of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...?" Doesn't the Constitution say "...promote the general Welfare...?"

Charity of course is a choice, and I see none of these so called compassionates in the Middle Class rushing out to pay for someone else's health insurance, which would really be the Christian thing to do, but it is important to note that this sort of nonsensical, yet emotional arguement works.

The polls show it.

A new poll released today by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the State Children's Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP), which provides states with federal funds to design health insurance programs for vulnerable children.Nearly nine in 10 voters (86%) say they support
reauthorizing SCHIP, with a clear majority (63%) saying they support expanding SCHIP's budget by an additional $35 billion over five years.

Put a poor child in front of someone and they will let all reason and thought go out the window. Most will respond with compassion. Sledding is tough if you are on my side of the debate. All we have is statistics, logic and reason. We don't have the children.

Unfortunately, such is life in the world of elitist thought. They are the compassionate and concerned ones, while the rest of us are money hungry, greedy, capitalists who only think about ourselves. We don't care about the children.

Even words like SOCIALIZED medicine doesn't work on the general public and the polls show that as well .

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey highlights both the opportunity and the challenge for those who want to reform the U.S. health care system . The survey found that just 31% of American voters rate the system as good or excellent. Twenty-eight percent (28%) say fair and 39% poor.

Even among those who have health insurance, just 32% say the system is good or excellent while 38% say poor (NOTE: 83% of those surveyed have health insurance). This supports survey data released last week showing that 62% believe major changes are needed in the nation's health care system.

However, while unhappy with the situation overall, 72% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent. Twenty-one percent (21%) say fair and only 6% say poor. Given these attitudes, the vast majority of voters will tend to be wary of any change unless they are completely assured that it will not impact their own insurance coverage.

Again, the old rule of what's in it for me doesn't apply. People are generally happy with their own situation but they think the overall situation is dire. Sure, how many times have the Dems used the number of uninsured, about 40 million, as a political tool. Most people look at their own situation and feel guilty. Never mind of course that about one third of those uninsured are here illegally, another third are uninsured only while they are in between jobs, and many of the the rest choose to be uninsured. Remember, it is for the children and all those poor folks that just didn't have the breaks the affluent got. If you aren't for helping them out, you are standing with those wicked, wicked insurance companies, drug manufacturers, and doctors.

Reality is really wholly unimportant. Let's never mind that socialized medicine has proven to be a failure everywhere it has been tried. If you aren't for every major expansion of government, you aren't for the children. If you aren't for the children, you invariably lose any debate.

So, what is the answer. Well, for one thing, our side needs to be as cut throat as the other side. Every child the Dems bring out as a model of compassion toward children, needs to have their family's finances hyper analyzed just to make sure they really are that needy. The Dems trotted out Graeme Frost to deliver their address vis a vis SCHIP a few weeks ago.

It turns out the parents of this poor needy child, own a home, a business, three automobiles, and each of their four kids goes to a private school. Then, our side needs to make the link. What invariably happens to bloated government programs: CORRUPTION. Which means your tax dollars my tax dollars, won't go to save the children but to support the lazy, the stupid, and the devious.

For instance, did you know that a trust fund baby can qualify for SCHIP in forty six of 50 states? Since those states have no asset test trust fund babies, those that have no jobs, can qualify for SCHIP. Now, when someone is saying that it is for the children, do you think they mean trust fund babies?

Finally, it is time that people like me stop leading on this issue, and the Reps lead themselves. They have been loathed to criticize the Dems and their tactics for fear of further being labeled mean. They continue to perpetuate their much deserved label as wimps. I will say it. The Frost's have corrupted the system, and there are plenty of further Frost's out there. The answer is not to expand the system but to tighten it.

The government is not our friend and anytime it expands then I simply quote from Reagan, "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Even if they are trying to help the children.

SCHIP for Trust Fund Babies

According to a report by Kaiser, 46 out of the 50 states don't have an asset test in the SCHIP program. Now, if you are the typical person, you have no idea what that means however you are very compassionate and you will support something that helps poor children get health insurance. Unfortunately, what you don't know, and what the MSM isn't reporting to you, is that because of this, the SCHIP program is fraught to be exploited by corruption.

The practical effect is this. Without an asset test, anyone living off any passive income (annuity settlements, pension income, social security income, retirement savings, or even trust funds) are still eligible for SCHIP. That means that a trust fund baby who has no job and just lives off the exorbitent wealth of their parents is eligible for SCHIP in 46 out of 50 states. (H/T to Bizzy Blog)

Look at this example,

Husband age 62, wife age 41, two children 2 and 7. The husband receives early social security payments, a mutual fund capital gain of $50,000 and ordinary dividends of $30,000. The wife works part time for about $29,000. Despite having a fairly large asset base and plenty of income, the only income counted by the California version of SCHIP is the wife's part time job. Since she receives no health insurance through work, this particular couple is eligible for S CHIP.

Remember Graeme Frost, poster child for SCHIP, well he and his sister were able to both go to private school, his parents owned a home, a business, and the property on which the business was located, with at least one confirmed tenant. Somehow this family was able to qualify for S CHIP as well. Now, if anyone has ever seen the tax returns of any business owner, they know full well how easy it is to make a business owner's income wind up being less than $40K per year.

Now, I said a little while back on these same pages that the only way for Republicans to win this debate is for them to scream corruption from every corner of the country vis a vis S CHIP. This is not the first time that politicians, of both parties, have held up victims in an effort to expand the size of government and every time that expansion leads to corruption. If business owners, homeowners and trust fund babies can already qualify for S CHIP, what do you think will happen if the program is increased exponentially.

Unfortunately, so far, the Republicans have gotten comfortable letting the right blogosphere point out the massive corruption of the program and furthermore attack Frost, its new poster child

In California…it appears that there’s nothing stopping a trust fund baby, if their ONLY income comes from investment returns (i.e., it’s “unearned”), from qualifying for SCHIP! Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie could sit at home and stop boring us with their TV show, appearances, and commercials, have babies by any number of entourage members, and join in the SCHIP party. Is this a great country or what?

...

The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man’s job, then the boy is fair game. As it is, the Dems do enough cynical and opportunist hiding behind biography and identity, and it’s incredibly tedious. And anytime I send my seven-year-old out to argue policy you’re welcome to clobber him, too. The alternative is a world in which genuine debate is ended and, as happened with Master Frost, politics dwindles down to professional staffers writing scripts to be mouthed by Equity moppets…

…So executive vice-presidents’ families are now the new new poor? I support lower taxes for the Frosts, increased child credits for the Frosts, an end to the “death tax” and other encroachments on transgenerational wealth transfer, and even severe catastrophic medical-emergency aid of one form or other. But there is no reason to put more and more middle-class families on the government teat, and doing so is deeply corrosive of liberty. And, if the Democrats don’t like me saying that, next time put up someone in long pants to make your case

I shouldn't be reading this on the pages of Michelle Malkin, but it needs to be coming out of the mouths of John Boehner, Trent Lott and Eric Cantor. The S CHIP program is already corrupt and full of loopholes, and what the Dems want to do is make it even bigger, which makes it even more corrupt. The new program makes it easier for illegal immigrants to receive free health care, it raises the income level all the way to $81,000 per year in some states, and it doesn't fix any of the holes already in it. This leads to CORRUPTION...CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION.

If the Republicans are going to win this debate, that word must become a fabric of the debate. Graeme Frost must become a symbol of the corruption masquerading as compassion. He put himself out there when he responded to President Bush's radio address. His story must be told. Not just the story of his terrible accident, but the one in which he lives in a 3000 square foot house, goes to private school, while his dad owns a business, and still receives free health insurance on the government's dime. That is CORRUPTION. Say it, say it, and say it again, and don't stop saying it until everyone understands what the Democrats are doing.

Cut throat Politics and the SCHIP Debate

The only way for the Republicans to win this debate, in my opinion, is to after this Frost kid's family and go after all of them hard. This is a very dangerous strategy but it is the only hope they have of turning this debate.

This debate has always been one of perception over logic and reason. A reasonable person would understand that socialized medicine has long ago failed everywhere it has been tried. John Stossel has done an excellent job of illustrating this. For instance, whatever we think of our own health care system do we ever do this?

TONY Blair yesterday faced a woman who pulled out SEVEN of her teeth after
failing to find an NHS dentist.

Great-grandmother Valerie Halsworth, 64, removed them with her husband’s
pliers. She pulled out a seventh tooth over the weekend before meeting the PM
in Coventry yesterday. The cleaner, from Scarborough, North Yorks, has a gum
disease that causes her teeth to loosen.

Do we ever have to wait 18 weeks just to see a specialist?

By December 2008, no patient referred to a consultant led hospital service
will be allowed to wait longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment.

This will apply to all Trusts in the NHS, and represents the coming
together of the various waiting time targets for the different elements of
hospital services. For the first time, in a similar way to our approach to
cancer waiting times, the 18 week target will cover the whole patient pathway.

From a patient's point of view, 18 weeks is a fairer and more inclusive
target, and from the Trust's point of view, it is a more complete target that
should enable us to effectively measure and manage all the timings of the care
that we deliver.

It is about the right care, at the right time, of the right quality, without unnecessary delay. As much as being about speed, it is about quality, equality, efficiency and customer service.

We haven't even talked about the fact that socialized medicine naturally reduces innovation. Stossel has done a great job of pointing this out as well

As I interview people for my health-care TV special scheduled to run on ABC
this September, I'm struck by how many hate the current semi-free-market system
America has now. I say "semi" because it's not a free market when about half the
health-care bill is funded by government. But it's still better than socialism.
It allows for innovation like the creation of better drugs, pain-relieving joint
replacements, artificial hearts, LASIK eye surgery, and who-knows-what-else that
may reduce pain and extend my life.

Socialism will kill that, but people seem to like socialism, at least when
it's sold as free stuff from politicians. Wisconsin's Capital Times reports that
"two-thirds of Wisconsin residents support the Democratic plan -- even when
presented with opponents' arguments that it would be a 'job killer' that could
lead to higher taxes ... Said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, one of the plan's
sponsors, 'Everything we have heard [against the plan], we put in the poll. And
it still comes back at 67 percent approval.

It matters not because reason and logic won't win this debate. Raw emotion will. This family is a fraud and if the Republicans are to win, they must expose this family, not for the poor hard working folks they are, but for the family that affords a business, a home, private school, while still maintaining that they can't afford health insurance.

Remember everyone, we all hate paying taxes. It takes until May before we work for ourselves. We are taxed every time we buy something, everytime we turn on the lights, the gas, and use our cell phone. We are taxed everywhere and the reason is because lots of people get a lot of free stuff. For for them, but we end up paying for it in higher taxes. That's what happens anytime a government program gets too big. It eventually winds up being fraudulent and people who send their kids to private school also are able to get free health care, or health care on the rest of us. As a result your $200 cell phone bill includes twenty dollars in taxes.

The politicians always sell each of their new entitlement programs as being taxed by things like cigarettes or those that make $250K. That never works out and it doesn't because these programs get so big that there is fraud. That is what this family did. They committed fraud. The Democrats used them as poster children for SCHIP, and if the Republicans want to win this debate, they must turn them into the poster children of the fraud that always follows a bloated government program.

SCHIP Boy a Fraud?

It certainly appears so. Two Saturdays ago, the Democrats recruited one Graeme Frost to deliver their Saturday response to Bush's address regarding SCHIP

My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have
everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge. We got the help we needed
because we had health insurance forus through the CHIP program.

"But there are millions of kids out there who don't have CHIP, and they
wouldn't get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. Their parents
might have to sell their cars or their houses, or...

The insinuation was that his parents worked hard but they couldn't afford to buy private health insurance and without SCHIP he would have died. Is this really the case though? It is not according to financial records.

According to the financial records, the father owned a business, including the
building that made up the business. There was also another business housed on
the same property which almost certainly means he was receiving rent from the
other business. Furthermore, both children in the family went to private school.
Finally, the family lived in a home valued at almost $500 thousand.

There is more. The Baltimore Sun wrote a fluff piece and among other things, it said this

Having priced private insurance that would cost more than their mortgage - about
$1,200 a month - they continue to rely on the government program. In Maryland,
families that earn less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level - about
$60,000 for a family of four - are eligible.

Too bad, this is not true either. The folks at insure blog ran the numbers and they found this

A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641
with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays.Adding a deductible of $750 (does not
apply to doc visits) drops the premium to $452. That's almost a third of the
price quoted in the article. Doesn't anyone bother to check the facts?Apparently
not.

So, it turns out their premiums were half that of what was claimed in the piece. Let's leave that aside. You can all see the rub here. This boy and his family were presented as hard working citizens who simply couldn't afford the huge costs of health care. They needed the government assistance, and only because of it, did their son survive a terrible car accident. Now, the President wants to veto the very program that helped save this poor boy.

Except that isn't reality. The boy's father ran and owned a business. He owned the property the business was on. He owned his own home and paid a fairly large mortgage for it. He even received rental income. Does this sound like the sort of person that the government should be subsidizing the health insurance of? Not to me. Yet, the Democrats want to expand this program even though it clearly already serves people it doesn't need to serve like the Frosts.

The Democrats tug on our emotions by parading little children who survived terrible accidents to plead with the public to provide a social program that they claim will only serve those that can't serve themselves. Too bad that isn't the truth. Since the media is in cohoots with them, too bad most of the public will never know the truth of the case of Graeme Frost.

His family has perpetuated a fraud on the public. It is a fraud that is meant to sell a bloated, unnecessary, and of course ultimately corrupt government program, as a program necessary for our compassionate country. What would the poll numbers be if the public knew the truth about the Frost family?

The Politics of SCHIP

Republicans everywhere must start to face reality while vetoing SCHIP in its current form maybe good policy it makes for bad really bad politics. Last Saturday, Graeme Frost, 12, gave the Democratic response to the President's radio address...

Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I'm 12 years old and I live in Baltimore,
Maryland. Most kids my age probably haven't heard of CHIP, the Children's Health
Insurance Program. But I know all about it, because if it weren't for CHIP, I
might not be here today.

"CHIP is a law the government made to help families like mine afford healthcare for their kids. Three years ago, my family was in a really bad car accident. My younger sister Gemma and I were both hurt. I was in a coma for a week and couldn't eat or stand up or even talk at first.
My sister was even worse. I was in the hospital for five-and-a-half months and I needed a big surgery. For a long time after that, I had to go to physical therapy after school to get stronger. But even though I was hurt badly, I was really lucky. My sister and I both were.

"My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge. We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for
us through the CHIP program.

"But there are millions of kids out there who don't have CHIP, and they wouldn't get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. Their parents might have to sell their cars or their houses, or
they might not be able to pay for hospital bills at all.

"Now I'm back to school. One of my vocal chords is paralyzed so I don't talk the same way I
used to. And I can't walk or run as fast as I did. The doctors say I can't play football any more, but I might still be able to be a coach. I'm just happy to be back with my friends.

"I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I'm glad I could see them because of the Children's Health Program.

"I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me. This
is Graeme Frost, and this has been the Weekly Democratic Radio address. Thanks for listening."

Meanwhile, the Republicans were countering the sobering stats and concepts.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/congressman_bill_shuster/2007/oct/05/the_truth_about_schip

First, the Democrat’s SCHIP bill extends benefits to illegal immigrants by
lifting the requirement demanding program applicants prove their citizenship
status. Second, the Democrat’s bill significantly expands SCHIP at taxpayer
expense, inflating the cost from $35 billion to $110 billion. To pay for such a
massive expansion, the Democrats will raise tobacco taxes on cigarette packs by
$0.61 to $1, and taxes on cigars up to $3. Tobacco taxes are an extremely
unstable and inadequate source of revenue for such a large program. In fact, it
is estimated that 22 million people will need to take up smoking over the next
five years to fund SCHIP at the levels passed in their bill.

Democrats
argue that their plan will insure 5.8 million more children. They fail to
mention that of those children 2 million, or 35 percent, would have otherwise
been covered by private insurance. SCHIP was never designed for this. Instead of
covering children whose parent’s incomes are at or below the poverty level, the
Democrat’s plan expands the program far past its boundaries to families in
excess of 300 percent above the poverty line who could make as much as $80,000 a
year.

Gee, raw numbers and sobering statistics and logic versus a twelve year old...gee I wonder which side has the edge politically. Here are the latest raw numbers according to Rasmussen...

Sixty-five percent (65%) of American voters know that President Bush vetoed
a bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. A Rasmussen
Reports national telephone survey found that 8% mistakenly thought the President
signed the bill while the rest were not sure.

Of those who knew of the veto, 57% disapproved and 31% supported the
President’s action. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republicans approve of the
President’s decision while 88% of Democrats disapprove. Among those not
affiliated with either major party, 33% agree with the President and 50% do not.

Among all voters, 70% say it is Very Important to insure that all children
under 18 have health insurance. This figure includes 83% of Democrats, 71% of
unaffiliateds, and 54% of Republicans. Another 18% of all voters say it Somewhat
Important to provide health insurance for all children.

By a 54% to 35% margin, voters believe it is fair to raise cigarette taxes
to cover the cost of expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats believe this approach is fair along with
51% of unaffiliated voters and 49% of Republicans.

For anyone that supports the Republican party, those are the sobering numbers. Still, most Republicans and their supporters continue to have their heads in the sand. Here is how one blogger thought we should approach the issue... http://theclayempire.com/blog/2007/10/05/cigar-tax-alert/#more-323

This legislation carries an especially punitive tax on handmade cigars - a
tax that will unequivocally cause the cigar industry to atrophy. Don’t
misunderstand, this isn’t about just paying a little more for cigars and showing
a little compassion. With the stroke of a pen, if the House successfully
overrides the veto, this legislation will wipe out many retailers and
distributors, put in jeopardy thousands of American jobs and literally hundreds
of thousands more in Central America. This legislation is the opposite of
compassion, and punitive taxation without representation like this is
tyrannical. This federal cigar tax is the single biggest threat the tiny cigar
industry has ever faced and time is of the essence. Cigar enthusiasts of all
political stripes - and clear-thinking people everywhere - need to band together
right now to sustain the President’s veto.

Pressure your House Representative to sustain the veto - the House vote is
expected to be extremely tight and the threat of overriding the President’s veto
is very real.Click here to take action - urge your Congressmen to sustain the veto -
the House vote is expected to be extremely tight and the threat of overriding
the President’s veto is very real.

Well, with all due respect to this blogger, do they really think that most people are going to side with cigar manufacturers over little kids.

If the Republicans have any hope of turning this into anything but a hopeless loser politically then they must be able to turn the same base raw emotions that the Democrats have been using against them.

Thus, without further adieu, here is my advertisement in support of SCHIP veto.

(Imagine a manly voice over)

Everytime politicians, Democrat and Republicans, want to increase the size and scope of government, they trot out a group of victims, a group that the public at large can't say no to.

1929, when supply of crops was at unreasonably high levels causing the price of crops to tumble, President Hoover established the Federal Farm Board which bought crops from farmers in order to take those crops off the open market. What started as a 500 million dollar program is estimated to cost you the taxpayers 171 billion dollars in 2012.

1973, with many of our wildlife going extinct, President Nixon and the Democratic Congress, created the Endangered Species Act. What was meant as a way to protect endangered species has turned into one of the most powerful government programs. In fact, The government can take away citizens' property rights, prohibiting certain uses and any development if a property is designated "critical habitat."

ESA is "called by many the single most powerful law ever passed," by conservative environmental expert R.J. Smith.

The ESA program received $136.9 million for listing species, studies, and the like in 2004. However, a Fish & Wildlife spokeswoman estimated an additional $51.6 million would be spent in 2004 on enforcement. In 1997, Fish & Wildlife estimated, federal and state governments spent $301 million on "certain expenditures" related to endangered species, but no one has been able to estimate ESA's cost to the economy and personal liberty.

In 1972, President Nixon and the same Democratic Congress wanted to make sure that no one was discriminated based on sex in programs at schools that receive any federal funding and Title IX was born. The law says that if the student body of a college or university is 40% female, then 40% of its student-athletes should be female. The law is also interpreted as requiring equivalent facilities for male and female athletics. The practical result has been the wholesale elimination of many men's sports programs at many colleges.

federal Title IX spending was be $88.3 million 2004. Schools will spend unknown additional millions seeking to comply, or dealing with Title IX lawsuits. Unknown numbers of athletes will not be able to play the sport of their choice.

Finally, after the market crash 1929 took the life savings of many retirees, President Roosevelt and the Democratic congress created a retirement savings plan known as Social Security. It was billed as programthat would provide for seniors who could not independently sustain themselves financially. The government imposes a 12.4% Social Security tax on the first $87,900 earned by every American. The worker pays half, 6.2% and the employer pays the other half. In return for these taxes, the government promises the taxpayer modest monthly payments when they reach retirement age 67.

In 2003, the Social Security Administration spent $509.4 billion, including $9 billion on administrative expenses and the unfunded liability of this program is estimated to be $10.5 trillion.

Now, Congress wants to expand SCHIP, a program that provides free health insurance to kids who can't afford it. The Democrats argue that their plan will insure 5.8 million more children. They fail to mention that of those children 2 million, or 35 percent, would have otherwise been covered by private insurance. Futhermore, SCHIP bill extends benefits to illegal immigrants by lifting the requirement demanding program applicants prove their citizenship status. Second, the Democrat’s bill significantly expands SCHIP at taxpayer expense, inflating the cost from $35 billion to $110 billion. To pay for such a massive expansion, the Democrats will raise tobacco taxes on cigarette packs by $0.61 to $1, and taxes on cigars up to $3. Tobacco taxes are an extremely unstable and inadequate source of revenue for such a large program. In fact, it is estimated that 22 million people will need to take up smoking over the next five years to fund SCHIP at the levels passed in their bill.

Finally, this bill threatens the thousands of cigar manufacturers all over the country that won't be able to afford to stay in business with the new sin tax.

Ronald Reagan once said "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'". The new expansion of SCHIP is exactly what he was talking about. Please stand with the Republicans in re authorizing SCHIP in its current format. Don't let the Democratic Congress increase the size, scope and ultimately corruption of government by appealing to your kindest emotion.

(Please note most stats came from this left wing web site http://www.pushhamburger.com/ten_worst.htm
Politics does make for strange bedfellows)

All right, that is the advertisement. Let me know if you like it and how it can be approved.

S-CHIP:The S is for Socialized Medicine

I would like to introduce Fault Line USA for some guest commentary about the battle over SCHIP.

““You have to wonder sometimes how Boehner and his Republican allies in the House can look at themselves in the mirror”

Daily Kos

“Well we don’t have to worry about these far, far lefties ever looking into the
mirror. Like most social vampires, they cast no reflection!”

– Faultline USA

Here’s an excerpt of ABC’s blather that passes for journalism these days.. . .

Gathering on the White House lawn and the steps of Congress, the throngs
were joined by children who pulled red wagons filled with over a million
petitions, urging Congress to expand health insurance coverage for children.Yet,
it appears that the effort may be in vain after Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday
that would have renewed and expanded SCHIP. . .Health policy experts now say low
and moderate income families like the Taylors will be hit the hardest if the
veto stands, and individuals fear the social and financial consequences.Congress
has already passed legislation which would reauthorize and expand the program by
adding $35 billion over five years, and covering an additional 4 million
children — a plan funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1
per pack. . .

Sweets & Light has a great response to ABC’s blatant pandering to the left on the SCHIP veto.Here’s an excerpt (but please go read all of it).. . .

Never mind that President Bush only vetoed a $35 billion dollar expansion of the
SCHIP program. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this suddenly
precious boondoggle (that most people had never even heard of before) will be
eliminated. . .. . .But just look at this exercise in objective journalism. See
if you can find any mention of any possible objections to the SCHIP program. .
.Did ABC News speak to anyone except those who were benefiting from the
taxpayers’ (unwitting) generosity? Did this reporter ask any hardworking
families what they thought about paying for other peoples’ kids health
insurance? . . .. . .Unfortunately, every day we are fed an endless stream of
execrable, agenda-driven articles like this one, masquerading as news. Articles
so blatant in their purpose they would have even made Hitler or Stalin’s minions
at their respective ministries of propaganda blush.But because our watchdog
media think they are serving such a noble purpose they are proud of their
efforts rather than ashamed.Of course that is exactly what they believed in
Hitler and Stalin’s ministries as well

.Politico writers Kady II and O’Connor believe that an override veto is unlikely. . .
Here’s an excerpt.It’s highly unlikely any House Republican will turn 180
degrees and vote to override President Bush’s veto, but nonetheless, Democrats
have decided to draw the issue out for two more weeks, until they hold the veto
override.Interviews with several of the targeted House Republicans — all of whom
are considered vulnerable in next year’s elections and are under pressure to
change their vote on State Children’s Health Insurance Program — give little
indication that any of them would flip-flop on such a high-profile issue.

If an override passes, the Daily Kos confirms our worst fears with typical
forked-tongue twisting. No I won’t hyperlink this far left nutcase blog. Here’s
the link.www(dot)dailykos(dot)com/storyonly/2007/10/4/81915/3035Here’s an
excerpt:Which uninsured children are the wrong people? And who is this program
intended to help?This report provides an overview of citizen and noncitizen
children in immigrant families in the United States and their access to SCHIP.
The section entitled "Immigrant
Children at Risk" describes the population, their rising numbers, and their
lack of health insurance. The next section reviews the effects of the 1996
welfare reform law on immigrants' eligibility for health care, and studies that
indicate enrollment is down even for eligible immigrant families. The report
then examines some of the factors affecting enrollment, such as fears of public
charge, verification of citizenship and immigrant status, and language and
cultural barriers. Finally, the paper outlines examples of state responses
through state-funded health care and improvements in outreach, application and
enrollment. Examples from California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida are given.
The appendices include definitions for common immigration terms and a
description of federal funds available for outreach and enrollment to the
immigrant population (SCHIP, Medicaid, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program.). . . While Boehner appeals to Fortress America, state
legislatures are trying to sign these eligible kids up, because we all pay for
their care in ERs when they don't get care in a medical home. That's why 45
governors support SCHIP, from Jodi Rell (R-CT) to Arnold Schwarzenegger
(R-CA).You have to wonder sometimes how Boehner and his Republican allies in the
House can look at themselves in the mirror.

Well we don’t have to worry about these far, far lefties looking into the mirror. Like most social vampires, they cast no reflection!