“For the children” is a scam
Hillary Clinton contemplating with frustration the freedoms Americans enjoy
“President Bush had the good sense to veto the Democrats’ dramatic increase in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program,” writes Phil Valentine. I couldn’t have put it better myself. His analysis of SCHIP is dead on- had Bush not had the foresight to veto this $35 billion entitlement then even more freeloaders would have abandoned their own insurance programs and decided that the taxpayers should take care of their children’s health for them- even families earning $80,000 a year.
So, this “for the children” nonsense is a scam. What Democrats want is control of your money. They even keep telling the voters this and, amazingly, many voters keep electing them.
Further, Valentine also correctly pegs Hillary Clinton as a socialist- though he doesn’t actually use that word. He reveals Hillary’s illogical claim that, because health care is a necessity it is also a right. Nonsense.
First of all, healthcare is not a necessity. It’s a wonderful thing to have, make no mistake, but it is not like air, water, and food- true must haves for your immediate or near immediate survival. And as with anything man needs- if it is really important he’ll find a way to get it. Like, say, a job that provides benefits. Or a job that provides a salary so that you can buy a private plan. Secondly, Hillary’s real goal, as I’ve explained before, is the destruction of our current healthcare system in favor of her communistic dream of the village.
I know someone who works in human resources for a large, local manufacturing plant. The many guests to our country, illegal or otherwise, opt not to purchase insurance through their employer because they know they don’t need it. Why? Because those idiots in our government force the taxpayers to foot the bill for their healthcare. And this is just one example of what is wrong with out of control liberalism.
Ultimately, the key point of Valentine’s column is that rights come from God, not government. Government must protect our rights- but when they think they are the ones giving us our rights then they think they can control those rights.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
The other day I saw that the Democrats actually had a sick kid limp up to the microphone to make their case. It reminded me of “cancer boy” in the movie “Thank You for Smoking” And the Democrats accuse the Republicans of exploiting children for political purposes?
As for SCHIP, aren’t there already enough parents that have adult children at home that refuse to work? I know of several myself and can’t believe how pathetic some of todays youth have become. One of my friends has a 29 year old at home on disability along with his illegitamate kid who’s on welfare too! If this gets passed we’ll be one step closer to Hillary’s dream for a Socialist America…Viva La France!!!
October 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
The Bush SCHIP veto makes a poor vehicle for attacking Democrats.
First, it is an example of bipartisanship (something that is increasingly rare these days), enjoying support among key Republican leaders. For example, Orrin G. Hatch correctly called it “the morally right thing to do.” And Senator Gordon Smith called Bush’s veto “irresponsible.” Senator Charles Grassley rightly observed that “It won’t even cover kids on the program today, much less reach out to cover more kids.”
Second, a Wall Street Journal/Harris Poll from August showed that Americans supported the SCHIPS proposal by a margin of four to one — demonstrating once again that President Bush is out of touch with his constituents.
I agree with Senator Hatch that this is a moral issue more than a political one.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:36 am
[...] I do know is that it is not governments place to do anything about it. As I pointed out yesterday, this is a scam. Unfortunately, a Wall Street Journal/Harris Poll seems to indicate that Americans supported the [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 9:08 am
[...] As I’ve shown before, it is clear that she is a socialist for any who care to pay close attention. She has actually come out and said she would have to tax us more to insure fairness. She has actually come out and said she would like to “take those profits” and use them for social programs. And this one really lays it out: “Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” Put more succinctly, she said “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” [...]