This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
So much for Recommendation #5 of the Zaniya Project Task force final report. Expecting SCHIP to remain in place, the Zaniya folks recommended a big outreeach and marketing push to get every eligible individual signed up for the program. But President Bush's veto puts the kabosh on that plan. It also hinders the accomplishment of Recommendations #7, 15, and 21, which all relied in part on SCHIP. Looks like we're going to need something more than a marketing campaign to get health coverage for more South Dakota kids.
But here's a thought: How about Senator Thune support Governor Rounds and his task force by voting to overturn the President's veto? Oh, the luscious irony....
Hide Fido (by Andy Horowitz)
-
I coined Noem as the ‘Palin of South Dakota’ when she ran for the state
house, seems I nailed it; America: meet your new Secretary of Homeland
Security. Sh...
1 day ago
Sounds like the only good proposal so far is vetoing the SCHIP bill. He has also made it clear that he wants to continue the program if congress can get off its pointy head/arse and write one that is reasonable. Expanding the eligibility to the point that people getting hit with the Alternate Minimum Tax for being rich are also so poor they get federal help for their 25 year old kids health care is NOT reasonable.
ReplyDeleteAgree completely with Phaedrus. I have no qualms about helping those truly needy. But when people who make enough money to get their own insurance, but simply choose not to and want the gov't to provide it instead, that's where I do and should draw the line. This was the Dem's first step to national health care for all as this would have made the gov't insure just all kids in the US. Thank goodness Bush was wise enough to see this. Get back to reality and maybe progress will be made. Why should my hard-earned tax dollars subsidize people who can likewise afford their own coverage but just are waiting for the gov't to ante up instead?
ReplyDeleteAnother two words that many have a problem with - "personal responsibility." Example: I have two young couples in my extended family. One couple got their college degrees, eventually got the jobs they wanted, but while waiting for the right jobs they worked at lower end jobs, making sure they at least one of their two jobs also included benefits (yes, there are plenty out there that do) like insurance. i.e. they took personal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThe other couple: One taking about eight years to get a college degree, choosing to work a few hours at a job he likes but is a minimum wage job with no benefits, racking up credit card debts with no effort to repay any of these.
One taking an on line course and dropping out and doing the work she wants to do which pays little and has no benefits.
Neither have any oompf to get a better job or look for one with benefits because they can still live with the gov't handouts (WIC, Medicaid - yes they now have a child we are paying for - free daycare, subsidized housing, etc etc etc).
Why should people who make no effort to be responsible for their own finances be the responsibility of those who do make the effort?
As I said above, I have no qualms about helping those who truly need it, but simply rewarding laziness etc is ridiculous. It didn't work in Plimoth Colony, and it won't work now.