Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Neocon Bill Kristol Calls Cutting Child Healthcare A Good Idea

Republican Party Spokesman Bill Kristol: “Heartless Assault On Children” Is “A Good Idea”


rikyrah said...

I now think he's evil. I used to believe he was a thinker, but now, he's just evil with the rest of them.

Constructive Feedback said...


Can you detail for me the "cuts" that have been proposed to the SCHIP program?

Also how do you justify the position that this is mean spirited in the context of the fact that in the next 10 years the INCREASE in health care spending in this nation (NOTE: THE INCREASE not the final total amount) will be greater than what we spend to day on the Defense Department, the total Iraq War spending to date AND the Bush tax cuts?

If the program was created for children who are in the void between Medicaid and Private insurance - how is it "non-evil" to expand this into working class people who CAN afford insurance?

I sure as hell would love for someone to pick up my health care costs that I am dinged for every two weeks. The problem is that it is only a shift - instead of seeing this withdrawl on the Healthcare line item of my pay stub it will show up in my FEDERAL TAXES entry. To be sure IT AIN'T FREE.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]he's just evil with the rest of them.[/quote]

The rest of WHO rikyrah? Who is THEM?

Why don't you see EVIL in the people who drove POLICIES that motivated much hated corporations to pull up out of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh or Youngstown and thus have a bunch of people who can't afford to purchase health care.......because they no longer have a JOB?

Isn't this EVIL in the long run rikyrah? Isn't it greed or ignorant of market forces to drive up labor costs too far?

Anonymous said...

You all are missing the point. The Republicans are being fiscally conservative in trying to control health care spending for children. We have to respect fiscal conservative thinking. Expanding the SCHIP program might - might - mean that some people who actually can afford health care will get it for free.

The problem is that we're focusing our fiscal conservative efforts on the wrong things. We're denying children the benefits of health care JUST IN CASE someone might actually take advantage of the system and get free health care.

It's interesting that we're NOT complaining that we're spending another $70 billion in Iraq where clearly some organizations and the Iraqi government ARE taking advantage of the system. We eagerly spend money on war with corporations and governments who waste money and we fight like cats and dogs over a measly $36 billion for kids - not their families, just the kids - who may need some extra help getting access to health care.

Who are we? Where's our sole and compassion?

redante said...

I'd have to agree with Anonymous on this one. Fiscal conservatism is being focused on the wrong things while wasteful, massive spending is tolerated on Iraq.

Constructive Feedback, if you look at research on US deindustrialization since the 1960s you will find that there are many factors that have been cited as contributing to the loss of manufacturing jobs. Factors that have been cited do cite in some part unionization. But you seem to forget the role of much more powerful forces such as globalization, free trade policies like NAFTA -- policies that Republicans have enacted that made it more feasible and easier for corporations to relocate their operations to countries which have looser (or nonexistent) environmental laws and labor standards. You castigate liberals for what you see as a failed ideology but fail to put the Republicans and conservatives to task for their contributions to the state of affairs.

And why on earth you introduced the topic of deindustrialization in a blog post about childrens' health care -- I just don't get that.

Constructive Feedback said...

Liberal Arts Dude:

How then do you explain the growth of many of these jobs in the South as the "Rust Belt" was being created in the former manufacturing North? Please note the location of the foreign companies that build plants in the USA.

The fact is that if I have a manufacturing plant in Michigan and the political tide changes in which the union labor movement gains the upper hand and creates an environment that is hostile to my business interests.....I am not going to immediately shut down my multi-million dollar plant. I am going to accept the bleeding for a minute UNTIL the plant reaches End of Life. As I consider my option to either upgrade the existing plant or construct a new plant in an environment that is less HOSTILE to my business - the choice will be clear. Bottom line Detroit 2007 is a case study of what I state above.

What might have been good in the short run has been a disaster in the long run as COMPETITORS have entered the market and caught these US firms being bloated with their pants down.

This is a MARKET that we operate in. Ideally both sides need to be in equilibrium for the long term interests of each to be expressed.

Constructive Feedback said...

Why is "Fiscal Responsibility" and its unbalanced application the point of discussion here?

The fact is that the big 3 government programs - Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security represent 40% of the federal budget. This spending will roughly DOUBLE in 10 years.

I don't understand those who you who compare this $35 billion proposal that has been shot down with the IRAQ WAR SPENDING. Why don't you compare it to the over $1 TRILLION PER YEAR SPENDING in place today with the Big 3 entitlement programs? Iraq is about $125 billion per year. Certainly a lot of money but not a permanent entry upon the US budget. I have not seen anyone projected that MILITARY spending is poised to take down the US economy. You can find plenty of articles detailing the threat from entitlement spending on our future economy.

Bottom line the Congressional Democrats should have come out with a more moderate spending plan. They pushed $35 billion, evil Bush pushed $5 billion. Had they come out with a $10 or $15 billion plan evil Bush would have had a harder time justifying a veto and THIS would have impacted the elections more negatively against the evil racist Republicans.

redante said...

OK Constructive Feedback -- from your responses to the postings I am starting to get a good idea of what you are against. I'm still a bit fuzzy on what exactly you are for and what you advocate. Are you a Bush Republican? Do you adhere strictly to the party line? Or are you governed by a set of principles that go beyond what the Republican Party dictates?

In many of our disagreements I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I frankly cannot see any common ground for us to stand on, especially in regards to your position on organized labor. You've made it perfectly clear you are against it. Fair enough. Maybe you can post something in your blog that details "these are what I believe and what I advocate as solutions to society's problems."