A President, once elected, gets free health care for life, so I take exception with his assertion that federalizing health care is a mistake. If thats the case, then he needs to lose his.

Oh Rachel, you are so awesome...

I'd like to make between $60K and $80K!!!!!!

Damn Rachel is sharp. She can take on anyone.

Man, Chris Matthews' contempt for women is on full display in his treatment here of Rachel Maddow. Maybe Jon Stewart should beat him up again.

What happened with this bill is a double-prize to me. Smokers are the most discriminated against tax-payers in the US. The tax increase on cigarettes to pay for this bill is insane. No other Americans pay this level of taxes for anything.

Why not tax things that make kids unhealthy like McDonald's and XBoxes??? I know, kids get sick just because they do. But if your going to pick on somebody to foot the entire bill, pick on the things that directly make kids unhealthy like the shit food they eat and crap that keeps them sitting on their asses instead of getting exercise.

The second prize is that because this bill is wildly popular it just hurts the GOP and Bush more for going against it.

She can smack me around anytime she wants.

Don't the Republicans want these kids to be healthy in ten years when they are being airlifted to Iran and Syria to kill for oil?

My wife and I both work, make between 60 and 80,00$/year and have no problem affording family health insurance.
I'm very curious as to why someone in that tax bracket can't get health insurance. I know the 7-11 doesn't offer health insurance, but you don't get into that scale working there either.

Well, Pat wouldn't have a voice here anyway ... he is an ex- congress person. He is on the dole with Free health-care at our expense.
I'm sure that Pat, since he was Communications Director for President Reagan (1985-1987); Special Assistant to President Ford (1974); Special Assistant to President Nixon (1969-1974) is probably getting HIS coverage for free at our expense. So does every person to serve in the Congress, Senators or Congressperson ... for LIFE ... ON US.

He doesn't realize that 80 K with a family you can just about pay a mortgage, buy groceries and perhaps have a fairly new (within 10 yrs) car.
But that extra $1300 (min) to insure a family just isn't going to happen without some help.

The Government doesn't care about it's citizens, if it did they would listen when we say we want out of Iraq, and no War with Iran, etc etc.
These privileged pukes make me sick.

Bobaloo @ 17:

My wife and I both work, make between 60 and 80,00$/year and have no problem affording family health insurance.
I'm very curious as to why someone in that tax bracket can't get health insurance. I know the 7-11 doesn't offer health insurance, but you don't get into that scale working there either.

Will your insurance cover you or your children for serious medical disasters, diseases, etc., that might cost tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars? That, I think, is part of the problem with the Chimp and his henchmen saying a family that makes $80,000 doesn't deserve to be enrolled in SCHIP. Especially if you are a family making $80,000 and living in San Francisco or NY, where that much money does not go very far.

I don't particularly want to pay for peoples health insurance when I can't even afford my own.

Again, the whole debate is about affordable medical care. Day after day you never hear one PUNDIT or personality say . . . hold on a minute here lets to shift this session to AFFORDABLE medical care.

Maddow nailed it!

Any time Government HELPS people -- it is socialism.
Every time Government steals our tax money to subsidize a wealthy Business supporter, it's called "Capitalism."

"I don't thin' these words mean what they thin' they mean."

Chris Matthews is such as twerp! The only criticism he can find is the cigaarette tax to finance the program, which he even admits is a good idea, so then he says the Democrats will promise that but not deliver.

Bush would never make promises and then not deliver on them, would he? Please, that's the Republican system since the Industrial Revolution, and Americans are figuring it out.

I wish the Democrats would emphasize, though, that when the Republicans talk about "free" healthcare at the Emergency Room, it's not free. We're all paying for it.

Also, let's hear some more dialogue about how all the Republicans who oppose healthcare for children receive government funded healthcare themselves and, so far, I haven't seen one of them get up in public and renounce it because they "believe in private medicine."

I love when Buchanan got started on the true repug grievance--that children in homes making $60-80,000 would get healthcare subsidized by people making a lot more money. In a nutshell, that's what's wrong with this country. GREED.

chris @ 18:

Then don't have the two kids and don't live in LA!!! its all about choices!!! Alot of poor people smoke so your just taxes one poor person to pay for the health care of another poor persons kid. Moreover, if they do stop smoking then the program looses money, then where will the money come from, borrowing that how, which increases the deficit!!! CareenMan is half right but instead tax stupid parents who let there kids eat at Mickey D's or play xbox instead of going outside, then you will have healthy kids!!

So a family that lives in L.A. but cannot afford health insurance should just move out to the middle of Wyoming? You're an idiot.

As far as the tax, maybe they can just tax EVERYBODY, and not just cigarette smokers. I wouldn't mind the government taking out a few extra dollars from my paychecks if it means kids recieving health care. That the difference between liberals and conservatives: we care about people and they don't.

This is a prime example of Bush Republicans shooting themselves in the head politically and morally. Bush "winning" the fight against funding healthcare for American children who currently don't have healthcare because their families can't afford it, is just one more nail in the coffin of the Republican Party and their 2008 election prospects. No matter what hyperbole and spin they put on it, American "children" are suffering the consequences. That is morally shameful, unacceptable and indefensible. It's a lose/lose propostition for the GOP thanks to the perverted political war and corporate profiteering priorities of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the immoral Republicans who enable them!!

Great Frybread King @ 21:

Bobaloo @ 17:

My wife and I both work, make between 60 and 80,00$/year and have no problem affording family health insurance.
I'm very curious as to why someone in that tax bracket can't get health insurance. I know the 7-11 doesn't offer health insurance, but you don't get into that scale working there either.

Will your insurance cover you or your children for serious medical disasters, diseases, etc., that might cost tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars? That, I think, is part of the problem with the Chimp and his henchmen saying a family that makes $80,000 doesn't deserve to be enrolled in SCHIP. Especially if you are a family making $80,000 and living in San Francisco or NY, where that much money does not go very far.

Yes, it does. But how often is that really used anyway. It's a strawman.
If you live in SF and make 80 thou, then more times than not the company you're working for has health insurance. If you can't afford to live in a Metro city, then don't live there.

Rachel is amazing.

It's BS in this economy to say that $80k in major cites is a high salary. It is not. A small house near NYC in a town where you'd feel safe sending your kids to school, can start as high as $300,000. Forget about buying something in the city, unless you're interested in a one room studio apartment.
This plan allows kids living in expensive areas, to get heath insurance.

Isn't it interesting how conservatives will scream at the thought of these kids getting coverage, yet say nothing about the money wasted in Iraq. I'd like to see Matthews argue as ardently for the need to find funding for the War, as he did for funding kids' heath insurance.

Telly @ 233:

Great Frybread King @ 208:

Great Frybread King @ 204:

Telly @ 202:

You know nothing of Candadian health care, which is why you are making a typical GOP argument about long lines if we have socialized health care. And that six month wait also appies to many people in the U.S. I have a doctor that I can't get into the see for the next four weeks and I have private health insurance and a full-time job. Gee, I thought private medicine was supposed to be sooo much faster and sooo much better, according to you and the GOP.

Also, idiot, if you have a heart attack or other life-threatening injury or illness then you'd just go to the ER and have it paid by the system. You wouldn't be calling your primary health care provider to set up an appointment, genius.

This is a "typical story" from Canada's healthcare system doing a fine job for a friend:

Speaking of Canadian Healthcare...
My father grew up in Canada and his best friend (my "Uncle" Jim) died of liver cancer in early 2002 because Jim's primary care physician didn't refer him to a specialist (which is apparently a requirement).
Jim had been losing a lot of weight and having digestive trouble. The doctor checked him out and said he was suffering from chronic stress and ulcers due to his job (he was a fire captain).
The symptoms worsened, the doctor gave him more meds. Jim -- being a man who trusted his doctor -- didn't freak out like he should have. He didn't think to travel to the US to get a second opinion. He trusted the doctor and basically just kept taking the meds thinking he'd get better and he never did.
More weight loss, more digestive trouble... and now he is in constant pain. He calls the doctor and is basically told that there is no appointment available to him any time soon -- and no, you can't see a specialist or go to another doctor because THIS is YOUR doctor and you need HIM to refer you to a specialist. But, since you're in pain would a waiting list be okay?
Then Jim's skin started to turn yellow. Now he freaks out.
Long story short -- Jim had cancer and it spread to his liver. By the time it was caught, it was too late. It was already Stage 4.
Granted, Jim (and his wife) should have freaked out a lot sooner -- BEFORE his skin started to turn yellow. I know I would have. But Jim was your typical "I trust my doctor because he's a doctor and he knows what is best for me" type of guy.
Even so, the fact remains that when Jim wanted more medical attention he wasn't able to get a second opinion OR see a specialist because the healthcare system in Canada isn't set up that way.

For that reason alone, I do not want "universal healthcare" -- I'd rather not trust the damn government to make my medical choices for me, thanks.

OK - so "Uncle Jim" [which sounds suspiciously like it was lifted from a Twain story] was an idiot, but I must tell you as a Canadian living in the US and with sick relatives on both sides of the border that I would choose the Canadian system over the US "what system?" anyday.

Does the Canadian system need reforming and updating yes. For starters I would allow supplemental gap insurance into Canada [under regulation], but the US has nothing. Even if you have insurance here, with most regulation on insurance eviserated since Ronnie Raygun, this place is scary.

I have good insurance and have been hit in traffic by idiots twice in the past year. After the second accident I couldn't get into see my Doc here for 6 weeks. So we have waiting lines too. And ours are artificially low because we have told 50 million of our fellow citizens to get out of the line.

And yes, I know what I am talking about. I run the medical clinic that my wife is CMO of. She is a US citizen and wants to move to Canada to practice medicine post haste. Do you need a Doc? [insert shameless plug here]

Please don't let one bad experience cloud your judgement. Canada is a great country. The difference for Uncle Jim and his family is that despite the misdiagnosis [and yes, his Doc should have caught that one and likely would have if Jim had grown a pair and spoken up], at least his family does not now have to file bankruptcy and sell their house and possesions. Likely, that is what he would have had to do here, even if he had insurance.

Arhhhhhhhhhhh.

Rachel has this pie in the sky notion that universal healthcare works, and that private-run healthcare does not.

She does not have any logical basis for concluding such a thing, because her motives are not that of finding truth and justice.

She BEGINS with an anti-capitalistic mentality and THEN concludes that social medicine works better.

She does this because she, along with many other socialists, CANNOT sanction individualism. To her, this is the most dispicable and evil characteristic of mankind, and should be erased BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.

She does rationally study healthcare or economics in general and then conclude what is best. She has a crazy political agenda that says what`s yours is not yours, it`s mine and everyone else`s.

I can`t stand people who think that increasing an already bloated American government is the solution to our ills. How in the world can she sit there with a straight face and say that all we need are good people in government and it will work? She is abviously against business, she does not even consider that it is possible for a businessman in the healthcare industry to be moral. Morality is or is not in everyone, in a somewhat random manner.

If she thinks that a part of the population (private business) can somehow be entirely devoid of morality, and the other (government) to be moral and good just because they are in government, is the most naive and destructive thinking there can be. There are good and bad people in BOTH parts of the country. What you do for a living DOES NOT make you moral or immoral.

What she cannot understand is that only one part of the society is self-correcting. Private business is self-correcting. Government is not self-correcting because there is no punishment for bad behaviour.

Now, since there are bad people all over the place, we have to create a society that will minimize the IMPACT of these bad people. What she doesn`t understand is that private business people are trying to say to her that only the market punishes bad behaviour. The bigger the government, the LESS bad behaviour is punished.

Just look at why today BOTH government AND business are getting away with bad behaviour. It is because our government is too big. Both sides are doing so because it is impossible for the consumer to punish them by not buying their products.

How in the world can a company that makes people less well off and sick be PUNISHED by the market if they are protected by government? The bad businesses that stay long term can ONLY do so if the money they make is NOT voluntarily given by the buyers.

In healthcare, this self-corrective mechanism is absent. The healthcare market in the US is NOT a free one. Young people are not allowed to "opt out" of the program. How in the world can anyone in their right mind call this a free market system? Freedom implies CHOICE after all.

Rachel needs to look at things from a calmer and more rational angle. She is clearly corrupted.

I'm sorry, but wasn't there a woman in Sicko whose husband died of cancer because his insurance company wouldn't cover his treatment? Well, what do you know, here it is. My own mother died of cancer many years ago after being initially misdiagnosed. Her case was a bit trickier as the cancer was pressing against her spine through her lungs and triggering pain in her abdomen, so the doctor, much like the doctor in the "Jim" story above, became fixated on the idea that since the x-rays and tests came up blank, it must be a chronic bowel thing or something. Only by blind luck was a small spot noticed at the very top of one of her x-rays. Of course, by then it was too late, and I'll never know if catching it any earlier would have helped (my mother was notorious about avoiding doctors even when she needed attention), but clearly the system in the U.S. was hardly perfect. Even if the "Jim" story is true, it only says something about that particular doctor, not the system.

As for Fed managed social programs being disasters, that's utter bs. Medicare, S-CHIP and Social Security are considered hugely successful (until Bush's Pharma managed drug plan came along, naturally). Yes they are expensive, but that's a function of their size as much as anything and between the two, it's Medicare that is by far and away the one facing the biggest cost hurdles thanks to exploding medical costs and the coming retirement of the boomers. The U.S. has actually seen the average life span of its citizenry decrease over the past 25 years or so, so that problem may solve itself if we wait long enough. Social Security would be fine if Congress would keep their mitts off the stash. At most, it will suffer a 2 trillion shortfall in about 50 years or so, and that's only if the economy does poorly, which would drag private funds down the toilet, too. All other economic projections have the system remaining solvent or running up a fat surplus. Of course, not all Fed programs are successes, many suffer from corruption and mismanagement, but that's an argument against bad politicians (and which party has the market virtually cornered on those), not government programs. Besides, Social Security is a safety net, not a retirement program. It covers a lot more than senior citizens, providing many with disability and death benefits, among other things. And then there are the real government boondoggles, like the nearly 2 trillion in unaccountable defense spending, FEMA, multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts for corporate cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater, and so on. Bushco has certainly done a marvelous job of bringing into sharp relief what they mean by "compassionate conservatism" as applied to governance and the "free" market.

Help me out here. If government regulated health care is so bad, then why is the U.S. ranked 37th in the world behind all those deluded fools in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and only manages to squeak in 2 places ahead of Cuba? Why are Britain's health care costs only 40% of those in the U.S., yet they enjoy far better results? Why is our infant mortality rate so high? Why is the average life expectancy for an adult male or female actually going down (the only industrialized nation to be suffering such a reversal)? Why are we, on average, getting shorter? That may sound silly, but it's an indicator of the overall health of the country and speaks to declining nutrition and health care, particularly for children (and there's that S-CHIP thing again...curse you and your blatant relevance S-CHIP!). How can people rationally argue that a citizen's basic health should be subjected to the whims of private enterprise, for whom profit supersedes everything (another discussion, of course, but corporate law is structured to create just such a problem)? Health care outcomes in the U.S. are driven by the insurance industry, not the available care. The idea that a fully open and competitive insurance market would fix everything is ludicrous. It's simply not the same as, say, the electronics industry where competition is global and components come from dozens of sources. Well, unless you're arguing that HMOs should have the option to send you to Malaysia for your care to inflate their bottom line. The ultimate in outsourcing.

As for financing these programs, how about fewer illegal elective wars? No? How about collecting the nearly 1/2 trillion in annually unpaid corporate taxes? Still no? How about we cut funding for programs like nuclear bunker busters and the missile defense shield that don't work and/or violate a number of international anti-proliferation treaties? Actually, I'm sure we could suddenly find the money for any number of social programs if Congress and the Preznit were suddenly faced with having to pay their own way instead of getting guaranteed fat health and retirement benefits.

Just go to the emergency room, what awesome advice. In other words, just wait until your suffering is profound and the treatment options more restricted and we'll be happy to give you some middling care.

BC @ 330:

ysbaddaden @ 58:

L.A. Confidential @ 51:

There should be an alcohol tax also. 61 cent increase on beer, booze, and wine.

Alcohol causes a lot of serious illnesses and deaths in this country.

That's why I saw we should legalize weed.

Thats quite a good non-sequitur you have there.
Alcohol does cause social problems, but that does not mean weed should be legalised.

=my2c
BC

umm
cigarettes cause empysema, cancer (lung throat mouth--- etc)
and various other lung diseases... caused by carbon monoxide and tar and carcinogens...

alcohol is the main cause of marriage problems, liver problems, most fights, most stabbings, lots and lots of car accidents, train wrecks----in general DEATH....
(hell i just took a sip of wine right now and in most states I'm already considered legally drunk---12% alc. by vol. Merlot..btw)

cannabis sativa is the number one cause of the following...

hungry

happy

sleepy

not much ( if very little ) else...

no one holds up a store to support their weed habit

crack and booze--YES

weed--NO

and many...oh so many.... people who have caused accidents that have been blamed on cannabis actually had BOTH cannabis AND alcohol in their systems...

as in the infamous "Reefer Madness", all of the things shown are what would happen if people are DRUNK... not "stoned"...

my2c2

:)

ray @ 24:

You know when government ....blockquote>
sounds like a repugliKKKan concern troll. protecting the poor from taxes while their children go to emergency room to die and stay sick.

nothing has worked wel in government since noxin invented the strategy of financially crippling good programs and then cutting the funding completely after they can no longer function in the crippled state he put the programs in.

the repug argument is a crock. period.

Bobaloo @ 33:

Great Frybread King @ 21:

Bobaloo @ 17:

My wife and I both work, make between 60 and 80,00$/year and have no problem affording family health insurance.
I'm very curious as to why someone in that tax bracket can't get health insurance. I know the 7-11 doesn't offer health insurance, but you don't get into that scale working there either.

Will your insurance cover you or your children for serious medical disasters, diseases, etc., that might cost tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars? That, I think, is part of the problem with the Chimp and his henchmen saying a family that makes $80,000 doesn't deserve to be enrolled in SCHIP. Especially if you are a family making $80,000 and living in San Francisco or NY, where that much money does not go very far.

Yes, it does. But how often is that really used anyway. It's a strawman.
If you live in SF and make 80 thou, then more times than not the company you're working for has health insurance. If you can't afford to live in a Metro city, then don't live there.

No, it's not a straw man just because you and your buddies have never been seriously injured in a car accident or your child has never developed cancer.

And if you want poeople who can barely afford to live in places like SF to move out of the area then you are forcing out many police officers, teachers and other service workers. The city would crumble, idiot.

i can't marry her, i can't have her babies. Rachel Maddow, could I adopt you and remember you in my will?

I love Rachel Maddow.

Great Frybread King @ 39:

Bobaloo @ 33:

Great Frybread King @ 21:

Bobaloo @ 17:

Will your insurance cover you or your children for serious medical disasters, diseases, etc., that might cost tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars? That, I think, is part of the problem with the Chimp and his henchmen saying a family that makes $80,000 doesn't deserve to be enrolled in SCHIP. Especially if you are a family making $80,000 and living in San Francisco or NY, where that much money does not go very far.

Yes, it does. But how often is that really used anyway. It's a strawman.
If you live in SF and make 80 thou, then more times than not the company you're working for has health insurance. If you can't afford to live in a Metro city, then don't live there.

No, it's not a straw man just because you and your buddies have never been seriously injured in a car accident or your child has never developed cancer.

And if you want poeople who can barely afford to live in places like SF to move out of the area then you are forcing out many police officers, teachers and other service workers. The city would crumble, idiot.

Uh, don't city employees and teachers recieve health care as part of their job?
And why are you calling me an idiot when I'm just debating?

We should go back to bleeding.

Rachel stays on the specifics, she stays on point, that's not always easy to do. And say what you want about Pat, he's one of the "good" Republicans in my book, he's actually a real fiscal conservative, not a war monger. But the fact of the matter is the war in Iraq is booked for $190 billion next year, while this S-CHIP increase is only $7 billion, Chris does a feeble job of balancing that fiscal truism.

There should be an alcohol tax also. 61 cent increase on beer, booze, and wine.

Alcohol causes a lot of serious illnesses and deaths in this country.

I actually agree with Bush on this one... The max salary is more than I make. More free health care is not the right way to go.

Lou Fah @ 38:

Patrick "Shoutus-Interruptus" Buchanan can't make his point without getting hysterical. He must think that ER health care is paid for with magic beans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx_RLMoK3bs

chris @ 50:

Great Frybread King:
I'm saying if the cost of living is to high in LA then yes move, suburbs, Idaho, wherever, don't complain it cost to much then ask for a hand out. They CHOSE to live there, they CHOSE to have kids!! Furthermore, if you don't mind if they take out a few dollars fine but I DO! so how about they take my share out of yours since your so nice! Of course you say this now but wait to see how much a few dollars turns into many dollars, you need an econ class, dumbass libs, as long as nobody has to take responsibility for their actions you guys are happy..

That's retarded. Do you know how many people are cities would lose if everybody who is struggling left? It's dumb. But I guess it's worthless talking to someone who's probably a member of a party that would borrow billions from a communist country for a pointless war and then fight government funding of health care for children.

Joe @ 53:

I actually agree with Bush on this one... The max salary is more than I make. More free health care is not the right way to go.

The max salary is also more than I make, but if i were married with a wife who made as much as I do then we'd be over the $80,000 limit. And with two-four kids that would surely dilute that amount, so don't sit there and say $80,000 is a lot of money.

Bobaloo @ 17:

My wife and I both work, make between 60 and 80,00$/year and have no problem affording family health insurance.
I'm very curious as to why someone in that tax bracket can't get health insurance. I know the 7-11 doesn't offer health insurance, but you don't get into that scale working there either.

It depends on what you want, and what you are willing to pay for, I guess - but I also imagine that the average 2.5 kids tacks on a fair-sized chunk to your payroll deductions, which means less money coming home for food, school, clothes, and entertainment. That's not counting healthcare spending programs, or the fact that even the best of plans have limited dental and eyecare provisions. Gone to take a look at the price of eyeglasses lately? Consider outfitting an entire family of five with corrective lenses on a yearly basis.

Dining out, going to the movies - those are becoming luxuries. God forbid you should take your kids to an amusement park like Disneyland/California Adventure.

The assumption being made is that folks who can't afford healthcare for their kids must be complete charity cases, grubby peasants asking for more. The reality could be that a parent is on disability or laid off ... and then what? If you didn't have the foresight or ability to pay into a long-term disability program, you're fucked.

Instead of a handout, I call it an investment in our future. These are our children we're talking about. Shouldn't the goal be covering as many of our children as possible? What other incentives or issues can we be looking at to make this work, instead of whipping out the 'socialized medicine' boogeyman?

ysbaddaden @ 22:

Would the dog named Larry Craig be a bitch?

No, he's one of those little yap-yaps that likes to hump your leg ...

ysbaddaden @ 58:

L.A. Confidential @ 51:

There should be an alcohol tax also. 61 cent increase on beer, booze, and wine.

Alcohol causes a lot of serious illnesses and deaths in this country.

That's why I saw we should legalize weed.

Seriously. Alcohol is a POISON.

Cheers! Greatest P.T. Barnum job in history.

Could we please get Maddow off of Air America and somewhere useful please?

Republicans are headed for a car wreck, and they won't press the brakes for anything, until they loose in 2008, and after that, they won't get their shit together until 2012...

Brighter times are ahead my friends.

Payallin @ 54:

People just don't understand that the government is responsible for its citizens. It needs to make sure we're fed, clothed and healthy. I like John Edwards idea of mandatory visits to the doctor for preventative healthcare. If people won't do it on their own then the government needs to step in. We're a free country but if people make the wrong choices they need to be made to do the right thing. If people were totally responsible for themselves a lot would mess their lives up big time. That is why we have a federal government. To make sure people do the things that we know they should do. Sometimes the government knows better than the individual how they should live their life.
Denying healthcare is unconstitutional. We are guaranteed the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. If we die because we can't afford healthcare then we are denied a third of that right.

You are absolutely clueless. The government has no such responsiblity to force the right choices upon it's citizens. It is not a free country when the government starts forcing people to do things. That's a socialist country.
Where, oh where in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for your healthcare.

Weaseldog @ 66:

Without the war, inflation wouldn't be so high and health care costs wouldn't be rising so fast.

We're sinking into poverty mostly because the gov borrows and spends faster than the population can keep up.

Don't ya know it Weasel. I wish health care was as affordable as it was before we went into Iraq.

George Bush asking for money for the war, and denying money to sick children is like a spoiled adolescent hitting his sick mother up for money after crashing his car -- and running over a pedestrian -- AGAIN.

Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan *scolding* Rachel -- what ASSHOLES!

xxx @ 67:

Could we please get Maddow off of Air America and somewhere useful please?

Republicans are headed for a car wreck, and they won't press the brakes for anything, until they loose in 2008, and after that, they won't get their shit together until 2012...

Brighter times are ahead my friends.

After the initial euphoria of Bush vacating the presidency and heading off into the sunset I doubt things will really change all that much.

I'm not a fan of Rachel Maddow's radio show but I think she does very well on these types of TV programs. She's very smart, understands the issues, and debates very well. I have seen her on a few occasions "beating up" her conservative opponent in a debate. Good job Rachel.

Actually taxation is about economic redistribution. Such taxes as income were authorized by the 16th Amendment (although originally proposed by Abraham Lincoln to pay for the Civil War). Cigarette taxes and other "sin taxes," are point-of-sales taxes that the reichwing advocate. You remember papa boosh propounding the VAT (Value Added Tax) to pay for programs? That would increase prices across the board on all consumer goods.

The only problem with sin-taxes is the government spends so much money for encouraging us to break our bad habits, yet become fiduciarilly dependent on our not quitting them.

Why Can't I Quit You?

yes Pat ... we can't afford Medicaid, SCHIP, etc. but we can afford this f-ing war.

Going up to $80,000 is in selective places
$80,000 a year goes along way if you live in Topeka, KS
$80,000 a year doesn't go very far in New York City, NYC

I love Rachel!

Clytemnestra @ 81:

Going up to $80,000 is in selective places
$80,000 a year goes along way if you live in Topeka, KS
$80,000 a year doesn't go very far in New York City, NYC

That should read New York City, NY

Sailor Art Thomas Jr. @ 9:

Man, Chris Matthews' contempt for women is on full display in his treatment here of Rachel Maddow. Maybe Jon Stewart should beat him up again.

I have to disagree with the "contempt for women ". When Chris had Ann Coulter on his show, he was as giddy as a school girl. Oh wait, that just proves Ann is a man. my bad!

The US can not afford having 8 million uninsured kids grow up to to become adults with bad health.

And tax high income people for it.... by all means put tax on tobacco, but use that money to buy land of tobacco farmers and change it into national parks or something.

Babaloo - I don't think you're getting it. People do not chose to pay for sky rocking health cost. They don't have a choice. You've fallen hook line and sinker for the Republican spin on S-Chip and can't snap out of it.

Do not allow the Republicans to pit us against each other. You're getting angry at the wrong people. You have no standing to tell people where they can live, or what jobs they can have. The problem is that no matter where you live, health insurance is expensive. This bill allows those families that "appear" to have high salaries (when the reality is that these salaries in the Metropolitan areas barely allow a family to cover housing costs) to insure their kids.

If you smoke cigarettes, part of the cost of your right to suck in that nicotine will go towards providing heath care for kids who are not covered by insurance. The program will be paid for. Many people find that acceptable. It's responsible to look for the money to pay for the program, and the Democrats are doing that.

Mike K @ 76:

Again, I plead with you - focus on the issues that are important - the fact that this government has taken away every right that every american soldier has fought and died for, that our founding fathers put their lives and personal fortunes on the line for. Let's bring this government back to justice. Then, and only then, should we go back to petty bickering over things like welfare, healthcare, social programs, federal budgets, etc.

I'd like to see how many soldiers have children who aren't adequately covered for health care, and exactly how doing so would qualify as socialism.

Bobaloo @ 17:

My wife and I both work, make between 60 and 80,00$/year and have no problem affording family health insurance.
I'm very curious as to why someone in that tax bracket can't get health insurance. I know the 7-11 doesn't offer health insurance, but you don't get into that scale working there either.

Maybe because they're self-employed. I have a brother-in-law who owns a home construction business and his wife works as well. They make about that much, but where she works, she doesn't have full coverage for their family. It can happen. Just because you can see beyond your own face, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I see the Medical Insurance Racket as just another tool to transfer money and wealth back into the hands of the Cons.

Of course most doctors are nothing more then employees of big medical corporations and insurance companies now anyway.

Apparently only the wealthy have personal family physicians at this point.

The whole system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.

Man, I love it when Rachel goes head to head with pundits.

Of course, to upper class white fuckos, healthcare for children is only a political issue and not a real problem at all. ...just like racism is irrelevant. Yet, the repug candidates endorse the veto, digging their hole a little deeper. And I agree with xxx's comments above, American will be back.

RagingGurrl @ 89:

Babaloo - I don't think you're getting it. People do not chose to pay for sky rocking health cost. They don't have a choice. You've fallen hook line and sinker for the Republican spin on S-Chip and can't snap out of it.

Do not allow the Republicans to pit us against each other. You're getting angry at the wrong people. You have no standing to tell people where they can live, or what jobs they can have. The problem is that no matter where you live, health insurance is expensive. This bill allows those families that "appear" to have high salaries (when the reality is that these salaries in the Metropolitan areas barely allow a family to cover housing costs) to insure their kids.

If you smoke cigarettes, part of the cost of your right to suck in that nicotine will go towards providing heath care for kids who are not covered by insurance. The program will be paid for. Many people find that acceptable. It's responsible to look for the money to pay for the program, and the Democrats are doing that.

Thanks for the reasoned argument. Yes, I get angry when I'm called an idiot and BushDog (which hasn't come up yet) in these debates. Honestly, I'm not falling for any talking points, right or left. I do believe in expanding the coverage for children, but I believe this bill goes too far.
I actually think that was the point of it from the Dems in Congress. They wanted a bill that sounded great and caring, but purposely went over the line, guaranteeing a veto and eliciting a "GOTCHA!" on Bush and the Reps. I don't think they were serious to begin with and that pisses me off the most.

RagingGurrl @ 89:

Babaloo - I don't think you're getting it. People do not chose to pay for sky rocking health cost. They don't have a choice. You've fallen hook line and sinker for the Republican spin on S-Chip and can't snap out of it.

Do not allow the Republicans to pit us against each other. You're getting angry at the wrong people. You have no standing to tell people where they can live, or what jobs they can have. The problem is that no matter where you live, health insurance is expensive. This bill allows those families that "appear" to have high salaries (when the reality is that these salaries in the Metropolitan areas barely allow a family to cover housing costs) to insure their kids.

If you smoke cigarettes, part of the cost of your right to suck in that nicotine will go towards providing heath care for kids who are not covered by insurance. The program will be paid for. Many people find that acceptable. It's responsible to look for the money to pay for the program, and the Democrats are doing that.

Exactly! The problem is we don't tax enough of what we consider bad practices. I really think we need to consider putting a little higher tax on fast food, alcohol and video games. These are known to be bad for people and it is only right that these people pay higher taxes for indulging in these harmful activities. I bet if we did have these taxes we could not only provide healthcare for kids but pregnant women as well.

You know, depending in where you live, $60,000 - $80,000/year is not a lot of money when you have a few kids and are paying for your own health insurance. Buchanan makes it sound like these people are millionaires without a care in the world. Just shows you how out of touch he is with reality.

And I don't like paying for this with an increase in the cigarette tax. Why should one segment of society bear the burden. Also, won't we then have an incentive to keep people smoking in order to keep the funding alive? When Buchanan asks "Who is going to pay for this?" the correct answer is "All of us" through an increase in taxes via a progressive tax scheme. Yes Pat, that's means people like you who are financially well off will have to pay a more in taxes to help out the less fortunate. It's called a society, get used to it.

"..and a dog named Larry Craig"

LOL!

Payallin @ 80:

Bobaloo @ 69:
See, this is what happens when we let conservatives have computers.
The government is responsible for its citizens. That is what governments do. If a child does something stupid it is up to the parent to lay down the law and change their behavior. The government is like a parent. If we don't do what is good for us then it is their responsiblility to help us not do stupid things.

1 - The government is NOT responsible for the citizens. It is responsible for the general wellfare OF THE NATION. That means providing for a common defense, free trade and travel between the many states. It ends there.

2 - You understand NOTHING about the men who founded this nation. They would patently disagree with every single word you'd written above. Every single word. Every one. Go read the words of Jefferson and Madison. Go on, now...

3 - You, and ONLY YOU, are responsible for yourself. No one else is responsible for you. Unless you're a child; then your parents are responsible for you. Not the government.

4 - The government's job is to protect citizens FROM THE GOVERNMENT. That was the clear single intent of the Constitution. The Constitution did not grant rights. It enumerated them (read the 9th and 10th Amendments which clarified that position). The Constitution was a mechanism to keep THE GOVERNMENT in line. Not the citizens. It created a mechanism for the People to control the government, not the other way around. THAT was what was unique about the United States - it had never been done before. If you disagree, then please tell me how the US is so superior to all other government structures before its time?

5 - "promote the general welfare": first, it says "promote", not "provide for". Second, it say "the general welfare" in regards to the welfare of the nation, not the welfare of individual citizens.

Plus, my money's mine, bitch. Keep your hands off it! ;) (it's a joke, settle down)

"That's called theft."

Actually, it's called democracy. What you are subscribing to is modern libertarianism, which has little to do with how our government, or capitalism, or the real world, actually operate.

"The United States Federal Government has no constitutional right to take money from one citizen and give it to another, for any reason, whatsoever."

According to the Constitution, Congress most certainly does have the power to levy taxes and distribute them as they see fit.

"What's relevant is that it is morally, ethically and socially unjust for any government to force any persons to give up what is rightfully theirs just because it benefits someone else who is in need. "

The government didn't force you to do this, we voted on it. If you don't like it, convince enough of your fellow Americans to vote for different candidates.

"the fact that this government has taken away every right that every american soldier has fought and died for, that our founding fathers put their lives and personal fortunes on the line for. Let's bring this government back to justice."

You are substituting your own libertarian ideology for what our Constitution actually says. There is nothing 'unjust' or unconstitutional about the Congress levying taxes and using them to pay for health care.

Mike K @ 107:

Payallin @ 80:

Bobaloo @ 69:
See, this is what happens when we let conservatives have computers.
The government is responsible for its citizens. That is what governments do. If a child does something stupid it is up to the parent to lay down the law and change their behavior. The government is like a parent. If we don't do what is good for us then it is their responsiblility to help us not do stupid things.

1 - The government is NOT responsible for the citizens. It is responsible for the general wellfare OF THE NATION. That means providing for a common defense, free trade and travel between the many states. It ends there.

The function of government is the creation/maintanance of civil society and the protection of the common man and his interests - public commons - from predators; the greedy, corporatists, aristocracy etc. (OSHA, FDA, EPA, FEMA etc etc)

Without government, no group of citizens is strong enough to defend themselves, civil society or the public commons from predation.

The predators have convinced the common man in the US to dismantle that which preserves and protects them. The predators have been unchained on an ignorant and gullable citizenry. They will be 'eaten', which is what they deserve. The world needs to watch and take careful notes so as not to repeat this mindless blunder.

Great Frybread King:
Who ever said I was a republican or supported the war??? If did away with all of these social programs we would not need to borrow money!! Once again, if you can't afford the kids then don't have em, including health care!!!! all they are doing is creating citizens they are dependent on the government. When the kids grow up he will want health care for the rest of his life because he had it before!!

I know how we pay for it...

We END the War on Marijuana...

It currently costs EACH Taxpayer---If you have Health insurance or not.. $550.00 EACH to continue the War on Marijuana.

The lost Tax Revenue on the sale of Marijuana is $31,000,000,000.00 That is 31 BILLION.

Is that enough for Schip?

Or should we continue to arrest 879,000 Americans for the SIN of possesing Marijuana on their persons when meeting a friendly Police overseer?

Kudos to Rachel for spanking Pat and Tweety ganging up on her.

What an A$$HOLE tweety was. I expect that kind of crap from Pat the Bigot, but this was more hackery than the norm from Matthews.

♥ Rachel Maddow.

During the last quarter century, the world has undergone revolutions in communications, record keeping, medical science, materials science, and manufacturing capabilities. Computers become cheaper by the minute yet healthcare is somehow accepted as being continually more expensive. The phony "free market" is not a free-market, it is manipulated by the same forces that are controlling our government.

"Where are you going to find the money?" Whines Pat and his chickenshit ideological brethren. WTF?!

15 BILLION dollars a month to a war with no end that was supposed to pay for itself. The question is from where does THAT money come? From your and my pockets and we DON"T want the war yet we DO want the SCHIP.

The healthcare system isn't the only thing that is broken. So is this system of government.

Mike K @ 76:

Hey John Amato,

My car is run down and I need either a new one or significant repairs to the one I have now. I'm going to take 10% of your salary to pay for that, okay?

You bet your fuckin' ass it's not okay! That's called theft.

The United States Federal Government has no constitutional right to take money from one citizen and give it to another, for any reason, whatsoever. While Bush's reasons for veto may be misguided, even underhanded - the net result of his veto is a victory for freedom and justice. Not for right or left, but for the fundamental values inherent to freedom - the right to keep what is yours.

Now, before you attempt to debunk may argument based on the fact that child health care does not equate to my desire for a nice car - let me completely and 100% agree with you. But let me also point out the fact that that point is IRRELEVANT. What's relevant is that it is morally, ethically and socially unjust for any government to force any persons to give up what is rightfully theirs just because it benefits someone else who is in need.

Also, let's not confuse access to health CARE with access to FREE health INSURANCE. Every human has a right to seek out a doctor and be treated. No human has a right to get that for free. None. Not you, not I, not the poor, not the rich.

Again, I plead with you - focus on the issues that are important - the fact that this government has taken away every right that every american soldier has fought and died for, that our founding fathers put their lives and personal fortunes on the line for. Let's bring this government back to justice. Then, and only then, should we go back to petty bickering over things like welfare, healthcare, social programs, federal budgets, etc.

Keep your eye on the ball.

Will your position change once you have driven more and more people into poverty?
Who will be the one stealing the 'stuff' that you have the right to keep, out of desperation?
Civil chaos is the result of deprivation.
I guess that's why you need guns in America.

The titanic irony of it: Tweety asks where are you gonna get the money to pay for this kiddie health care plan...yet Bush is ripping off the US Treasury for $30 billion dollars per month so that our military and his pet mercenaries can kill Muslims in Iraq. $30 billion per month...just the amount needed to finance the kids.

Meanwhile the old bigot screams about socialism and the poor cigarette smokers, and Tweety can't stop scrawking about how ya gonna pay.

Rachael Maddow for president!

Jenny'O @ 78:

CafeenMan @ 11:

What happened with this bill is a double-prize to me. Smokers are the most discriminated against tax-payers in the US. The tax increase on cigarettes to pay for this bill is insane. No other Americans pay this level of taxes for anything.

Why not tax things that make kids unhealthy like McDonald's and XBoxes??? I know, kids get sick just because they do. But if your going to pick on somebody to foot the entire bill, pick on the things that directly make kids unhealthy like the shit food they eat and crap that keeps them sitting on their asses instead of getting exercise.

The second prize is that because this bill is wildly popular it just hurts the GOP and Bush more for going against it.

-----------------------------------
smoking is a choice, a luxury. i used to smoke. i knew even then that i didn't have to smoke, but when my kid was sick he HAD to have medical care.
i don't have a lot of luxuries but if i had to pay one extra dollar per six pack knowing it was going to help i'd be even happier drinking my sixer.
that arguement about working class smokers,,,what an incredible bunch of hooey...heck put a $1.00 per bottle tax on champagne and other fancy pants wines, big bottles of Maker's Mark and Jim Beam--who'd whine about one extra dollar? well sure a republican crybaby, but i mean a normal person, a human being.
you mentioned unhealthy foods...why not? tax cookies, chips and soda...say 10 cents a bag or bottle...what's 10 cents? not much per bag so ppl will still buy but it will make a lot of revenue.

Name one thing that is taxed that a person can't live without? All taxes are optional. I'm sorry, but the argument that smoking is optional is BS. So is working, owning a car, owning home, etc. If we're going to put insane taxes on things that are optional why limit it to just smokers???

I never said anything about working class smokers. I think that argument is BS as well. It doesn't matter what rationale Bush gives. He lies about everything. I'd guess his rationale for vetoing this bill is two-fold: He loves the tobacco industry and it's a bill more popular with dems than right-wingers and therefore it must be destroyed.

My point is that they keep nailing smokers with more and more taxes. I wonder how many people would be willing to pay 40% tax on their next car. ???

PS. It's not $0.10 cents. It's $0.63 cents a pack.

Another thing to note. When they raised taxes on tobacco in Florida in the late 80's or 90's they said it was "to cover the cost of smoking-related illness." Of course that was a lie as well. How much do you want to bet when I get a smoking-related illness the Florida gov't isn't going to foot the bill???

I don't mind a certain level of sin tax but they're putting this entire bill on smokers. The bill is relatively inexpensive compared to things such as, oh, blowing up people. Why not spread it around???

"You understand NOTHING about the men who founded this nation. They would patently disagree with every single word you’d written above. Every single word. Every one. Go read the words of Jefferson and Madison. Go on, now…"

Ok, done. According to them, if I can get Congress to levy a tax on certain goods or certain segments of the population, in order to pay for a health care program for disadvantaged children, then it is perfectly legal and constitutional and it doesn't violate anyone's rights.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Rachel, where are we going to get the extra $35 billion? Where is it going to come from?

In the words of Glenn Beck, whom I heard for an excruciating 2 seconds the other night: The Democrats don't need $35 billion, and they certainly don't need $5000 for every child.

So the money is for "democrats" and not children... this might explain the entire neocon pov on this subject and every other.

chris @ 113:

Great Frybread King:
Who ever said I was a republican or supported the war??? If did away with all of these social programs we would not need to borrow money!! Once again, if you can't afford the kids then don't have em, including health care!!!! all they are doing is creating citizens they are dependent on the government. When the kids grow up he will want health care for the rest of his life because he had it before!!

So let's scrap social programs that help people so that we can have your twisted version of fiscal responsibility? How insensitive and callous. Personally, I'm glad to pay more in taxes if it contributes to the public good, especially with healthcare. Helping others in need is what other centered people doto lift others up. Self centered bootstrappers like you are the real problem because in reality, its all about you, and let the rest of society eat cake if they aren't as fortunate. You people make me sick.

Simply, its Class War. The owning class has gone waaaay too far this time, and balance needs to be restored

Mike K @ 76:

snip...

Again, I plead with you - focus on the issues that are important - the fact that this government has taken away every right that every american soldier has fought and died for, that our founding fathers put their lives and personal fortunes on the line for. Let's bring this government back to justice. Then, and only then, should we go back to petty bickering over things like welfare, healthcare, social programs, federal budgets, etc.

Keep your eye on the ball.

This problem wouldn't be so bad if the government wasn't borrowing money to subsidize the world's wealthiest corporations.

We have a government that believes in socialist programs for international corporations. Our government believes in taking money from you and giving it to Exxon. If they stopped this practice, our wages would go further and we wouldn't be asking for help.

While the government takes our money and gives it to the wealthy so they they don't have to be competitive in the marketplace, we're supposed to feel guilty about asking for a little help in return.

Where's the guilt in subsidizing Citicorps bad loans, so that Arab Princes can continue to indulge in their harems of Thai slave girls in Dubai? Why is Citicorp, or Exxon, or Halliburton deserving of government largess at our expense?

Also... and Actually...

Let clarify what I said above.

If we ended the War on Marijuana we would save 10.7 BILLION on arresting, prosecuting, and punishing marijuana offenders. At the same time, by maintaining the policy of marijuana prohibition, the government is foregoing an estimated $31.1 billion a year in lost tax revenues by keeping the $113 billion a year marijuana industry in the underground economy.

So we Lose 41.8 Billion dollars a year fighting the "SIN" of Cannabis consumption...

So is it worth it for you to personally pay $550 a year , plus not having national health care .. just to destroy the lives of your neighbors who prefer to puff a plant?

L.A. Confidential @ 130:

justabill @ 124:

I wish they'd add a $10 a pack tax to cigarettes, and ten times that much to cigars and pipe tobacco.

More even.

The same for booze, beer, and wine. Smoking and drinking are the same vice.

Better yet $10 tax to every Big Mac and Fries.

I'm game, as long as it goes to subsidize universal health insurance, healthy foods, and health related public facilities like swimming pools, rec centers and parks etc.

CafeenMan @ 11:

What happened with this bill is a double-prize to me. Smokers are the most discriminated against tax-payers in the US. The tax increase on cigarettes to pay for this bill is insane. No other Americans pay this level of taxes for anything.

Why not tax things that make kids unhealthy like McDonald's and XBoxes??? I know, kids get sick just because they do. But if your going to pick on somebody to foot the entire bill, pick on the things that directly make kids unhealthy like the shit food they eat and crap that keeps them sitting on their asses instead of getting exercise.

The second prize is that because this bill is wildly popular it just hurts the GOP and Bush more for going against it.

I am not big on paying another $6.10 per carton of cigarettes and would like to see the "burden" spread out a bit. How about a 1 cent per 12 oz of soda, beer and alcohol. That should raise enough money for the program without forcing one group to bear the brunt of it. Oh sure, Pepsi, Coke and the others will raise a fuss, but to me, its the best way of doing it.

Btw: Anyone else catch Pat's little snipe against "sin" taxes? Aren't the Republicans the ones who love sin taxes the most?