Not being able to argue the bill on its merits because of the problems that were pointed out in the bill, the Democratic politicians trotted out a 12 yr old child to hide behind.
The Democrats put a child in the line of fire and hid and are continuing to hide behind him so that they do not have to argue the ambiguous language in the bill, then they complain when it is pointed out to them that the poster boy they chose and the family they chose, proved OUR points more than theirs.
I pointed out yesterday that the Democrats have borrowed a play right from Hizbullah and al-Qaeda, the terrorists playbook by hiding behind innocent, in this case, an innocent child, deliberately putting him in the line of fire.(I blame the Democrats more than the parents here because the Democrats knew what would happen and knew they could distract from themselves and place the focus on the child. The parents, not being politicians didn't know that to the extent that the politicians did)
Unable to address the fact that the Democrats used terrorist tactics, people want to cry out about the nasty right wingers attacking a child, completely ignoring that it isn't the child that was attacked, it was the fact that by spotlighting the child, which people need to remember, the Democratic politicians put him in the front and center, not the Republicans, they high lighted the exact argument we had originally brought up about the bill itself.
One of those unable to address that fundamental fact was Mahablog who titles their piece about me "Even crazier than Malkin".
(Note to the writer of that piece: Thank you, Malkin gets up off her ass, does the legwork and research, has traveled to Iraq to be able to report accurately on that, backs her words up with actual facts and I consider that a compliment, as well as a handy way to avoid and distract from the point, which is the Democrats used terrorists tactic by hiding behind innocents)
Back to SCHIP.
That income levels that the bill states can be ignored if the state in which one is enrolling has separate state laws that allow it. The Frost's made that point for us and the liberals and Democrats, in a tactic they often use, try to distract and distort from that basic fact.
Cases in point: Adults on SCHIP:
In 2006, 118,501 children and 101,919 adults in Michigan received health care from the S-CHIP program. Incredibly, this means that 46 percent of Michigan’s funding allotment intended to give poor children health insurance actually went to cover adults.
[...]
It is unfathomable to think that Democrats want to expand a program that currently does not meet the full objective of covering poor children, and expand it to try to insure single adults. I’m not sure what part of “children’s health care” liberals in Congress do not understand.
Higher income levels instead of low income families- New Jersey:
The Senate bill states: "(B) - Exception - Subparagraph (A) [the limitation of the matching rate to the Medicaid rate for children whose effective income exceeds 300 percent of the Federal poverty level] shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State Plan Amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan."
The Senate SCHIP bill also grandfathers in New Jersey's program at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, which includes children in families with incomes of $72,000 a year.
Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ): "Corzine added that the state, which covers about 122,000 kids in its program, known as FamilyCare, 'will continue to provide health care to children in families with income up to 350 percent' of the federal poverty level – or $72,275 for a family of four. He also wrote that he is prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the new rules." (Christopher Lee, "N.J.'s Corzine to Defy New Health-Care Rules," The Washington Post, 9/14/07)
SCHIP is supposed to be for children of low income families, not adults and not for people that could have had private insurance but chose not to.
Those are the facts people cannot get around, so instead they use the fall back techniques they are so good at, distract from those basics by claiming we are attacking a child, distort from the fact that Democrats deliberate used a child, hid behind a child like cowards so that they bad language in the bill (which we showed portions of above) would not be the focus.
As Michelle Malkin is quote saying in the NYT:
But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.
“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”
As for accusations that bloggers were unfairly attacking a 12-year-old, Ms. Malkin wrote on her blog, “If you don’t want questions, don’t foist these children onto the public stage.”
She makes two points here, one about the bill that does not address states that do not count "assets" or "means test" for enrollment eligibility into the SCHIP program... so a person could own all the assets the can accrue and still have US, the American people, pay their health insurance?
How ridiculous is that and why is the language of the bill not addressing this issue?
Her second point is just as important, just as a terrorist will hide behind an innocent man, woman or child and shoot or launch rockets knowing that the innocents would get caught in the line of fire when one fired back at them, the Democrats held this child in front of them, hid like cowards behind him, knowing that when the family got caught in the line of fire, they could use that to distract from the issue of a badly written bill.
People can try to distract from this all they want, but the Democratic politicians placed that child in the spotlight. Not the Republicans, not the conservative bloggers.... the Democrats did it, deliberately and with full knowledge.
Let me make one more point here. I personally believe the Democrats deliberately trotted out a 12 yr old boy to distract from the bill itself because they couldn't argue the points above.
The did it deliberately with full knowledge just as terrorists hide behind civilians with full knowledge that they will get caught in the cross fire.
More points about the SCHIP bill that the Dems have been trying to distract from, from Heading Right:
However, the Republicans haven’t given up. The GOP contingent on the House Energy And Commerce Committee have published some interesting data about the “children” — they’re awfully mature in many cases. Several states will spend more than 44% of their S-CHIP grants on adults in 2008, and that excludes pregnant women. In Michigan, that total goes to 71%. In most cases, the money gets spent on the parents more than the kids
Here are those states:
Illinois: 52.6% (51.2% parents)
Michigan: 71.6% (all childless adults)
Minnesota: 77.8% (all parents)
New Jersey: 54.6% (all parents)
New Mexico: 79% (26.7% parents, 52.3% childless adults)
Rhode Island: 52.4% (all parents)
Wisconsin: 43.9% (all parents)
As Snooper would say.... SPIN THAT.
[Update] As Malkin reminds us, the override vote is scheduled for October 18, so make sure your representatives know that we expect them to uphold the president's veto until the the language in this bill fixes it instead of expands on the problems listed above:
Make sure House Minority Leader John Boehner hears from you:
Washington Office:1011 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3508
Phone: (202) 225-6205
Fax: (202) 225-0704
.
