View Full Version : SCHIP again
Wild Cobra
10-29-2007, 07:19 PM
Doesn't congress have anything better to do than make another bill that will get veted?
SCHIP bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h3963pcs.txt.pdf)
and requiring everyone buy flood insurance
Flood Insurance Requirement (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2251is.txt.pdf)
will people who cannot buy it be forced to sell?
ChumpDumper
10-29-2007, 07:24 PM
SCHIP is too popular to be vetoed much longer.
You gotta have car insurance -- why not flood insurance that's already federally subsidized?
FromWayDowntown
10-29-2007, 08:04 PM
SCHIP is too popular to be vetoed much longer.
Congress should just cower to the image of President Bush wielding a pen to veto a bill that will might go some distance to protecting children and stop making noise about enacting such a popular bill.
If Congress keeps this up, some Republicans will have to explain their opposition to SCHIP on the campaign trail.
Yonivore
10-29-2007, 09:19 PM
Congress should just cower to the image of President Bush wielding a pen to veto a bill that will might go some distance to protecting children and stop making noise about enacting such a popular bill.
If Congress keeps this up, some Republicans will have to explain their opposition to SCHIP on the campaign trail.
Uh, the additional 15 Billion the Democrats are unwilling to compromise on is to provide insurance to non-children and to families who make over $80,000 per year.
It's real hard to make a president, already willing to bump the program by $20 billion, out to be a villain without lying your ass off.
There, I explained it to you and I'm not even on the campaign trail.
You do, of course, understand the "C" in "SCHIP" stands for Children, right? And, that SCHIP is intended to be for poor people. Right?
Flood insurance will only be required for homes in a designated flood area. This is good legislation for insurance companies and their policyholders. Katrina's storm surge reached up to 6 miles inland. I'm sure those people never thought they would need flood insurance. Numerous homeowners were denied coverage on their homeowners policies and they have since taken insurers to court.
boutons_
10-29-2007, 09:38 PM
"over $80,000 per year."
... was a lie when dubya used it as a pretext for the first veto (NY state was DENIED its request to go up $84K).
"assistance ... whose family income equals or exceeds 133 percent of the poverty line but does not exceed the Medicaid applicable income level.’’.
$80K/1.33 = $60K, where $60K is way over the poverty line.
Yet another Yoni lie?
George Gervin's Afro
10-30-2007, 08:13 AM
"over $80,000 per year."
... was a lie when dubya used it as a pretext for the first veto (NY state was DENIED its request to go up $84K).
"assistance ... whose family income equals or exceeds 133 percent of the poverty line but does not exceed the Medicaid applicable income level.’’.
$80K/1.33 = $60K, where $60K is way over the poverty line.
Yet another Yoni lie?
yoni knows the 80,000 figure is specifically for New York but he misrepresents ths issue anyway. Of course Yoni wil explain how easy it is for a family of 4 to live on 80,000 in New York.. something about plasma tvs and 100.00 tennis shoes..
Wild Cobra
10-30-2007, 01:43 PM
SCHIP is too popular to be vetoed much longer.
You gotta have car insurance -- why not flood insurance that's already federally subsidized?
Did you even think that one out?
A car can kill and hurt people, therefore it is mandatory to insure against such claims. It's called liability insurance.
Houses are a completely different thing. If people choose not to insure, it's their fault if they have no restitution later.
Did you even think that one out?
A car can kill and hurt people, therefore it is mandatory to insure against such claims. It's called liability insurance.
Houses are a completely different thing. If people choose not to insure, it's their fault if they have no restitution later.Not sure I've ever seen Chump caught with his pants down like that before.
ChumpDumper
10-30-2007, 02:34 PM
Did you even think that one out?
A car can kill and hurt people, therefore it is mandatory to insure against such claims. It's called liability insurance.
Houses are a completely different thing. If people choose not to insure, it's their fault if they have no restitution later.Yeah, it's a bad analogy. Medicare is a better one. Costs get so high only the federal government can really do it.
Flood victims will have restitution. The federal government always comes in and bails out the big flood victims.
Always. That's the kind of thing most people think government should do.
Why not make people pay into the system that will eventually bail them out?
Why not make people pay into the system that will eventually bail them out?Actually a valid question?
If the govt. can't restrain itself from helping them? Won't make the people pay the piper, as it were.
Quick story:
In '03, after the HUGE rains, I had a place in the hill country; driveway washed out. I called FEMA. They couldn't help with my driveway; cause I could still access my house. The FEMA girl asked me a bunch of questions, however.
One of those was, "How is your water?"
I wasn't even thinking about getting any money at this point - by my reckoning, that was a non-starter. But, since I had a well drilled 830 ft. into the Cal Creek aquifer, I honestly stated, "My water is crappy". (She didn't ask how my water was before the rains).
Anyway, a week goes by a $650 magically shows up in my bank account. I call my bank, and ask where it is from. They say, "FEMA, and the note on it is: Water Decontamination".
The scary part? I never told her ANYTHING about my banking institution/account number.
clambake
10-30-2007, 02:52 PM
did you return the money?
ChumpDumper
10-30-2007, 02:54 PM
If the govt. can't restrain itself from helping them?If that is the philosophy, then flood insurance shouldn't exist at all -- but that's a nonstarter.
clambake
10-30-2007, 03:00 PM
come to think of it, getting money from the govt. for water that was already crappy in my little place that i use to fuck around in and don't really need is much more important than healthcare for the poor.
come to think of it, getting money from the govt. for water that was already crappy in my little place that i use to fuck around in and don't really need is much more important than healthcare for the poor.No, I didn't return the money; would have cost the govt. FAR more than $650 just to manage the funds again.
My house was there; not some place I "fucked around in", but all the water out Hwy. 16 is crappy; no matter what kind of place it is supplying.
AND, this just in: The Government WASTES money! It's why I don't want to give them any more of it.
Why don't you respond in the "MOA Tax Increase" Threads?
If that is the philosophy, then flood insurance shouldn't exist at all -- but that's a nonstarter.I was agreeing with you: trying to rephrase what you had already stated, apparently I failed.
clambake
10-30-2007, 03:14 PM
No, I didn't return the money; would have cost the govt. FAR more than $650 just to manage the funds again.
My house was there; not some place I "fucked around in", but all the water out Hwy. 16 is crappy; no matter what kind of place it is supplying.
AND, this just in: The Government WASTES money! It's why I don't want to give them any more of it.
Why don't you respond in the "MOA Tax Increase" Threads?
you're right about the waste. i just find it interesting what consevatives consider to be govt. waste, what they choose to be acceptable. i've read your opinions in other threads, so thats why i asked if you returned the money.
do you have a breakdown of how much more money it will require to manage the return of 650 dollars?
ChumpDumper
10-30-2007, 03:16 PM
I was agreeing with you: trying to rephrase what you had already stated, apparently I failed.Nah, you did a fine job of making your viewpoint clear. Just a different way of looking at the same thing.
you're right about the waste. i just find it interesting what consevatives consider to be govt. waste, what they choose to be acceptable. i've read your opinions in other threads, so thats why i asked if you returned the money.
do you have a breakdown of how much more money it will require to manage the return of 650 dollars?Nope, but don't worry, the government is way on the plus side of the leger with me.
In '98 I got a letter from the IRS stating that I owed an additional $289 on my tax return. My return was done by an accountant who ASSURED me it was correct, and the IRS was in error. I mailed them the check; as would any sane person.
clambake
10-30-2007, 03:20 PM
Nope, but don't worry, the government is way on the plus side of the leger with me.
In '98 I got a letter from the IRS stating that I owed an additional $289 on my tax return. My return was done by an accountant who ASSURED me it was correct, and the IRS was in error. I mailed them the check; as would any sane person.
:lol i know what you mean. i think everybody needs an agressive, creative, take no prisoners type of CPA. my guy is worth his weight in gold.
you're right about the waste. i just find it interesting what consevatives consider to be govt. waste,
Let me make myself clear as to my belief: ALL government spending is wasteful. Some is necessary.
Limiting government spending to the necessary limits the wastefulness.
Wastefulness grows exponentially with the size of government.
clambake
10-30-2007, 03:22 PM
i agree. it's what some people find necessary that i find interesting.
:lol i know what you mean. i think everybody needs an agressive, creative, take no prisoners type of CPA. my guy is worth his weight in gold.If you got one of them; better have a "conservative" one check him every now and then: it's your a$$ he's being aggressive with!
i agree. it's what some people find necessary that i find interesting.I-10 = Necessary
$650 for my Crappy Water = Not so Much
clambake
10-30-2007, 03:30 PM
If you got one of them; better have a "conservative" one check him every now and then: it's your a$$ he's being aggressive with!
he doesn't have any control over my funds. no one should take that chance. but i do pay him generously. that's what keeps him creative. he takes care of everybody in our circle of friends, but i don't know their relationship with him regarding powers of attorney, it's none of my business, and i don't discuss these matters with my friends.
Yonivore
10-30-2007, 10:24 PM
yoni knows the 80,000 figure is specifically for New York but he misrepresents ths issue anyway. Of course Yoni wil explain how easy it is for a family of 4 to live on 80,000 in New York.. something about plasma tvs and 100.00 tennis shoes..
I'm a family of 5 living on just over half that and providing health insurance for my family, thank you very much.
Was a family of six but, child number 1 will be graduating from college soon -- through which she put herself by working her ass off and by applying for every scholarship for which she was eligible.
Oh yeah, we have a 19 inch color television and basic cable ($11.00 per month basic) and we buy our shoes on sale.
ChumpDumper
10-30-2007, 10:30 PM
I'm a family of 5 living on just over half that and providing health insurance for my family, thank you very much.
Was a family of six but, child number 1 will be graduating from college soon -- through which she put herself by working her ass off and by applying for every scholarship for which she was eligible.
Oh yeah, we have a 19 inch color television and basic cable ($11.00 per month basic) and we buy our shoes on sale.
In the borough of Pflugerville.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.