Pantagraph.com | Letters | Tell Johnson to support SCHIP veto override

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Tell him wrote on Oct 18, 2007 6:37 PM:

" But do not expect him to listen. (The votes are in, and Tim Johnson voted with the Big Money crowd - Again) "

kettle wrote on Oct 18, 2007 10:58 AM:

" will Tim Johnson be giving up his government provided insurance since he makes more than 80K a year? "

to: Heidi wrote on Oct 18, 2007 12:27 AM:

" Just remember, it was Bush Jr. that made Hillary (as President) possible. As of today, the man's ratings are in the gutter, as he prepares a new war. Your taxes are slightly lower because Bush borrows the money from China, don't you get it.? All that is just a shell game. Bet your fill up at the pump is more than your tax savings, isn't it? "

to: War wrote on Oct 18, 2007 12:23 AM:

" I get it and you are very simplistic. Put simply, the power of Iraq was a non-entity. All that other stuff was hocus pocus to engineer the war. We had our eye on them as the first step for the take-over of Iraq-Syria-Iran. Iraq was the easiest, they thought. Iraq had the best educational system, they were the most secular of the surrounding countries, and had a good governmental structure in place. Perfect, thought the neocons. After 9-11, the neocons saw their opportunity and moved quickly. Now we have disaster. "

Mark wrote on Oct 17, 2007 7:30 PM:

" I find the insensitivity of some of the writers opposed to the proposed SCHIP funding increase hard to believe. So Democrats are using children to push their agendas? Please! Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress recognize that the current program is inadequate to the needs that exist regarding children's health. One reason there is such a crisis is because the cost of health insurance is increasing far beyond the rest of inflation in the economy. What many of the contributors here who oppose the SCHIP bill are really saying is, "We just don't care about the 10 million children who are currently not covered. Our ideology is more important!" Some say, "What about personal responsibility?" Yes, and what about the responsiblity of society to care for those in need? What about the responsiblity of business to pay people enough to afford basic needs? What about the responsiblity of insurance companies not to gouge people? "

to to to Kate: wrote on Oct 17, 2007 7:00 PM:

" While it is true that the economy could be worse, you missed the point. Kate called all Democrats drunks... and most drunks can't hold a job. So I asked her to explain which talking point is valid - the all Democrats are losers talking point or the super low unemployment talking point. She seemed to be confused. "

to to Kate: wrote on Oct 17, 2007 3:47 PM:

" Kate was right. THe economy IS strong and unemployment IS low. Your party is so connected to doom and gloom that I am surprised you guys can get out of bed in the morning. Try antother republican talking point: Presonal Responsibility! Make healthcare a proirity if it is important to you. Don't ask me to pay for yours. I already pay for mine and that's the way I like it. "

Heidi wrote on Oct 17, 2007 3:39 PM:

" My taxes were much higher when Clinton was in office. I've compared them. If Hillary does everything she promises....well, it just can't happen. "

to Kate wrote on Oct 17, 2007 3:20 PM:

" Got news for you. Most Republican voters don't make enough money to vote Republican. And I'm curious. In the last Presidential election, 49% of Americans voted Democrat. Does that mean that 49% of Americans are unemployed drunks? This conflicts with the other talking point, you know the one about the super duper economy and the super low unemployment. Which is it? You know, I'd love for the government to give me something for my tax money. Cheaper health insurance would be a good start. As someone in the Middle Class, I pay and pay and pay, and all I get are wars. War doesn't benefit my family. Health Insurance does. "

Rep. Tim Johnson wrote on Oct 17, 2007 2:28 PM:

" Iraq has universal health care. So do the European countries we work and pay to protect. Also, Saudi Arabia home of the 9/11 ... another dependant we support. Tim Johnson makes well over $80,000 a year as a Rep., he gets free government health care. So do Senior Citizens. And veterans. And all government employees, and diplomats. So lets narrow it down. If you're not one of the above, be aware you are a second class citizen. Your job is work and pay taxes to provide a good life for first class. If your kid gets sick, enlist him. Case closed. "

War wrote on Oct 17, 2007 2:18 PM:

" It amazes me that people don't get it. Iraq invades Kuwait, virtually the entire world got together and pushed them out. Iraq signed a cease fire stating that they would abide by certain rules. They failed, Clinton sent in missiles. They failed again he did it again. After 9-11, They failed yet again, and Bush decided to stop them once and for all. We did not invade a perfectly innocent country, they failed to meet the terms of their cease fire and we called them on it. Another country failed to meet the terms of a surrender after WWI. They built a war machine that cost millions of lives. Could we afford to not act? "

Kate wrote on Oct 17, 2007 12:48 PM:

" Yippee for the veto! Everybody knows the democrats can't afford the kids they have and want the rest of us to pony up. Forget it! You can take care of your own kids like I take care of mine. I'm tired of you democrats boozing away your money and then looking to the government for aid. Everybody knows the democrats aren't republicans because they don't make enough money. Veto means Victory! "

Alphonse wrote on Oct 17, 2007 12:38 PM:

" Yeah, sure, it is wrong to use kids to promote a personal agenda. But I'd say it's also wrong to say deny a program that will give kids health insurance, including preventative care. Rather than pass abject judgment on the parents of kids without insurance, maybe we should just shut up and insure them already. For children in this country, the richest in the world, to be without health care and services is cruel and horrible. "

to to Set up a Fund wrote on Oct 17, 2007 9:20 AM:

" I can't find "preemptively invade countries on flimsy intelligence" either. "

to Set up a Fund wrote on Oct 17, 2007 8:55 AM:

" Thank you for being an informed poster. The US government needs to stop funding activities that are beyond their constitutional authority. Can you find "provide health insurance" in the US constitution? "

To Linda wrote on Oct 17, 2007 6:26 AM:

" This bill has nothing at all to do about child health care. This bill is a move to socialize your health care. I believe families with $80.000 yearly earnings should provide for themselves. The old version of this bill exculdes middle income famlies. "

Veto should stand wrote on Oct 17, 2007 4:16 AM:

" Funded by a huge regressive tax increase - shame on Democrats! "

Big Brother wrote on Oct 16, 2007 8:26 PM:

" We have a program already that covers the basic needs of children. "

To: Hoot wrote on Oct 16, 2007 3:06 PM:

" Great comment! Maybe you should consider running for political office. Our state could use someone with your language skills. "

to Set up a fund wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:49 PM:

" But you are pro-war, right? "

to Hoot wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:49 PM:

" LOL... the Dems favor illegal immigration? Pot? Kettle? Bush and McCain supported the amnesty bill as well. Illegal immigration is a cross party issue. "

Hoot wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:21 PM:

" Great letter, Linda. After all, everyone knows that Bush and the Republicans hate kids. Your letter doesn't bother to tell people that Bush favors the current SCHIP program, but not the massive expansion that the Dems are proposing, which would include families making $80k a year. Bush has offered to expand the program by billions of dollars, but the Dems will choose to use the issue to beat on the Republicans in 08 (poor kids). The Dems also favor keeping the millions of illegals in this country, and letting their kids take advantage of this program. By all means, lets put political ideologies aside (I've got swamp land for sale...cheap). Hang tough, Mr. Johnson. "

Hey Linda wrote on Oct 16, 2007 11:17 AM:

" You lost, the article on the front page says Johnson will vote to uphold the veto. Oh the poor kids!!! Not right to use children as a human shield to push your agendas. Good try though. "

Set up a fund wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:45 AM:

" I'm not against all taxes, I'm against social programs. The constitution lists "enumerated powers", which is suppose to be the limit to what the government can do. Providing insurance is not listed as an item. "

Fatso wrote on Oct 16, 2007 10:38 AM:

" In State taxes alone, according to the Illinois' website, in FY 2006, $621 million was collected from the State cigarette tax and $19 million was collected from the tobacco products tax. Accordingly, $245 million went into the General Revenue Fund, $154.4 million went into the Common School Fund, $60 million went into the School Infrastructure Fund, and $180.7 million went into the Long Term Provider Fund. (So much for Healthcare.) Chicago alone levies a $4.05 dollar per pack tax on cigarettes. In addition, thru June 2006, the State has received a total of $2.221 Billion in Tobacco Settlement payments the majority of the payments used to fund the Medicaid drug program in Illinois. The remaining dollars fund programs for the elderly, tobacco prevention, medical research and 'venture tech' (whatever that is.) As of March 2005, the Federal gov. made a deal with major credit card Co.'s which will no longer participate in Web sites that sell cigarettes. FedEx has joined DHL and UPS in forbidding deliveries of cigarettes to individual consumers nationwide. So, Linda, if you think smokers should quit and still be responsible for EVERYONE’s Healthcare, call your Congressperson and pass along your sentiment. One dumb idea begets another. "

Citizen wrote on Oct 16, 2007 9:35 AM:

" What is SCHIP anyway? I mean, before I buy insurance, I consider the cost and the value. One of the most frustrating things is to THINK you're covered when you're really not. Also, I once was covered by school insurance because it was quite affordable and protected my parents against any major cost. It seemed fair, plus they're trusting that not many school-age children should be faced with real tragedies. "

to Set up a fund wrote on Oct 16, 2007 9:26 AM:

" Read your Constitution, buddy. The government has the right to collect taxes. Don't like it? Lobby your Congresscritter to try to get an amendment passed... or move to a taxfree 3rd world banana republic and hope that your police bribe exceeds the criminal's police bribe. "

to Wat Tyler wrote on Oct 16, 2007 9:25 AM:

" I'm all for state funded, taxpayer funded medical insurance. Private insurance already determines how much doctors should make. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat. It doesn't matter if OSF, BlueCross, or Medicare signs their checks. Medicaid typically pays less and is poorly administered. Medicare pays very well. I know... I'm the spoiled rotten son of a doctor who has about 90% of his reciepts from old folks on Medicare. And no one gets substandard care in his office. Its a point of pride for most doctors to provide excellent care, regardless of the patient's circumcstance. I'd like to see Medicare extended for all, then we could eliminate Medicaid, the VA, and all the other government insurance programs and actually join the first world of health care. Yeah, my taxes would go up. So what? My health insurance premium going away would compensate nicely. "

hmmh wrote on Oct 16, 2007 8:19 AM:

" I got a message from the Chamber of Commerce saying they want to up the amount covered to those making $80,000 a year. A little too exuberant aren't we? I think the veto needs to stand. For some reason I thought the president was right again and it sounds like once again he was. Johnson please vote NOT to override the veto. "

Set up a fund wrote on Oct 16, 2007 7:34 AM:

" Why must government do it? If Americans want health insurance for kids so bad, why not set up an organization like the red cross? People could willing give their hard earned money instead of having it stolen by a government that has overstepped its roll. "

Wat Tyler wrote on Oct 16, 2007 5:23 AM:

" Why don't we skip this intermediary step and go directly to srte sponsored, taxpayer funded medical insurance? Why don't we adopt the Canadian system where the state determines who ges what care and how much docors can make. Government programs typically pay less than non government plans. Will the best doctors join the system, or will we end up with a two tiered system, the priviledged getting the best care money can buy, the poor and lower middle cla that rely on SCHIP docors getting their rationed, 2nd rate care. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Natural Training Pants Are Safer

Practice Forex Trading

Allheartchefs Discount Chef/Cooks Pants