Re: Overriding the S-Chip Veto

Rita wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:26:19 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:IYmdnX82wPLcl4XanZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fay wrote:
Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
John Galt wrote:
Well, I don't expect that there more responsible minds will address anything. If you're a seasoned citizen, you must know the pattern by
now --- The GOP, when out of power, complains that the Dems are
underfunding the military, thus putting the nation at risk, and
creating a welfare state with moral hazard. When they take power,
true to their word., they kick up military budgets and do nothing one
way or another to social programs, whereupon the Dems complain that
the GOP is spending too much on defense and not enough on children
and other social programs. When the Dems come back into power, they
slow spending on the military and start in with additional social
This is the first time that I have seen you use the expression "moral hazard" and I assume that you mean a situation where a party will be less careful if they are insulated from risk. I don't see how this applies to S-Chip since the objective is to protect children who are blameless in their behavior. Protecting children, despite any
potential irresponsibility on the part of their parents, is the moral
thing to do, IMV. If you have a better way to solve this problem, I'd
like to hear it.
I think this bill would pass if they just found a way to take the 800,000+ adults and the illegals off the rolls.
You have been listening to too much Republican propaganda. The bill
prohibits states from spending funds for states “to provide child health assistance or other health benefits coverage to a non-pregnant childless adult” beginning October 2008.
You ought to read what you post before posting it. Your posting says for "non-pregnant childless adults. Which means it "can" provide this insurance for pregnant women or for families with children, even if they are illegal?

He is correct. Medicaid does provide medical care for pregnant women
even if they are illegal. For the term of the pregnancy and through
the delivery only. There are some income limits but they are quite
generous. I believe the thinking is that the child will be a U.S.
citizen at birth.

The illegal immigration problem is a serious problem, but denying pregnant women and children adequate medical care is not a solution, IMV. I wonder whatever happened to compassionate conservatism, or perhaps it never really existed. Interesting the Jerry is willing to wage war on foreign countries for supposed humanitarian reasons, but appears unwilling to extend the minimum help to pregnant women and children in this country when it really costs so little by comparison. I simply cannot understand that mentality.