Orrin Hatch is tired of funding CHIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Youre so full of hate and anger toward anyone who doesn't march lock-step behind bloated and inefficient entitlement programs that you can't even hear what others say. It is the "to hell with you" sanctimonious attitude that you and other holier-than-tho liberals have proudly shouted to middle America during all of last year's election that cost you the election. And you're still doing it.

Really? Instead of dumping on the person again, are you capable of any self-reflection? Should someone who questions the administration of entitlement programs be told to go to hell? A simple yes or no will do.

NP. I don't think you're focusing on the most important thing here, but I will try to address your concerns:

-No one should be cussing anyone out or telling them to go to hell for their views, I am sorry that happened.
-I agree with you that we need to get rid of waste and redundancy in all programs, especially defense and the ridiculous $$ that goes to health insurance companies and other useless, no-value add jackals who get rich off all Americans' inevitable illness and death.
-Depriving poor children of health care is pretty much the last place we should cut funding, particularly when we have just given away trillions to the billionaire donor class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Youre so full of hate and anger toward anyone who doesn't march lock-step behind bloated and inefficient entitlement programs that you can't even hear what others say. It is the "to hell with you" sanctimonious attitude that you and other holier-than-tho liberals have proudly shouted to middle America during all of last year's election that cost you the election. And you're still doing it.

Really? Instead of dumping on the person again, are you capable of any self-reflection? Should someone who questions the administration of entitlement programs be told to go to hell? A simple yes or no will do.

NP. I don't think you're focusing on the most important thing here, but I will try to address your concerns:

-No one should be cussing anyone out or telling them to go to hell for their views, I am sorry that happened.
-I agree with you that we need to get rid of waste and redundancy in all programs, especially defense and the ridiculous $$ that goes to health insurance companies and other useless, no-value add jackals who get rich off all Americans' inevitable illness and death.
-Depriving poor children of health care is pretty much the last place we should cut funding, particularly when we have just given away trillions to the billionaire donor class.

I'm the PP you're addressing, and two points:

1) Thanks for understanding how wrong it is for cussing anyone out for their views (unless they're really heinous, like Hitler's)
2) I agree with you on all of YOUR points. Never said we should cut funding for children's health care. If you've read the thread, I was criticizing redundancies in delivering that care. If anything, correcting the inefficiencies could free up more money for the service itself (as opposed to the administration)

But thanks again. I wish there were more liberals like you around. If this forum is a fair representation (and maybe it isn't), you're rare among liberals.

[Anonymous]

He is also tired of not getting the oil from Bears Ears and Grand Staircas Federal Parks. Trump is fixing that though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Meh. We will take back the House in 2018. Screw the hillbilly red states.

Uh...Republicans have already done that. We need a different game plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Youre so full of hate and anger toward anyone who doesn't march lock-step behind bloated and inefficient entitlement programs that you can't even hear what others say. It is the "to hell with you" sanctimonious attitude that you and other holier-than-tho liberals have proudly shouted to middle America during all of last year's election that cost you the election. And you're still doing it.

Really? Instead of dumping on the person again, are you capable of any self-reflection? Should someone who questions the administration of entitlement programs be told to go to hell? A simple yes or no will do.

NP. I don't think you're focusing on the most important thing here, but I will try to address your concerns:

-No one should be cussing anyone out or telling them to go to hell for their views, I am sorry that happened.
-I agree with you that we need to get rid of waste and redundancy in all programs, especially defense and the ridiculous $$ that goes to health insurance companies and other useless, no-value add jackals who get rich off all Americans' inevitable illness and death.
-Depriving poor children of health care is pretty much the last place we should cut funding, particularly when we have just given away trillions to the billionaire donor class.

I'm the PP you're addressing, and two points:

1) Thanks for understanding how wrong it is for cussing anyone out for their views (unless they're really heinous, like Hitler's)
2) I agree with you on all of YOUR points. Never said we should cut funding for children's health care. If you've read the thread, I was criticizing redundancies in delivering that care. If anything, correcting the inefficiencies could free up more money for the service itself (as opposed to the administration)

But thanks again. I wish there were more liberals like you around. If this forum is a fair representation (and maybe it isn't), you're rare among liberals.

I am not sure I am rare but I don't know. I also would like to say I don't like illegal immigration and I support enforcing our borders. If we want to tighten or loosen immigration restrictions that's another convo I guess.

I wish we could get back to a more moderate shared agenda. That said, I am a classic lib I guess in that I support protecting the environment and taking steps to stop climate change, and I think defense spending is inflated and is another industry where jackals come in (defense contractors) and feed at the trough to the tune of billions. If all this gov't feeding in health care, education, federal contractors (consultants) and defense mostly benefited a robust middle class of workers I would be more ok with it as a kind of jobs program, but it seems to mostly enrich corporations and their executives. We need to reduce inequality, it is sickening our society and killing the earth with waste.

Most importantly, and the issue I fervently wish our artificial "both sides" system could agree on is: GETTING THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS

It has corrupted the system, and as a result we have elected officials who represent rich donors, corporations, and lobbyists. They do not represent the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Youre so full of hate and anger toward anyone who doesn't march lock-step behind bloated and inefficient entitlement programs that you can't even hear what others say. It is the "to hell with you" sanctimonious attitude that you and other holier-than-tho liberals have proudly shouted to middle America during all of last year's election that cost you the election. And you're still doing it.

Really? Instead of dumping on the person again, are you capable of any self-reflection? Should someone who questions the administration of entitlement programs be told to go to hell? A simple yes or no will do.

NP. I don't think you're focusing on the most important thing here, but I will try to address your concerns:

-No one should be cussing anyone out or telling them to go to hell for their views, I am sorry that happened.
-I agree with you that we need to get rid of waste and redundancy in all programs, especially defense and the ridiculous $$ that goes to health insurance companies and other useless, no-value add jackals who get rich off all Americans' inevitable illness and death.
-Depriving poor children of health care is pretty much the last place we should cut funding, particularly when we have just given away trillions to the billionaire donor class.

I'm the PP you're addressing, and two points:

1) Thanks for understanding how wrong it is for cussing anyone out for their views (unless they're really heinous, like Hitler's)
2) I agree with you on all of YOUR points. Never said we should cut funding for children's health care. If you've read the thread, I was criticizing redundancies in delivering that care. If anything, correcting the inefficiencies could free up more money for the service itself (as opposed to the administration)

But thanks again. I wish there were more liberals like you around. If this forum is a fair representation (and maybe it isn't), you're rare among liberals.

Maybe if you didn't spout obnoxious superficial generalizations about "liberals," you would interact with more of them. I have a feeling that it's just 1 or 2 people on this forum who start posts that say "Liberals think x or Why do liberals always do y" and it's so off-putting. Why bother engaging with someone who seems to be trolling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Youre so full of hate and anger toward anyone who doesn't march lock-step behind bloated and inefficient entitlement programs that you can't even hear what others say. [Incorrect.] It is the "to hell with you" sanctimonious attitude that you and other holier-than-tho liberals have proudly shouted to middle America during all of last year's election that cost you the election. And you're still doing it. [Like I said, you have your priorities sorted out. ]

Really? Instead of dumping on the person again [my first post], are you capable of any self-reflection? [yes] Should someone who questions the administration of entitlement programs be told to go to hell? A simple yes or no will do. [depends on the context]

Replies above....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently not. In the liberal world, taxpayers are just supposed to fork over as much money as liberals demand and never question whether programs could be streamlined without causing any loss of benefits. YOU go to hell.

It would be nice if you all ever applied to this philosophy to defense spending, which is a gargantuan portion of the federal budget compared to health insurance and food assistance for children.

+1 funny how caring about the health of children is considered a "liberal" thing by some on this forum.

unfortunately, to the GOP, the health of children is just not as important as giving more tax breaks to commercial and real estate developers and hedge fund managers.

This. This is what is hateful, not random internet postings but these actions.

EXACTLY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals really need to stop telling people who bring up valid questions .- such as redundant programs and government inefficiencies - to go to hell. They are just showing themselves to be nasty people.

Yes, telling people to go to hell is a nastiness that is equivalent to denying children healthcare.

We should take our personal hurt feelings about what someone said to us that wasn't polite on the internet or elsewhere--and use it to vote in people that will harm our neighbor's children. Sounds right.

Except that I was told to go to hell for questioning the possible overlap between CHIP and Medicaid. I never said anything about denying children healthcare. Even a HINT that I don't just blindly follow the liberal mantra is enough to send me to hell, according to you.

What happens with liberals like you is that you are quick to curse out a person who has the gall to even question inefficiencies about delivery of taxpayer benefits. And your nonsense about "voting in people to harm children" is the over-dramatic response to a conservative who wants to know if a program can be streamlined - rather than fall lock-step into the liberal narrative of "just give whatever needs to be provided without questioning whether it could be done more efficiently."

You should get over your hatred of those who want to see more government efficiency of health care delivery (if it can be done without loss of health care to children - and it can). Your demonization of those who voice valid concerns will continue to cost you votes at the polls.

Right, drama queens vote for Trump because someone tells them to go to hell on an online forum. Got it. Glad you have your priorities sorted out.

Youre so full of hate and anger toward anyone who doesn't march lock-step behind bloated and inefficient entitlement programs that you can't even hear what others say. It is the "to hell with you" sanctimonious attitude that you and other holier-than-tho liberals have proudly shouted to middle America during all of last year's election that cost you the election. And you're still doing it.

Really? Instead of dumping on the person again, are you capable of any self-reflection? Should someone who questions the administration of entitlement programs be told to go to hell? A simple yes or no will do.

NP. I don't think you're focusing on the most important thing here, but I will try to address your concerns:

-No one should be cussing anyone out or telling them to go to hell for their views, I am sorry that happened.
-I agree with you that we need to get rid of waste and redundancy in all programs, especially defense and the ridiculous $$ that goes to health insurance companies and other useless, no-value add jackals who get rich off all Americans' inevitable illness and death.
-Depriving poor children of health care is pretty much the last place we should cut funding, particularly when we have just given away trillions to the billionaire donor class.

I'm the PP you're addressing, and two points:

1) Thanks for understanding how wrong it is for cussing anyone out for their views (unless they're really heinous, like Hitler's)
2) I agree with you on all of YOUR points. Never said we should cut funding for children's health care. If you've read the thread, I was criticizing redundancies in delivering that care. If anything, correcting the inefficiencies could free up more money for the service itself (as opposed to the administration)

But thanks again. I wish there were more liberals like you around. If this forum is a fair representation (and maybe it isn't), you're rare among liberals.

I am not sure I am rare but I don't know. I also would like to say I don't like illegal immigration and I support enforcing our borders. If we want to tighten or loosen immigration restrictions that's another convo I guess.

I wish we could get back to a more moderate shared agenda. That said, I am a classic lib I guess in that I support protecting the environment and taking steps to stop climate change, and I think defense spending is inflated and is another industry where jackals come in (defense contractors) and feed at the trough to the tune of billions. If all this gov't feeding in health care, education, federal contractors (consultants) and defense mostly benefited a robust middle class of workers I would be more ok with it as a kind of jobs program, but it seems to mostly enrich corporations and their executives. We need to reduce inequality, it is sickening our society and killing the earth with waste.

Most importantly, and the issue I fervently wish our artificial "both sides" system could agree on is: GETTING THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS

It has corrupted the system, and as a result we have elected officials who represent rich donors, corporations, and lobbyists. They do not represent the people.

Agree with this 10000000%