Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't let the kid "die in the gutter".

You take it away.

I wish. There are thousands of responsible, self-sufficient couples who would die for the chance to adopt a needy child. I wish we COULD remove children from irresponsible parents who can't take care of them. But unless the poor parents are outright abusive, we can't. Unfortunately.

Or maybe we should just eat the poor. That'll teach 'em.

How about you just police the system, so there's no rampant fraud and growth in the first place. The more you give, the more they take. At some point, someone calls BS and you get all indignant.

Do you work with the poor?

No, I just pay 42% of my earnings to federal and state to keep them on the dole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I don't agree with welfare fraud or support generational welfare. But this thread is about children's health insurance - how to make sure kids get health care when their parents can't afford it. Kids don't stay kids forever.

And this is the nub of the issue. Why can't their parents afford it? If it is a case of genuine hardship, we should provide the help but there are parents who don't want to work and are themselves on welfare and it merely compound the problem.

So child should be punished because of their parents? Wow. You are an asshole.

If parents produce children they are responsible for taking care of the children and that includes getting a fu*king job and saying that the children should not be allowed to suffer lets the parents off and just compounds the problem.

I know specific instances where parents are able to work but don't do so because they can collect welfare and all one does is to foster a dependency type of society. Your response is the reason why conservatives accuse liberals of just fostering a dependency society.

This is the society we've come to - where conservatives weep over lost embryos but tell 2 year olds too bad and suck it up when it comes to their own health because they apparently chose the wrong parents to be born to.

You people are amoral to the core.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't let the kid "die in the gutter".

You take it away.

I wish. There are thousands of responsible, self-sufficient couples who would die for the chance to adopt a needy child. I wish we COULD remove children from irresponsible parents who can't take care of them. But unless the poor parents are outright abusive, we can't. Unfortunately.

Or maybe we should just eat the poor. That'll teach 'em.

How about you just police the system, so there's no rampant fraud and growth in the first place. The more you give, the more they take. At some point, someone calls BS and you get all indignant.

Do you work with the poor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't let the kid "die in the gutter".

You take it away.

I wish. There are thousands of responsible, self-sufficient couples who would die for the chance to adopt a needy child. I wish we COULD remove children from irresponsible parents who can't take care of them. But unless the poor parents are outright abusive, we can't. Unfortunately.

Or maybe we should just eat the poor. That'll teach 'em.

How about you just police the system, so there's no rampant fraud and growth in the first place. The more you give, the more they take. At some point, someone calls BS and you get all indignant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't let the kid "die in the gutter".

You take it away.

I wish. There are thousands of responsible, self-sufficient couples who would die for the chance to adopt a needy child. I wish we COULD remove children from irresponsible parents who can't take care of them. But unless the poor parents are outright abusive, we can't. Unfortunately.

Or maybe we should just eat the poor. That'll teach 'em.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've been living there for DECADES.

I pay taxes. I DO NOT resent any money going to AA's. The first video was in Portsmouth VA and the one above is DC. Northern VA sends more to the state than it gets back-pays for locals plus state plus then fed and frickin Alabama and illegals everywhere.

So I DO vehemently resent any 1 cent of my money going for illegals and that includes DACA which can now get ACA. Over the last few years the DC area got at least 8 high school buildings worth of Obama's minors. Think of it as buildings-they get CHIP. ACA funded clinics have cheap costs for illegals.

Bonds voted on in Dec https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/11/07/voters-approve-millions-in-bonds-for-northern-virginia-schools/?utm_term=.235dced18e40

28.4 m for an elementary school building construction-NW Fairfax. A new HS in Falls Church is 120 m. So for about every 2000 students estimate a high school building that costs 120m. 4420 to Fairfax thanks to Obama. How many section 8 or affordable housing units for our people is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't let the kid "die in the gutter".

You take it away.

I wish. There are thousands of responsible, self-sufficient couples who would die for the chance to adopt a needy child. I wish we COULD remove children from irresponsible parents who can't take care of them. But unless the poor parents are outright abusive, we can't. Unfortunately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I don't agree with welfare fraud or support generational welfare. But this thread is about children's health insurance - how to make sure kids get health care when their parents can't afford it. Kids don't stay kids forever.

And this is the nub of the issue. Why can't their parents afford it? If it is a case of genuine hardship, we should provide the help but there are parents who don't want to work and are themselves on welfare and it merely compound the problem.

So child should be punished because of their parents? Wow. You are an asshole.

If parents produce children they are responsible for taking care of the children and that includes getting a fu*king job and saying that the children should not be allowed to suffer lets the parents off and just compounds the problem.

I know specific instances where parents are able to work but don't do so because they can collect welfare and all one does is to foster a dependency type of society. Your response is the reason why conservatives accuse liberals of just fostering a dependency society.

Anonymous wrote:They've been living there for DECADES.

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem which liberals cannot come to terms with is that there is massive abuse when it comes to welfare. Talk about curtailing such abuse and liberals will immediately claim that it is heartless to not provide welfare without any consideration as to whether the recipient is capable of working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But he's good with the tax plan benefiting the rich passive investor (as opposed to the rich working person).

Apparently the quote during debate was:

“[L]et me tell you something: we’re going to do CHIP. There’s no question about it in my mind. It’s got to be done the right way. But we, the reason CHIP’s having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore.”

Hatch went on to condemn the idea of “more and more spending.” After praising the “terrific job” CHIP has done for families who need help, he immediately added, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves – won’t lift a finger – and expect the federal government to do everything.”

Why don't we propose legislation to put all those CHIP kids to work in coal mines? And we could have a special provision for the coal mine owners that they pay no tax at all!

Why would anyone disagree with what is shown in bold?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't let the kid "die in the gutter".

You take it away.

And who paays for that child in that scenario? The EFFIN GOVERNMENT!

Forget you. You are too heartless and dumb to argue with.

Yes, I admit, I've become heartless because everyone and their brother is on the dole in one form or another and the next generation that is not yet born is going to get fucked over for it.

We borrow 45 cents of every dollar the government spends, we have a debt of $170,000 for every tax payer in the country, and 70% of the federal government spending is transfer payments, thanks to idiots like you.

And what's your answer? Give away more more more. You bet I'm heartless.

That's not the answer. The answer is trimming the fat that is "Defense" spending. Let's see stats on that.

BTW no one here is advocating more spending on CHIP we are trying to preserve its existence.

''Children are being terribly hurt and perhaps scarred for the rest of their lives'' when they have no health insurance, Mr. Hatch said.