Governer Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) released his final television commercial today. What I took from that ad is that, basically, a vote for the Democrat is a vote against churches, babies and horses. Or something like that. Good luck, Governor.
The health care battle heats up as issue advocacy groups, such as Americans for Prosperity, start running ads against Obama’s government-run plan.
While we’re on the subject of healthcare and failing government policies, take note of this brilliant idea.
Is it just me, or is everything wrong with using taxpayers’ money to fund this program? Since when does the government subsidize morality? Oh, wait, it’s not morality, abstinence is not required! Plus it’s totally discriminatory, because unless you had a sister who gave birth before age 18 and (evidently) do not have a family member who’s obtained a college degree, you’re not eligible! It’s just like liberals, though, when “creative ways are needed” to address an issue they get creative with other people’s money.
Not only that, let’s do the math here: 6/125 (# of girls in the program who got pregnant or otherwise dropped out) > 7.2/1,000 (average national teen birth rate) Granted, the people choosing the lucky participants say that this is a high-risk group. But if you ask me, the criteria they’re using are catching low-risk young women: Are you more or less likely to get pregnant as a teen after watching your sister go through it, especially if you’re still in school and working toward college?
One more quick calculation: 12 (years program has been running) x $75,000 (per year cost) = $900,000 To keep 119 girls from getting pregnant. “If it works”, Mr. Program Director? When are we going to make the tough call?
More disturbing is the Federal budget item associated with this happy statement. If the above is an example of them “carefully testing innovative approaches”, that money is doomed before it’s spent. Nothing new, I know. Just another example of well-intentioned politicians doing as they please with tax dollars, and botching the job in the process. But we all know about the road to hell and good intentions!
An advertisement produced by the RNC that won’t air on ABC because, well, our money (and message) is no good to them. The only currency (and message) ABC currently accepts is unpaid-for, deficit-increasing, bureaucratic-based, and government-run, unless of course, such is proposed by a Republican, and then ABC is automatically against it.
Republicans support health care for poor children. Either for moral, philosophical, or political reasons, they all do. Indeed there is a conservative philosophical argument (and counter argument) that can be made that providing government health care for children is within the proper scope of government authority.
However, SCHIP is a bad bill and no matter how persuasive a philosphical argument may be it is never persuasive enough to overcome the factual existence of bad legislation. The political philosophy and the its tanglibe manifestation in this bill just don’t match up.
This is why Republicans voted against the bill. Specifically the bil –
(1) Covers children that are not poor
(2) Covers children that are not citizens, i.e. illegal immigrants
(3) Seeks to facilitate the transfer of children from private insurance coverage to government coverage
(4) Raises taxes on cigarettes, which is a product most used by those this bill is supposed to help
Democrats support all these things, but the American people don’t, so they have to use a smoke screen to pass the bill and look good doing it. The Democrats have chosen young, sick children for their smoke screen (see video below). That doesn’t make me young, but it does make me sick.
