Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2730708)

I remember you!

You're the one, with no direct experience with SCHIPs, insisted that it is too complicated, inefficient with disincentives to work...blah blah blah.

but have a healthy day :thumbsup:

Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2730730)

"Some say that SCHIP is inadequate." --Fox News

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2730735)

I went to a state school - please explain.

From my point of view if something is inadequate it is inadequate and it does not matter who says it if it is true.

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2730751)

in your opinion, is an "inadequate" SCHIP program better or worse than no SCHIP program at all?

Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2730766)

inadequate is always worse than no program at all. It wastes money that could be better spent on other things while you work out a adequate program.

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2730797)

depends on how you define inadequate, doesn't it? I could say that Program X is inadequate because it was funded to help 3,000,000 people but is only helping 2,000,000. The program is inefficient, but isn't helping 2,000,000 people better than helping no one?

Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2730766)

inadequate is always worse than no program at all. It wastes money that could be better spent on other things while you work out a adequate program.

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2730735)

I went to a state school - please explain.

From my point of view if something is inadequate it is inadequate and it does not matter who says it if it is true.

Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2730942)

So they didn't teach you the difference between "point of view" and "the way something is" at your state school. That explains so god damn much.

I'm not talking about SCHIP and its inadequacy or not. I'm talking about the incessant collapse of objective and subjective, over there in your postings. I'm talking about your blinkered insistence that how you see it is how it is.

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2730751)

in your opinion, is an "inadequate" SCHIP program better or worse than no SCHIP program at all?

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2730804)

Just so we understand, it is ace and FOX news who have characterized SCHIP as inadequate.

The program goal is to have a 95% penetration rate among eligible families and the rate is in the high 80s.

Inadequate? Inefficient?

Ask those 80+% of working families who now have health care for their kids....more than 6 million kids.

And it is not an issue of funding by any analysis.

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2731110)

Depends on the alternative.

With SCHIP the things that make it inadequate can easily be fixed. I think it is immoral for a community not to take care of the children in that community. To the degree the SCHIP leads people to believe that we as a community are doing the right thing while millions of children, hidden in the shadows, go without health care in my view makes the inadequacies in SCHIP worse than if there was no SCHIP. Put another way, if "covering up" a problem is not a solution and if "covering up" that problem means we don't address the problem, the "covering up" of the problem makes things worse.

In addition two of the problems with SCHIP are the disincentive created, perpetuating poverty and the dehumanization people are put through hurting their confidence and ability to do better on their own. I could argue these factors make things worse with SCHIP.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------



I love this kind of logic. Actually I don't, but it makes me smile. An analogy - my son comes home from school and announces he got 90 questions correct on his math test. Before I uncork the champagne, I would have to ask how many questions were on the test, if the reply is 200, oh I say - me thinks your performance was inadequate. :shakehead: But that's just me. I guess some would say, getting 90 correct was better than getting 80 correct, which is true, but doesn't make the 90 out of 200 look any better to me.:no:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2731110)

I love this kind of logic. Actually I don't, but it makes me smile. An analogy - my son comes home from school and announces he got 90 questions correct on his math test. Before I uncork the champagne, I would have to ask how many questions were on the test, if the reply is 200, oh I say - me thinks your performance was inadequate. :shakehead: But that's just me. I guess some would say, getting 90 correct was better than getting 80 correct, which is true, but doesn't make the 90 out of 200 look any better to me.:no:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2730245)

I'll take a crack

Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2730275)

Dunedan are all people who make 133% or less than the federal poverty line drug dealers and meth heads? Are a majority of them? Is there a sizable group of people who make 133% or less that are honest and hard working but just don't have good jobs?

The people you are describing are breaking the law and should be put in jail. However, why should we punish everyone for a few bad apples? If you know your neighbors are selling drugs why don't you send in some anonymous tips and get them out of your neighborhood?

Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2730322)

so your actual agenda is to turn the people of America in to tax revenue generators for a nanny state to take care of everybody. why should I comply with that?



i will not comply, nor will I pay a fine........ever. who's going to come and make me?

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2730708)

I remember you!

You're the one, with no direct experience with SCHIPs, insisted that it is too complicated, inefficient with disincentives to work...blah blah blah.

ace....you're a broken record and I am just not interested in hearing you go round and round with the same old crap.

but have a healthy day :thumbsup:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv (Post 2731360)

He doesn't care to listen to anyone's opinion but his own, either.

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2731302)

So by your logic if you can't fix something 100% then you shouldn't fix it at all?

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2731357)

I love your bizarre analogy.

A program that has an enrollment rate of over 80% (of eligible families) and a participation rate of over 75% is somehow comparable to getting a failing grade - 45% (90 out of 200) on a test score.

WTF kind of logic is that?

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2732026)

...It is a question of standards. I agree that a person who has low standards may not understand the person or the logic used by the person who has high standards.

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2732215)

I get your logic and your high standards.....80 = 45. :confused:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2732724)

I been told that my communication style suffers because of denotation compared to connotation. I have found I am rarely in sync with liberals on this.

Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2732865)

In my experience, your communication style suffers because of the conflation of subjective and objective. Conservatives have no monopoly on this particular brand of intellectual self-dishonesty, I regret to say.