70% of Republicans favor Expanding SCHIP

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by DeadCanDance, Oct 18, 2007.

  1. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127
    The republicans on this board appear to be highly unrepresentative of the GOP at large. 70% of republicans in polling support expanding the State Health Insurance Program for Children.


    "Currently, a government program provides health insurance for some children in low-income families. Would you favor or oppose expanding this program to include some middle-class uninsured children?"

    *Favor:
    Total: 81%
    Dems: 90%
    Repubs: 70%
    Ind.: 81%

    *Oppose:
    Total: 15%
    Repubs: 23%
    Dems: 7%



    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBS_news_poll_101707.pdf
     
  2. Alpha1
    Offline

    Alpha1 NAVY

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,719
    Thanks Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +193
    So a fair majority of citizens are open to being bribed...is that really surprising? Offer them new cars or a big screen TV and you'll no doubt get the same result....its good to see the Repubs have at least the higher percentage of responsible, thinking folks though....:clap2:
     
  3. Doug
    Offline

    Doug Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    394
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +52
    I'm probably one of those 70% ... so I feel somewhat confident in saying the following:

    You can get almost any result you want in a question, if you frame it in terms of helping innocent children. This is a testimony to something good in human nature, so we shouldn't be cynical about it.

    I wonder what the following poll would reveal: Do you favor helping the children of Iraq grow up in a free society?

    Or, how about a more sophisticated health insurance poll:

    (1) Do you favor having the rest of us pay for the health care of innocent children whose parents cannot afford to pay for it?

    (2) In the case of middle-class parents who could afford health insurance for their children, but are too feckless or selfish to buy it, do you favor
    --------(a) doing nothing,
    --------(b) forcing the rest of us to pay for it,
    --------(c) forcing their parents to pay for it.
     
  4. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,298
    Doug is right, but I wish (fantasy?) they would phrase questions more in line with duties than with preferences. Asking, do you support children is too easy.

    1. Do you financially support UNICEF?

    2. Do you support foreign aid even though some of the money is used to educate women on birth control?

    3. Do you vote for candidates that support the above?
     
  5. doniston
    Offline

    doniston Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +28
    Apparently the Republicans in the house need to be replaced. Obviously they are NOT following the wishes of their constituants.
     
  6. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,328
    Thanks Received:
    7,868
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,946
    Government sponsored health insurance for 25 year olds and households with $80,000.00 a year incomes... hell no.
     
  7. Angel Heart
    Offline

    Angel Heart Conservative Hippie

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Thanks Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Ratings:
    +341
    I have a major problem with this bill. The amount of earmarks on it. The largest ever is on it.

    On top of that, the numbers don't add up. They are looking at doubling the cost but only 2/3 increase in people on it. Why are we not doubling the number of people on it, if you are doubling the amount spent on it?

    This explains it all I think:

    [​IMG]

    http://www.heritageblogs.org/index.php/996_states-stand-to-lose-big-from-schip-expansion
     
  8. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    How odd then that after the Pres vetoed it, there weren't enough votes to overturn his veto.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page