Fundraisers are people who want you to buy an item at an outrageous price for a “good cause.” I don’t doubt the good cause, but I grew weary of the quantity of outrageously priced items, about one a week, and it’s usually the same 10 kids at my door every time for the same cause. In our case in Litchfield, it was for the marching band trips. They sold candy bars, grapefruit, oranges, coupon books, plus plus plus plus. I so wanted a sign on the door “I gave at the office” but for a while I didn’t have an office. When our kids were in the position of going door to door or asking me to go door to door for them — hopefully I could outrun the cookie hawking girl scout heading for the same door — we instead wrote a check for the amount needed to board the bus and return victorious with the grand champion flag.
Imagine the family whose mom is pinching pennies to stay at home with the kids, avoiding the expense of working such as gas, lunches, clothes, and day care, for the sake of her children (and we all know it’s all about the children) and here comes a kid, newly defined as any age up to age 25, knocking on the door, asking for money to help pay for his annual physical and X-ray. She doesn’t get to say no. She has to give him money. It’s the law. He takes her money and goes to the next house and the next etc. She may as well stay at the door with her purse because there’s a long line of kids from the neighborhood, across town, the next county, the next state, all taking collections for health care that their parents can not only afford but may have. Wait a minute! Oh, yes, Virginia, not all of the kids the bill wanted to add are poor. Pelosi herself said it was a middle class program.
The S-CHIP is not a new program. It’s an old entitlement. The kids in line had been, up to this renewal proposal, under 18 and at 200% the poverty level. The “200%” part makes me angry, but that’s another study. The left-backed bill attempted to change the rules, adding another 10 million newly categorized “children,” 18 to 25. The poverty computation was expanded so that an independent, employed person and potentially a spouse and children of these two “children” could gross over $80,000 a year and qualify for free government paid health insurance. This would allow them to accumulate the flat screens, the playstation, two cars, and save for a cruise on their 5th anniversary. Priorities, priorities.
This whole thing about the poor children is deceptive. For those who need a more succinct definition, it’s a lie. Proponents are trying to sneak a huge chunk of population in the back door solely for the purpose of gradually creating and shoving nationalized health care down our throats. What better way than by using children as a shield?
A young child (since “children” are all the way to 25, “young man” and “young woman” no longer apply) has become part of a broadcast campaign rebuttal to George Bush’s refusal to sign the expanded program into law. Nancy Pelosi regarded his decision as “cutting” millions of children off from their right to health care. How can you “cut” someone who was never enrolled?
Who is this child? He is a middle school child attending a $20,000 a year private school with his sister, bringing the tuition to $40,000. His family purchased a $400,000 home and $165,000 commercial property. Daddy owns his company and has chosen not to carry health insurance. Mommy is employed in Daddy’s company as bookkeeper, and since the choice was made not to carry health care insurance, she isn’t insured, subsequently, the chldren are reclassified as the Uninsured Poor.
You would think that the smartest woman in the world would make sure her toadies came up with a better example of disadvantaged poverty.