« My Commenters Is Smarter Than I: Government Subsidies Edition | Main | The Prime Minister of Canada »
October 11, 2007
Debating S-CHIP
Well, Michelle Malkin may not want to debate the merits of S-CHIP expansion, but I still want to write about them. Which I did, in this week's column.
October 11, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I think she should debate you. She's got all the facts on her side. I realize the facts are typically not relevant to socialists, but for non-moveon nuts, they are.
Posted by: Richard | Oct 11, 2007 1:05:52 PM
Well, then convince her. If she's got the facts, no reason to be so afraid, right?
Posted by: Ezra | Oct 11, 2007 1:10:19 PM
Excellent article, and a very strong case.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Oct 11, 2007 1:15:40 PM
And Bush's constant mention of such a nonexistent clause even infuriates Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who said, "The president's understanding of our bill is wrong. I urge him to reconsider his veto message based on a bill we might pass, not something someone on his staff told him wrongly is in my bill.”
Question: does Grassley honestly think this kind of appeal could possibly matter?
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 11, 2007 1:33:21 PM
eh, if this you being substantative then I think malkin called it right by not bothering with you.
This article is just a case of presenting the weakest arguments as all the arguments. If you are citing random retards at redstate and free republic as the official voice of the right then you really are reaching.
What do you say to criticisms that insuring adults is inappropriate for a program ostensibly meant for children?
What do you say to criticisms that extra money would be better spent if the eligibility were kept where it is rather than raised as high as 400% of the poverty rate in some places?
Not only do we not know what you think from the article, we dont even know such arguments exist from the article.
the absolute worst part of the article though was you undermining the cbo figures for the numbers of children who would drop out of private medical insurance to get covered by schip. Apparently we should be wary of these because theyre speculative, but all of the cbo's figures are speculative; theyre estimates. You cant just pick which predictions you like and wave your hand at the rest with 'theyre just predictions'.
Posted by: pimp hand strikes! | Oct 11, 2007 1:41:09 PM
If she's got the facts, no reason to be so afraid, right?
And if Hillary Clinton doesn't accept a challenge to debate the subject of alien landings from Art Bell, she's scared.
Posted by: RW | Oct 11, 2007 1:50:49 PM
Well, what else did you expect from your local neighorhood SlimeMachine.com?
Posted by: Aw C'mon | Oct 11, 2007 2:28:25 PM
I thought Kevin Drum had the most illogical trolls, but I'm beginning to reconsider ...
Posted by: David in NY | Oct 11, 2007 2:29:48 PM
RW, well, MM bears a greater resemblance to Art Bell in that analogy, though.
Look, Ezra and MM are both opinion-pundits who appear on pundit shows and get their essays published on topics that neither of them has any professional background in. They are paid because people like their writing and they are considered "popularizers" who are able to condense complex issues into laymen's terms. They are, for all intents and purposes, on equal professional standings, and there's no reason why MM shouldn't be able to participate in any of the sort of symposia that Ezra participates in all the time.
It's her job todo things like debate other pundits like ezra.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 2:41:46 PM
. They are, for all intents and purposes, on equal professional standings...
BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAA!
Yeah, keep running THAT ONE up the flagpole.
They are paid....
Some a whole lot more than (cough, low 30s, cough) others.
Posted by: RW | Oct 11, 2007 3:33:02 PM
RW, Malkin did say she was making about 25k around the time her husband quit his job, and that was when she was older than Ezra. She might be doing a bit better now.
And I suppose it is your right to argue that Malkin is a professional heavyweight compared to Ezra, in the same way that the Court Jester has higher professional standing than the Royal Astronomer. (seriously, comparing Ezra to art bell? what the heck were you thinking?)
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 3:46:15 PM
Hey, just heads up that that's a different RW. I don't know who had the moniker first, and would be willing to yield it, but I think we might should differentiate ourselves since we seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum.
LeftyRW
Posted by: RW | Oct 11, 2007 3:50:49 PM
What do you say to criticisms that insuring adults is inappropriate for a program ostensibly meant for children?
I'd say that President Bush should stop encouraging states to use the money that way if conservatives have a problem with it.
But it's clear that adults will be phased out of SCHIP. Congress' new legislation calls for the change, and though the Bush administration encouraged states to enroll adults in the past, the president and his conservative allies now want the program to be for kids only.
How about doing a little research once in a while, dipshit.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 4:28:27 PM
I hardly see how bush's past actions relate to whether this is a good bill or not, but hey, if you want to criticise the past waivers then I agree with you 100%.
If we could just move back to the actual bill for a moment though, the argument rests on the fact that the bill is ostensibly supposed to move away from covering adults, something it doesnt actually do, and the idea that wouldnt it be better for the bill to actuall does what it is supposed to in this regard?
Posted by: pimp hand strikes! | Oct 12, 2007 3:46:32 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
