your kid's health care. Just what I want to do, pay more taxes for the non-poor to get an entitlement.

The fact is that under the pre-existing legislation, New Jersey would allow SCHIP availability up to families of 4 making in the $70k range, and that extension was limited by executive order. The new legislation allows an expansion, but only up to the $68,000 range for a family of 4.

I guess, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the operative "truth".

I want to know how a family of four living on $70,000 can not afford to buy health insurance for their children?. Taking into account the tax breaks given to families with children.

I don't have any problem paying for health care for children as long as they and their parents are not living in a house I cannot afford, drive a car I cannot afford.

What is missing from the debate is how many dollars does it cost to buy insurance for children up to age eighteen?. What priority do parents place on buying health insurance for their children?.

haven't read the bill (and I doubt you have either), I will accept for a moment that it is 68k for a family of 4. In many parts of the countyr , this is an excellent wage-- $5,667 per month. Unless you are buying gold plated insurance (or high end insurance is mandated by the state, which could be the case in the People's Republic of New Jersey) you should be able to buy health insurance. If you cannot, then your state legislature needs to loosen insurance regs or pony up the difference. But subsidizing health care for someone making 68k and living in Alabama--absurd.

Those are the maximum income ceilings. Most of the children covered come from much poorer families. Since you are obviously a free market type why have any tax supported health insurance? Right?

Maybe 100 years ago we left charity work to the church and privage individuals. I think that was a better system because aid was delivered with more care and caring. It is one thing to help someone who cannot help himself, and another to support someone who is just irresponsible.

What I do have a problem with is creating a huge new entitlement for people who should use their own resources to care for their kids. If you can't affford kids, don't have them.

Stop-truth-decay:

haven't read the bill (and I doubt you have either), I will accept for a moment that it is 68k for a family of 4. In many parts of the countyr , this is an excellent wage-- $5,667 per month. Unless you are buying gold plated insurance (or high end insurance is mandated by the state, which could be the case in the People's Republic of New Jersey) you should be able to buy health insurance. If you cannot, then your state legislature needs to loosen insurance regs or pony up the difference. But subsidizing health care for someone making 68k and living in Alabama--absurd.

That's $68k in New Jersey, not Alabama. Nice try. Each state was allowed to establish their own ceiling for eligibility. The cost of living in NJ is significantly higher than in AL. That's why, if you had actually read the article, NJ had the highest ceiling.

The ceiling is AL for low cost (note: Not free for the family) Children's Health Insurance, according to adph.org, is about $48,000 for a family of four. Nice attempt at distorting the facts.

"Maybe 100 years ago we left charity work to the church and privage individuals. I think that was a better system because aid was delivered with more care and caring"

You obviously have never touched a history book.

I agree, who do these kids think they are? Coming in and looking all poor....... I mean come on people, this is a free market system! These kids had every economic incentive to be born to rich parents, so why didn't they? Laziness......obviously! Its time for America's children to stop asking for handouts, and start pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. And if they dont have boots....tough, pull themselves up by the rags covering their feet.

I hope some of the sarcasm got through :)

This thread is another example of Republcians using a minute fraction of the people the program was intended to help, to justify depriving everyone else of its benefits. You are incredibly lucky if you havent seen your health care costs go up dramatically, but for most Americans, especially those middle class americans (making in the 40-70K range) the increase in costs has been substantial. And more than some can bare. If you want to allow their children to go without healthcare....you are certainally a tougher man than I.

I guess that depends on where you live. Wouldn't you think so? I mean, $68,000 for a family of 4 in Wide-Bend-in-the-Road, Texas, might be quite a lot, but not so in New York City, Chicago or San Francisco. You might be at the poverty line in those cities. If you're unfamiliar with housing expenses in those cities, I'd suggest you do a little searching on the Internet.

Then, let's say that family of 4 has 2 working adults and need their own private transportation to get there (might not be true in NYC), so they have 2 vehicles and insurance for same and upkeep and GAS! Then the rising food costs! And they're either paying inflated rental fees or a mortgage that's closer to two thousand a month or more. Then they're trying to put a little money in savings for a rainy day, or for retirement, or for sending the kids to college. On top of that, they're expected to cough up several hundred dollars a month to insure their kids' health?

I'm not mentioning all the variables and they need not all apply, but you can see that 68k a year for this family might be close to the poverty line for their region or metropolis. It all depends...

But I can see why some families earning that much might not be able to afford private health insurance for their kids. Fewer employers are offering health insurance these days, and those that are have passed along bigger costs to the workers. And health care costs, especially medicine, are rising much faster than the rate of inflation.

If the parents have to give up their kids college funds to afford the health insurance, will you then say the parents put a low priority on education? This is a complex and demanding world we live in, and depending on where you live, 68k a year may well not be enough to cover the essentials of modern day life in America. I'm not talking about expensive electronics or motor homes and RVs, but savings for college and retirement. Something may well have to be neglected, despite the best intentions. And whatever you sacrifice, because you have to, you'll be condemned by the thoughtless for not planning ahead.

If you are making 82k a year (I am) wouldn't you have insurance benefits that cover the little brats?

Oh wait! That's right! Insurance is a sucker's game, and if you were to switch jobs, for instance (I did), then you at the least have to spend months getting your new coverage to honor all the obligations of the previous coverage (I did) and at the worst, end up paying out of your pocket for preexisting medical problems, or simply do without medication that you took for granted (I did).

Now, naturally, I don't qualify of SCHIP, since that whole thing about middle class people using the poor peoples government insurance policy is a straw man's argument, but if I did qualify for a policy that the government supported that allowed me to provide my family insurance coverage no matter what my current employment status was, I would have to be crazy not to sign up.

Not sure what you mean about Churches and Private Individuals caring more about poor people back 100 years ago (ever read Upton Sinclair? Pass the sausage, please) or the whole judgmental thing about how people should stand trial for their behavior before they should be treated like human beings, but I don't think that has anything to do with the government taking over health insurance.

If you look at every other modern industrialized nation in the world, two things about government provided health insurance stands out - the government provides better coverage for more people and it costs significantly less than private insurance!

Nobody is asking - OK, I'm not asking - for a principled response to the collective health insurance debate, I am just asking for a practical debate. Do you want guaranteed coverage of your health needs from cradle to grave with the same consistent coverage no matter whether or not you decide to change jobs or any other number of circumstances that you may or may not have control over and at the same have a net gain in income?

A principled right wing extremist would abhor the idea of paying a little more in taxes even if it meant that his company could pay him significantly more if they didn't have to pay for his insurance benefits, but frankly, that sounds less like principle and more like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Cost of living in New Jersey? Its not really that high.

You don't need to own your own house, you know. A family of four can rent a comfortable place for 2k a month.

100 for food per week (6k a year). That makes your basic expenses 30k, which is half of the income. That means you have 30k a year for spending. Thats A LOT.

How many kids really need more than a physical a year?

Guess what, 99% of kids don't need health care.

"the government provides better coverage for more people and it costs significantly less than private insurance!"

Hahahahaha.

Just like Social Security pays out more than putting the money into a bank account?

LMAO.

The government is the worse spender of funds. Its a fact. Furthermore, this is a subsidy to insurance companies that are losing money because those who are healthy are unwilling to pay their money in.

Guess what? Those who need insurance have insurance or get their care for free. The children are already covered. This is all a scam to steal money from the healthy in order to subsidized the insurance industry that donated billions to Congress.