"You want income transfers into constitutional law? That is Communisim/Socialism,"

Love it! So much for taking THAT comment seriously...

One little thing:

Rather than calling it "S-CHIP" can we please call it by its full name? It's the State Childrens' Health Insurance Program.

Regular people out there don't know what an "S-CHIP" is - and at best, it sounds like just another bureaucratic acronym.

Don't let the Republicans shift the language in their favor.

It's just like "ANWR". Who cares if we drill for oil in that place called "anwar" - where is that, anyway, in Missouri?

Oh no... it's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Definitely don't want to drill for oil there.

Words matter. Don't collapse the key message points into an acronym.

Children's Health Insurance. That's what we're fighting for -- not SCHIP.

Do people at 4x the poverty level need help paying for health insurance? How many of those people have wide screen TV's, cable service, cell phones, etc?

You tell me.

Are you currently paying $12,000 to $15,000 per year in insurance premiums for a family of four?

If not, have you been "responsible enough to "choose" a job where such benefits are offered? (If you "chose" a low paying job in the service sector, you loose.)

If not, have you and your wife agreed to abort any child that would put an irresponsible and unfair burden on the rest of us?

<hr/>

My 37" flat screen cost me $1300 two years ago. That would have covered five weeks of insurance out of the 52 weeks in '06. In fact, the cost of cell phones might well be a matter of job retention to a lot of folks, but don't let the facts or logic get in the way of your Dogma.

<hr/>

BTW: I am fully covered, as my wife offers coverage to her employees that compares favorably to that offered by any firm in Oregon. Lucky me!

<hr/>

This all reminds me of the "Welfare Queens" argument made by these same selfish bastards way back in the Reagan administration.

As I told my Fundy Christian brother back in the '80s:

"The problem with this country is that single welfare mothers won't go out and get a damned job like God wants them to; and these uppity yuppie women who won't quit their jobs and stay home barefoot and pregnant like God wants them to."

Andy, I read the bill and I'll take that bet. Please present info on just TWO cases where the current family recipients of Children's Health Insurance Program have wide screen TV's, cable service, cell phones, and the kids have cell phones, TV's, cars, etc. Back up your assertions with facts. Then tell us what percentage of all recipients you believe should not qualify, and why.

Measure 50 funds SB3. The Oregon Legislative Fiscal Office Report on SB3, so often lyingly cited in anti-M50 ads, on websites and in voter's pamphlet arguments, provides a number of important data about M50 and insuring uninsured kids in Oregon. One point is that HB3 already links Oregon Healthy Kids with federal Children's Health Insurance.

Actual reading of the OLFO report shows the M50 ad campaigns to be sheer lies or mendacious misreadings of plain statements by the office.

One of the lies is that Measure 50 creates new programs. Actually it works through existing programs while removing bureaucratic obstacles. This is why the "60,000 eligible not enrolled" point is a canard. They aren't enrolled because there isn't funding. Measure 50 funds those 60,000 kids within the existing programs.

However and relatedly, the Healthy Kids plan actually relies substantially for its funding on federal Children's Health Insurance Program Funds, along with Medicaid funds under existing waivers for the OHP. Over 50% of the Healthy Kids Plan funds ultimately would come from the Feds.

Since the Supplemental Children's Health Insurance Program under veto incorporates renewal of the existing program, if the veto stands M50 funding will be threatened, although a further compromise is likely. However, the president's recent unreasonable rule-making to restrict CHIP funding from families above the poverty level is allowed to stand, that would still put a big dent in the funding for Healthy Kids.

SB3 provides that if funding falls short the legislature should make it up from other revenues. Thus in a sense Rep. Shields' call is redundant if M50 passes. If M50 fails, any expanded CHIP money may come through will do part of its intended work anyway, unless the rule-based restrictions stand. If M50 passes, but the federal children's insurance falls short, the state leg. will be directed to make up the gap.

One other point from the OLFO report, this one against pro-M50 ads that also cite it: while it says 117,000 kids in Oregon are uninsured, it estimates that Healthy Kids will reach only 78% of them, or 94,000. So based on that source, the claim of "over 100,000 kids" isn't quite true, and certainly not the claim of 117,000. It estimates the end result will be that 95% of Oregon kids will have insurance. This misrepresentation of OLFO's report isn't as bad as the gross lies of the opponents, but should be acknowledged.

Measure 50 (stupidly and immorally) excludes children who can't prove U.S. citizenship (which probably will include some who actually are citizens). It isn't quite clear if the 117,000 figure includes those who aren't eligible on that basis, or if there is a further increment of uninsured non-citizen Oregon kids. Likewise therefore it isn't clear if those kids are included in the 78% and 95% proportions cited. This wouldn't affect the positive 94,000 will-be-insured estimate.

BTW, despite considerable misgivings and my continued belief that the cigarette tax is unfair and regressive in both a tax and social values sense, I've changed my mind and decided to vote yes on M50 after all.

20 years ago, my wife & i returned to Oregon with our newborn son. i had been on workers comp for a year (crushed hand) and it took a while for us to get on our feet again. as we struggled towards two fulltime jobs (and the comcomitant child care), we were placed on the WIC program (imagine our surprise when the Multnomah Co nurse, to whom we took our child for regular care, said he was underweight!); at a later point, we were on food stamps for a time. i think we even got a food box at one time.

am i ashamed that for 2 years, much of our care for our family was "welfare"? not a bit. i had spent 4 years in the Air Force, both Alison & i had worked since our teens, and we have both been taxpayers since those days. we have both given back to our communities in many ways, so taking the services provided by our governments -- the legacy of 20th Century Liberalism, one of the great advances in human history -- is something i am glad we were able to do. it gave our son the nourishment he needed, the health care he needed, and it gave his parents the peace of mind we needed to know we were able to care for him properly despite our economic difficulties.

i remember in that time that some man wrote to the Oregonian that he would never accept handouts. Alison wrote back to say what an idiot he was: if his family was going hungry, he'd pick pride over their care?

i welcome anyone to apply for use and all public services. let's pay for it by getting those off the public teat who have no right to be there: corporations, military contractors, etc.

<h2>Kurt, how would you propose the inordinate cost to society caused by cigarettes, and the people who smoke them, be paid?</h2>