It did not.

You lied.

Get used to the fact that when you lie, there’s a very good chance that you’ll get called on it.

“An Aug. 17 letter to state health officials from the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services outlined new guidelines for states that would make it quite difficult for states to raise eligibility above 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($51,625 for a family of four)”.

Next time I’ll remember that when you post something, it could well be a lie, and not to use it.

Poverty level for a family of four (48 contiguous states and D.C.);
$20, 650.00

shitmonkey thus confirms that HoosierArmyMom was in fact lying when she cited ”$51,625 for a family of four” as being poverty level.

So tell me why a family that makes 60 grand a year can’t get their own damned insurance?

If shitmonkey wants to know the answer to that question, it should ask a family in that situation.

shitmonkey also ignores that fact that the 300% multiplier is not a mandate, but an option.

It is also quite possible that a $60,000 annual income is not the grandiferous sum that shitmonkey thinks it is...

Bush also misstated the intent of the SCHIP program by claiming it “was meant to help poor children.” That’s false as well. Poor children, defined as those in families below the official federal poverty level, were already covered by Medicaid. The stated intent of Congress when it established the program in 1997 was to expand coverage beyond those who were poor to “uninsured low-income” children. And in Washington-speak, there’s a significant difference between “poor” and “low-income.”

Congress didn’t specify exactly what it meant by “low-income” in the bill that became law or the conference report that accompanied it on final passage, and reasonable people can certainly come up with different definitions. However, if one defines “low” as meaning “lower than most families make,” then there is plenty of room to expand the current SCHIP program without violating the original aim stated by Congress in 1997.

Currently, the state with the highest income cap is New Jersey, where a family of four making up to $72,275 is eligible. (See chart at left for current cut-offs for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.) That’s well below the median income for a family of four in that state, which was $94,441 in 2006 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The median means half of all families made less than that, and half made more. So even New Jersey’s ceiling for SCHIP is significantly lower than what most families in that state bring in.

The same is true for all 10 of the jurisdictions with the highest ceilings. The median income for families of four last year was $84,472 in Hawaii, $93,821 in Connecticut, $94,017 in Maryland, $71,571 in D.C., $89,347 in Massachusetts, $63,274 in Missouri, $87,396 in New Hampshire, $74,072 in Pennsylvania, and $67,884 in Vermont. So under current law even the top 10 cover only families with income that is “low” compared to most others there.

Now let’s do a little math shall we?

Poverty level for a family of four (48 contiguous states and D.C.);
$20, 650.00

Times three;
$61,950.00 (if the quick addition at this late hour in my tired head is correct)

Source

So tell me why a family that makes 60 grand a year can’t get their own damned insurance?

Well meaty, first of all, FactCheck.org doesn’t tell me the source of the article or information in it…

FactCheck.org is the source of the article. You are lying when you say they do not provide sources for the information in the article. The particular article I linked to lists no fewer than six separate sources.

...excuse me if I don’t want to take anything you paste as being factual information.

I expect no one to take my word for anything. But when you look at the article I reference and choose to lie about its not being sourced, then it is clear that you are not interested in factual information.

Your article above mentions $ 51,625 for a family of four as being poverty level… so if they plan to expand on that by 300% that should give one a clue.

The article does not state that $51,625 for a family of four is the poverty level. You are lying again, Mom. You clearly are not interested in factual information.

Even if I did violate my own guidelines, you will never hear me call someone else a “lizardbitch”...

Nope. Just “puke”. I’m sure you have convinced yourself that you are somehow not guilty of hypocrisy after all.

Considering the foul language you toss around this site, and once again, you cherry picked my words, ignoring your own foul language, I’ll just move on the assumtion that you simply don’t have the facilities to take ownership of your own deficits. Even if I did violate my own guidelines, you will never hear me call someone else a “lizardbitch”, even if it is someone I know and don’t like. Use your closed mind, cherry pick away, I really feel sorry for anyone who has such a difficult time getting along with other people.

I don’t know where you got the above article Meaty…

I provided the source, Mom. If you don’t know my source, it has to be because you don’t want to know my source.

...but it sounds more like propoganda to me.

That, of course, is merely a convenient rationalization to ignore everything in the article I referenced, without bothering to read it.

Can you cite any factual errors in the article I linked to, Mom?

How would you define “expand coverage” ... up to 300% of the poverty line?

I would define it as failing utterly to support your charge that the SCHIP renewal would result in “extending it to families and adults who make 80K a year”.

What, right now, is 300% of the federal poverty line? Let’s take a family of four as the baseline.

I guess throwing in “puke”, in reference to you, just felt natural at the moment.

I am certain, Mom, that that was all the rationalization you needed to violate the guidelines you so helpfully laid out for the behavior of others.

I don’t get my info from Dubya meatbrain, I go out and “read the bills online” and then write both my Democrat and Republican Congressmen and ask questions. It is always an enlightening exchange and they are good enough to always respond.

As far as calling you a Puke goes, I guess after reading through your blog and seeing all the insults you toss out, like calling people liars, lying wingnuts, maggots, and let’s not forget “lying lizardbitch”... I guess throwing in “puke”, in reference to you, just felt natural at the moment. I still think you demonstrate an awful lot of insecurity and misplaced anger in the way you interact with other people. You definately don’t play well with others Meatbrain. It must get lonely in your angry, raging world.

Confident, mentally healthy people don’t feel the need to go on an “insult attack” when functional, respectful debate is called for.

HoosierArmyMom today:

...pukes like you…

...do some research and look at the SCHIP bill and tell me where extending it to families and adults who make 80K a year is going to benefit children.

Why would I want to research a claim that is utterly and obviously false on its face?

From FactCheck.org:

The president repeated a false charge that has been bandied about by the administration and other Republicans:

Bush: Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.

In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year. That’s already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase. The Bush administration, in fact, just denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four, a move New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and members of Congress from the state have vigorously protested. And Bush would retain the authority to deny similar applications under the proposed legislation. An Aug. 17 letter to state health officials from the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services outlined new guidelines for states that would make it quite difficult for states to raise eligibility above 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($51,625 for a family of four). So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation “would” result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible. It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation.

In fact, the vast majority of the children who stand to gain coverage under the proposed legislation are in families making half of the figure Bush gave. A study just released by the Urban Institute estimates that 70 percent of children who are projected to benefit from either the Senate or House bills are in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $41,300 for a family of four). Our several calls to the White House press office to pinpoint exactly what the president meant by the $83k remark were not returned.

Is it perhaps just barely possible, Mom, that blind unquestioning belief in the veracity of everything that pops out of Dubya’s mouth is perhaps not as wise a policy as you first thought?