Conservatives target 12-year-old boy and his family in S-CHIP debate

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The boy and his family benefited from the CHIP program.

Yes, and noting happened that would have caused them not to benefit from it in the future. If there was a point to be made, why not find the boy and family that is left behind in an "as is" scenario to justify the proposed expansion? It was a poor choice. The way it backfired - and continues to backfire - , even you would have to admit that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, by parading this child on a political platform the argument changes from arguing the merits of the program and how it should be funded to 'look at this child and tell me that you could in all conscience turn down this xyz that I am telling you needs to be provided to allow children like this to benefit from the program'

That's emotional manipulation in my book. Provide the figures, tell me what funding is required to make the program work allow me to evaluate the proposition and alternative possibilities, but don't parade a kid in front of me and tell me that if I don't agree with you I am immoral or don't care about children. The fact that this has now backfired, that the children's family is under the spotlight, that the argument has swung away from the program to whether this person was a legitimate recipient, makes it even worse. That the person who came up with this scheme didn't even bother to worry that this might or even was likely to happen, tells me that this person is not only manipulative, but rather cold as well.

PH, the program already exists. What has taken place was a budget increase proposal had been put forward by Congress (which BTW, had strong bipartisan support). They had discussed the proposal and it's validity at great length, however Bush decided to veto the measure. No one was arguing over the validity of the program itself, except for the Right Wing extremists and political pundits who try to strong arm the rest of their Party to their narrow views. They ranted on and on about how the program is a bust.

So, this radio address from a 12 year old recipient and beneficiary of the program was after all that could be said was said, in hopes of persuading voters to contact their Congressman to support the budget increase and override Bush's veto. That's not manipulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Childre...surance_Program

The program provides health insurance for families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private insurance.

(That's important to note because the bulk of the smearing of the Frost family has been over them not being poor).

In 2007, researchers from Brigham Young University and Arizona State found that children who drop out of SCHIP cost states more money because they shift away from routine care to more frequent emergency care situations.[5] The conclusion of the study is that an attempt to cut the costs of a state program could create a false savings because other government organizations pick up the tab for the children who leave SCHIP and later need care. In a 2007 analysis by the Congessional Budget Office, researchers determined that "for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children." The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives.[6]

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not arguing about the merits or lack of of this program so let's try to keep the two things separate.

You asked me how this was manipulative and I have explained, using a child to pull at my heartstrings to try to make me do anything is manipulative, period. That it was manipulative and went horribly wrong (you aren't arguing that this was an unqualified success are you?) means I have to question the judgment of those who thought it was a good idea.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am not arguing about the merits or lack of of this program so let's try to keep the two things separate.

You asked me how this was manipulative and I have explained, using a child to pull at my heartstrings to try to make me do anything is manipulative, period. That it was manipulative and went horribly wrong (you aren't arguing that this was an unqualified success are you?) means I have to question the judgment of those who thought it was a good idea.

PH, I respectfully disagree. Let me ask you this - what is your definition of persuasion vs. manipulation?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am not arguing about the merits or lack of of this program so let's try to keep the two things separate.

You asked me how this was manipulative and I have explained, using a child to pull at my heartstrings to try to make me do anything is manipulative, period. That it was manipulative and went horribly wrong (you aren't arguing that this was an unqualified success are you?) means I have to question the judgment of those who thought it was a good idea.

PH, I respectfully disagree. Let me ask you this - what is your definition of persuasion vs. manipulation?

Steven, this thing backfired. I mean, look at me. I support universal health care but I don't care for the presentation of this expansion of the existing SCHIP program - however right and valuable it may or may not be. What I'd really like to see a solid case made for a universal health care program - administration thereof, numbers and all - that will unite America around it. That's what we need. Making the patches of the patchwork larger does not provide the comprehensive approach that is needed. In fact, enlarging or multiplying the patches only drags a viable and sustainable solution further out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am not arguing about the merits or lack of of this program so let's try to keep the two things separate.

You asked me how this was manipulative and I have explained, using a child to pull at my heartstrings to try to make me do anything is manipulative, period. That it was manipulative and went horribly wrong (you aren't arguing that this was an unqualified success are you?) means I have to question the judgment of those who thought it was a good idea.

PH, I respectfully disagree. Let me ask you this - what is your definition of persuasion vs. manipulation?

Steven, this thing backfired. I mean, look at me. I support universal health care but I don't care for the presentation of this expansion of the existing SCHIP program - however right and valuable it may or may not be. What I'd really like to see a solid case made for a universal health care program - administration thereof, numbers and all - that will unite America around it. That's what we need. Making the patches of the patchwork larger does not provide the comprehensive approach that is needed. In fact, enlarging or multiplying the patches only drags a viable and sustainable solution further out.

That's understandable and believe me, I'm not a sucker for syrupy, emotional appeal all by itself. I didn't hear the boy's radio address - his voice inflections, etc. would come into play. Radio is much less dramatic than using TV. Did they have music in the background? If all it was, was this 12 year old boy talking on the radio about how the CHIP program helped him and his family, I think that was totally acceptable and not the slightest overdone on emotions.

Pretend your a political strategist and you're trying to garner support among voters to contact their Congressman - how would you appeal to them?

Edited October 11, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Gary, when it comes to smearing that boy and his family - where do you draw the line?

so it's smearing when someone presents a counterpoint arguement?

yes, to liberals.

[GaryC 7]

I am not arguing about the merits or lack of of this program so let's try to keep the two things separate.

You asked me how this was manipulative and I have explained, using a child to pull at my heartstrings to try to make me do anything is manipulative, period. That it was manipulative and went horribly wrong (you aren't arguing that this was an unqualified success are you?) means I have to question the judgment of those who thought it was a good idea.

PH, I respectfully disagree. Let me ask you this - what is your definition of persuasion vs. manipulation?

Steven, this thing backfired. I mean, look at me. I support universal health care but I don't care for the presentation of this expansion of the existing SCHIP program - however right and valuable it may or may not be. What I'd really like to see a solid case made for a universal health care program - administration thereof, numbers and all - that will unite America around it. That's what we need. Making the patches of the patchwork larger does not provide the comprehensive approach that is needed. In fact, enlarging or multiplying the patches only drags a viable and sustainable solution further out.

When the government wants more of my money I want facts and not emotion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BTW, Gary...here's a political ad for Bush....

[GaryC 7]

BTW, Gary...here's a political ad for Bush....

Who cares? Bush isn't running anymore. And I think I made it clear that I don't like it from either side. It's just the dems seem to make an Olympic sport of it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BTW, Gary...here's a political ad for Bush....

Who cares? Bush isn't running anymore. And I think I made it clear that I don't like it from either side. It's just the dems seem to make an Olympic sport of it.

That's what you've been spoon fed but reality says otherwise. I'll dig up more ads if you want me to.

[GaryC 7]

That's what you've been spoon fed but reality says otherwise. I'll dig up more ads if you want me to.

We don't want to subject the board to that but I am certain that I can out-match you with dem ads.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh please, spare us from that at least.

The only people who win from mudslinging and emotional advertising are the people making the ads. If I was truly cynical, I would probably invest in whichever media companies are currently comanding the budgets. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the same companies are making ads for both sides of the political divide either. It's pathetic really.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[GaryC 7]

Oh please, spare us from that at least.

The only people who win from mudslinging and emotional advertising are the people making the ads. If I was truly cynical, I would probably invest in whichever media companies are currently comanding the budgets. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the same companies are making ads for both sides of the political divide either. It's pathetic really.

I shall refrain.

[Peikko 1,575]

:dance:

I am forever in your debt Gary :lol: