Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
BTW, the Cali, Mass and Illinois plan, like all state plans that propose broader or universal coverage, rely heavily on the medicaid and schip funding received from the feds. Scharzenegger's plan includes an expansion of Med-Cal (the Cali medicaid plan) and SCHIP by by more than $2 billion.
This "crap" bill pays for these "model" state programs.  |
Let me restate my position and explain why the bill you support is crap.
Every child in this country should have health care coverage. The coverage should not depend on address, household income, household assets, a parent or guardian caring enough to either purchase coverage in the private market or go through the maze of obtaining subsidized coverage. Children are born into circumstances that they have no control over. The least we can do is to make sure children have access to medical coverage, with no questions asked.
A child is born and they are covered until the age of majority. If I were to write and propose a bill it would be that simple, and each child would perhaps be given the same coverage offered to government employees. It could be paid for through cost cut in other non-defense related government programs. Nothing is more important than national defense and the care and well being of our children.
The bill veto'd by Bush is overly complex given the manner in which each state provides coverage. The conditions are often illogical and too many children can fall through the cracks. And the final straw is that it heavily penalizes poor people who want to work hard and improve their life. The bill is designed to help people in or near poverty, and to keep them there. That is wrong. We should want people to get ahead. Poor people stay poor because of these kinds of programs.
If we want to insure kids, do it. Stop the madness of these incomprehensible programs.
Do you honestly not see the problems with this bill, and why we should go in a different direction?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I dont recall any Dems in Congress calling Bush names.
|
Technically you are correct. Harry Reid said the following:
Quote:
|
"Congress will fight hard to override President Bush's heartless veto," vowed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
|
http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/...-3011664.shtml
I interpret the comment as name calling. It is certainly not constructive or a comment in the spirit of what you would consider diplomacy.
Quote:
|
They have pointed out how he said in 2001 that the program was a great example of how to give the states flexibility in providing health care to kids in working class families through contracts with private health care providers....and then last week described it as " replacing the doctor-patient relationship with dependency on bureaucrats in Washington, D.C." (the program in the new bill functions the same way as the old bill, just covers more children...so why is it suddenly replacing doctor-patient relationship with a dependency on DC bureaucrats?)
|
I don't support the program period. We can do better.
Quote:
|
The Dems also pointed out this the program has dedicated funding, unlike the $600 billion for the invasion and occupation of Iraq that will be passed on to those same kids (and probably their kids).
|
But the program is a capped program. If more children qualify, the program lack the flexibility to cover the additional children. This is a weakness in the program. Is this another problem, you failed to consider. What happens if the economy goes south and more children qualify, do they add more money? Maybe yes or maybe no. But the fact remains that their may be children who would qualify but won't have access. Again, if we want to cover children, we should do it. Why bother with this bill which is riddled with problems.
Quote:
Bush indicated several days ago that he is willing to spend more than the $5 billion he proposed:
If the Dems cant get 13 more Republs in the House in the next week or so, some version of this "crap" bill will be negotiated with support from both Bush and the Democrats, most likely in the range of $10-15 billion increase over five years, with a lower tax on cigarettes.
Why does the bill have so much bi-partisan support (leaving aside the bickering about the final numbers which is part of the "give and take" process)......because most Americans (over 70%), a majority of both houses of Congress, 43 governors (including Schwarzenegger), most medical associations, most child advocacy organizations, etc. believe the manner in which it provides health care to children has been incredibly successful for 10 years, should be expanded (the issue is how much) and is not "crap" .
|
You seemed to be invested in the bill. With the blinders you have on I can understand why you can't see the problems with it and how there is clearly a better solution. I am just amazed why you would not even consider a better more comprehensive alternative given what I thought were the core values of Democrats. This could easily be a topic were I would be more aligned with Democrats than Republicans. I actually respect the "Govenator" for having the courage to take on his party on the issue in California.