Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The veto will probably be sustained, but its still not certain. We'll see later this week. The Senate will definetly override the veto; the House is still a few votes short. If it is vetoed, I suspect that Congress will craft a comprise with Bush, becaue both want the SCHIP program to continue.
|
Yes, many want the program continued. I have no problem with that, I don't even have a problem with the program being expanded, I simply prefer that the program be improved. And my ideal would be to simply have an assurance that every child in this country receives medical care or have health care insurance with no questions asked. I know my ideal has no real support and would not receive serious consideration.
Quote:
|
Wow...a new set of complaints about SCHIP.
|
Do you think what I listed is or was a complete list of the complaints?
Quote:
"Some poor children dont get covered while adults get covered"It is true that adults get covered in some states, but there is no evidence that I am aware of that eligible children have been left uncovered as a result. Thats just another conservative talking point.
|
What are the requirements for qualification in Washington D.C.? What are the qualifications in West Virginia? How do they compare? Why does a child have to be unisured for 6 months in West Virgina? Why is that a requirement in West Virginia and not in Texas?
You want to dismiss my questions as talking points, o.k., show me where I have gotten my "talking point questions? You can't because I am an independent thinker and I formulate my own views and questions.
Quote:
|
The original program allowed states to request a waiver to cover some adults, mostly to provide neonatal care to pregnant women w/o insurance. Currently 12 states have recieved waivers (I may be wrong on the number) and most were granted in the last 6 years by the Bush Dept of HHS. (I think 9 out of 12 are Bush waivers). The new bill PROHIBITS any future waivers to states to cover adults. That provision is not included under the current language of the bill Bush supports.
|
Here is what was in the Chicago Tribune:
Quote:
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 11 states have received approval to insure parents of low-income children through the program.
Four states provide program coverage to childless adults. Also, 11 states cover pregnant women.
The vast majority of approvals to extend the program to adults have been granted by the Bush administration since 2000.
About 600,000 adults are enrolled in the program.
|
http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...8.story?page=3
So, just based on the info referenced in this post, in west Virginia you have children who would have to be uninsured for at least 6 months prior to coverage and we have 4 states that have childless adults covered.
I simply say that the stated intent of the program is not meeting its goals. I give real examples. I say the proposed legislation is inadequate. I say the program is overly complex. You can continue to be a denier, that is your perogative.
Quote:
"The basis for funding is a regressive tax disproportionately burdening poor people"There is nothing new here. The program has been funded by a regressive cigarette tax for 10 years and Bush and most Repubs didnt seem to mind.
|
Strange use of logic.
Is the above supposed to make it o.k.?
Perhaps you falsely assume I am a Republican/Bush apologist. I am not. I call them like I see them.
Quote:
|
The issue is how large of a cigarette tax increase for the program to be reauthorized. On a personal level, I dont generally like regressive taxes for the reason you stated, but in this case, I dont mind that a low income person will pay a little more if they feel a need to continue smoking, knowing that the funds will pay for health care for their children.
|
I don't live in the "gray". Seems like you are for the tax and against it. I am against it. One it is a regressive tax and two, the tax will be inadequate to fund future costs.
Quote:
"The program is subject to individuale states to determine rules for eligibility, hence no consistency"I honestly dont know what you mean here. There are federal regulations that provide the "consistency", whatever that means. States do have the flexibility to adapt the regulations to local conditions...which is what the Repubs in Congress wanted when the program was conceived. Most federal block grant programs to states have that same flexibility.
|
I am all for states rights. I just think it inefficient for state programs to be funded by the federal government. If it is going to be a state program have the states fund it, if it is going to be a national program, there should be national standards where the major components are consistent. A child does not determine what state they live in, and their eligibility for the program should not depend on address. What is so wrong with that? Is it too clear? Not enough "grayness?"
Quote:
"People currently with coverage through the private sector would have incentive to convert to a publically funded program" Has this occured in the first ten years of the program? Its a nice theory for conservatives to toss out, but you have no evidence from this or other government programs that this type of "abuse" occurs.
|
You have to be kidding? All I have to say on this is that perhaps people in Washington should spend more time interacting with real people.
Quote:
"If you are satisfied with the inadequacies, that is your right. Just be honest and not pretend they don't exist"I dont agree with any of your "inadequacies" so I cant pretend they exist.
|
Fair enough.
Quote:
|
I do agree the program is not perfect. I would prefer a program of universal coverage for children with no restrictions. BUT, that is not an option at the present time.
|
Only because people in Washington have made the choice not to make it an option.
Quote:
|
Bush and the Republican Congress had six years to offer an alternative legislative proposal to SCHIP. They did nothing for six years.
|
My views on this are not in-line with the Republican party. And at this point they are not in-line with the Democratic party either.
Quote:
|
So, for now, the choice reamins either SCHIP (at some funding level between Bush's $5 billion increase and Congress' $35 billion increase) or NOTHING. There are no other options on the table.
|
By choice.
Quote:
If you prefer NOTHING and putting 6+ million child back on the uninsured list until a better bill comes along, "just be honest" and say so 
|
That is not my position.
P.s. - I am repeating myself. If I don't respond to your next post, assume I have nothing new to add, but don't assume you have stated something I can not respond to. It also safe to assume that on any topic.