Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
in your opinion, is an "inadequate" SCHIP program better or worse than no SCHIP program at all?
|
Depends on the alternative.
With SCHIP the things that make it inadequate can easily be fixed. I think it is immoral for a community not to take care of the children in that community. To the degree the SCHIP leads people to believe that we as a community are doing the right thing while millions of children, hidden in the shadows, go without health care in my view makes the inadequacies in SCHIP worse than if there was no SCHIP. Put another way, if "covering up" a problem is not a solution and if "covering up" that problem means we don't address the problem, the "covering up" of the problem makes things worse.
In addition two of the problems with SCHIP are the disincentive created, perpetuating poverty and the dehumanization people are put through hurting their confidence and ability to do better on their own. I could argue these factors make things worse with SCHIP.
---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Just so we understand, it is ace and FOX news who have characterized SCHIP as inadequate.
The program goal is to have a 95% penetration rate among eligible families and the rate is in the high 80s.
Inadequate? Inefficient?
Ask those 80+% of working families who now have health care for their kids....more than 6 million kids.
And it is not an issue of funding by any analysis.
|
I love this kind of logic. Actually I don't, but it makes me smile. An analogy - my son comes home from school and announces he got 90 questions correct on his math test. Before I uncork the champagne, I would have to ask how many questions were on the test, if the reply is 200, oh I say - me thinks your performance was inadequate.
But that's just me. I guess some would say, getting 90 correct was better than getting 80 correct, which is true, but doesn't make the 90 out of 200 look any better to me.
