Against wishes of country, congress, Bush vetoes healthcare bill for poor children - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 10-09-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

As opposed to something like passing a law and providing funding saying - every child is covered from birth until the age a majority, regardless of household income, fluctuations in household income, household assets, fluctuations in household assets, address, employment, or having caring parents or guardian?

I will take an educated guess and suggest that most Dems would support this, but until such time as Repubs in Congress support such a proposal in the numbers that they support SCHIPs, it wont happen, which makes SCHIPs better than nothing at all for millions of uninsured kids from working class families.

Perhaps its Republicans who dont get it.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I will take an educated guess and suggest that most Dems would support this, but until such time as Repubs in Congress support such a proposal in the numbers that they support SCHIPs, it wont happen, which makes SCHIPs better than nothing at all for millions of uninsured kids from working class families.

Perhaps its Republicans who dont get it.

We provide medical coverage for the elderly, Republicans get that, as do Democrats. I am a registered Republican and I believe every child in this country should have health care coverage as well as every disabled person who lacks the mental or physical ability to provide for themselves - without question. If Democrats would support this, why don't they act on it? Instead we get, this bill, which is simply a mess, starting with the tax on tobacco and ending with the fact that you would not be able to find more than a small percentage of people who would understand ho the program works.

MrTia · 10-09-2007, 02:01 PM

i actually agree about the tobacco tax. it's ill-considered and i'd like to see the bill funded some other way. (and no, i don't smoke.)

taxing the HMOs seems fair to me, they're making a killing, if you'll pardon the expression. but they've got such a lobbying presence i doubt the demos would be able to find the brass ones to take them on.

aceventura3 · 10-09-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTia

i actually agree about the tobacco tax. it's ill-considered and i'd like to see the bill funded some other way. (and no, i don't smoke.)

taxing the HMOs seems fair to me, they're making a killing, if you'll pardon the expression. but they've got such a lobbying presence i doubt the demos would be able to find the brass ones to take them on.

I think tax payers should be asked if they want to carry the burden, shared with employers and the health care industry. The "Govenator" in California is moving forward on a plan. Romney got a plan passed. Illinois has coverage for every child. There are models available and they do get support, both Democratic and Republican support. This bill is "crap", and I think the Democrats know it is a "crap" bill destined to be veto'd, yet they call Bush names because he doesn't support it. They make it too easy for Bush by presenting him with a bill with too many reasons to support the veto.

All we need is for Congress to sit down and come up with a simple solution, starting with making sure every child in this nation has health care coverage while everyone shares part of the burden. I could care less about working adults who can make their own choice, but it is truly embarrassing to live in a nation that does not value every child and every person who does not have the ability to care for themselves. If the Democrats want to put Bush in a tough position, all they need to do is come up with a good bill to address this issue without holes and being overly complex. I remember reading a poll that about 70% of Californians support the "Govenators" plan, which is going further in providing universal coverage than I would go, because I am not clear on what kind of penalty there would be or could be for an adult who can afford coverage but doesn't want it. People certainly can debate the details and if adults should be force to buy coverage, but the plan tries to directly and up front address the issues of shared burden and making sure everyone has coverage.

dc_dux · 10-09-2007, 07:06 PM

This "crap" bill has a veto-proof majority in the Senate (67 voted for it, including 18 Republicans) and had a majority vote in the House (265, including 45 Republiclans - 13 short of veto-proof)

I dont recall any Dems in Congress calling Bush names. 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?)

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).

Bush indicated several days ago that he is willing to spend more than the $5 billion he proposed:

Quote:

President Bush signaled a willingness Saturday to spend more than what he had recommended for a popular children's health program, but provided no specifics on how much higher he would go.

The president on Wednesday vetoed legislation that would increase spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase. Several Republicans in both chambers have sided with Democratic lawmakers on the issue.

"If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20% increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Democratic lawmakers say votes to override the president's veto will be held in mid-October. That effort is not expected to succeed

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ddresses_N.htm

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" .

dc_dux · 10-10-2007, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....The "Govenator" in California is moving forward on a plan. Romney got a plan passed. Illinois has coverage for every child. There are models available and they do get support, both Democratic and Republican support. This bill is "crap".....

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.

aceventura3 · 10-10-2007, 06:53 AM

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.

dc_dux · 10-10-2007, 07:15 AM

ace....I agree with your perfect plan in a perfect world, but we're not there yet and SCHIP has been incredibly successful.

There is no reason why we cant reauthorize this bill, and at the same time, start a serious national debate leading to Congressional action on your plan.,

Until then, I side with the 69 senators, 265 representatives, 43 governors, most medical associations, most child advocacy organizations, and most Americans that SCHIP is not crap.

And I havent heard any governors (or state health officials), doctors, or patients complain that SCHIP is too complex. What do you know that they dont know?

Rekna · 10-10-2007, 07:18 AM

I don't see whats wrong with the tobacco tax. It helps health care 2 ways. First it generates money for the SCHIP program, second it could potentially lower the number of smokers in the future lowering health care costs. Of course eventually if people stop smoking a different tax would have to be implemented. Hell I think we should legalize pot and tax it fairly high.

aceventura3 · 10-10-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

And I havent heard any governors (or state health officials), doctors, or patients complain that SCHIP is too complex. What do you know that they dont know?

Feel free to re-read what I wrote. In the State of Texas, there is a household asset test of $10,000. What assets are included? Who constitutes the "household"? What happens when a 17 year-old gets a job and saves money, but there are other children? Does the 17 year-olds assets cause the other children to lose coverage? What happen if granma moves into the household and has money in her checking account? What if the money comes in and goes out so that the average balance in checking and savings never exceeds $10,000, but the high was greater.

Now mulitply the above by 50 different states, then multiply that asset test by the other tests.

I am not saying people can't figure it out, I am just saying it is overly complicated.

dc_dux · 10-10-2007, 07:36 AM

I understand its overly complicated to you.

You dont seem to accept that those who administer and participate in the program dont share your concern.

And I'm done here. There is no point in going round and round on this.

aceventura3 · 10-10-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I understand its overly complicated to you.

You dont seem to accept that those who administer and participate in the program dont share your concern.

And I'm done here. There is no point in going round and round on this.

I am happy to hear you are done. Your comment is totally off point and totally ignores problem issues with the program. The attitude illustrated in your comment clearly explains why real progress will never be made on this issue. Bush veto'd the bill for his reasons and don't support it for my reasons, yet those reasons are not considered valid or worthy of being directly addressed. I will go back to being a heartless Republican and simply not support this bill or any other half attempts by the folks in Washington to address health care.

At least I can say I tried.

dc_dux · 10-10-2007, 08:35 AM

You say I ignore the problems with the program. I would suggest you ignore the incredible success and popularity of the program that has been clearly and unambiguously expressed by those closer to it than you or I.

In any case, we can continue the discussion after Bush signs a bill that is more than his $5 billion and less than the Congressional $35 billion.

"If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20% increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I don't see whats wrong with the tobacco tax. It helps health care 2 ways. First it generates money for the SCHIP program, second it could potentially lower the number of smokers in the future lowering health care costs. Of course eventually if people stop smoking a different tax would have to be implemented. Hell I think we should legalize pot and tax it fairly high.

An interesting article in the NY TImes from 1997 that describes how the odd couple of Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch, pushed through the idea of tobacco tax to fund the first SCHIP.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A961958260

aceventura3 · 10-10-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You say I ignore the problems with the program. I would suggest you ignore the incredible success and popularity of the program that has been clearly and unambiguously expressed by those closer to it than you or I.

There is no basis for the above comment based on what I have written here. It does not logically follow that the fact that I point out the weaknesses in the program that means I ignore the programs successes.

I don't care what others say about the program, I know we can do better. If the program at whatever funding level is good enough for you, so be it.

I am catching on to the pretense of the Democratic party and how they "care" about poor people. They can keep their programs designed to entrap the poor into staying poor by adding layers of disincentives to earn income and accumulate assets or to turn them into people who have cheat/game the system.

Quote:

In any case, we can continue the discussion after Bush signs a bill that is more than his $5 billion and less than the Congressional $35 billion.

"If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20% increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

An interesting article in the NY TImes from 1997 that describes how the odd couple of Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch, pushed through the idea of tobacco tax to fund the first SCHIP.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5BC0A961958260

[/quote]

Wasn't the program passed when Republicans controlled Congress? Funny how people worked together to get something done that many thought originally was not possible. Like I said we can do better, to bad Congress is currently too busy tilting at windmills and calling the President "heartless", "lier", "criminal", etc, etc, etc,etc. There is such a negative tone being set by the party with a core belief in "diplomacy" to get things done.

dc_dux · 10-10-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There is no basis for the above comment based on what I have written here. It does not logically follow that the fact that I point out the weaknesses in the program that means I ignore the programs successes.

I don't care what others say about the program, I know we can do better. If the program at whatever funding level is good enough for you, so be it.

I am catching on to the pretense of the Democratic party and how they "care" about poor people. They can keep their programs designed to entrap the poor into staying poor by adding layers of disincentives to earn income and accumulate assets or to turn them into people who have cheat/game the system.
....

Wasn't the program passed when Republicans controlled Congress? Funny how people worked together to get something done that many thought originally was not possible. Like I said we can do better, to bad Congress is currently too busy tilting at windmills and calling the President "heartless", "lier", "criminal", etc, etc, etc,etc. There is such a negative tone being set by the party with a core belief in "diplomacy" to get things done.

Once again, you contradict yourself in your haste to vilify Democrats.

As you rightly noted, SCHIP was first enacted under a Republican House i n 1997 and it will be reauthorized and expanded under a Republican president in 2007. On both occasions, Repubs and Dems worked together to get it done, which is what you want those in Washington to do (as do I).

But its all a pretense of the Democratic Party and how they "care" about poor people and want to entrap them into staying poor.

Nice try, ace

SpottedThinker · 10-10-2007, 03:07 PM

As much as I love the Daily Show I think that clip was quite misleading. After I looked through this thread and read up a bit I realized that making Bush look like Scrooge for denying children healthcare is a vast simplification of the issue. Oh for the day when the government gives out vouchers for high quality nutrition (organic produce) rather than antibiotics... then maybe we'd actually solve the public health crisis rather than making it worse. With more care, people become more dependent.

aceventura3 · 10-11-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But its all a pretense of the Democratic Party and how they "care" about poor people and want to entrap them into staying poor.

Nice try, ace

I have given several solid and real examples (here and in other threads) of how government programs intending to help poor people actually entrap them in the fact that "phase outs" or arbitrary program rules makes attempts by poor people to earn additional income or accumulate assets a very costly proposition. The rich get richer not by Bush's tax cuts but by the fact that rich people don't have disincentives to accumulate more wealth.

In a teasing manner I attack Democrats on this issue, because I can not believe they don't understand the impact of the way programs like this are structured.

If they truly don't get it, it must be because they think they are hurting wealthy people. The reality is that they are not. Wealthy people more or less manage their tax burden. The top 1% can pretty much budget what they are going to pay in taxes today for next year, the year after, etc. and tax implications are factored into their return on investment/income decisions. The working class rich, true middle-class, and the working poor, are truly subject to the whims of the law makers in Washington. In this case they want to screw smokers with a regressive tax to pay for a program that is inadequate in terms of the stated goals.

You call it a nice try. And you are correct, another failed attempt on my part to help people see the light. I have been poor, a middle class working guy, a corporate officer, and I now own a growing small business and hope to be a top 1% person. I may have a better understanding of the impact of these issues than your insider experts with vested interests. Today, I am willing to talk about it, tomorrow I may be spending my time drinking fruity mixed drinks on the beach.

dc_dux · 10-11-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

... another failed attempt on my part to help people see the light.

I have seen the light....
* but I havent seen several solid and real examples (here and in other threads) of how government programs intending to help poor people actually entrap them.....what examples? you presented the "ace theory of the so-called economic deprivation of programs like SCHIP" with no documentation or any factual evidence to support your conclusions...how many poor participants does the program "entrap"rather than provide a foundation to support their personal and economic growth....is it 1% of participants in such programs? 27%...64%...95%?

* the program is deemed to be too complex... by one who has had no direct involvement with the program at anytime during its highly successful 10 year run.

* state models like Cali and Mass are better....even though they rely heavily on SCHIP funding

and the latest and greatest:
* the bi-partisan supporters (or perhaps just the Dems) of the program "think they are hurting wealthy people"...i'm trying to understand the basis for this one

* the program is "inadequate in terms of its stated goals"..that would be a surprise to those more than 6 million kids and their working class parents.

Enjoy the beach and keep chatting your mantra "I don't care what others say about the program, I know we can do better" while sipping your drink.. during which time the program expires, 6 million kids go back to being uncovered until we come up with something better, which certainly wont happen overnight.

bah....turning off the light.

aceventura3 · 10-15-2007, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I have seen the light....
* but I havent seen several solid and real examples (here and in other threads) of how government programs intending to help poor people actually entrap them.....what examples? you presented the "ace theory of the so-called economic deprivation of programs like SCHIP" with no documentation or any factual evidence to support your conclusions...how many poor participants does the program "entrap"rather than provide a foundation to support their personal and economic growth....is it 1% of participants in such programs? 27%...64%...95%?

* the program is deemed to be too complex... by one who has had no direct involvement with the program at anytime during its highly successful 10 year run.

* state models like Cali and Mass are better....even though they rely heavily on SCHIP funding

and the latest and greatest:
* the bi-partisan supporters (or perhaps just the Dems) of the program "think they are hurting wealthy people"...i'm trying to understand the basis for this one

* the program is "inadequate in terms of its stated goals"..that would be a surprise to those more than 6 million kids and their working class parents.

Enjoy the beach and keep chatting your mantra "I don't care what others say about the program, I know we can do better" while sipping your drink.. during which time the program expires, 6 million kids go back to being uncovered until we come up with something better, which certainly wont happen overnight.

bah....turning off the light.

The bill was veto'd and is not going to get passed in its present form. It is inadequate. Some poor children don't get coverage while adults would get coverage. It is inadequate. The basis for funding is a regressive tax disproportionately burdening poor people. It is inadequate. The program is subject to individuale states to determine rules for eligibility, hence no consistency. It is inadequate. People currently with coverage through the private sector would have incentive to convert to a publically funded program. It is inadequate. Achild may lose coverage through no fault of his/her own. It is inadequate.

If you are satisfied with the inadequacies, that is your right. Just be honest and not pretend they don't exist.

dc_dux · 10-15-2007, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The bill was veto'd and is not going to get passed in its present form. It is inadequate. Some poor children don't get coverage while adults would get coverage. It is inadequate. The basis for funding is a regressive tax disproportionately burdening poor people. It is inadequate. The program is subject to individuale states to determine rules for eligibility, hence no consistency. It is inadequate. People currently with coverage through the private sector would have incentive to convert to a publically funded program. It is inadequate. Achild may lose coverage through no fault of his/her own. It is inadequate.

If you are satisfied with the inadequacies, that is your right. Just be honest and not pretend they don't exist.

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.

Wow...a new set of complaints about SCHIP.

"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.

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.

"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. 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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

Bush and the Republican Congress had six years to offer an alternative legislative proposal to SCHIP. They did nothing for six years.

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.

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

aceventura3 · 10-15-2007, 06:12 AM

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.

dc_dux · 10-15-2007, 06:25 AM

I dont think there is a program that has come out of Washington that is not inadequate at some level to some persons or groups.

I disagree with what you find as inadequate with SCHIP and I dont believe in killing what I (and 43 governors, most medical associations, most child advocacy associations, and most SCHIP program participants) believe has been an incredibly successful program... until a better one is on the table to replace it.

In the end, thats what we both want... a better program to ensure that every child has adequate health insurance.

ngdawg · 10-15-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Bush lied when he vetoed the bill....surprise

It does not cover families with income up to $83k. The existing program covers families with income up to twice the poverty level (the current poverty level is $18,000 for family of four). The bill he vetoed would extend it to three times the poverty level (up to $54k in states that request that extended coverage). The $83k number tossed around by those opposed to the bill refers to a waiver for a very small number extraordinary cases of catastrophic need in a very limited set of circumstances in one or two states.

Bush wants to increase funding for the program by $5 billion (with no increase in number of eligible children) over 5 years and the bill passed by Congress increased funding by $35 billion over 5 years to add 4 million children to the program.

They are likely to compromise somewhere in the middle.

According to those numbers, my family would be eligible for government-backed health insurance.
We pay a lot for coverage($105 a week for the 4 of us), but it's our coverage.
If Washington really wanted to help those of us in the middle, they'd make that $105 a week, et al, eligible for a tax deduction.
I'm glad he didn't sign it.
And when are they gonna stop taxing smokers?? Talk about government sticking its hand in other people's business and trying to dictate what to do....it'd serve them right if every smoker stopped.

dc_dux · 10-15-2007, 06:49 AM

ngdawg....we obviously disagree on the government role in ensuring that every American (children first) have access to affordable health insurance.

I've given my reasons for supporting SCHIP until I see a better program proposed. I really dont have anything to add to what I've posted throughout this thread.

Its unfortunate (shameful...irresponsible) that there has been no meaningful health care reform proposal to come out of either party in 10 years.

The best we can hope for (and demand) is that the issue is given much more serious attention in the 08 election and the voters hold the candidates accountable.

host · 10-15-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

According to those numbers, my family would be eligible for government-backed health insurance.
We pay a lot for coverage($105 a week for the 4 of us), but it's our coverage.
If Washington really wanted to help those of us in the middle, they'd make that $105 a week, et al, eligible for a tax deduction.
I'm glad he didn't sign it.
And when are they gonna stop taxing smokers?? Talk about government sticking its hand in other people's business and trying to dictate what to do....it'd serve them right if every smoker stopped.

so...am I correct in assuming that you are indifferent to the plight of families seeking health insurance who have a member with a pre-existing medical condition, are not eligible for a group plan offered by an employer, and or who live in one of the majority of states that have no cap on health care insurance premiums or a law requiring insurers to accept applicants who have pre-exisitng conditions, and cover them?

What kind of a country do you want to live in....one where people are bankrupted by illness....the politicians who you support were not willing to exempt them from bankruptcy "reform"....or a country like tiny Denmark...population under 6 million, or little Canada...with about 30 million residents....both of those countries manage to provide health coverage to all.....

Is the "tude....."I got mine"....really what I read in your post?

Guess the author:

Quote:

....I have commented before on the problems with <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000045.htm">central planning</a> in health care. I certainly am not convinced that a government-run system is the answer, but I do agree with Krugman that there are serious problems with our health insurance system, particularly in the market for individually-purchased (non-group) coverage.

After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland’s individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that “choice” wasn’t much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own.

We discovered that the <a href="https://www.carefirst.com/eSales/resultset.jsp?quid=_GYNwJ5DFQoPtm6bzSKgPycO_1093605424454">most generous plans</a> in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.

With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.

In the end, we decided to purchase a very high-deductible plan (sold by Golden Rule Insurance Co.) coupled with a tax-sheltered Medical Savings Account (MSA). We couldn’t qualify for the preferred rate because Golden Rule says I am underweight. Hmph! In any case, while Krugman and most Democrats don’t seem to like MSAs, in our case we were glad they were an option....

...and the "husband" mentioned above, is somewhat of an expert on health economics:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/m/malkin_jesse_d.html

aceventura3 · 10-15-2007, 12:50 PM

It is pretty ironic that today the winners of the Nobel Prize in economics won on the basis of thier work in Mechanism Design and Game Theory, given my comments on the complications within this Child Health Care issue along with how the program incentives may prove to keep poor people from getting ahead. It is very possible the work these men have done can quantify these concerns while some pretend these issues are not real and have a real impact on the efficiency of the system for the parties involved.

Quote:

Mechanism design design is a sub-field of game theory. The general goal is to design the rules of a game in order to achieve a desirable outcome. This is done by setting up a game structure where each agent has an incentive to behave as the designer intends. Since agents are strategic and are equipped with own goals, resources and information, there are often bounds on what the designer can achieve. Numerous applications were made to areas such as non-linear pricing, optimal taxaomgtion, auction design, two-sided matching, the provision of public goods, the design of market places, contract design, voting schemes and constitutional design. James Mirlees and William Vickrey were awarded the Nobel Prize for their contributions to the area. There are still many open problems: a complete understanding of mechanism design with multidimensional type spaces (e.g., in non-linear pricing), the construction of a revenue maximizing auction for several heterogeomgneous goods, the construction of an unified model for public finance (taxation and provision of public goods). Due to the increased use of online trading tools, there is also an increased interest in the algorithmic and informational complexity of proposed mechanisms and outcomes.

http://www.mathematics.uni-bonn.de/r...chanismDesign/

and another description:

Quote:

The three winners "laid the foundations of mechanism design theory," which plays a central role in contemporary economics and political science, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said.

Essentially, the three men, starting in 1960 with Mr. Hurwicz, studied how game theory can help determine the best, most efficient method for allocating resources, the academy said.

Their research has helped explain decision-making procedures involved in economic transactions including, for example, what insurance polices will provide the best coverage without inviting misuse.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1192..._us_whats_news

And the description from the Nobel Prize Comitte:

Quote:

Adam Smith’s classical metaphor of the invisible hand refers to how the market, under ideal conditions, ensures an efficient allocation of scarce resources. But in practice conditions are usually not ideal; for example, competition is not completely free, consumers are not perfectly informed and privately desirable production and consumption may generate social costs and benefits. Furthermore, many transactions do not take place in open markets but within firms, in bargaining between individuals or interest groups and under a host of other institutional arrangements. How well do different such institutions, or allocation mechanisms, perform? What is the optimal mechanism to reach a certain goal, such as social welfare or private profit? Is government regulation called for, and if so, how is it best designed?

These questions are difficult, particularly since information about individual preferences and available production technologies is usually dispersed among many actors who may use their private information to further their own interests. Mechanism design theory, initiated by Leonid Hurwicz and further developed by Eric Maskin and Roger Myerson, has greatly enhanced our understanding of the properties of optimal allocation mechanisms in such situations, accounting for individuals’ incentives and private information. The theory allows us to distinguish situations in which markets work well from those in which they do not. It has helped economists identify efficient trading mechanisms, regulation schemes and voting procedures. Today, mechanism design theory plays a central role in many areas of economics and parts of political science.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/...onomics-prize/

At the very least thought should be put into government programs regarding maximizing bottom line benefits to government and users of government programs and understanding the consequence of various incentives built into those programs.

dc_dux · 10-15-2007, 01:08 PM

ace...its an interesting model, but what you seem to be acknowledging is that you cant prove your contention that SCHIP is a program with disincentives to keep working class families from getting ahead, but at some point in the future, this model may validate your to-date unsubstantiated claim?

Cool.....let me know when you can prove it.

flstf · 10-17-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am catching on to the pretense of the Democratic party and how they "care" about poor people. They can keep their programs designed to entrap the poor into staying poor by adding layers of disincentives to earn income and accumulate assets or to turn them into people who have cheat/game the system

I think I read that in all but three states a family's assets are not considered at all in determining eligibility for SCHIP. Didn't the bill's supporters recently have a news media event with a child receiving SCHIP who's parents had over $200,000 in assets including a house, 3 cars and a business? Also this family already qualifies for SCHIP under the existing program without expanding it. It does not seem fair to force taxpayers of lesser means to subsidize people with such large assets as well as expand the program to those of even higher incomes.

dc_dux · 10-17-2007, 12:22 PM

The only thing correct in the right wing smear of this family is that assets are generally not considered in determining SCHIP eligibility...and this family's circumstances demonstrate why.

The two kids were severely injured in a car accident and both left comatose with brain injuries. The family had an income of about $45,000. The family "business" was the father's self-employed "business" as a carpenter. The $200,000 house was bought 15 years ago at $55,000. The family had no health insurance to cover the aftercare of the kids.

They were eligible in MD based on income. Many states, including Maryland, operate the SCHIP program under the belief that a working class family should not be put in a position of having to sell their home to meet their medical costs.

In short, dont take every thing you read on right wing blogs literally or at least try to get a better understanding of both sides

flstf · 10-17-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

In short, dont take every thing you read on right wing blogs literally or at least try to get a better understanding of both sides

I haven't thought much about this bill until the recent veto and am trying to get a better understanding. As I understand it this program is meant to provide health care for children of the working poor. The following is a quote from the New York Times about the Frost family which is the example the supporters of the bill used recently.

Quote:

The family’s home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete.

Certainly the Frosts are not destitute. They also own a commercial property, valued at about $160,000, that provides rental income. Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking and as a welder, while Mrs. Frost has a part-time job at a firm that provides services to publishers of medical journals. Her job does not provide health coverage.

Under the Maryland child health program, a family of six must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify. The program does not require applicants to list their assets, which do not affect eligibility.

--clip--

Democrats, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, have risen to the Frosts’ defense, saying they earn about $45,000 a year and are precisely the type of working-poor Americans that the program was intended to help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/wa...RA&oref=slogin

It does not appear that this family should require taxpayer help to afford insurance. Couldn't they sell one of their three cars? Also dont they already qualify for SCHIP under the existing law without the new expanded bill that Bush just vetoed? Would they be able to have millions in assets and still qualify for SCHIP?

dc_dux · 10-17-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I haven't thought much about this bill until the recent veto and am trying to get a better understanding. As I understand it this program is meant to provide health care for children of the working poor. The following is a quote from the New York Times about the Frost family which is the example the supporters of the bill used recently.

It does not appear that this family should require taxpayer help to afford insurance. Couldn't they sell one of their three cars? Also dont they already qualify for SCHIP under the existing law without the new expanded bill that Bush just vetoed? Would they be able to have millions in assets and still qualify for SCHIP?

I dont know about the three cars (they only appear in right wing blogs and could all be junkers if they exist at all), but as the NY Times article noted, they were turned down by three private insurance companies because of the pre-existing conditions of the kids. The income from their commercial property contributes to theiR total income of about $50,000. They have one alternative to SCHIPs, until the father can get a full time job with employer coverage (which would likely still be denied because of pre-existing conditions)....sell their home.

I dont wish that on any working class family and that would include families with income marginally higher than this family of six who would be covered under the new bill.

As an aside, I dont like either party using kids as political props.

I didnt like it when Bush, on vetoing the embryonic stem cell bill, surrounded himself with kids who were born from "adopted" frozen embryos and declared "These boys and girls are not spare parts....They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research."

And I dont like the way the Dems used the son in this family.

aceventura3 · 10-18-2007, 07:46 AM

My sympathies go out for the Frost family, they should not have been used in this debate and they should not be subject to personal attacks, some untruths, and the public display of their personal financial information. It is undignified.

Regardless of where the truth is with the Frost family, the point remains that in many cases having or purchasing private health care is a choice. People can choose to work for employers that provide coverage or not, and they can choose to purchase the coverage or not. DC's persistence in pretending that putting a free government health care program in the "mix" plays no role in the decision making of families makes me think he is arguing the point just for the sake of being disagreeable. I can not quantify the extent it happens with accuracy, but it does.

Regardless, the indignity of the program is also unacceptable in my opinion. The Frost's indignity is national news, but on a smaller scale families often have to go through similar indignities to qualify for this and other programs. Again, we should be a nation that is willing to provide or make sure health care is available to all of our children with no questions asked.

dc_dux · 10-18-2007, 08:00 AM

ace....thanks for telling me why I support an incredibly successful health care program for children as a "stop-gap" safety net for millions of kids, the vast majority of whom are in the program for 3 years or less.... far greater in number than those whose parents may abuse or choose to become dependent on the program (that you conveniently cant quantify).

....that my motive is "just for the sake of being disagreeable".

Thanks also for posting the Chicago Trib article. It exposed another myth that Bush perpetuated when he misled the American people (lied?) about the program in his radio address following his veto:

Quote:

"Congress's SCHIP plan is an incremental step toward their goal of government-run health care for every American. Government-run health care would deprive Americans of the choice and competition that comes from the private market. ...It would replace the doctor-patient relationship with dependency on bureaucrats in Washington, D.C."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20071006.html

The MYTH:

The State Children's Health Insurance Program is government-run health care.

THE REALITY

About three-quarters of the 6 million children enrolled in the program receive care through managed- care plans. These plans are run by private companies and provide services largely through networks of private hospitals and doctors.

The federal government pays about 70 percent of the bills; the states pay the rest. The states have had considerable flexibility in deciding who is eligible for the program, what benefits are offered and how the program is structured.

The program's insurance coverage is "much more similar to private insurance coverage than 'government run' programs like the Veterans Administration," says a recently published brief by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...8.story?page=2

aceventura3 · 10-18-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....thanks for telling me why I support an incredibly successful health care program for children as a "stop-gap" safety net for millions of kids, the vast majority of whom are in the program for 3 years or less.... far greater in number than those whose parents may abuse or choose to become dependent on the program (that you conveniently cant quantify).

....that my motive is "just for the sake of being disagreeable".

Perhaps there was a reason you took my quote out of context. My comment was not about why you support the program but more specifically why you take the position that having access to free coverage would not give an incentive for some people to opt out of private coverage for public provided coverage.

I am sure I did not need to spell that out, but I did to make the point that either you clearly don't get what I write or you are purposefully being dense. Here is the full quote:

Quote:

Regardless of where the truth is with the Frost family, the point remains that in many cases having or purchasing private health care is a choice. People can choose to work for employers that provide coverage or not, and they can choose to purchase the coverage or not. DC's persistence in pretending that putting a free government health care program in the "mix" plays no role in the decision making of families makes me think he is arguing the point just for the sake of being disagreeable. I can not quantify the extent it happens with accuracy, but it does.

Quote:

Thanks also for posting the Chicago Trib article. It exposed another myth that Bush perpetuated when he misled the American people (lied?) about the program in his radio address following his veto:

The MYTH:

The State Children's Health Insurance Program is government-run health care.

THE REALITY

About three-quarters of the 6 million children enrolled in the program receive care through managed- care plans. These plans are run by private companies and provide services largely through networks of private hospitals and doctors.

The federal government pays about 70 percent of the bills; the states pay the rest. The states have had considerable flexibility in deciding who is eligible for the program, what benefits are offered and how the program is structured.

The program's insurance coverage is "much more similar to private insurance coverage than 'government run' programs like the Veterans Administration," says a recently published brief by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...8.story?page=2

Perhaps it is an issue of semantics. The government is paying for the program and the government sets the rules for qualification. I agree the government is not making medical related decisions.

host · 10-18-2007, 10:37 AM

On my last post here (#65), I attempted to spotlight the incoherent arguments of the fringe that includes Ms. Malkin....although she joined in the lockstep scapegoating of the Frost family of Baltimore (Our president himself, deliberately distorted the argument in his recent news conference....he said that <b>the bill that he had vetoed</b> provided children in families with $80k+ income, healthcare inurance subsidies...).... Malkin had also written this, concerning her own search for health insurance in Maryland:

Quote:

.....We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.

With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.....

Quote:

Press Conference by the President
Instead, Congress has made a decision to expand the eligibility up to $80000. That's not the intent of the program. The program was find poor children and ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070920-2.html

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101702108.html

.....Q: Who would be covered under the bill approved by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?

A: Under the bill, states could receive the full federal matching rate to cover children from families earning as much as three times the poverty level, <h3>or $61,950 for a family of four</h3>. States seeking to cover families with higher incomes would receive a less favorable federal matching rate. In either case, states would have to receive approval from the Bush administration to raise their eligibility levels that high.

About 70 percent of those who gain or retain coverage under the bill would be from families earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute. The analysis includes an assumption that some states would raise eligibility levels.....

...so, on such a serious issue, why is the president distorting the eligibility provisions in the bill that he vetoed, and why is Malkin harassing the Frosts in her attention getting, partisan endeavors, when she already was on record, admiting that she....with her family in good health, could not find fairly priced health insurance in the same state that the Frosts reside in?

Is there actually no sound argument here....is this simply an attempt to use childrens' health insurance as a pawn in an effort to prevent democratrs from being favorably perceived by "the people"?

What else could the reason be? Shouldn't the president know the main reasons he considered in vetoing the bill....if he did know them, why would he mislead us about the household income caps for federal assistance? If he was sincerely mistaken, why doesn't he admit it, and apologize?

aceventura3 · 10-18-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...so, on such a serious issue, why is the president distorting the eligibility provisions in the bill that he vetoed,

Under the provisions of the S-CHIP bill veto'd, what would have been the maximum income to qualify?

host · 10-18-2007, 10:53 AM

WaPo claims to provide the answer in the last quote box in my preceding post...

Quote:

Q: Who would be covered under the bill approved by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?

A: Under the bill, states could receive the full federal matching rate to cover children from families earning as much as three times the poverty level,
or $61,950 for a family of four
. States seeking to cover families with higher incomes would receive a less favorable federal matching rate. In either case, states would have to receive approval from the Bush administration to raise their eligibility levels that high.

...and ace....two weeks after the accusation in the following quote box, POS Bush is on record, distorting his reason for vetoing the bill, exactly as described (predicted ???) ....below:

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710...fset=20&show=1
#

They also didn't mention that this already is a compromise designed to get the GOP on board. The House bill wanted $50B for SCHIP and funded it in part with adjustments to the wholly unnecessary Medicare Advantage boondoggle.

* - eRobin / Wednesday October 3, 2007 09:59:01 PM EST
* - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

#

The administration talking point that, the expansion of this program will allow families who make over 80,000 to receive SCHIP is an outright lie. I fail to see why the press doesn't call them on this. The SCHIP program gives states the ability to set income limits on coverage. THe 83,000 figure came from New York states proposal to increase the ceiling to 400% of poverty level. That proposal was dismissed by the administration and now they try to use it in a disingenious attempt to make us believe that such a figure will be the norm. Lies, lies, lies. But of course, to hear Bush, it is the Democrats fault that children will be shortchanged needed healthcare because they want to increase funding for the program. Huh????????? January 2009 cannot get her quick enough. This man, Bush, the chicken hawk coward, needs to disappear into obscurity in the brush piles of his sucky ranch.

* - achrispage6992 / Thursday October 4, 2007 07:56:21

Quote:

Press Conference by the President
Instead, Congress has made a decision to expand the eligibility up to $80000. That's not the intent of the program. The program was find poor children and ...
hhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0070920-2.html

...and Bush distorted, on Sept. 20, and yesterday:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20071017.html

.....Q You talked about sprinting to the finish, and then you also, just a moment ago, sounded a bit resigned to the fact that if legislators don't move there's not much you can do. So --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm doing it right now, see -- not to interrupt you -- but it's called the bully pulpit. And I hope to get your -- I was trying to get your attention focused on the fact that major pieces of legislation aren't moving, and those that are, are at a snail's pace. And I hope I did that. I hope I was able to accomplish that.

Q One on veterans, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead -- he hasn't asked his question. I rudely interrupted him.

Q Do you feel as if you're -- do you feel as if you're losing leverage, and that you're becoming increasingly irrelevant? And what can you do about that to --

THE PRESIDENT: Quite the contrary. I've never felt more engaged and more capable of helping people recognize -- American people recognize that there's a lot of unfinished business. And I'm really looking forward to the next 15 months. I'm looking forward to getting some things done for the American people. And if it doesn't get done, I'm looking forward to reminding people as to why it's not getting done.

But I'm confident we can get positive things done. I mean, you shouldn't view this as somebody who says, well, this is impossible for Congress and the President to work together; quite the contrary. I just named some areas where we have worked together. And we're going to have to work together. We have to make sure our troops get the money they need. We have to make sure America is protected.

Having said that, I'm not going to accept a lousy bill, and the American people don't want there to be a lousy bill on this issue. The American people want to know that our professionals have the tools necessary to defend them. See, they understand al Qaeda and terrorism is still a threat to the security of this country. In other words, they're still out there, and they're still plotting and planning. And it's in our interest to have the tools necessary to protect the American people. It's our most solemn duty.

So there's a lot of areas where we can work together. This just happens to be a period of time when not much is happening. And my job is to see if I can't get some of that movement in the right direction, and at the same time, make sure that we're part of the process. And one way the executive branch stays a part of the process is to issue veto threats and then follow through with them. And so that's what you're going to see tomorrow, as to whether or not the Congress will sustain my veto on a bill that I said I would veto, and explained why I'm vetoing it.

And again, I want to repeat it so the American people clearly understand: One, there are half a million children who are eligible under this program but aren't being covered today; two, states are spending -- some states are spending more money on adults than children. That doesn't make any sense if you're trying to help poor children.

By the way, in Medicaid, we spend about $35 billion a year on poor children. So if somebody is listening out there saying, well, they don't care about poor children, they ought to look at the size -- the amount of money we're spending under Medicaid for poor children.

<h3>And finally, to increase eligibility up to $83,000, in my judgment, is an attempt by some in Congress to expand the reach of the federal government in medicine.</h3> And I believe strongly in private medicine. Now, I think the federal government ought to help those who are poor, and it's one of the reasons why I work so hard on Medicare reform, is to make sure that we fulfill our promise to the elderly. But I don't like plans that move people from -- encourage people to move from private medicine to the public. And that's what's happening under this bill. And so I'm looking forward to working with the Congress to make sure the bill does what it's supposed to do.

Listen, thank you all for your time. I enjoyed it.

THE END 11:32 A.M. EDT

...one thing about our failed president....he says what he means...and, if his lips are movin'.....you can bet he's......

aceventura3 · 10-18-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

WaPo claims to provide the answer in the last quote box in my preceding post...

No it does not.

Technically there is no maximum. Practically the maximum is controlled by the President. Currently NJ has approval for 350%. NJ is an exception, but 350% of poverty is real. I am not sure what Bush needs to apologize for.

Again, this program is simply to complicated and needs to be re-worked.

Quote:

Currently, 18 states and the District of Columbia have eligibility levels above 200 percent of the poverty level. New Jersey is the highest at 350 percent. No other state is above 300 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101702108.html

P.S. - Isn't poverty levels in Hawaii and Alaska higher than the rest of the nation? What are their rates for qualification? Where does their income levels fall?

host · 10-18-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No it does not.

Technically there is no maximum. Practically the maximum is controlled by the President. Currently NJ has approval for 350%. NJ is an exception, but 350% of poverty is real. I am not sure what Bush needs to apologize for.

Again, this program is simply to complicated and needs to be re-worked.

P.S. - Isn't poverty levels in Hawaii and Alaska higher than the rest of the nation? What are their rates for qualification? Where does their income levels fall?

ace....Bush is on record, yesterday, lying about the income provisions of the bil that was actually passed....and, as you said....he himself controls the approval proxess for states asking for higher income limits wothout federal reimbursment penalties....if Bush or his HEW department reject an appeal for higher income eligibility, and a state approves aid to wealthier families, Bush has the power to limit federal reimbursment....so he deliberately distorted the reason for his veto and the terms of the actual bill passed by congress.

The reason you can say that Bush says what he means, is because you don't "grok" what he says, vs. reality......

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/wa...dba&ei=5087%0A
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 17, 2007

Mr. Bush said Monday that the bill would expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000.

But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and an architect of the bill, said Tuesday that the president’s argument was specious. “About 92 percent of the kids will be under 200 percent of the poverty level,” Mr. Hatch said at a news conference with supporters of the bill, including the singer Paul Simon.

<h3>Another Republican author of the bill, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the White House claims were “flatly incorrect.”</h3>

States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.

In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.

States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.

While the bill passed by Congress would not prohibit states from setting the income limit at $82,600, it would set stringent new standards for such coverage.

In general, after Oct. 1, 2010, a state could not receive any federal money to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level unless a vast majority of its low-income children — those at or below 200 percent of the poverty level — were already covered. To meet this test, a state would have to show that the proportion of its low-income children with insurance was at least equal to the average for the 10 states with the highest rates of coverage of low-income children.

Moreover, if a state was allowed to cover children over 300 percent of the poverty level, the federal payment for those children would, in most cases, be reduced. New Jersey and New York would be exempt from the cuts if they met the bill’s other requirements.

Citing that provision, the White House said Oct. 6 that the bill included a “grandfather clause” allowing higher payment rates for children above 300 percent of the poverty level in New Jersey and New York.

Jocelyn A. Guyer, a researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said: “This is a wildly contentious political issue, but it’s largely a theoretical question. More than 99 percent of children in the program are below three times the poverty level, and New York is the only state that has expressed any interest in going to four times the poverty level.”

Suzanne Esterman, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that 3,000 of the 124,000 children in the state program — about 2.4 percent — had family incomes exceeding three times the poverty level....

aceventura3 · 10-18-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....Bush is on record, yesterday, lying about the income provisions of the bil that was actually passed....and, as you said....he himself controls the approval proxess for states asking for higher income limits wothout federal reimbursment penalties....if Bush or his HEW department reject an appeal for higher income eligibility, and a state approves aid to wealthier families, Bush has the power to limit federal reimbursment....so he deliberately distorted the reason for his veto and the terms of the actual bill passed by congress.

The reason you can say that Bush says what he means, is because you don't "grok" what he says, vs. reality......

Wait a minute, as the S-CHIP program is currently configured one state has requirements of 350% of poverty, the new law passes and Bush would have to go to NJ and say reduce your income max. of 350%...yea right. Bush haters win either way. Because:

Quote:

New Jersey's SCHIP program is facing an estimated $150 million shortfall in fiscal year 2007, which could result in some children losing benefits under the program, the Bergen Record reports.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=40130

Here is a chart from NJ:

http://www.njfamilycare.org/pages/whatItCosts.html

P.S. - Hey - DC, assume you live in NJ, have 3 children and have a household income of $60,000. Your employer offers coverage that would cost an additional $250 per month for your children with a $1,000 per year deductible and a $50 co-pay. Do you stay with your private employer plan for your children or do you opt for the NJFamilyCare?

10-09-2007, 02:01 PM	#43 (permalink)
MrTia Tilted	i actually agree about the tobacco tax. it's ill-considered and i'd like to see the bill funded some other way. (and no, i don't smoke.) taxing the HMOs seems fair to me, they're making a killing, if you'll pardon the expression. but they've got such a lobbying presence i doubt the demos would be able to find the brass ones to take them on. __________________ The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity. -- Bruce Lee

10-10-2007, 07:15 AM	#48 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....I agree with your perfect plan in a perfect world, but we're not there yet and SCHIP has been incredibly successful. There is no reason why we cant reauthorize this bill, and at the same time, start a serious national debate leading to Congressional action on your plan., Until then, I side with the 69 senators, 265 representatives, 43 governors, most medical associations, most child advocacy organizations, and most Americans that SCHIP is not crap. And I havent heard any governors (or state health officials), doctors, or patients complain that SCHIP is too complex. What do you know that they dont know? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-10-2007 at 07:25 AM..

10-10-2007, 07:36 AM	#51 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I understand its overly complicated to you. You dont seem to accept that those who administer and participate in the program dont share your concern. And I'm done here. There is no point in going round and round on this. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-15-2007, 06:25 AM	#62 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I dont think there is a program that has come out of Washington that is not inadequate at some level to some persons or groups. I disagree with what you find as inadequate with SCHIP and I dont believe in killing what I (and 43 governors, most medical associations, most child advocacy associations, and most SCHIP program participants) believe has been an incredibly successful program... until a better one is on the table to replace it. In the end, thats what we both want... a better program to ensure that every child has adequate health insurance. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-15-2007 at 06:37 AM..

10-15-2007, 06:49 AM	#64 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ngdawg....we obviously disagree on the government role in ensuring that every American (children first) have access to affordable health insurance. I've given my reasons for supporting SCHIP until I see a better program proposed. I really dont have anything to add to what I've posted throughout this thread. Its unfortunate (shameful...irresponsible) that there has been no meaningful health care reform proposal to come out of either party in 10 years. The best we can hope for (and demand) is that the issue is given much more serious attention in the 08 election and the voters hold the candidates accountable. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-10-2007, 07:18 AM	#49 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I don't see whats wrong with the tobacco tax. It helps health care 2 ways. First it generates money for the SCHIP program, second it could potentially lower the number of smokers in the future lowering health care costs. Of course eventually if people stop smoking a different tax would have to be implemented. Hell I think we should legalize pot and tax it fairly high.

10-10-2007, 03:07 PM	#56 (permalink)
SpottedThinker Banned	As much as I love the Daily Show I think that clip was quite misleading. After I looked through this thread and read up a bit I realized that making Bush look like Scrooge for denying children healthcare is a vast simplification of the issue. Oh for the day when the government gives out vouchers for high quality nutrition (organic produce) rather than antibiotics... then maybe we'd actually solve the public health crisis rather than making it worse. With more care, people become more dependent.

10-15-2007, 01:08 PM	#67 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...its an interesting model, but what you seem to be acknowledging is that you cant prove your contention that SCHIP is a program with disincentives to keep working class families from getting ahead, but at some point in the future, this model may validate your to-date unsubstantiated claim? Cool.....let me know when you can prove it. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-17-2007, 12:22 PM	#69 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The only thing correct in the right wing smear of this family is that assets are generally not considered in determining SCHIP eligibility...and this family's circumstances demonstrate why. The two kids were severely injured in a car accident and both left comatose with brain injuries. The family had an income of about $45,000. The family "business" was the father's self-employed "business" as a carpenter. The $200,000 house was bought 15 years ago at $55,000. The family had no health insurance to cover the aftercare of the kids. They were eligible in MD based on income. Many states, including Maryland, operate the SCHIP program under the belief that a working class family should not be put in a position of having to sell their home to meet their medical costs. In short, dont take every thing you read on right wing blogs literally or at least try to get a better understanding of both sides __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-17-2007 at 12:35 PM..

10-18-2007, 07:46 AM	#72 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	My sympathies go out for the Frost family, they should not have been used in this debate and they should not be subject to personal attacks, some untruths, and the public display of their personal financial information. It is undignified. Regardless of where the truth is with the Frost family, the point remains that in many cases having or purchasing private health care is a choice. People can choose to work for employers that provide coverage or not, and they can choose to purchase the coverage or not. DC's persistence in pretending that putting a free government health care program in the "mix" plays no role in the decision making of families makes me think he is arguing the point just for the sake of being disagreeable. I can not quantify the extent it happens with accuracy, but it does. Regardless, the indignity of the program is also unacceptable in my opinion. The Frost's indignity is national news, but on a smaller scale families often have to go through similar indignities to qualify for this and other programs. Again, we should be a nation that is willing to provide or make sure health care is available to all of our children with no questions asked. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."