SpottedThinker

I got these in my inbox, both are commenting on the healthcare funding that president Bush cut despite congress and the country being in favor of its continuance: This one is from Families USA and this one The Daily Show. Any other news on this?

dksuddeth

is it any wonder that insurance companies charge so damn much when they are being assured of monetary income from the government programs?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ustwo

Kids Don't Know Bush Hates Them

Hahaha all I had to read in the first one.

I hear he eats babies too.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

No, U2, he just eats the middle class like you.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Ustwo

Hilary will save me no doubt!

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

Hillary or someone else might be able to restore the value of the dollar and rescue your middle class life style. You can't possibly believe that you are one of the upper 10% that the neocon economic policy enriches?

Oh, my. You appear to be incapable of looking after your own interests, if it challenges your rigid ideology.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

SecretMethod70

To me, this is a question of values.

I'm all for debate regarding adult health care - whether it should be universal, private, public, single-payer, etc - but we're talking about children here.

As one of the most advanced nations in the world, we ought to be guaranteeing our children the healthcare they need. We ought to be looking out for their collective interests, because they are our future. We ought to be minimizing the prices they pay for mistakes made by their parents.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Ustwo

News flash, poor kids already get free healthcare.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

SecretMethod70

You ought to re-read my post...I'm not talking about just "poor kids." As a nation, we ought to guarantee that all kids have the best health care we can provide. Not to mention, just because someone doesn't come from a poor family, it doesn't mean that that family can easily pay for all their health needs, especially if it's a kid with serious issues.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

pan6467

I'm sorry but if we have governmentally guaranteed healthcare for children, I fear it would force the government to enact laws on what pregnant mothers could eat, drink, do... the parents would have to go to governmental approved parenting classes.... the parents would be dictated on how to raise the child and if they stray, the child could be taken.

I just fear we put too much power at the government's disposal over all this.

I have long said, we should have a sliding scale based on income type medical system.

The more power we give the government the fewer freedoms and personal choices we have.

I like to smoke and eat junk food. Other than my sarcoidosis (which is not a factor from either habit I have) I am in great shape and physical condition. Now, I know people who eat healthily and always have and they are dying from cancers, have bad hearts due to genetics or environment, etc. So, how can anyone tell me my lifestyle is more costly to the medical system than theirs?

Life is terminal, people will die, people will get sick, it happens to everyone, for us to turn over our choices to the government so "we can live healthier and thus medical care won't be so expensive" is bunk.

If the government states and makes into law that they cannot dictate to parents how to raise their children.... then I'm all for the healthcare, but I just don't see it happening. I see government passing laws right away dictating how to parent, who can parent and so on.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

SecretMethod70

Paying for necessary medical fees has nothing to do with telling people how to live their lives, and there's no reason the two should be linked. The government doesn't tell families who currently participate in SCHIP how to raise their kids.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

filtherton

If that were true than this wouldn't be an issue.

drego

Where does it say that anyone else's child is my problem? As a soon to be father, I provide for myself, my wife, AND my unborn child. They are MY responsibility. My responsibilities do not include ensuring that every other parent do their part to take care of their families.

It is as simple as, if you can't take care of it, don't create it.

~Drego

__________________
There is no such thing as "Bug Free" software....there is only software with an acceptable (and documented) level of failure.

Hack the Planet!!!!

filtherton

As long as we're asking questions about where the rules are written, where does it say that someone else's child isn't your problem?

JustJess

Drego, that is pretty limited thinking. I imagine that if you were to have a serious accident rendering you physically incapable of taking care of yourself or your family, you wouldn't be so quick to write off others and their need of help.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Baraka_Guru

I'm thinking that public healthcare, especially for those such as poor children, will one day be viewed as something automatic within a stable and democratic society. Kind of like such things as universal suffrage.

I hope they sort this out.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

flstf

My biggest problem with this bill is requiring only tobacco users to pay for it. Wouldn't it make more sense to pay for child health care with a tax on candy instead of tobacco?

I suspect this bill would loose a lot of its support if all taxpayers had to pay for it. It is easy to be in favor of spending other peoples money.

Ustwo

Yes because ever day 1000's and 1000's of poor children go without adequate medical care. You see their disease ridden bodies in the underfunded schools of the ghettos every day...

Oh wait they don't and you don't....

Without even bothering to read into it, this sounds like just something they want to use in the election. Having worked in public health care for 7 years, everything for poor kids was paid for.

Elphaba actually has a point in that the middle class is really the only ones getting hurt if they don't have insurance. Since I've always had insurance, even when I was making less than 15k a year, I go out on a limb and say most of the uninsured are uninsured because they would rather spend the money on something else. I'm not talking food but cable tv and cell phones for the kids. Heaven forbid people pay their own way, whats become a necessity is quite amusing if it wasn't so sad come election days.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dc_dux

Maybe you should read into the SCHIPs program. Even with your years of experience in public health care, it appears you dont know much about a program that has been around since 1998.

More than 6 million children of working class families have been covered by the SCHIPs program in the last 10 years.

Perhaps that is why you dont see their disease ridden bodies.

And contrary to what has been said here, the program is not free health care. The families pay premiums based on income as well as co-pays.

Both Dems and Repubs alike agree that it has been one of the most successful government programs in recent years. The debate is on how far to extend it to cover children of middle class families who otherwise do not have health insurance.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

filtherton

In 2005 there were 11.2 million children in the u.s. without health insurance, despite the fact that their existence wasn't obvious to you.

So what if you worked in public health for 7 years? Are you trying to claim that your experience was universal? Because that would be silly.

dc_dux

I suspect most taxpayers have no idea how the program is funded.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

It would only be a matter of time before child obesity from parents overfeeding their kids and costing too much taxpayer money, that we would then have laws on how much children could eat and what their diets will consist of.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

waltert

or we could just set standards that children have to meet by certain ages (intelligence, physical performance, etc) and those who do not meet the criteria must be euthanized.

drego

Man you touch a good point. It saddens me to think that you possibly could be sarcastic. Reproduction laws? Now that would be a step in a right direction.

It saddens me to think that you have such a limited, and pretty picture of the world. I have been in said serious accident, and not only did manage to get by just fine, I did it without the "good will" of other. As I said before, my responsibility is myself, and that means having the proper measures in place. My grandfather was fond of saying "Hope for the best, plan for the best." I sweat for every single one of my dollars, and I know where every single one of them goes. If tomorrow I wake up, and my job is gone, I have my fall back, which has nothing to do with hoping someone else feels guilty enough to support me.

There is a root to the problem: The Parents

Said spot on. As a parent, your priority needs to be your child. This might mean that you have to put down that bottle of whiskey, or go without your HD tele....but guess what, you spawned it, so you take care of it.

How IS it my problem? If it IS my problem then I have a say in how it is raised, the environment it is lives in, the actions of the people around it.

If you are saying that my responsibility is to help those less fortunate, then it is their responsibility to make sure that they get themselves into a position that they are not depending on me anymore. I know people who have more children, just so the monthly check from the government is bigger. And do you know what the father does with that check every month? I don't think I need to paint the picture.

Basically if it is my responsibility, then I have a say into the environment and upbringing of the child. I do not, therefore I don't.

Now on a different note, another interesting focus should be placed on the insurance companies. I'm not sure if anyone's ever worked with one, but having seen the guts of a company from the inside out, I can easily say that they are crooks, and are making money hand over fist.

For instance, did you know that it is cheaper (from an insurance standpoint) to be Male, Caucasia, AND a heavy smoke (over the age of 25 even) than it is to be female between the ages of 18-36 and in perfect health? Sure there's logic to that, as babies are expensive and those are prime child bearing years, but that still seems a little off to me.

~Drego

__________________
There is no such thing as "Bug Free" software....there is only software with an acceptable (and documented) level of failure.

Hack the Planet!!!!

filtherton

Since when has that ever been how it works? You pay taxes, the people we elect decide how to spend those taxes. It often doesn't work very well, but sometimes it does.

What's your point? There will always be people who are willing to game the system. That fact alone does not invalidate the system.

That's not how it works, and if it were than nothing would ever get done. Can you imagine how little would get done if everyone who contributed any amount of money to the government was entitled to micromanage every little aspect of how that money was spent?

On this, i agree with you.

pan6467

Like I said, as long as government doesn't tell parents how much Mcdonald's a kid can eat, how much time the child must be outdoors playing, how often he/she needs to go to the doctor, that the parents cannot smoke around them OUTSIDE, that if the child breaks their arm outside while climbing a tree, the parents aren't charged with neglect or forced to take some form of classes, that the child has to take vitamins, has to eat a certain diet, has to be tested for ADD/ADHD... etc...then I am by all means for it.

The problem that we see is once we give the government a power they absorb rights, rename them privileges and start to dictate what we can do.

I guarantee that their will be a movement in government that will demand better parenting and classes and on and on because the child's healthcare is too expensive and it is because of poor diets and poor parenting.

I am a liberal but I am opposed to more government in my life. Once we indoctrinate our kids to believe that 1) government is there to take care of them = they will always expect it 2) the government will keep increasing their holds on future generations taking more and more rights.... errr privileges.... err bad choices away, until our progeny are no more than workers with no minds and doing the government's bidding without question and because of the fear that government will take away everything.

I'm sorry that doesn't sound like FREEDOM to me.

Call me a reactionary or a pessimist but given government's history, I think I'm being generous with how much time it will take.

I still have yet to see a good decent argument against a sliding scale healthcare system, based on income and ability to pay.

Why is that not discussed? Why is it all or nothing???????

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

The_Jazz

This makes zero sense to me. Absolutely none. Sorry, but women's healthcare is more expensive primarily because they get it more regularly than most men. Childbirth is certainly an added expense, but most women are militant about seing their OB/GYN every year like clockwork.

Men, especially under 40, are much less likely to have regular doctors visits.

If you've seen insurance from the "inside", you know that it's a pure numbers game. If you don't, you weren't paying attention.

If you're male, caucasian and under 25, you pay more for auto insurance than anyone else. Does that seem off to you or does it seem like an acknowledgement of the fact that those guys are much more likely to be in an accident than anyone else? The models are exactly the same, so they have to translate from coverage to the other. And yes, the healthcare models ARE the same as the auto models when it comes to young drivers.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

waltert

I always have to have a sarcasm escape route in case the mob wants to lynch me.

although, certain exceptions for intelligent people would have to be made, it would be a shame for a man like Stephen Hawking to get nixed in the system.

I can see alot of benefits associated with controlled breeding, and elimination of those unfit for society...but I guess thats a little off topic.

yes, insurance is one of the biggest way to rob people blind...and if there's any way they can deny your claim, they will.

my mother had to take a life insurance company to court when my step-father died.

JohnBua

I thought Bush killed this bill cause it covered families that make up 83k a year. And Bush said, " find me a bill that covers the poor, not those making so much money and I will sign that."

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Is it a lie that the bill may lead to people currently covered to switch into this program? Is the intent to take the program from being a safety net for those in need to taking us one step further into national health care for children? If the goal is national heath care or insurance for all children, why not simply put that issue on the table? We already have many cases were the working poor are put in a situation were the loss of benefits and tax credits as their income increases puts them in the tough position of bing in the equivalent of perhaps a 50% or more marginal tax bracket. Perhaps the goal should be to put an end to this kind of madness.

__________________
"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."

dc_dux

Yes, it is a lie.

Low and moderate income families currently insured through an employer-funded program (or other pooled health insurance program) are NOT eligible for SCHIPs unless or until they loose their current health insurance program.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

MrTia

i dont know. is it? if the proponents of the veto have already mischaracterized the bill’s income threshold in order to justify their veto, how do we know they haven’t mischaracterized this as well? and then of course there’s the bigger issue: how can negotiations occur in good faith if one side is overtly trafficking in discredited information in order to sabotage the bill? it’s going to be very hard to negotiate in such an environment since one side is going to be dealing in false arguments in order to get their way?

__________________
The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity.
-- Bruce Lee

aceventura3

Not everyone may go from an employer-funded program, or other pooled program? For example there are millions of small business owners who purchase their own individual policies. Individual (family) heath insurance is a pretty big business.

P.S. - I guess I should not be surprised - people in Washington often overlook small business owners or people who don't work for large corporations and government.

See the above to DC. The assumption is that Bush automatically lies, rather than taking the time to understand the point. One of the points is that the law overly complicates such an important issue to families. If you make x and are in y circumstance you get z only if a is true and b is false and you live in state J. Then next year, if you move, get a higher paying job, get divorced... Why not say every child is covered, period? If that is what we want.

__________________
"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."

dc_dux

The problem is that most small business do not offer health benefits to employees. Many of these employees are the lower and middle income working families who would otherwise have to purchase family health insurance on their own, which costs about $10,000-12,000/year (for a family of four), a hefty amount for a family with income in the 30s and 40s.

These are the children intended to be covered by SCHIPs.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I was actually talking about the business owners themselves. Many are schedule C filers, many are considered independent contractors, not to mention the few remaining family farmers. Some of these small business may not even have employees. They often buy individual coverage. Some small business that do have employees can not afford to offer benefit packages at a level similar to large corporations. However, they often do provide certain advantages to employees that large corporations can not offer. Those small businesses that do offer health coverage, would want to consider not offering it if their employees could obtain affordable coverage offered by government.

Your statement that Bush lied on the issue of people moving from private coverage to public coverage under this bill is false.


I do agree there is a health care crisis in this country. I only suggest the issue be addressed directly. This bill seems to be more like a new program as opposed to a re-authorization.

If we want a new program I suggest it be done right. For example, under this bill - who is covered? What are the requirements for eligibility? Why have all or nothing - seems like a person may qualify in one year and be excluded the next based on a increment of $1 of income or $1 in assets, at a cost of $10k to $12 in private coverage, and every state has different rules?????????? And you think this is a good bill???????

__________________
"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."

dc_dux

The public overwhelming thinks the program is a good program and it has proven itself over the last 10 years to the point that even Bush wants to add $5 billion.

The only difference is that Bush wants to cap the program eligibility at twice the poverty level and Congress wants to build on the success and expand it to cover 3+ million more children of working class families without insurance and with incomes under $54k.

I will concede that Bush did not lie, but simply misrepresented the bill (because it sounds better than explaining the details), when he stated:

"Congress's plan would also transform a program for poor children into one that covers children in some households with incomes up to $83,000"
(the $83,000 applies in only two states, NY and NJ, at the request of thse states, on a case by case basis for a very very small number of catastrophic cases of uninsured families, estimated at less than 10/year).


Yes, I think its a very good bill

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I don't think people understand the potential impact. It is much more complicated than it needs to be. It has the potential to turn otherwise honest people into "cheats" (look at the example above if $1 is going to mean the loss of coverage, many otherwise honest people will hide the $1). Perhaps, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, it is good on the surface, but when a family at 3 times the poverty level plus $1 has a potential incremental cost of $12k, you have to be kidding if you think that is a good thing.

__________________
"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."

dc_dux

There were probably people who made $36,001 and "cheated" when the threshold was twice the poverty level in order to get health insurance for their children. The bottom line is their kids got covered.....a good thing

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

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?

Imagine a 16 year-old child in Texas (Texas one state I looked at, has household income and asset requirements). He gets a part-time job and that income causes him to lose coverage. Or, imagine he get a small inheritance for college or starts to save for college, and his assets causes him to lose coverage? And they call Bush's veto "heartless"? Wow! Again, Democrats don't get it.

__________________
"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."