Against wishes of country, congress, Bush vetoes healthcare bill for poor children
 

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?

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

Kids Don't Know Bush Hates Them

Hahaha all I had to read in the first one.

I hear he eats babies too.

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

Hilary will save me no doubt!

:lol:

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.

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.

News flash, poor kids already get free healthcare.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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???????

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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???????

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 :)

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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:
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" .

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. :eek:

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?

Technically you are correct. Harry Reid said the following:

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.


I don't support the program period. We can do better.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

:thumbsup:

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

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]

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 :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

Do you think what I listed is or was a complete list of the complaints?

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:

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.

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.

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?"

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.

Fair enough.
Only because people in Washington have made the choice not to make it an option.

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.

By choice.

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.

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. :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

and another description:

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

And the description from the Nobel Prize Comitte:

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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". :thumbsup:

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 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:

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.

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:

...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?

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

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

...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:

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

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

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.

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?

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:

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

Here is a chart from NJ:

http://www.njfamilycare.org/images/I...eetEnglish.jpg

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?

You must have missed this:

"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."


...and the quotes in the NY Times articke from two republican senators, and the other info in the article that indicates that Bush's veto has nothing to do with the reason he claimed....he's jsut playing politics.....he would have spun it the opposite way if it served his purpose. He never vetoed any bill in six years....he set a record in his dearth of vetoes. Now, he distorts the facts to veto this bill. The bill authorized his execiutive agency to cut funding to any state that exceeds HEW guidelines for income caps....he told the world that families with $83,000 income would be eligible....he made it seem as if that was a new provision of the SCHIP bill, and if he signed it, families with $83.000 income woild newly become eligible for assistance, and that would be that........ and.....it isn't true......

This is Bush's actual quote from the link you provided:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070920-2.html

I don't know how he came up with $83,000, but he did not specifically mention a family of four constituting 2 adults and 2 children. And even the current program, there is coverage for children in households actually above $83,000. So if that is your big "gotcha", you "gottem". In either case Bush's comment is not specific, and seems wrong, but in theory is correct. For the sake of argument, I agree Bush mislead people who took him literally.

Way to go.:thumbsup:

ace....you demonstrated once again that you dont know how SCHIPs works. Perhaps it is too complicated for you, as you have said repeatedly.

If an employer in NJ provides health coverage, an employee cannot opt out for the NJFamilyCare (SCHIP in NJ.) The program may, on a waiver request, subsidize that employee's premium payments in the employer's plan, if qualified.

Oh Mr. Master of the S-CHIP program...you demonstrated once again that you are naive in terms of how the real world works. Perhaps you are incapable of understanding that A) like I have repeated several times that this bill (and others like it) encourage ordinarily honest people to become "cheats" and B) the system gives people an incentive to move from the private sector to the public sector.

Oh, Mr. Master of the S-CHIP program do you honestly believe there are no people in NJ or any other state taking advantage of S-CHIP when they could have coverage for their children in the private sector?

Oh, Mr. Master of the S-CHIP program do you honestly believe there are no people in NJ or any other state who have decided to work for an employer not offering health care coverage over an employer who does because S-CHIP is available?

Oh, Mr. Master of the S-CHIP program do you honestly believe there are no people in NJ or any other state who have decided against, let's say marriage with their significant other, because they might loose coverage under the S-CHIP program?

This is getting boring. I bet you think unemployment compensation doesn't affect how soon a person gets new employment. Perhaps you and a few of your buddies in Washington should go to NJ and talk to people to get an understanding of how a person can actually make a choice between the NJFamilyCare and private coverage.

You really should get out more. Spend some time away from pseudo-intellectuals and the ivory towers where you guys drink those chocolate chip double frappuchino lattes with light whip cream. Live a little. Take some risks. Have some fun.

ace....I've never claimed to be an expert on SCHIP, but I've taken the time to learn about the program in light of the ongoing debate between Congress and the WH because I think its an important public policy issue.

I'm sorry you are not interested in doing same and learning how the program works, including the safeguards to minimize (not prevent completely) cheats, frauds and abusers.

Using your NJ example, do you really believe that a person would quit a $60,000 job because the insurance premiums are $3,000/year in order to take a job at a lower salary with a company that offers no insurance....simply to quality for SCHIP? If the new job paid less than $57,000...it would be a net loss for that worker.

BTW, I know there are cheats and abusers of most government programs. Bu t there is no evidence that these cheats represent even a sizable minority of the participants.

I have to admit....this one from the floor of the House yesterday made me laugh:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...schipking3.jpg

Congress and the WH will negotiate a compromise SCHIP bill in the next few weeks, because the program, despite its shortcomings, has demonstrated proven success recognized by both sides of the aisle and by all those who have some personal connection with the program.

It will probably be in the range of $14-$15 billion, the amount the non-partisan CBO reported was necessary to maintain current level of program eligibility.

Are you saying you have taken the time time learn about the program but I have not?

Have you suggested that after all that I have posted that I know nothing about the way the program works?

Are these implications the basis of a civil/constructive exchange of ideas?

I don't expect answers to those questions and I simply point this issue out in case you ever want to know why a discussion with me or some others may deteriorate. As we have learned one major difference between you and me is you see things in shades of gray, including the way you make personal attacks and I see things in black and white, including the way I make personal attacks. And your last post was another personal attack.

ace...IMO, if you knew how the program works, you would not have posted this:
Because persons who have employer coverage cannot opt out in order to be eligible for SCHIP...there are no shades of gray.

If the manner in which I corrected that fallacy appeared uncivil to you or others, I apologize.

In any case, the SCHIP will be reauthorized in the coming weeks and I think its a good thing....until Congress gets their act together and focuses on a better long term solution and that certainly wont happen until after the 08 election.

So for now, its SCHIP or nothing. I prefer SCHIP.

I also posted this #38:

And I posted this #50:

I certainly don't know the detailed requirements in all 50 states or even one state. I am betting no one person does. But, like I said people can figure it out. So unless you understand, right now, how the program works in all 50 states, you help prove my point.



We define "opt out" in different ways. A person making a choice where they could have private coverage compared to a choice where they don't have private coverage but qualify for S-CHIP has "opted out" of the private sector based on my definition. A couple deciding not to get married because they may not qualify for S-CHIP, has "opted out" of the private sector. There are thousands of other possible examples. Perhaps you can define what you mean when you say "opt out"

I apologize to you as well. However, I still wonder if you understand. I certainly understand my personal attack against you. I am not a sensitive person and like I said, I just point it out in case you desire an increased understanding. I often find it ironic how, as a conservative, I am expected to take personal attacks without response and how my response is considered out of line but not the initial attack. I saw a segment of a floor speech on the S-CHIP bill were a Congressman stated that Bush was sending children to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his amusement. Democrats say that and then expect civil discourse.

As I have stated many times, it could be better. If I were a leader in Congress I would send my ideal bill to be veto'd before sending a compromise.

That is a false choice. There are other options.

In theory, there are always other options.

In practical political terms, there are no other options on the table or being contemplated by the WH or Congressional Republicans other than tinkering with the SCHIP funding level and other minor alterations.

For now, its some variation of SCHIP reauthorization or nothing....thats real politics, like it or not.

To bad it is completely dishonest using a bunch of words to scare conservatives "Socialized" "Clinton" "Hilary" "Illegal's and their Parents". Of course it is not socialized medicine, Clinton really has little to do with this, and in order to qualify you have to PROVE you have legal status. Also legal immigrants aren't eligible until they have lived in the US for 5 years.

What was the intent of this comment? Is it honest?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303119,00.html

That seemed to me like a comment by someone who had gotten so frustrated that he snapped and just went off. Should he have done it? No. Do I think people took him seriously and believe what he said? No. I don't think our president is amused by the deaths of Americans but I do think the priority of the troops lives is below keeping his friends in power, making his friends and himself richer, and his own pride.

What friends? Bush has almost had a complete turnover in his Cabinet. The current crop of Republican candidates are keeping an arms length from him. Bush was not helpful in keeping his party in control of Congress. On the world stage, especially if you believe his critics, he has no respect from other world leaders. Haliburton is moving its world headquarters to the Middle East, not that he was ever directly involved with the company. Regardless - if what you say is true, our nation has truly reached a low point - to think one man can take us to war for his own benefit or the benefit of his "friends" and in a way you seem to agree with Rep. Stark.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. After 9/11 he saw his chance so he blamed 9/11 on Saddam and went in. I don't know all of the reasons he went in but we do know that every reason that he gave us was a lie. Saddam did not have WMD, Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda or responsible for 9/11. Saddam was not a threat to the US. We know that he purposefully lied and cherry picked evidence in order to push the US into war (remember the 16 words). Now thanks to the Neocon's war the middle east is less secure, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, our military is breaking, our economy is crashing, and we are debt has grown at ridiculous rates.

The world and specifically the US would have been better off if we had never invaded Iraq. Sure we killed a bad guy but at what cost? How many more bad guys have we created?

Did Bush do this alone? No he had the help of the Neocon's, complicit Republicans, and the Necon news network (Fox News). They used fear to drive the US into a war that was unnecessary and keep us there. Was it for oil? Was it because of an irrational fear of muslims? I don't know but we are there and it all rests squarely on the shoulders of one man. George W Bush. He was the decider and he decided poorly. In the end he was the boss he made the mistakes and in my view he violated the damned piece of paper (ie constitution) over and over. He is the worst president this nation has ever had and I pray that the next president and congress will work together in order to limit the ability of one man to destroy this nation.

What is to stop families from opting out of their job's health care so they can pocket that money and then using this government plan? Is there any reason for personal accountablity?

Wow people still saying Bush lied about WMDS? I guess all the Democrats, especially the ones like Kerry in the Senate Intellegence comittee that approved the information saying Saddam had WMDs. And can you please quote were Bush said Saddam was linked to 9/11 and Al Queda? Thank you.

Do you live in a box? The reason the senate said saddam had WMDs is because they were presented false and missleading evidence saying there was WMDs. They were not shown the entire picture as that was reserved for Bush and his croneys. As for the 9/11 Al Qaeda link look at the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html

or how about from the horses mouth:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

So you mean the Houe Intellegence committee, the one who's job it is is to oversee our integence was tricked by the great dummie Bush? Come on.... You do realize that Saddam was leading the weapon's inspectors on a wild goose chase while flouting the Food for Oil program AND illegally selling weapons to half the security council of the un? Saddam was a bad person that needed to be taken out. My only problem is that it took so long to acheive results. This should have been happening from the moment the major bombing stopped.

Did you read your own links?

I wouldn't say tricked i'd say they were lied to and misslead. America was being pushed via a dangerous level of patriotism to not question anything Bush said and we paid for it.

Sure Saddam was bad, no one is saying he wasn't. I'm just not sure if Iraq or the world is better off now. And while were taking out bad people I think we should look at Saudi Arabia, Darfur, Burma, and many other nations. Why aren't you pushing to invade those countries?

again i'll quote the horses mouth and not Bush's back pedaling:

listen to any number of Cheney videos he is still saying it today.

A report to be released today by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the Iraq (and Afghanistan) war at $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years, including $750 billion in interest.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip

Yet, $35 billion over seven years ($5 bil/yr) to provide insurance for children of working class families is too much?

How fucked are those priorities?