Senate Health Care Bill Unveiled
 

From Electoral-Vote.com, a (really excellent) non-partisan political news outlet:

So I obviously haven't read the whole thing (nor, to be honest, do I plan to), but from the bullet points pulled out above, this bill meets my approval much more than the House bill. There's obviously all sorts of opportunity to water this thing down and turn it into the sort of toothless non-change that the House bill became, but where we're starting here is a pretty damn good place to start, I think.

I think we've been adequately over the general "pro" and "con" positions about health care reform. I'm interested in specific responses to the specific bullet points above from anti-health-reform people. In particular, ace, I'm curious about your response to the pro-small-business stuff listed above, and dksuddeth, I'm curious your response to the poverty-line-related subsidies and the fine for being uninsured.

I'll take a crack

This includes my entire inbred, meth-cooking, welfare-cheating neighborhood. Since all of these people are "disabled," they are all below this number, despite the fact that most of them live better than I do, supplementing their income by selling meth and prescription drugs, working under the table, drawing every manner of public assistance they qualify for, and cheating their churches. Why you or I should -further- subsidise people like this is completely beyond me.

Hmm. This one I have dual issues with. I think everyone should have access to healthcare, but requiring businesses to take on customers who are never going to be anything other than a money-pit is a big part of what got the whole Sub-Prime mess started. When you start requiring a business to take on guaranteed losses, those losses have to be made up somewhere, which almost always ends up driving up prices and fees and lowering the quality of service. Alternately, as was the case with the banking industry, business owners sometimes choose to attempt to make up the losses through risky business practices and investments; I'd hate to see a hospital go the way or Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers.

This is just plain stupid. A sick person costs more, and those costs are immediate. Larger risk pools spread the costs out more, but with an aging (and obese) population soon to need large amounts of expensive healthcare, we're again talking about forcing a company to take on "customers" who will never do anything but lose that company money. Saddle a company with too many such "customers," and that company goes under.

Because having 50+ employees automatically means that you can afford to provide coverage in such an environment (increased costs to pay for those money-pit "customers", remember) on profit margins that are probably already in single digits.

For which they will only qualify under certain tightly-dilineated circumstances (enough diversity, "proper" wages, etc) which will have to be proven and re-proven to keep some meddling pencil-pusher with a degree in Sociology and zero work or management experience happy. Fall outside of those criteria, and the credit will be withdrawn. The "credit" will probably end up being offset by tax increases in other areas anyway.

Because the best way to force somebody to buy something they can't afford or don't want is to charge them money they may not have. And why is it the Gov't job to force me to buy insurance anyway? Oh yes, so the insurer will have -somebody- who isn't sick to pay for all those diabetic Rotundimus Maximiii they've been forced to take on.

Now -these- two I have no problem with. My only issue is that this comes down to appealing a Gov't decision to a Gov't employee who sits on a Gov't panel. Those sorts of things rarely work out well; ask anybody who's ever had to "appeal" a ruling of the ATF, FBI, or DHS.

Except that plenty of knowledgeable people -do- believe it. When the insurance companies are forced to take on huge numbers of "customers" who never do anything but cost them money, at rates which cannot differ from those they charge customers who -make- them money, they cannot compete with an entity (the public "option") which is subsidised and backed by the power of the Fed to simply throw money at it. AIG cannot force people to pay for its' product if they don't want to or if they're not buying; the amount of loss they can absorb is directly governed by how much money they can make from people who make the decision to transact with them. The Gov't doesn't have to worry about that; if it takes a loss, they just raise taxes, borrow money, or print a few more trillion dollars to cover it. No private-sector business can compete with the Federal Gov't for this reason alone.

Because none of those companies are being forced to take on guaranteed losses while trying to compete with the public "option."


The net effects of this bill will be to at least severely damage, and probably destroy, private-sector health insurance in the United States. Given the past statements by Mr. Obama and his associates and backers, I have a hard time believing that this is anything other than intentional. The combined results of the House and Senate bills will be to nationalize something on the order of 12-15% of our economy, drive healthcare costs through the roof for the average citizen who doesn't take advantage of the Gov't-subsidised public "option," and drive large numbers of physicians into retirement or Thailand. I see nothing good coming from this, nothing at all. The Law of Unintended Consequences always, ALWAYS bites you in the ass, and the bigger the -intended- consequences of something, the bigger the -unintended- consequences as well. Even assuming that this monstrosity -wasn't- created as a backdoor to fully-nationalised healthcare, that will be the likely result.

You have made some very good points. I would not expect anyone in Congress to address them other than to say stuff like: 'we have to do this', 'where is the Republican plan', 'they are trying to mislead the public with these questions', 'something is better than nothing', etc, etc., etc.

Dunedan are all people who make 133% or less than the federal poverty line drug dealers and meth heads? Are a majority of them? Is there a sizable group of people who make 133% or less that are honest and hard working but just don't have good jobs?

The people you are describing are breaking the law and should be put in jail. However, why should we punish everyone for a few bad apples? If you know your neighbors are selling drugs why don't you send in some anonymous tips and get them out of your neighborhood?

Nope, not even remotely. That sort's extremely unhealthy lifestyle means that they usually self-terminate pretty quickly. Sadly, they almost always reproduce first, and prior to self-termination require plenty of expensive medical care for things like Meth Mouth and staph infections from infected injection sites.

Probably not, no way to tell.

Probably so, no way to tell.

The laws they're breaking are bullshit, and the only jail they belong in is the Darwin Award Penalty Box. This doesn't mean, however, that I or anyone else should be forced to subsidise their self-destructive stupidity and the consequences thereof.

Agreed, and why should I have to pay for these bad apples?

Because;
1: I do not believe in the legitimacy of drug prohibitions, and
2: Because everyone knows what's going on, and nobody cares. This road has been a source of complaints for years, but since this is Bumfuck Appalachia, the local LEOs went to High School with the meth cooks, and therefore don't give a shit. "Prayer For Judgement" is the standard "punishment" for local-borne lowlifes in this area, for any crime up to and including attempted murder*. Cooking meth and selling pills doesn't even register. We have a Deputy currently serving 10-12yrs in Central because he and several family members were selling drugs from the evidence lockup.


*Neighbor stabbed his brother 7 times with a steak-knife, arguing over a dawg. Brother had to be airlifted to Baptist Regional in Winston-Salem, and remained there as the Taxpayer's guest for two weeks before skipping out on approx. $250,000 of medical bills and later being arrested (in Raleigh, not this area) selling his pain meds out of the trunk of his car. Junior (stabber, not stabbee) was arrested on a $1500.00 cash bond and released on a PFJ after a few weeks and a 2-hr trial.

Another way to ask the question is why should good, honest, hard working people trying to do the right thing be forced to subsidize those who choose to do wrong, are dishonest, lazy and don't care? I have no problem taking care of children or those who are truly disabled, but I don't want to take care of the 30 year-old guy doing drugs, eating Doritos, playing video games, in his mother's basement. That "dude" needs to go to work and pay his own way.

And, I actually don't have a problem helping good, honest, hard working people who need help temporarily to get on their feet. But there is clearly a segment of the population that needs a kick in the pants rather than being allowed to take advantage of a generous health care plan.

In brief, absolutely not. I already wrote my Congressional reps one letter opposing the House bill. It looks like it's time for another letter.

* A public option will be available on these exchanges.
* Anyone below 133% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid.
* Anyone between 133% and 300% of the poverty line will get subsidies to buy insurance.

I as a taxpayer should not be forced to pay for public health care of any form except for those who are disabled and cannot work.

* Insurance companies will be required to accept all new customers, even with preexisting conditions.
* Annual and lifetime limits on coverage will be prohibited.

Which will end up raising insurance companies expenses. If the government is meddling in the insurance market, insurance companies will have a hard time recovering the added expenses. If the insurance companies operate at a loss long enough, they go bankrupt and unemployment goes even higher than 10%

Besides which, why should people who have self-induced pre-existing conditions bear no responsibility for their actions?

* Insurance companies will not be allowed to charge sick people more than healthy people.

Maybe, except again, what about people sick due lifestyle choices?

* Employers with more than 50 employees will be fined for not providing health insurance.

Another nail in the coffin of marginally profitable businesses.

* Small businesses will receive tax credits to help them buy insurance for their employees.

As a taxpayer, I shouldn't be subsidizing this either.


* Uninsured individuals will be fined $750 per year.

So if insurance costs more than $750/year, I just pay the fine. And Obama raises taxes on these people (a tax by any other name is still a tax)

Bottom line, why should I be punished because I was successful at supporting myself?

I'm looking forward to there being a bunch of unemployed Congressmen in 2010 and an ex-president in 2012.

oh, not this shit again

Do none of you see the benefits of a healthy society especially when it comes to communicable diseases?

Healthy people are able to work and generate tax revenues. Healthy people don't transfer illnesses to others. What happens right now to people who can't afford health insurance and cant afford to see a doctor get a minor infection? They wait it out hoping it will get better, but for some it doesn't and they have to go to the ER (or die). Of course they can't pay for that either and so the hospital just raises all of its rates to cover the loss on those treatments. In return the insurance companies raise their rates.

Why is it that these European nations with socialized health care live longer and have better health coverage than us? I have conservative friends (A pastor and his wife) who are from Germany and France, both of them say how much better health care is in Germany and France than here.

Now for those of you who don't want to pay for these dead beats, why don't we close down all the prisons that we have to pay for? I mean I'm not using those prisons, why should I have to pay for them?

I don't want to pay for the military either

That's true why do I have to subsidize wars on other countries that I don't believe in? Why do I have to subsidize Walter Reed? Why do I have to subsidize hurricane relief for the south east coasts? Why do I have to subsidize forest fire prevention? Why do I have to subsidize national parks? Why do I have to subsidize NASA?


Here is the big kicker:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFil...tsbs-large.jpg

West Virgina gets $1.66 for every tax dollar they pay in. That means they make money on taxes. Why should I subsidize West Virgina? Hell red states tend to get more federal tax dollars than blue states. Why are the red states complaining again?

I think our society is healthy.

They treat the infection at home with hydrogen peroxide and neosporin, or they work out a payment plan with a doctor; I've yet to experience or even hear of a physician turning down a payment plan. A friend of the family just finished paying off a car accident at $50.00 per month. If they're complete dipshits they;

You mean they -won't- pay for it. See above comments on payment plans. I had to go into hospital several times when I was in University, and my happy uninsured ass paid those bills off a few dollars per month. I got treated, the hospital got paid, and everybody went home happy, and lemme tell you; an undergrad slinging pizza for $7.50/hr a'int rich. If I could afford it, so can they.

A more nutritious diet and more exercise, primarily. Having lived in Europe and seen the difference in both areas, along with the frequently abyssmal quality of the healthcare in many such countries (an impression borne out by my contacts with British expatriots) I am convinced that the better quality of health enjoyed by many Europeans is mostly down to superior diet.

I could get behind that, but the primary reason for prisons is so that we (as an aggregate, a "society") can have cages in which to store the social equivalent of rabid or aggressive dogs. They're in there not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of their potential future victims.

Since those prisons are keeping violent, aggressive, and larcenous people from harming or robbing you, you can in fact be said to be using them; you pay for their upkeep and derive a benefit from it. Neither you nor I nor anybody else (other than the people being subsidized) derive any benefit from subsidising people like my neighbors. The arguement can be made that them not being sick means they're less likely to transmit illness, but this assumes that they will take their medicines rather than sell them, finish taking their medicines and refrain from breeding superbugs, and further assumes that they will give enough of a shit about their own health to take advantage of such services. Given their hobbies, I doubt they do.

Suits me, and suits the Founders as well. Most of the current military is unconstitutional anyway.

You shouldn't, and neither should anybody else. You -do- have to, however, because refusing to do so will get you locked up or killed. That is the essence of taxation: I liken it to being held at gunpoint, taken to an airport, forced to buy a ticket, forced to board the airliner, forced to eat their crappy food...and being shot or beaten if you try to refuse.

Are you working to get people elected who share your view? For me it is simple, I won't support a politician who supports these health care bills in Congress, if they pass I will work to get them undone. I don't have a problem with our form of government, it requires some active participation - your point carries little value to me.

Dunedan will you right your government asking them to stop taking more federal tax dollars than your state pays in? What would happen if someone in congress introduced a bill that would enforce federal dollars to be distributed to states proportional to what they pay in? Such that every state would receive $1 of federal tax dollars for every dollar it pays in? Do you think Republicans would get behind that bill considering it is their states that are benefiting most from taxes?

---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

Oh it looks like West Virgina also gets more medicare per capita then any other state:

Total Medicare Beneficiaries (per capita) (most recent) by state

so your actual agenda is to turn the people of America in to tax revenue generators for a nanny state to take care of everybody. why should I comply with that?

i will not comply, nor will I pay a fine........ever. who's going to come and make me?

Actually, I'm in favor of cutting a number of other government programs, including getting more controls on military spending. But since Obama is doing just the opposite, let's just start with not increasing spending on any more boondoggles and just reigning in the ones we have already.

Just one of the stories that has been making the rounds the last few weeks is Medicare waste. Supposedly Obama has found some $70B in savings in Medicare. Why would I trust the government to manage any more boondoggles correctly when they can't even manage the ones they already have?

But dude. In another thread you were spouting numbers like $15,000 and $30,000. Turns out the proposed legislation is like 2% what you were talking. I know you're one principled summbitch, but surely you can take a deep breath and see the bigger picture?

tell me what the bigger picture is, because all I see is a federal government exceeding its authority and telling me to subsidize health insurance companies or pay a 750 dollar fine a year.

you're right....$750 is definitely worth the body count you keep hinting at

so the sky is the limit for the government, so long as they do it in 750 dollar increments?

BS.

at some point in peoples lives, they will have to determine their line in the sand. I've drawn mine on this issue, just like I drew mine with regards to the patriot act.

what exactly did you do about the Patriot Act, if you don't mind me asking?

I made the decision that I wouldn't comply with certain parts of it, like not being able tell if i'd been served with a self written warrant, nor would I allow a self written warrant to be served on my home without resisting with deadly force. Anything and everything that I had a smidgen of control over, I would not comply with it.

dk, I don't get you at all. The current healthcare system has failed you and your wife utterly. Enough so that you're going to have to compromise your principles and get some sort of socialized help. I can really respect that--in my view, the honest man who steals bread to feed his family has made the only move he can make.

But... When asked to put $750 in the pot so the whole thing can work for EVERYONE, no, that's Government Overreaching, and you're willing to be hauled off to prison about it. Actually, prison is the likeliest result, you're WILLING to get yourself shot dead fighting off the people who would come arrest you about it.

On the plus side, at least you'll have aceventura's respect for being someone with "convictions"... On the minus side, you're dead...

we sometimes bend our principles for those we love, especially when those we love do not have the capabilities to fend for themselves very well. My wife is disabled because of her illness and no insurance company in the world is going to cover her now.

The basic truth of it all is that I do not have an extra $750 to 'put in the pot'. It's barely enough for me to keep her in meds and I usually had to watch her ask her ex-husband to get them every 3 months. That's not a possibility anymore due to other circumstances.

The bottom line, in my mind, is that this 'reform' is wrong headed, and not going to work. Because of that position, I will not comply with it.

Rat,

The key phrase in your statement is "so the whole thing can work for Everyone".

What makes you think this can work. Every government program we have today is a financial failure. Not only will it not work(and it may take time to fail) It will eliminate what good we have in the current system. Once you make this move you can NEVER return. Government run (socialized is the proper term) will not be as good as what we currently have. See Canada , UK the list goes on and on.

Bottom line. The points made are the good parts of the bill. If they had put in the points above. ."ALL Government employees will also join this plan", I might have at least given it a chance.

I haven't been thru it yet and probably won't, but it isn't the stuff you know that will get you, it's the stuff you don't.

The price tag doesn't wash nor does another give away program.

I'm, Canadian I quite like our healthcare, I always enjoy the people who bash something they have no experience with, it's rather amusing. Carry on, all I wanted to add.

Wait one more thing, you say this:
Yet then follow it with:
So then how do you know it won't be 'as good' if you haven't been through it? Or is it a matter of 'you've heard' about it, or read about it, or have a friend who said. I hope you realise how funny the two statements combined are to people who have Socialized health care

You forgot France.

If you're trying to argue against publicly run healthcare, you'll have an easier time if you find examples that don't rate higher than the US on virtually every metric conceivable.

Then again, I get my stats from the WHO, and they're probably just a bunch of commies anyway.

I worked for a Canadian company for 4 years, and the constant theme was it takes too long to get the health care needed. Most of them came to the US and paid the full fare in order to get treatment. If it's so good why are there so many that choose not to wait and come to the US? to get stomach cancer treatment until they can see the specialist in 6 months (true life adventure from the guy who was my boss).

Doesn't Cuba rate higher than the US? And we all know how the US feels about Cuba, that must really burn the US.

EDIT: As I thought, words like 'most of them', how many is most? And even the 'I know a guy'.

Ever heard of the INS and IRS. Just saying.

If you are so down on the future plans to make the USA provide healthcare to All Citizens, then are you planning to leave the USA for a better place to live and if you do, where will you be moving? Hmmm? :shakehead:

Oh and hope YOU stay healthy in the meantime.

Yeah, and I once knew a guy who knew a guy whose girlfriend caught fire from too many MRI's! Healthcare is deadly!

...

If we're going to trade anecdotes, I think this is a good one.

If you want actual facts, this is where most people get them.

Wait times in Canada are priority-based. Urgent cases are dealt with first. Elective and/or non-urgent care can sometimes be delayed for a few weeks. Some people choose to pay out of pocket for treatment in the US rather than wait for the care. This says more about the people involved than the state of healthcare in Canada.

This is all a tangent anyway, since the proposed bill to my knowledge has nothing to do with universal healthcare.

(And as an aside, the correct term is actually 'public healthcare' or 'universal healthcare,' depending on the exact system in question. 'Socialized medicine' is a political trope.)

And there is always this list, produced in 2000 the last year, because well I imagine it's a pain in the ass.
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
My bad, Cuba is two spots behind the US, mind you I'm sure they passed them by now.
Oh yeah, I knew a guy, who knew a guy, who know a girl, who got knocked up from sitting on a toilet seat some guy apparently jerked off on:lol:

SCHIP, the program providing health care to 8+ million kids of working class families, is just one related example of a government program that is not a failure. FEHB is another, providing affordable and accessible choices to millions of government employees.

With the exception of the very limited public option components, tHe proposed programs in the House and Senate are NOT government-run, but rather government-administered, with health services provided by the private sector and certainly are NOT socialized medicine.

Those screaming socialism or socialized medicine are either ignorant or intentionally being fear-mongers. Personally, for the most part, I think it is ignorance...they hear it from their "reliable sources" and accept it as the truth.

The proposed Insurance Exchange, to be administered by the Government is modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program.

FEHB is in effect, an Insurance Exchange for the millions of government workers, providing them a choice of private providers (4-5 national and hundreds regionally) with a range of benefit options and pricing. At some point (different in the House and Senate), government employees will have the futrher option of using the Exchange.

In terms of theprice tag, or cost to the taxpayers, I prefer the House version. It "washes" well for me because more than half the revenue ($500+ billion) is from a surtax on the top 1/2 of one percent of all taxpayers. An additional $120+ billion is from savings resulting from no-longer over paying the private insurance companies providing Medicare Advantage, companies that agreed to limit cost to 5% above Medicare scheduled, but current charging more than 15%.

Neither bill is perfect, but they are significant improvements over the status quo for both the 200+ millions who are insured through employer-bsed programs and the 40+ million uninsured.

---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 AM ----------

That is what a "social safety net" is all about.....helping those who do not have the capacities to fend for themselves very well. Most in this position face such circumstances for a relatively short period of time.

I understand bending your principles to assistance loved-ones. But there are millions who shared a similar love for a spouse who are also unable to fend for themselves, most often as a result of circumstances beyond their control. Should they not have the same opportunities as your loved-one?

Spread your wings and share that principle-bending support for assistance to others who cant fend for themselves as a result of circumstances no different than those you love. Unless you are among the top taxpayers, it wont even hurt your wallet very much, if at all.

That is what a compassionate and caring country does for its citizens.

not sure where you're heading with this. just saying. :confused:

No, i'm not planning on leaving the USA for a better place to live because I don't believe there is one. I will stay and begin my non-compliance. We'll see how far it goes.

Thank you, but i'm wondering if you mean this facetiously or not.

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

Unless I'm mistaken, medicare and medicaid are still in existence.

much to your chagrin

SCHIP fails to provide coverage to every child in this country. There are children who qualify but are not covered. Qualification varies from one state to another for arbitrary and capricious reasons. The process to enroll can be dehumanizing. SCHIP provides a disincentive for the poor to improve their financial condition for fear of loosing coverage. The intention of SCHIP is good, but the legislation is inadequate. Our government should do less, but do whatever they do well, rather than trying to do too much and doing it poorly.

judgmental much? of course you are. you think you're more right than others. :thumbsup:

just looking for some consistency

I remember you!

You're the one, with no direct experience with SCHIPs, insisted that it is too complicated, inefficient with disincentives to work...blah blah blah.
but have a healthy day :thumbsup:

The reason the same points get repeated is because they get ignored. As usual direct your comments to the individual and not the issue.

The bottom line is that SCHIP is inadequate in many ways and we all know it.

"Some say that SCHIP is inadequate." --Fox News

I went to a state school - please explain.

From my point of view if something is inadequate it is inadequate and it does not matter who says it if it is true.

in your opinion, is an "inadequate" SCHIP program better or worse than no SCHIP program at all?

inadequate is always worse than no program at all. It wastes money that could be better spent on other things while you work out a adequate program.

depends on how you define inadequate, doesn't it? I could say that Program X is inadequate because it was funded to help 3,000,000 people but is only helping 2,000,000. The program is inefficient, but isn't helping 2,000,000 people better than helping no one?

you can define inadequate that way if you like, but when you want to use an altered definition, inform us first. In your given example, it's not known whether the PROGRAM is inadequate, but we can ascertain that the FUNDING is.

Just so we understand, it is ace and FOX news who have characterized SCHIP as inadequate.

The program goal is to have a 95% penetration rate among eligible families and the rate is in the high 80s.

Inadequate? Inefficient?

Ask those 80+% of working families who now have health care for their kids....more than 6 million kids.

And it is not an issue of funding by any analysis.

Everything in the world is inadequate and inefficient. Does that mean we should stop doing everything?

The process of converting energy in to light is inefficient as it produces heat, we should get rid of all lights!

The process of converting gas/oil/coal/etc into energy is inefficient, i guess we should top burning any fossil fuels.

Nearly everything can be done better but that doesn't mean we should just stop what we are doing....

Uh, no. Not even close. As Voltaire wrote, the perfect is the enemy of the good. You cannot let the desire for perfection stop you from achieving the good.

So they didn't teach you the difference between "point of view" and "the way something is" at your state school. That explains so god damn much.

I'm not talking about SCHIP and its inadequacy or not. I'm talking about the incessant collapse of objective and subjective, over there in your postings. I'm talking about your blinkered insistence that how you see it is how it is.

I think it was the Fox/Investors Business Daily school of public policy. Inscribed over the entrance to the school "fair and balanced" library:

"Facts cited by Democrats or liberals are baseless opinions...and the opinions (eg IBD) of Republicans and Conservatives are facts!"

Of course, ace aced that course!

Depends on the alternative.

With SCHIP the things that make it inadequate can easily be fixed. I think it is immoral for a community not to take care of the children in that community. To the degree the SCHIP leads people to believe that we as a community are doing the right thing while millions of children, hidden in the shadows, go without health care in my view makes the inadequacies in SCHIP worse than if there was no SCHIP. Put another way, if "covering up" a problem is not a solution and if "covering up" that problem means we don't address the problem, the "covering up" of the problem makes things worse.

In addition two of the problems with SCHIP are the disincentive created, perpetuating poverty and the dehumanization people are put through hurting their confidence and ability to do better on their own. I could argue these factors make things worse with SCHIP.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

I love this kind of logic. Actually I don't, but it makes me smile. An analogy - my son comes home from school and announces he got 90 questions correct on his math test. Before I uncork the champagne, I would have to ask how many questions were on the test, if the reply is 200, oh I say - me thinks your performance was inadequate. :shakehead: But that's just me. I guess some would say, getting 90 correct was better than getting 80 correct, which is true, but doesn't make the 90 out of 200 look any better to me.:no:

So by your logic if you can't fix something 100% then you shouldn't fix it at all? You do realise that nothing can be 100% percent where humans are concerned right?

I love your bizarre analogy.

A program that has an enrollment rate of over 80% (of eligible families) and a participation rate of over 75% is somehow comparable to getting a failing grade - 45% (90 out of 200) on a test score.

WTF kind of logic is that?

It is equally bizzare to suggest that one would turn down a higher paying job that offered employer-based (and employer-subsidized) health benefits in order to remain eligible for SCHIP.

WTF again?

Best. Post. EVER. On this site, at least.


Wait, why did you bring arguments against gun control into this thread? Everyone knows that when a few people misbehave, you must infringe the constitutional right of all citizens!




There has already been a discussion of how much jail time to give those who don't pay.

How presidential of you. He doesn't care to listen to anyone's opinion but his own, either.

I know that...ace has made it quite clear that he doesnt care what other's opinions are...only that they are wrong and his are right.

I don't pretend thing are what they are not. If I "fix" something and it is a bad fix or a temporary fix, I keep working on it until I get it done properly, don't you?


I used the term "inadequate" for a reason. If you take the time to try to understand my point perhaps you will find that you actually agree with me. Elderly people in MediCare all have the same requirments for eligibility and it is simple:

medicarequalifications

Eligibility for SCHIP should be:

*Must be under 18 years old.

From there I would design coverage around preventive, routine, and emergency/catastrophic care.

The current program is inadequate and should not depend on a child's address their parents income or their parents ability or willingness to complete paper work. Being under 18 in this country should allow you to receive the medical care needed

---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

It is a question of standards. I agree that a person who has low standards may not understand the person or the logic used by the person who has high standards.

I get your logic and your high standards.....80 = 45. :confused:

I don't think you do.


P.S. - A person's standards are personal and it is subjective, higher standards should not suggest superiority, just differences. Standards vary from issue to issue even for the same individual. I been told that my communication style suffers because of denotation compared to connotation. I have found I am rarely in sync with liberals on this.

Wondering how well this works with other so called rights.

Every home must have an operable rifle, shotgun, and handgun w/corresponding ammunition for each for home defense. Reason is that law enforcement is spread too thin and people have a right to protect themselves.

once a year, you must bring all 3 weapons and ammo to your local law enforcement for verification and inspection. For those that cannot afford those 3 weapons, they will be provided to you at a discounted price by a government program. These weapons will be from the hi-point manufacturer.
All citizens who will not provide 3 weapons for inspection or produce an inspection certificate on demand will be taxed 750 dollars each year.

In my experience, your communication style suffers because of the conflation of subjective and objective. Conservatives have no monopoly on this particular brand of intellectual self-dishonesty, I regret to say.

An interesting point. From my point of view I don't think I have any issue at all with the separation of the subjective and the objective. I often make an extra effort to point out the subjective point of view that I have - I have often made it clear what my biases are, when my mind is closed, when posting selected information that supports my views (or cherry picking), etc. On many issues I never make any pretense of being objective. I would argue that those who make personal comments directed at me have simply failed to understand the difference. But, that is just from my point of view.:thumbsup: