So SCHIP failed...

[solvs]

But I hear this isn't the end. Dems are going to readjust some of the particulars. And I hear the GOP (who were actually for this just a few months ago almost unanimously, and actually were responsible for most of it's creation back in the 90's) are working on their own bill to bring up regrading the program. Doesn't really need much:

Democrats Look Ahead as Veto Override Falters (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/washington/18health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Many Republicans argue that the vetoed bill would allow coverage of children from middle- and upper-income families and of adults and some illegal immigrants. Democrats reject such criticism, but say they will consider revising the bill to make its restrictions and prohibitions clearer.

“We will type it in bigger, bolder letters, but we will not compromise on the goal of insuring 10 million children,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
For the record: this doesn't cover illegals, the bid for it to cover some who made UP TO $80,000 in 1 state (NY) was rejected outright in the beginning, and it is about children. Not poor children, that's what Medicaid is supposed to be for, but the working middle class who may not be able to get it otherwise. Like the case of the family who couldn't get medical coverage because their child had a heart condition. If anyone would like to bring up any other inaccuracies, we can dispute those as well.

This part stood out to me too:

But the latest CBS News poll, released on Wednesday, found overwhelming support for expansion of the program to include some middle-class uninsured children.

Eighty-one percent of respondents, including 70 percent of Republicans, supported expanding the program. Three-quarters of those who supported expansion said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to finance it.
Overwhelming support. Even by Republicans. Judging by the latest polls, it seems to be hurting them more than they seemed to expect. Can't say I'm not surprised. People don't like Iraq, which is costing us billions a week, but they do like to help sick and injured kids, which costs us for a year what we spend in Iraq in about a month.

So, maybe someone who's part of that other 19% can tell us why we shouldn't be paying for kids who can't get care otherwise.

[yg17]

Some interesting numbers I saw on Olbermann last night:

80% of Americans support this bill
75% of Americans support a tax increase to pay for it
40 days in Iraq will pay for SCHIP


The GOP has their head so far up their arse on this one. Did you see the one rep, I think from Iowa, who said that SCHIP stood for "Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents"? Idiot....

[Swarmlord]

Some interesting numbers I saw on Olbermann last night:

80% of Americans support this bill
75% of Americans support a tax increase to pay for it
40 days in Iraq will pay for SCHIP


<snip>

Where do they get these people in these polls? I can't find anyone that supports expanding SCHIP or increasing their taxes to pay for it and work in a medical college.

What's funnier is that if this poll was really taken by a random sampling of Americans, I want to see what the numbers were of the people they called that had no idea what the pollster was talking about. I guess the numbers represent 80% of the people that even know this issue exists.

[yg17]

Where do they get these people in these polls? I can't find anyone that supports expanding SCHIP or increasing their taxes to pay for it and work in a medical college.

Stop asking everyone else in your neocon fantasy land and you might have some luck

[Swarmlord]

Stop asking everyone else in your neocon fantasy land and you might have some luck

I guess I should troll homeless shelters and beatnik coffee shops for intelligent opinion on national policy. My bad.

[Thomas Veil]

I guess I should troll homeless shelters and beatnik coffee shops......where all of us liberal-minded types hang out, waiting to be polled. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

Where do they get these people in these polls? I can't find anyone that supports expanding SCHIP or increasing their taxes to pay for it and work in a medical college.

What's funnier is that if this poll was really taken by a random sampling of Americans, I want to see what the numbers were of the people they called that had no idea what the pollster was talking about. I guess the numbers represent 80&#37; of the people that even know this issue exists.

Too funny! I can't find anyone against expanding SCHIP! And I live in a major city. And quite to the contrary- I find tons of people know about this issue.

I guess I should troll homeless shelters and beatnik coffee shops for intelligent opinion on national policy. My bad.

Good luck finding such a coffee shop. Starbucks pays their landlords to terminate their leases so they have no competition. Oh I forgot- to you, that's just dandy.

[solvs]

80% of Americans support this bill
75% of Americans support a tax increase to pay for it
40 days in Iraq will pay for SCHIP

I want to see what the numbers were of the people they called that had no idea what the pollster was talking about.
Guessing you guys didn't read the article linked. Or my post. ;) Because I already touched on that. A majority do support SCHIP. Even Republicans (who created the program in the first place), up until recently when they suddenly decided they didn't like it anymore. So the Dems tried to change it in a way they might. But they still complained. Then Bush threatened a veto, and despite wide approval in the Senate, the House fell short. 2 Dems, and a majority of Repubs voted no, and most of them kept their vote the same after the revote. It has cost them and Bush, as their numbers slide even lower.

But actually, a large percentage (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/cf-shb042307.php) of medical personnel (http://www.ucsf.edu/synapse/articles/2007/Oct/11/schip.html) do support (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=48164) this bill and SCHIP itself (http://www.springerlink.com/content/y83l0835w24qm3q5/). Besides just giving children who can't otherwise get coverage access to healthcare, it helps to keep them out of the emergency room for visits that aren't emergency related. And helps with preventative care. Some of the reasons why some many of the organizations related to healthcare backed the bill. My Stepmother and Stepbrother among them, her an RN, he a Doctor. Most (though not all) of their colleagues that they've spoken to about it as well. Now my Stepmom does work with people of lesser means, but my Stepbrother tends to work with people who make a great living in a ritzy area. Still supports it. As did most of the doctors I worked with when I worked for a hospital a few months ago before taking this job I have now.

Not scientific, I know, but these polls are:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/81904.php
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/health2008dr.cfm?DR_ID=47357
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15347955
http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/newsreleasesdetail.jsp?productid=21931

There are more if you want them, but even the worst I've seen are ~66% for SCHIP, 29% against.

[Naimfan]

Stop asking everyone else in your neocon fantasy land and you might have some luck

Actually, few of the Democrats I've asked have supported tax increases to pay for it, so I do wonder where the poll numbers came from (or, more significantly, how the questions were worded). Everyone agrees the idea is good, but far fewer agree about raising taxes to pay for it.

[solvs]

Actually, few of the Democrats I've asked have supported tax increases to pay for it, so I do wonder where the poll numbers came from (or, more significantly, how the questions were worded). Everyone agrees the idea is good, but far fewer agree about raising taxes to pay for it.
No one wants to raise taxes. But at the current rate we're going, it looks like a possibility unless we make some serious cut backs and pull in a lot more revenue. Even then though. But this is a cigarette tax, so of course people are fine with saying they support an increase.

Again, most of these points are in the articles above. ;)

[Naimfan]

No one wants to raise taxes. But at the current rate we're going, it looks like a possibility unless we make some serious cut backs and pull in a lot more revenue. Even then though. But this is a cigarette tax, so of course people are fine with saying they support an increase.

Again, most of these points are in the articles above. ;)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.......ever stop to think I actually looked at them? :p

It's been quite the topic of conversation here among Dems and the main concern, frankly, is making the Republicans look bad. Which is working brilliantly.

[leekohler]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.......ever stop to think I actually looked at them? :p

It's been quite the topic of conversation here among Dems and the main concern, frankly, is making the Republicans look bad. Which is working brilliantly.

You mean one has to try to make a Republican look bad? They've been doing pretty well on their own lately.

[Naimfan]

You mean one has to try to make a Republican look bad? They've been doing pretty well on their own lately.

Depends on the Republican, n'est-ce pas? ;)

[Swarmlord]

No one wants to raise taxes. But at the current rate we're going, it looks like a possibility unless we make some serious cut backs and pull in a lot more revenue. Even then though. But this is a cigarette tax, so of course people are fine with saying they support an increase.

Again, most of these points are in the articles above. ;)

I'll support it 100% if it's financed with a surtax on movie theater tickets, movie rentals, and television rather than so called sin taxes piled on cigarette smokers. Then I want to see Hollywood get behind raising the price of movie tickets FOR THE CHILDREN.

Just a little sincerity check.

[beatzfreak]

Here's a couple of interesting points:

Childless adults are currently covered in several states. But under the current bill their eligibility will expire. Under the bill passed by Congress, SCHIP dollars can not be used to cover childless adults.

"As an example, in Minnesota, 87 percent of the people enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program are adults; 66 percent in Wisconsin," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio told Fox News' Brit Hume.

The Bush administration enthusiastically supported Minnesota's request to cover the parents of SCHIP covered children. "I am thrilled today to extend the promise of health care insurance to parents," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said when he signed Minnesota's waiver in 2001.

The money spent goes toward the parents of children who qualify for SCHIP coverage. Those parents would be phased off of SCHIP over the next five years under the current legislation, a phaseout that affects 11 states. No additional states could apply for a waiver to cover parents if the bipartisan legislation passed.

Full article here: http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2636

[leekohler]

I'll support it 100% if it's financed with a surtax on movie theater tickets, movie rentals, and television rather than so called sin taxes piled on cigarette smokers. Then I want to see Hollywood get behind raising the price of movie tickets FOR THE CHILDREN.

Just a little sincerity check.

Those are all fine with me.

[pdham]

No one has addressed Solvs question; which is really what the argument is about.

Solvs:
So, maybe someone who's part of that other 19% can tell us why we shouldn't be paying for kids who can't get care otherwise.

So Swarmlord, why don't you support paying for kids without tax care. I am not trying to be argumentative, but that is the issue. Qualifying your willingness to pay only if someone else (In this case some nebulous entity) is willing is not a position on the issue.

So, to people who don't support the bill or support it but don't want to pay: why?

I am trying to be sincere. One of the big problems I see in politics today is no one requires the other side to justify their position. It is all just talking points and rhetoric. Let’s not fall into that trap, and

[imac/cheese]

No one has addressed Solvs question; which is really what the argument is about.

Solvs:


So Swarmlord, why don't you support paying for kids without tax care. I am not trying to be argumentative, but that is the issue. Qualifying your willingness to pay only if someone else (In this case some nebulous entity) is willing is not a position on the issue.

So, to people who don't support the bill or support it but don't want to pay: why?

I am trying to be sincere. One of the big problems I see in politics today is no one requires the other side to justify their position. It is all just talking points and rhetoric. Let’s not fall into that trap, and

I am not against the bill, but from what I understand those who are against the bill do not want to use taxes to pay for health care for kids with parents that make enough money to afford insurance. What level of income is required to be able to afford health insurance is the debatable issue. This, of course, does not take into account those children that would not be able to get insured because their health is too risky for insurance agencies.

[pdham]

I am not against the bill, but from what I understand those who are against the bill do not want to use taxes to pay for health care for kids with parents that make enough money to afford insurance. What level of income is required to be able to afford health insurance is the debatable issue. This, of course, does not take into account those children that would not be able to get insured because their health is too risky for insurance agencies.

I just did some quick research and found a report to congress in 2001 (a little old but it is all I could find.) It said the average income threashhold per state for SCHIP elligability is 206% of the federal pverty level. In 2007 that would translate to roughly $40,000 for a family of four. I would argue that
$40k for a family of four is not enough money to pay for quality health care.

[SMM]

I wonder how this decision is being effected by the administrations plan to invade Iran? They are going to need some serious capital, especially if this is a ground action, rather than a bombing campaign.

Did anyone else note the change in Bush's use of terms during the recent press conference? Previously he was saying "Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon". Now he is saying "Nuclear weapon knowledge". This was no accident. He said it twice, and with emphasis. I have not made my daily travel around Blogosphere planet yet today. I suspect others have picked up on this and may be able to shed some light.

Edit: Well, I did not have to look (http://simplyleftbehind.blogspot.com/2007/10/shall-we-play-game.html) too hard. Evidentially, Rachel Maddow also has an op-ed piece today.

[imac/cheese]

I just did some quick research and found a report to congress in 2001 (a little old but it is all I could find.) It said the average income threashhold per state for SCHIP elligability is 206% of the federal pverty level. In 2007 that would translate to roughly $40,000 for a family of four. I would argue that
$40k for a family of four is not enough money to pay for quality health care.

I personally would have to disagree with that. $40K a year should be able to pay for health insurance if the family is healthy with no high risk members. The family just needs to budget and prioritize their purchases. If the family is up to their ears with credit card debt, living in an expensive home, and saddled with other expenses they will probably choose not to insure their family. To me, the problems arise when a family member is not able to get insurance or when they could only get insurance at extremely high rates because they are too risky to insure. Those children need to be covered by society. It is not their fault they medically uninsurable.

[beatzfreak]

I personally would have to disagree with that. $40K a year should be able to pay for health insurance if the family is healthy with no high risk members. The family just needs to budget and prioritize their purchases. If the family is up to their ears with credit card debt, living in an expensive home, and saddled with other expenses they will probably choose not to insure their family. To me, the problems arise when a family member is not able to get insurance or when they could only get insurance at extremely high rates because they are too risky to insure. Those children need to be covered by society. It is not their fault they medically uninsurable.

Depends where you live and what insurance is available.

When my husband and I were considering having children, I got a quote from our health insurance company. To add up to 2 dependents, the premium they quoted me was $1500 per month. Including copays and deductibles thats over $20,000 per year. We are both perfectly healthy adults. These rates are fairly common in NYC. Needless to say, no children for us.

[Ugg]

I personally would have to disagree with that. $40K a year should be able to pay for health insurance if the family is healthy with no high risk members. The family just needs to budget and prioritize their purchases. If the family is up to their ears with credit card debt, living in an expensive home, and saddled with other expenses they will probably choose not to insure their family. To me, the problems arise when a family member is not able to get insurance or when they could only get insurance at extremely high rates because they are too risky to insure. Those children need to be covered by society. It is not their fault they medically uninsurable.

Before you start dictating what people should be able to live on, maybe you need to start looking at what people pay for insurance. I've heard that the cost of insurance to many businesses for a family of four is over $1,000 a month. At that rate, there's no possible way a family earning $40k could afford it. Even if it were $500 a month, given all the deductibles and co pays, it would be a severe strain on a family's finances.

Everyone goes on and on about people paying their own way but refuse to acknowledge that many people are shut out of insurance for pre-existing conditions. In some cases, pregnancy is one of them. In order for you and swarmy to claim that everyone needs to pay their own way, then everyone needs equal access to insurance. Until then, there's simply no argument as far as I'm concerned.

[Naimfan]

everyone needs equal access to insurance.

Either that, or abolish ALL insurance and let the market do its work..... ;)

But then, we'd cut doctors' salaries too much, so it would never happen.

[Swarmlord]

Either that, or abolish ALL insurance and let the market do its work..... ;)

But then, we'd cut doctors' salaries too much, so it would never happen.

Or perhaps all these people that have no "access" to health care could groom one of their kids to join the medical field. Catholics were encouraged to "give" one of their children to the Church years ago to keep a constant inflow to the vocations. With a member of the family in the medical field, families could barter the services of their doctor or nurse with another family.

I found it interesting from posters above that the inability or unwillingness to pay for something is now referred to as "access". Everyone has "access" to insurance. The phone numbers for GEICO, Mutual of Omaha, Hartford, etc. are in the phone book. Access and affordability are not synonymous. If they were, I guess the only reason I'm not driving an S500 Mercedes Benz is that I don't have access.

[leekohler]

Either that, or abolish ALL insurance and let the market do its work..... ;)

But then, we'd cut doctors' salaries too much, so it would never happen.

I like that idea even better! But then we'd end up with no doctors- they'd make less than we do. I'm all for it! Come on swarmy- you're all pro-free market. Let's abolish insurance and see what happens to the medical field. I mean- the market will adjust the prices and everything will be fine. Right?

[Naimfan]

I found it interesting from posters above that the inability or unwillingness to pay for something is now referred to as "access".

That is an interesting observation.

[Swarmlord]

I like that idea even better! But then we'd end up with no doctors- they'd make less than we do. I'm all for it! Come on swarmy- you're all pro-free market. Let's abolish insurance and see what happens to the medical field.

Why shouldn't people have access to insurance against catestrophic health issues? I'd go for capping litigation costs and awards and also creating a multi-tiered treatment center hierarchy that separates minor medical care from facilities that handle surgery and triage.

I don't understand why basic healthcare (shots, physicals, X-rays, etc.) are covered under insurance. Just the burden of dealing with these minor costs jack up the costs.

I don't use my home insurance to cover repainting the trim or cleaning the leaves out of my gutters. I use it to cover tornado damage or fire.

[leekohler]

Why shouldn't people have access to insurance against catestrophic health issues? I'd go for capping litigation costs and awards and also creating a multi-tiered treatment center hierarchy that separates minor medical care from facilities that handle surgery and triage.

I don't understand why basic healthcare (shots, physicals, X-rays, etc.) are covered under insurance. Just the burden of dealing with these minor costs jack up the costs.

I don't use my home insurance to cover repainting the trim or cleaning the leaves out of my gutters. I use it to cover tornado damage or fire.

Then again- why are we setting up an entire insurance industry to fund a particular field? Isn't that a bit anti-free market?

And you consider x-rays to be minor costs? Maybe in your world.

[atszyman]

To add up to 2 dependents, the premium they quoted me was $1500 per month. Including copays and deductibles thats over $20,000 per year.

Before you start dictating what people should be able to live on, maybe you need to start looking at what people pay for insurance. I've heard that the cost of insurance to many businesses for a family of four is over $1,000 a month. At that rate, there's no possible way a family earning $40k could afford it. Even if it were $500 a month, given all the deductibles and co pays, it would be a severe strain on a family's finances.

I'll back those numbers up. We got a lot of insight earlier this summer when we were planning on my wife staying home from work for awhile after our second child was born. $1200-1500/month is what it cost our employers and her company is over 100,000 people...

I want to know why some people are so against taxing smokers more to pay for healthcare for children? Every time healthcare reform comes up there are some of the same people who don't want to pay for smokers or other people who engage in risky behavior. If smokers are driving up the cost for us all shouldn't they pay more? Why can't their extra pay go towards funding healthcare for children? You don't get to choose your parents, if we did how many of us would have the last name Hilton, Buffet or Gates?

I like that idea even better! But then we'd end up with no doctors- they'd make less than we do. I'm all for it! Come on swarmy- you're all pro-free market. Let's abolish insurance and see what happens to the medical field. I mean- the market will adjust the prices and everything will be fine. Right?

We'd have doctors... look at how much teachers make and we still have them. There are people in this world who actually enjoy those jobs and will do them for almost any price.

However, if you think that lines to see doctors would be bad with Universal Healthcare, that's nothing compared to what it would be like in the free market.

[imac/cheese]

Before you start dictating what people should be able to live on, maybe you need to start looking at what people pay for insurance. I've heard that the cost of insurance to many businesses for a family of four is over $1,000 a month. At that rate, there's no possible way a family earning $40k could afford it. Even if it were $500 a month, given all the deductibles and co pays, it would be a severe strain on a family's finances.

Everyone goes on and on about people paying their own way but refuse to acknowledge that many people are shut out of insurance for pre-existing conditions. In some cases, pregnancy is one of them. In order for you and swarmy to claim that everyone needs to pay their own way, then everyone needs equal access to insurance. Until then, there's simply no argument as far as I'm concerned.

Did you read the portion of my post that states that I am not against this bill? Did you read the portion of my post that stated that those that are uninsurable should be covered by society? I did not say that those making $40K a year would have an easy time paying $1000 a month for insurance, but it is possible if that family values insurance over what I would consider luxuries like TV, cable, computers, extra family car, nice home. If that family chooses not to spend their income on insurance, they run the risk of going bankrupt when there are serious medical issues. Many people will take their chances and not buy insurance because of the things they would have to give up. For you to say there is no possible way a family could afford it is ridiculous. Many familes make it on very little income because they have the proper discipline to live within their means.

Of course, living in a big city where the cost of living is high would make it even harder for a family of four to live off the remaining money.

[pdham]

why does everyone keep talking like the family of four wouldn't be paying for healthcare if they were on SCHIP. It is a pay system based on ability. A family of four would absolutely being paying for their coverage, just not to the tune of $1000-1500 a month.

I have no problem agreeing some people need to make sacrifices in order to make ends meet. Our comfortable lifestyle in this country is seriously overboard. But, a family of four on $40k, paying $1500 a month for helath insurace, would be devestated if an emergency came up. What if someone lost a job, or a parent got cancer?

Lastly, Swarmlord: by the very definition of an excludable good, which is what healthcare is, not being able to pay for said good is not having "access" to it. Also, how can you honestly say that physicals, shots, etc are small costs. My wife just got the series of vacines (3) for the human pabloma(sp) virus. They were $100 each and we have pretty good insurance.

[leekohler]

why does everyone keep talking like the family of four wouldn't be paying for healthcare if they were on SCHIP. It is a pay system based on ability. A family of four would absolutely being paying for their coverage, just not to the tune of $1000-1500 a month.

I have no problem agreeing some people need to make sacrifices in order to make ends meet. Our comfortable lifestyle in this country is seriously overboard. But, a family of four on $40k, paying $1500 a month for helath insurace, would be devestated if an emergency came up. What if someone lost a job, or a parent got cancer?

Lastly, Swarmlord: by the very definition of an excludable good, which is what healthcare is, not being able to pay for said good is not having "access" to it. Also, how can you honestly say that physicals, shots, etc are small costs. My wife just got the series of vacines (3) for the human pabloma(sp) virus. They were $100 each and we have pretty good insurance.

Try getting the Hepatitus vaccine. $600 for three shots.

[mactastic]

If the Democrats learned anything from the past decade, they'll have SCHIPS-type amendments on ballots in swing states to draw out their supporters. Think of it as the opposite of the anti-gay crap that was trotted out by the GOP in '04 to bring the "values voters" out of the woodwork.

The reason conservatives despise SCHIPS so much is that it goes to the heart of their "government is bad" rhetoric. They must demonize the Democrats for wanting to "socialize" health care, or average Americans may regain faith that the Democratic party is working for them. For too long, the GOP has had great success painting Democrats as wanting to help "them", the scary others - whether those be immigrants, welfare queens, the gays, whatever. The GOP rhetoric has consistently been that Democrats are more concerned about "them" than "us". Things like SCHIPS show that to be the lie that it is; thus conservatives MUST oppose it and anything like it.

[SMM]

I personally would have to disagree with that. $40K a year should be able to pay for health insurance if the family is healthy with no high risk members. The family just needs to budget and prioritize their purchases. If the family is up to their ears with credit card debt, living in an expensive home, and saddled with other expenses they will probably choose not to insure their family. To me, the problems arise when a family member is not able to get insurance or when they could only get insurance at extremely high rates because they are too risky to insure. Those children need to be covered by society. It is not their fault they medically uninsurable.

I personally disagree with you. I think the only way your plan works is:

1) No house, or house in depressed area
2) No vacations, cable TV, second-hand clothes, macaroni and cheese dinners
3) Never having a new car
4) No sports, yearbooks, ASB Cards, school lunches for kids
5) The American Dream is always beyond reach

[solvs]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.......ever stop to think I actually looked at them? :p
If you did, you wouldn't have asked the questions you did. ;)

It's been quite the topic of conversation here among Dems and the main concern, frankly, is making the Republicans look bad. Which is working brilliantly.
Originally, they were behind it. You had a few hold outs who argued with the details, but it was their plan. The Dems just wanted to re-up it. It passed the Senate easily. Then Bush made threats to veto it, suddenly the talking heads turned it into a controversy, and a bunch of those in the House decided to stick with their votes against and go with Bush's veto.

They made themselves look bad, the Dems didn't have to do anything (insert Dems doing nothing joke here).

I'll support it 100&#37; if it's financed with a surtax on movie theater tickets, movie rentals, and television rather than so called sin taxes piled on cigarette smokers. Then I want to see Hollywood get behind raising the price of movie tickets FOR THE CHILDREN.

Just a little sincerity check.
Again, read up on this. This was the way they thought they could get it passed. It didn't work, so they'll try again with something else. Judging by the polls, I'm with almost everyone else in saying I don't care how they pay for it, they should just pay for it.

Here's a couple of interesting points:
Again, read up on it. Those have mostly been debunked. There are some states where the program has been taken advantage of by adults. But a lot of the "adults" covered are actually just covered due to pregnancy. Because, you know, they have a child within them. Or those "adults" are in their late teens and early twenties going to college. Some of them with disabilities, injuries, or illness. Most of those being covered who shouldn't be wouldn't be with the new bill that clearly outlines this.

Er, unless I misunderstood and you're agreeing with me. :o

No one has addressed Solvs question; which is really what the argument is about.
They won't, but I'm used to it by now.

kids with parents that make enough money to afford insurance.
$40K a year should be able to pay for health insurance if the family is healthy with no high risk members.
I found it interesting from posters above that the inability or unwillingness to pay for something is now referred to as "access". Everyone has "access" to insurance.
Again, you're missing the point. This is about those who can't get insurance, or whose children aren't covered. Even those who may be able to, but it's far too expensive, even for the less than stellar coverage. You don't need a Benz Swarmie, but those who have spoken out did need help. These are working people who have things happen to their families, through no fault of their own, and the cost is immeasurable. Again, if they can even get coverage, which most can't for whatever reason. Why should we fault the kids for their parents lack of resources? Or fault the parents if they want coverage for their families, but can't get it? I know you don't want to pay for it, but as has been posted over and over again, we already are. This is taking care of the sick and injured and disabled children of the working class, and providing preventative care for those who would otherwise go without, costing us more later. I already pointed that out above as well, which is why so many healthcare professionals, despite all the ones you know though apparently, support the bill. Even if we look past the obvious of just wanting to help our fellow citizens who need us, it's an incentive for us as well. For all of us.

I'm sorry cheese, the rant above was not aimed at you, but you have to understand that what you're posting are the GOP talking points. Most of which was already dealt with. This is exactly about those exceptions you were talking about, not the rest. And for the records, illegals still aren't covered either for those wondering, they just made a provision for babies who don't have birth certificates yet.

And in case anyone wants to start talking about taking care of the poor kids first, again, that would be Medicaid, which is different.

[Ugg]

Did you read the portion of my post that states that I am not against this bill? Did you read the portion of my post that stated that those that are uninsurable should be covered by society? I did not say that those making $40K a year would have an easy time paying $1000 a month for insurance, but it is possible if that family values insurance over what I would consider luxuries like TV, cable, computers, extra family car, nice home. If that family chooses not to spend their income on insurance, they run the risk of going bankrupt when there are serious medical issues. Many people will take their chances and not buy insurance because of the things they would have to give up. For you to say there is no possible way a family could afford it is ridiculous. Many familes make it on very little income because they have the proper discipline to live within their means.


I know what you wrote and understand the point you're making. However, you seem to fail to understand my point.

Why should a family be forced to spend 25% or more of their pretax income on health insurance?

You're going all puritannical and saying that it's a matter of integrity and principle.

Fine, however, when a family is forced to spend more on insurance than they do on rent or a mortgage, isn't something wrong with the system? Health care costs are going up in a big way and more and more people are being forced to pay higher deductibles, co pays and being denied coverage for certain conditions. Some as idiotic as jock itch.

If wages for those making under $100k a year continue their extremely slow growth and health care costs continue their decades long increases, there's going to come a point where only the extremely rich can afford health care.

My POINT is, the system is ********** and we need to do something about it.

The first thing that needs to happen is make sure everyone is insured and everyone is contributing.

The second, make sure that preventative care is something REQUIRED by all patients.

The third, we need to take a serious look at the insane profits the health care industry and the drug cartel are making.

I'm sure there are other points but the system is broken. Blaming someone for not wanting to spend a quarter of their income on crappy health insurance is NOT going to solve the problem.

[Nukemkb]

I am against the bill. Not much more to be said. :p

[beatzfreak]

Again, read up on it. Those have mostly been debunked. There are some states where the program has been taken advantage of by adults. But a lot of the "adults" covered are actually just covered due to pregnancy. Because, you know, they have a child within them. Or those "adults" are in their late teens and early twenties going to college. Some of them with disabilities, injuries, or illness. Most of those being covered who shouldn't be wouldn't be with the new bill that clearly outlines this.

Er, unless I misunderstood and you're agreeing with me. :o



I was agreeing with you. The link I provided explains it all.

The GOP doesn't like the expanded plan because they say it covers adults even though Bushco approved waivers in 11 states to cover adults back in 2001. The point being, they're wrong. The expanded plan eliminates adult coverage.

[Badandy]

The first thing that needs to happen is make sure everyone is insured and everyone is contributing.



No no no. That's the first thing you think should happen.

[pseudobrit]

No no no. That's the first thing you think should happen.

Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't care if Americans suffer under the worst healthcare system in the industrialized world.

[CalBoy]

Too funny! I can't find anyone against expanding SCHIP! And I live in a major city. And quite to the contrary- I find tons of people know about this issue.
My sister doesn't support it for some reason, yet she supports universal healthcare:confused: Ironically, I don't like the universal healthcare systems that have been produced so far, but I like this bill:rolleyes:


I personally would have to disagree with that. $40K a year should be able to pay for health insurance if the family is healthy with no high risk members. The family just needs to budget and prioritize their purchases. If the family is up to their ears with credit card debt, living in an expensive home, and saddled with other expenses they will probably choose not to insure their family.

Just where do you live? Wyoming? In the Bay Area, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and pretty much every other major population center, rent for a family of four would be more than $1500/month (more if you are in some areas). $40k translates to about $3,300 per month. After rent, that's $1,800. Subtract food (let's be nice and say $400), and you're left with $1,400. Utilities remove another $100, so you're left with $1,300. Assuming the parents don't have cars, and are able to use public transit for all their needs, we're looking at about $200 more per month for two working adults. Now you're left with $1,100. Phones take out at least another $100, so we're left with $1,000. At this point, we haven't gotten to clothing, bathroom necessities, the various costs of having children, etc. And then you want to take out another $1,000-$1,500 for healthcare? Who's going to pay Uncle Sam?:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

My sister doesn't support it for some reason, yet she supports universal healthcare:confused: Ironically, I don't like the universal healthcare systems that have been produced so far, but I like this bill:rolleyes:




Just where do you live? Wyoming? In the Bay Area, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and pretty much every other major population center, rent for a family of four would be more than $1500/month (more if you are in some areas). $40k translates to about $3,300 per month. After rent, that's $1,800. Subtract food (let's be nice and say $400), and you're left with $1,400. Utilities remove another $100, so you're left with $1,300. Assuming the parents don't have cars, and are able to use public transit for all their needs, we're looking at about $200 more per month for two working adults. Now you're left with $1,100. Phones take out at least another $100, so we're left with $1,000. At this point, we haven't gotten to clothing, bathroom necessities, the various costs of having children, etc. And then you want to take out another $1,000-$1,500 for healthcare? Who's going to pay Uncle Sam?:rolleyes:

You hit it man. The people I work with make a little more than that and have kids. If it weren't for our benefits, they couldn't make it.

[Iscariot]

As someone who lives in a nation that provides universal healthcare, I cannot fathom why so many would have such a strong opposition to it, especially considering how strong of a case the faltering U.S. system makes against itself.

You're already paying for other people's healthcare, whether you like it or not -- unless you've been dodging your taxes, that is. Around 18% of your federal tax dollar already goes to healthcare.

Interestingly, in Canada, that number is around 16%. Although this doesn't represent a direct comparison as the two nations taxing procedures are different, it does speak to how much more cost efficient national healthcare is.

[Marble]

I am curious about this myself. Quite a lot of countries in the western world have a national healthcare system. And these are capitalist societies that have stable politics, much like the United States. There are so many good examples of universal health care out there... why are we so afraid of it when the benefits have been proven in lots of different contexts?

[CalBoy]

I am curious about this myself. Quite a lot of countries in the western world have a national healthcare system. And these are capitalist societies that have stable politics, much like the United States. There are so many good examples of universal health care out there... why are we so afraid of it when the benefits have been proven in lots of different contexts?

Actually, every single developed nation on Earth has a system except for the US. However, this article (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34979.html) might provide some insight into the fears of Americans(Credit Naimfan for the article).

[Iscariot]

Actually, every single developed nation on Earth has a system except for the US. However, this article (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34979.html) might provide some insight into the fears of Americans(Credit Naimfan for the article).

Then thanks to you and Naimy (Naimfy?) for the interesting article.

Health expenditures in nationalized systems are kept lower chiefly by price controls and the frank rationing of services. In Canada waiting lines for many medical procedures are legendary. Last year, lawyers in Quebec filed a class action suit on behalf of 10,000 breast cancer patients who contend they had to wait too long for radiotherapy. The story is the much the same for Britain's National Health Service where more than 800,000 patients are waiting for NHS operations.

Technically speaking, nationalized systems aren't any more "rationed" than in other healthcare systems. It's not like emergency rooms close up when certain quotas are met or surgeons have a strict limit in place of how many people can be operated upon. Demand is met as well as supply can provide. Also consider that U.S. wait times are deflated by the fact that a significant number of people are kept out of the queue entirely by the prohibitive costs of service.

I would also like to counter with the following information from a recent health study: (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76295.php)

A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada. And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.

In Canada, there are no waits for emergency surgeries, and the median time for non-emergency elective surgery has been dropping as a result of public pressure and increased funding so that it is now equal to or better than the U.S. in most areas, the organizations say. Statistics Canada's latest figures show that median wait times for elective surgery in Canada is now three weeks.

"There are significant differences between the U.S. and Canada, too," said Burger. "In Canada, no one is denied care because of cost, because their treatment or test was not 'pre-approved' or because they have a pre-existing condition."

A lot of the other points I think are more conjecture than logically based. I don't think that medical research would "freeze" because healthcare was nationalized; an opposing possibility is that overall cheaper general healthcare would mean more healthcare money would become available for medical research.

[CalBoy]

A lot of the other points I think are more conjecture than logically based. I don't think that medical research would "freeze" because healthcare was nationalized; an opposing possibility is that overall cheaper general healthcare would mean more healthcare money would become available for medical research.

Question is, who would have the money? At the moment, pharmaceutical companies have a great deal of motivation for creating new drugs, as they can charge $50 or more per pill. If you have insurance in the US, you'll be ok for the most part, because life-saving drugs are usually covered to a good degree (we have Kaiser, and we pay only $10 for prescription refills, no matter what drug).

If healthcare is available to all, then there would be a collective interest for only generic drugs to be covered by the national insurance plan, as the costs of providing breakthrough drugs would be too expensive. If the breakthrough drug market collapses, what company would bother to invest the billions it takes to create a successful drug?

You also can't deny that the stats about being 4 times more likely to die on the operating table are rather scary. I think I'd rather take 8 fewer months in life expectancy over knowing that I'm 4 times more likely to die just by going under the knife.

[Iscariot]

Question is, who would have the money? At the moment, pharmaceutical companies have a great deal of motivation for creating new drugs, as they can charge $50 or more per pill. If you have insurance in the US, you'll be ok for the most part, because life-saving drugs are usually covered to a good degree (we have Kaiser, and we pay only $10 for prescription refills, no matter what drug).

It depends on what kind of national healthcare plan is implemented. For example, in Canada prescriptions are rarely covered by provincial healthcare services, so under a system similar to Canada's, the pharmaceutical companies would have similar profit-based incentives. However, similar incentives could exist via grants in other systems.

You also can't deny that the stats about being 4 times more likely to die on the operating table are rather scary. I think I'd rather take 8 fewer months in life expectancy over knowing that I'm 4 times more likely to die just by going under the knife.

With any statistic, I'm inclined to assume that there are more factors here than meet the eye. For example, those with the most serious injuries and ailments are often those in the lowest income brackets, as work-related hazards tend to be more associated with poorer paying jobs. These people wouldn't be able to afford the same procedures as their counterparts in other nations, and thus bring the numbers down.

Additionally, the statistics in that article seem cherry picked -- wait times pick Canada, medical errors errors for Britain. Obviously one nation is not representative of all national healthcare systems. It's entirely possible that Britain's medical error rate is tied to, say, a lower quality level of medical schooling. It seems they're choosing the worst example in each category to serve as a condemnation of the idea on the whole, and that doesn't hold water logically. No system is without it's problems.

edit: I'm going to leave my duplication error of the word "errors" because I find it somewhat ironic :p

[CalBoy]

It depends on what kind of national healthcare plan is implemented. For example, in Canada prescriptions are rarely covered by provincial healthcare services, so under a system similar to Canada's, the pharmaceutical companies would have similar profit-based incentives. However, similar incentives could exist via grants in other systems.
But this is all dependent on which drugs are chosen to be covered under the plans. At the moment, the sickening buddy-buddy relationship that HMOs and drug companies have actually produces a constant market for new drugs:(


With any statistic, I'm inclined to assume that there are more factors here than meet the eye. For example, those with the most serious injuries and ailments are often those in the lowest income brackets, as work-related hazards tend to be more associated with poorer paying jobs. These people wouldn't be able to afford the same procedures as their counterparts in other nations, and thus bring the numbers down.

Additionally, the statistics in that article seem cherry picked -- wait times pick Canada, medical errors errors for Britain. Obviously one nation is not representative of all national healthcare systems. It's entirely possible that Britain's medical error rate is tied to, say, a lower quality level of medical schooling. It seems they're choosing the worst example in each category to serve as a condemnation of the idea on the whole, and that doesn't hold water logically. No system is without it's problems.
True, the stats were cherry-picked, but it's just trying to point out that things can go wrong under such a system, and if we're trying to implement a similar US system, then you must assume that it will be even worse. American systems are less efficient, less responsive, and overall, don't achieve results as quickly. If the healthcare system suffers the same fate, just imagine how bad hospital wait times will be:eek:

[Naimfan]

It depends on what kind of national healthcare plan is implemented. For example, in Canada prescriptions are rarely covered by provincial healthcare services, so under a system similar to Canada's, the pharmaceutical companies would have similar profit-based incentives. However, similar incentives could exist via grants in other systems.


I thought the most interesting part of that article was the implicit argument that the US has been responsible for much of the medical innovation, and that a major part of the reason for that is the lack of a predominantly government-run health care system. I've not taken the time to research that to see how far it holds up, but it does seem plausible.

On the cherry-picking stats part--come on now, everyone does that to a degree.

Although I'm partly tongue in cheek when I say it, I think the idea of phasing out insurance and letting the market drive costs would be interesting to say the least. It's unlikely to ever happen (to put it mildly!), but it would certainly drive down costs, and, yes, doctors would probably end up making more than teachers, but not by the 10 to 1 ratio now. We'd certainly find out how many doctors and other health care professionals are in it for their desire to help people as opposed to making money! ;)

[Swarmlord]

Try getting the Hepatitus vaccine. $600 for three shots.

A set of tires for my car costs that and I need a set every couple years. Exactly how often am I supposed to need a shot for hepatitus?

[solvs]

I am against the bill. Not much more to be said. :p
Judging by your sig, no, I guess not.

why are we so afraid of it when the benefits have been proven in lots of different contexts?
The healthcare industries in this country have a lot of lobbyists.

Also consider that U.S. wait times are deflated by the fact that a significant number of people are kept out of the queue entirely by the prohibitive costs of service.
I never got that argument anyway though. I always have to wait. First you have to make an appointment, which isn't always anytime soon, then you have to wait once you get there. Even with a prescheduled appointment. If you don't have insurance, it's even worse, like if you have to go to a clinic or emergency room. Which a lot of people do for nonemergencies, because it's the only way for them to see a doctor.

A set of tires for my car costs that and I need a set every couple years. Exactly how often am I supposed to need a shot for hepatitus?
You still don't get it. The Mercedes Benz analogy doesn't work, and neither does this. That was just an example, and it could be far worse if you actually were sick or injured and didn't have insurance. That's the problem.

And where are you buying tires, because I pay less than half that for tires that last years, even with all the driving I have to do.

[solvs]

Wondering why this didn't get more play, but apparently McConnell's office did have something to do with the false info on the Frost family. And worse, he lied about it. More here:

McConnell versus truth (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/OPINION01/710180358)

A McConnell aide, Don Stewart, admits he sicced reporters on the Frosts when "trusted" bloggers began to question their authenticity as an income-qualified CHIP program participant. But he says he quickly called off the dogs when he decided there wasn't a story there after all, because the family's situation was legitimate. Mr. Stewart told The Courier-Journal he explained all that to his boss on Thursday.

So Sen. McConnell was deliberately untruthful the next day, when he told WHAS-TV's Mark Hebert, "There was no involvement whatsoever." The senator will object to any suggestion of lying, but what else is it when you knowingly misrepresent facts?

It's clear what Mitch McConnell knew and when he knew it. It's clear he deceived the public when he answered Mr. Hebert as he did about the e-mail sent by his press agent.