So SCHIP failed...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by solvs, Oct 19, 2007.

  1. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #1
    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

    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:

    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.
     
  2. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #2
    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....
     
  3. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #3
    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.
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    Stop asking everyone else in your neocon fantasy land and you might have some luck
     
  5. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #5
    I guess I should troll homeless shelters and beatnik coffee shops for intelligent opinion on national policy. My bad.
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #6
    ...where all of us liberal-minded types hang out, waiting to be polled. :rolleyes:
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    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.

    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.
     
  8. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    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 of medical personnel do support this bill and SCHIP itself. 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.
     
  9. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #9
    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.
     
  10. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    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. ;)
     
  11. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #11
    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.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    You mean one has to try to make a Republican look bad? They've been doing pretty well on their own lately.
     
  13. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #13
    Depends on the Republican, n'est-ce pas? ;)
     
  14. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #14
    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.
     
  15. beatzfreak macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Location:
    NYC
    #15
    Here's a couple of interesting points:

    Full article here: http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2636
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Those are all fine with me.
     
  17. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #17
    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
     
  18. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #18
    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.
     
  19. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #19
    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.
     
  20. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #20
    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 too hard. Evidentially, Rachel Maddow also has an op-ed piece today.
     
  21. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #21
    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.
     
  22. beatzfreak macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Location:
    NYC
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #24
    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.
     
  25. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page