Children’s Healthcare = Good

Called Rep. Buyer (IN-4). Got his receptionist.

Based on past experience (blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=2665) and current plans (blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=2658) is SCHIP the best way to cover uninsured children? Making the issue about caring for children or being callous masks the importance of evluating the method used to achieve the goal.

SCHIP operates in every state, so while New Jersey may have had some problems, that’s not the whole story. The wiki page linked to above has some interesting facts, such as that children who drop out of SCHIP end up costing the state more money than children who stay in. The program also seems to offer more benefits at less total cost, which does mean that some children move from private to public insurance, but that’s not really a bad thing.

Certainly New Jersey is not representative of every state. New Jersey does, however, indicate some weaknesses in the program. The incentive for states to spend more than their budget does exist due to Federal bail outs. Whether or not states succumb to this enticement, the possibility is present and is a concern that should not be brushed aside.

OK, so now you guys just aren’t being truthful. Yes, health care for children is good, but you guys along with the rest of the Dems are being a bit deceitful here. SCHIPS isn’t only for children. It is a piecemeal attempt at a back door government provided health care system. If you are going to advocate for SCHIPS at least don’t lie and use children as your leverage.

I mean, hell, look at it this way:
Currently 14 states allow SCHIPS to be used for adults. Furthermore, here’s a real ugly breakdown of those 14 states:
11 states cover parents, 6 states cover pregnant women and 6 states cover CHILDLESS adults.

Now, how does holding up a child and using that as your basis for expanded health care coverage work when states are using SCHIPS for adults; some allowing for childless adults?

Not to mention that the dems are seeking to expand coverage to 400% of the FPL, which means that families making $80,000 a year will be eligible for SCHIPS. You mean to tell me that a family making $80k can’t afford health care on their own?

Explain to me how this isn’t an attempt at de facto universal health care. And while you’re at it, be honest about it.

Explain to me how this isn’t an attempt at de facto universal health care.

Well, because it won’t be universal for one. SCHIP does cover some parents and other adults. But the majority of people it covers are children. More importantly, the federal government does not mandate how the money is spent. Like Medicare, this is a partnership between the federal government and the states. The states can spend the money how they choose, and sometimes that means insuring parents if they want. I’m siding with the classic conservative idea here. If this is an underhanded move towards universal healthcare, at the very least it is coming from the states, which should put it in a different light for most conservatives. Do you deny states the right to provide universal or state health insurance if they choose?

I oppose any sort of socialized medicine that the federal government has its hands in, no matter who or what provides it. Even though the states have control over how the money is spent, the states are not collecting the money on their own when it comes to SCHIP, and as such, I oppose it. If a state wants to raise its own taxes and provide coverage, then so be it, but not one red cent should come from the federal government. I mean, you can promote federalism all you want, but as soon as you have the federal government funding state programs like SCHIPS, it negates the whole thing.

That much aside though, why call it SCHIPS if adults can use it. Is it because it sounds better? Because it’s easier to tug at the heart strings of people if the program looks to be a program for children on the surface? Why not call it SCHIPS and make it a program that is exclusively for children? At least that would be an honest approach. And while you are right, it is currently not a universal program, by expanding the eligibility out to 400% of the FPL it is coming closer and closer. Once a family of four making $80k a year is eligible for government funded health care, what’s next?

I oppose any sort of socialized medicine that the federal government has its hands in, no matter who or what provides it.

I guess that’s where we disagree, which is fine. It is a fundamental disagreement.

As for the name of the bill, both sides have a history of deceiving names. How about the Patriot Act?

And again, the majority of program money goes to children in families who aren’t rich enough to afford health insurance. The $80k examples isn’t really a good one either. If that family has certain prexisting conditions or health problems, they may legitimately not be able to afford health insurance, even though they are making a fair amount of money every year. I’d need much more research to determine that family cited shouldn’t actually be eligible. Maybe you’re right in a sense, in that this problem is one we should be attacking from the supply side as well, lowering costs and not allowing health insurers to exclude people or raise prices when they get sick. That way, less federal money would be needed to insure the same amount of people. That’s something I’d support wholeheatedly.

However, this bill will increase health coverage primarily for children. I support that.

I am Sam Rasoul a Congressional Candidate in Virginia and I support a bill called HR 676, which provides healthcare coverage to all Americans, but is not socialized medicine.

HR 676 offers a publically subsidized, but PRIVATELY delivered system of healthcare where the government does not own the hospitals and have doctors as employees as with the VA medical system. For more info, please visit http://www.healthcare-now.org/ or visit my website at http://www.SAM2008.com.

Thanks for stopping by Sam. While I do like the idea of a public healthcare system (I guess my communism is showing or whatever), from a brief read through HR 676 sounds like a decent plan. Please keep me informed as to how this bill moves through Congress, I’ll be interested in supporting it when it comes up for a vote.

Here’s some good hard data:

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/chip-kids-waiting.pdf

You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that SCHIP mostly insures families and that there isn’t a need for expansion. With that many uninsured kids (who would otherwise be left uninsured) out there, this is clearly a bill that needs to pass.

You see, here’s the big problem though. Why should health care be publicly subsidized? Why should the American people have this sort of altruistic bullshit forced upon them. Is it a sad situation? Sure, of course it is. All those poor children without health care. Ya know what? Cry me a river. How about this for a suggestion, stop having kids if you can’t afford health care for them. Now there’s a novel idea that doesn’t require screwing the general public. Just because you have some strange feel-good sense of altruism doesn’t mean the rest of us do, and it’s absurd to think that it is our “duty” to run around helping everybody else out of their jams.

I don’t mean to sound cold or cruel, but it’s the facts. Why not set up a system where people like you can voluntarily give into a pool to be used for subsidizing health care for others? If you feel so charitable, then you can give, but why force the rest of us to do it to? Personally, I’m not a charitable person. Maybe I would be if I wasn’t being forced to do it, but when you force charity upon people, you lose a lot of support from those people. You breed contempt and bitterness. Why even try to go down that path? People don’t want that sort of thing. Just look at my home state. We haven’t passed our JULY budget bill yet because the dems refused to take their universal health care provision out of it, and the people as a whole didn’t want it. Despite the fact that the people didn’t want it, the dems refused to take it out until just the other day. But why? Was it because they were doing what the people wanted and the evil conservatives were blocking it? Hell no, they were doing the bidding of people like you at the expense of the majority. Is that what this country is coming to? Fuck the majority, it’s all about who bitches the loudest?

God I hope not.

I’m glad you’re being honest. Sure, it is a view you are perfectly allowed to have, but it is cold and it is cruel. I believe it’s wrong too, but you are entitled to your opinion.

As for the majority, well, with the bi-partisan support this bill has received, and with the polls in America around healthcare, I think I’m in pretty safe majority territory here.

Again, I refer you to that .pdf above. A lot more children will have insurance if SCHIP passes. I don’t shed one tear for private insurance companies losing business. Nor will SCHIP make health insurance like the DMV. That’s a bit far fetched.

However, there is one point that we can agree on. Private insurance needs to be more affordable. That is a reform I’d wholeheartedly support as well, and when a bill comes up through Congress proposing this, you can be sure I’ll be talking about it.

Alot more than JUST children also.
When I said “whats in place” I should of clarified.
My apologies.
Whats in place is our goverment and congress, being a little more imaginative that just asking the taxpayers for more money when they are too lazy or intellectualy stumped to make use of whats in place.

Whenever someone says “its for the kids” I put my hand on my wallet and make sure its still there.
And I find it really sick that because folks dont want a tax increase it is said they dont care about kids.

Why is it that the dems then dont just push for private insurance reform ?

Our fears are validated by the president saying he will veto any bill asking for more than 5 billion. He knows this will be a sneaky back door attempt at socialized medicine if it is given too much room to move.
While schips will work on the small scale it is intended to make its entrance on. It should not be held as an exomple of what a huge natinwide socialistic program will look like’
The DMV is a perfect analogy in the context that everything the goverment touchs turns into a beauracratic cluster fuck.
Its funny how the dems bash almost everything our goverment does, but would have no problem putting there lives in the hands of it.

Well, I want universal, government run healthcare, and I’m willing to pay the taxes to support it, so if this is a backdoor to that (which I don’t buy), then I’d support it either way. I would like to see private insurance efficiency proposals as well, of course, but the problem needs to be attacked from both ends. It’s not just insurers, though they do make a tidy profit on their business. Hospitals and doctors charge too much for procedures, drugs cost too much, etc… The whole thing needs a revamp.

Under the current congress and presidential “leadership” we’re unlikely to get much more than these “backdoor” proposals. In 2008, under Democratic leadership, we’ll get something much more comprehensive.

“Under the current congress and presidential “leadership” we’re unlikely to get much more than these “backdoor” proposals. In 2008, under Democratic leadership, we’ll get something much more comprehensive.”

There is no gaurantee that anybody will get something more comprehensive, you are being “told” you will.

But was has told more truth than wishful thinking is Paul Howard who has researced the field extensively.
And has found the numbers and historical fact that goverment institutionalized programs do not cut it.

Just because you are willing to pay taxes on something does not justify everyone else paying for something they dont want or need.
I have made my point , as I stated in my first sentence in my first post.
You cant do it on your own. You have to convince everyone else that they want or need it before you yourself can have it.

I forgot to mention that the PDA is decieving and disengenuous.
It only says “Bush will veto the legislation”

Conveniently, they forgot to mention that he will only veto it if it asks for more than 5 billion.

I mean, that’s the way it is supposed to work. You win the battle of ideas first. Most polls I’ve read indicate Americans are ready for the government to guarantee healthcare, even if that means higher taxes.

Then, you elect people to get that done. If things keep going how they are going, that will happen in 2008. Then those people hopefully actually do it. Of course, that’s a tricky part as well, as things tend to get watered down in compromise and such. Lots of ifs, but healthcare promises to be the top domestic issue of 2008. Something will get done about it, I predict.

You may think they are ready for it , but wanting it on these terms is a different story.
The polls say Americans are ready for it. Not most Americans.
Gauranteeing health care is different from actually dispensing it.
They could gaurantee better and more affordable health care by putting limitations on frivolous law suits and out of control HMOs and insurance companys.
What the left wants in a undertaking of phenomonal proportions that would result in beurocratic red tape chaos. Tweek what we’ve have got in place is much more feasable than turning everything on its ear, its insane.

In my book the way its supposed to work is that if I want something I dont wait for millions of people to help me get it at the cost of those who dont want it.
I get my own.
Sure , lets help the unfortunates. Lets also help them get off their ass and on their feet and buy their own.
All goverment provided services are second rate compared to identical services provided by the private sector.

The idea that I want education that I cant afford is a classic example. If I could have back my taxes that go to public schooling , I would gladly make up the difference so my boy could go to private school.

I predict its just a bait and switch tactic to get elected.
Getting elected on a platform containing universal health care is one thing. Actually following through on that promise is another thing.
The system in place is HUGE, with the HMOs and the insurance companies and drug companies the administration trying to bring about universal or socialized health care will have the fight of its life.

I predict it will not happen in the next administration.

I predict it will not happen in the next administration.

Hey, you may be right. We shall see.

And honestly, I’d be for any plan that guarantees universal coverage. I don’t think it can be done without some kind of subsidy or tax break, and I won’t support roundabout ways of doing it (such as lowering taxes so people can buy their own, unless they are required to buy their own). Single payer is the best IMO, but I’ll be practical here. If everyone is covered no matter what, I’m ok with it.

Anyone being given a tax break to be used for insurance and not following thru should be arrested. Thats stealing.
I dont think their is any arguement that we all should be covered. But what decides who pays for what is the issue.
A lot of people drive Hugos which is all they can afford.
They’re not as safe, but they have a car.
Some people have brand new SUVs which are safer.
If my neighbor wants a better car, he can buy it himself.
As far as those with no car at all goes, the goverment should act like a dealership to help these folks get a necessary car so they can get a job and buy a better car

The problem I have with tax breaks for health care (and this is getting into a different issue here) is that they don’t work for the poor. Say health care costs could be brought down so it costs $3000 a year to insure a small family. For those who couldn’t afford it, the government would give them a $3000 tax break. Seems like it works, right? Well, no. Because those people need to actually buy the insurance up front. With $3000 they don’t have. Tax breaks only work if someone can take the $3000 hit for the year and get paid back when the IRS gets around for it. For many people living hand to mouth, that just isn’t a reality.

So a real solution that covers everyone, even with simple, basic coverage, is going to have to work around that problem. As I said, I’m willing to settle for a private option, as long as it works for everyone.

Those would be the unfortunates whom the goverment should help.
I mean shit ! If you cant pay taxes thats like telling them to eat cake .

All those poor children without health care. Ya know what? Cry me a river.

That opinion is as short-sighted and ignorant as Bush’s– and about as articulate.

Nevertheless, since there is widespread disregard for the wellbeing of the poor and marginalized in this country (as reflected in this quote), imperfect measures like SCHIP are the best to be hoped for at this time.

I assume that a writer with that misguided and pretentious an opinion has little to no experience with real live poor kids. So the writer’s perspective may make it easier to dismiss the real human need for SCHIP funding— (I teach 50 flesh and blood poor kids every day in a federal Title I public school.) Would it be so easy if you sat every day in front of a 13 year old with undiagnosed tuburculosis coughing all over you until you both find out the severity of his illness nine months later because his mom can’t make him a doctor’s appointment and his “primary care” is in emergency rooms only?

The wanton disregard for issues of public health, children and family welfare, as well as sane and accountable health care spending reflected in this asonine opinion is the real problem with the debate over health care reform.

Finally, after presenting such a mean-spirited and unhelpful diatribe, this author’s suggested alternative is laughable:

Why not set up a system where people like you can voluntarily give into a pool to be used for subsidizing health care for others? If you feel so charitable, then you can give, but why force the rest of us to do it to? Personally, I’m not a charitable person. Maybe I would be if I wasn’t being forced to do it, but when you force charity upon people, you lose a lot of support from those people. You breed contempt and bitterness.

Why not estabish that type of system? Among other reasons because assholes like this writer choose to think in terms of their own self interest in only the narrowest of construction, without any consideration of how people in this country are connected to one another(physically and financially).

While I don’t agree with the personal attacks spell it, I do agree with the content. Please stick to the issues at hand, however.