Bush vetoes SCHIP expansion

[Beststash]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco The problem is availability of affordable health care. The solution does not have to be a government hand out. I believe the fix should be with Federal regulations on insurers to allow the uninsured in groups... no red lining! If you think about it... on average, most people at any point in time ar relatively healthy... especially people under 65 (qualify for medicare). The mix of unhealthy and healthy should be statistically the same. Let the insurers (foreign and domestic) bid on the contract. Obviously there is more to it than this simple idea... But it should work. If that is coupled with a tax break... Why wouldn't it work?

I like your ideas and I agree that no one whats a handout. This is simply spin that attracts the worst element of both political parties but sadly it get most of the attention.

I think the healthcare industry, much like the energy industry, feels that under our present system of government they are free to rape and pillage without regard to ethics because they simply can. As the healthcare problem hits more and more Americans the rhetoric will stop and a crisis will occur - then and only then will something happen. Our society (not just government) is very good at handling crisis but terrible at planning. This time around the healthcare issue will not go away and the SCHIP is simply a tool to start the discussion. When you see the GOP admit there is a problem then shortly thereafter a solution will begin to be formulated - maybe the next election will be a wakeup call??

Peace

[MasterBlaster]

The conspiracy theory... as documented here by Beststash who has it all figured out...

What could go wrong with the elimination of redlining....Hmmm

Well for one who needs to buy insurance. I'll get it when I get sick. Until then why should I pay ? And if you (or your employer) is silly enough to continue buying health insurance, then you can bet that costs will go up big time.

Your solution trades one set of problems for another.

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 This whole thing has become typical full-contact partisan politics as usual. The Democrats overreached on this bill to make a political point, IMO, and now the other side is blustering unnecessarily as well.

Is that straight off the white house press release?

It was a Bi-partisan bill and the $80k (for a family of 4) that people are bemoaning was only being considered in high cost of living states like NYC and most other states wouldn't have gone up that high because every state wants to make the most needy kids eligible first so they can't afford to increase the eligibility. Nobody increases eligibility for the sake of it, they have to see how many kids that would affect and then make the eligibility (and cost sharing) accordingly.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 What gets me here is that poor kids get treatment, they end up in emergency rooms all around the country and get seen. This is why our system is garbage. Its I'Ve got mines and the heck with the rest of ya. Sorry if we can spend almost 600 BILLION for a war in Iraq we can have healthcare for every american.

Ok, Chicken Little...........

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed Is that straight off the white house press release? It was a Bi-partisan bill ....

They also had to know it was more of an expansion than the president would sign. I know it had some Republican support, but if they reduced the expansion even a little bit, either (a) it's something he might sign or (b) it would have enough support to override a veto.

If your emphasis is more on getting things done than scoring political points, you'd set your sights a little lower, still get an overall expansion, and get it done. I believe they tried to send up something he'd veto so they could use it as a bludgeon against the White House for "hating children" or whatever.

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 They also had to know it was more of an expansion than the president would sign. I know it had some Republican support, but if they reduced the expansion even a little bit, either (a) it's something he might sign or (b) it would have enough support to override a veto. If your emphasis is more on getting things done than scoring political points, you'd set your sights a little lower, still get an overall expansion, and get it done. I believe they tried to send up something he'd veto so they could use it as a bludgeon against the White House for "hating children" or whatever.

perhaps, but he may have also vetoed something lower anyhow (he did it in Texas) if it included any increases (and say that the reason). and the program needed increases just to sustain the current enrollees in various states.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed perhaps, but he may have also vetoed something lower anyhow (he did it in Texas) if it included any increases (and say that the reason). and the program needed increases just to sustain the current enrollees in various states.

It's possible, but if he still vetoed something pared down considerably, then he's a total schmuck (above and beyond what you already think) and would likely have his veto overridden very quickly, thus further weakening an already weakening president.

I believe it was the *intent* of Reid and Pelosi to produce something Bush would veto. The Democrats effectively did that to Bush's father in 1991 and 1992 and successfully used that against him in the election of '92. Why wouldn't they want to try to replace that success? I understand there are political games to be played here, and I'm convinced that ultimately they will produce a somewhat watered-down bill that Bush will sign -- but let's at least be honest in Washington and not act shocked when he vetoed something that plays right into your political calculations.

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster The conspiracy theory... as documented here by Beststash who has it all figured out... What could go wrong with the elimination of redlining....Hmmm Well for one who needs to buy insurance. I'll get it when I get sick. Until then why should I pay ? And if you (or your employer) is silly enough to continue buying health insurance, then you can bet that costs will go up big time. Your solution trades one set of problems for another.

The program would likely need to be mandatory. Since our society will not let the person die... the rest of us pay.

There was the comment about the 25 year old... That 25 year old will be a 50 year old one day. There is no workable way. The only other option would be to let someone without coverage that becomes ill die or suffer without treatment.

Participation is not optional! If it is left optional... some large portion of the population will game it.

Otherwise... we are back where we started. Cost shifting. Believe it or not we are all paying for the uninsured today. When someone without insurance gets treatment... who do you think pays?

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinaco There was the comment about the 25 year old... That 25 year old will be a 50 year old one day. There is no workable way. The only other option would be to let someone without coverage that becomes ill die or suffer without treatment.

You're right, of course, but I don't see why a 25-year-old would have confidence in this argument, seeing as it's been used on Social Security and Medicare, which are giving each successive generation a worse deal.

Of course "let them die" isn't an option (except *perhaps* for the very terminally ill for whom death is imminent), but I don't think we should expect young people today to go gleefully into another program or mandate which is designed to protect older people at the expense of the young. Those programs haven't exactly worked well for today's youth...

[Letj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster Please enlighten me as to why we should pay for the medical insurance for the children of clearly middle class families ?

Clearly middle class? Are you subscribing to the government definition of middle class. Try living on $80K and tell me how middle class you'll feel, especially if you have to pay to insure a family of 4 or five or whatever.

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 ...Those programs haven't exactly worked well for today's youth...

Yes... all the way up to the time they are in the emergency room or diagnosed with cancer. This type of service is not a point in time purchase. It is the right to services when needed. But you pay a little at a time to get it.

I could make the same argument for paying property taxes for schools and other infrastructure that I use little or none now days. Not to mention all of those state universities with the yearly subsidies. Why do I do it? I can promise you if it were not mandatory I would not do it. Of course, no one else would either. Then an education would only be available to people that are well off (supply and demand)! I think we understand that education is something that benefits all of us and society as a whole.

We all contribute to societal good, yet we do not necessarily consume the services rendered for our tax dollars.

By the way... I do not prefer a Medicare style national health plan. I would prefer a private industry solution with appropriate regulation.

[Letj]

With all due respect, everyone on this thread has missed the real reason for the veto. The Republican party is very friendly to big tobacco and the tobacco companies and their employees lobbyed endlessly to prevent this bill from passing because the means for paying for it would be taxes imposed on cigarettes. I am utterly shocked that the news media never picked up on that.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letj With all due respect, everyone on this thread has missed the real reason for the veto. The Republican party is very friendly to big tobacco and the tobacco companies and their employees lobbyed endlessly to prevent this bill from passing because the means for paying for it would be taxes imposed on cigarettes. I am utterly shocked that the news media never picked up on that.

I'm shocked! You mean politicians don't finance their campaigns with $10 contributions from loyal voters??

Seriously, though, if we don't get some campaign finance changes enacted, we are all going to be hurtin'.

[Wags]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letj With all due respect, everyone on this thread has missed the real reason for the veto. The Republican party is very friendly to big tobacco and the tobacco companies and their employees lobbyed endlessly to prevent this bill from passing because the means for paying for it would be taxes imposed on cigarettes. I am utterly shocked that the news media never picked up on that.

Yes, the problem is that Old George W and Congress (both Reps and Dems) are in the pockets of the lobbyist.

Like I stated before Old George W did not have to veto this bill. If he can sign BILLS in which billions of $$$ for the Iraq War are wasted then surely he can spend $35 billion to make sure our children are taken care of medically (for the next 5 years).

If OUR VETERANS and THEIR FAMILIES are having to SUE the VA/government to receive the proper medical care, compensation and ratings then it would stand to reason that the powers to be might not want to spend the needed capital to properly give the proper health care to our children.

Question - Which is more important - WAR or a Children's Health Care Program?

GOD BLESS

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags Yes, the problem is that Old George W and Congress (both Reps and Dems) are in the pockets of the lobbyist. Like I stated before Old George W did not have to veto this bill. If he can sign BILLS in which billions of $$$ for the Iraq War are wasted then surely he can spend $35 billion to make sure our children are taken care of medically (for the next 5 years). If OUR VETERANS and THEIR FAMILIES are having to SUE the VA/government to receive the proper medical care, compensation and ratings then it would stand to reason that the powers to be might not want to spend the needed capital to properly give the proper health care to our children. Question - Which is more important - WAR or a Children's Health Care Program? GOD BLESS

Wags, I think you are being a little too hard on Mr. Bush. He is probably not even aware of many of the issues you cite. You know full well that Mr. Cheney only provides information to the Executive Branch on a need to know basis.

[dwk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 Uh a heart attack and then find out the company you worked for did not pay their premium and went belly up and then the guy had a stroke and then he had 750,000 in bills and guess what THEY LOST THEIR HOUSE!!!!! Two months ago! The system is BROKEN!

The question is what are the requirements for enrollment for this program. Family has a minimal income, but owns $200,000+ home -- should the government step in.

Personally, I think the government needs to have a safety net for families that experience a catastrophic illness or trauma. I think a better plan would be to supplement health insurance preimiums .

dwk

[Rustic23]

Where do we draw the line? If you take the anecdotal experiences of individuals you can find thousands, and perhaps even millions of sad stories. How about the person that has no fire insurance, looses ever thing in a fire? Do we furnish fire insurance? How about an auto accident, and no or not enough insurance and laid up for life, looses their house because they can't work? Another federal program? The kid who drops out of high school and can't find work, oh yea we do that now.

My point is where does individual responsibility and federal responsibility i.e. the socialist state meet. My guess is that health care is much closer to most on this board than the other situations. There was little sympathy for a mortgage bail out.

So why 'Health care needs to be solved and those of you that are already paying 95% of the taxes will just have to pony up more for the other 75% of the population."

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 My point is where does individual responsibility and federal responsibility i.e. the socialist state meet. My guess is that health care is much closer to most on this board than the other situations. There was little sympathy for a mortgage bail out.

This is true, but people had to willingly get themselves into a nonsensical, dangerous loan product in order to be at risk with the subprime mortgage mess. So whatever one thinks about the health insurance situation, there is a difference in the two situations.

[Wags]

From recent news reports it now appears that SOME (not all) Republicans are attacking and have posted in the internet the address of a 12 year old boy who commented on Old George W's veto of the SCHIP expansion.

Result of these actions have resulted in harassment and death threats against the young boy and his family.

Let's hope that these types of childish and stupid retaliations stop/end before somone or somebody ends up dead or being seriously hurt. Think about how sad it would be if GOD forbid, someone hurt this young boy and his family.

GOD BLESS

[Rustic23]

Wags,
I don't know where you get your information, however, I googled 'Frost death threat', 'SCHIP death threat', 12 year old twelve year old death threat. I did not find any reference to any harassment or death threats. I did find several stories on the boy and his family. i.e. they make 45,000 a year, and
The current market value of their improved 3,040 SF home at 104 S Collington Ave is unknown but 113 S COLLINGTON AVE, also an end unit, sold for $485,000 this past March and it was only 2,060 SF.
And that the boy qualified under the previous SCHIPs and would have qualified if the democrats had not changed a thing.