SCHIP about doctors, not children
In his letter of Aug. 9, “Reauthorize, expand kids' health coverage,” Thomas Kopfensteiner wrote in support of SCHIP, “Children are among our most vulnerable citizens and we have an obligation as a society to take care of them.”
SCHIP isn’t really about taking care of children. Doctors have been doing that since long before SCHIP even existed.
SCHIP is about taking care of doctors.
Health insurance is not health care. It is not a method of treatment; it is only a method of payment. Its sole function is to ensure that people in the medical profession get their fees paid.
I am not opposed to their getting paid, but it’s absurd to believe that it’s the obligation of society at large to pick up the tab, and that putting that burden onto taxpayers is the morally responsible thing to do.
Dave Olson, Westminster
Putting any government agency in control of anything is absurd. When it involves money, though, it becomes a bureaucratic black hole, with as many "public servants" sucking at the public teat as possible.
Posted by on August 27, 2007 01:43 AMAnytime you hear "It's for the Children" grab your wallet, because you're about to have your pocket picked, and will be called any number of derogatory names in an attempt to make you feel guilty that you won't simply aquiesce to whatever scam is being presented.
Posted by clyde on August 27, 2007 01:48 AMyou know that if we cut off foreign aid to all of the countries that hate us and stop providing free benefits to all the illigals, we would have a ton of cash to start a new social program called save the children and let their parent off the hook for raising them. wasn't it hillary who wrote the book it takes a village?
like my parents I raised and took care of my children and didnt need nor ask for the government to do it for me.
What a foolish letter. Of course we need to provide and pay for health care for children of families who can't afford to do that. It's not just the civilized thing to do. It's also the thing that will best serve our own self-interests as a nation. The alternative is for many children to go without health care and no one with an ounce of brain power would consider that either civilized or prudent.
Posted by Truth on August 27, 2007 09:10 AMTruth, You do make a good point. Children do need basic health care.Yearly physicals and immunizations.
Here is where I draw the line. How many kids do the tax payers have to pay for when a woman keeps having child after child,no father around or 6 kids by 6 different fathers.
When something is handed out for free,human nature will not care about saving the tax payers money.
If you don't hand out things so free and easily ,a normal person would think twice about the consequences of their actions.
There lies the dilemma.
How many children does a tax payer have to support for people who breed irresponsibly?
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 27, 2007 09:27 AMAmen, out where I live people have very large families. The parents are married. Does that make these children more deserving of medical care.?
Stop with the 6 kids by 6 different fathers. What does that matter?
You are putting your morals in this. Kids are kids.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 09:55 AMtruff and sharon you two should get together and pay for the insurance for all of the kids whose parents think like the both of you do, that it is someone else's job to pay for their needs.
BTW it does matter in a responsible way on the 6 kids with 6 dads and they probally dont know who their sperm donner is anyway.
Amen: "Here is where I draw the line. How many kids do the tax payers have to pay for when a woman keeps having child after child,no father around or 6 kids by 6 different fathers."
Amen, you're not drawing a line at all, you're just venting your feelings. If you do draw a line, do we just let the children on the other side stay sick or die? What if they infect other children, do we house them in quarantine quarters? I guess we could put the mother in jail and the kids in foster care, although we would have to build more jails and find more foster care. It would be a lot more expensive than providing health care but at least you'd get your feelings vented better. No matter how you cut it, our nation is better off making sure all children have good health care. But we could still cut off our nose to spite our face, as the saying goes, just to show those mothers what for. Would you be opposed to spending more money to educate those mothers? "By God, I did it on my own so if they can't, the hell with them, and their innocent children." Lot of people on this forum live by that philosophy. The fewer of that kind we have in our nation, the happier a nation we will have. It's not a philosophy that deserves an AMEN.
Posted by Truth on August 27, 2007 11:22 AMBig problem with SCHIP is that the current legislation isn't a renewal it's a major expansion to include young adults and illegals. NO BENEFITS FOR ILLEGALS. Look at Oklahoma. Just because they have a new state law on the books that doesn't even take effect until November, the illegals are running away from the state in droves.
The insurance for children who are citizens is what needs to be renewed. This one won't let the states deny venefits to illegals and defindes a child as anyone 24 years old or younger. That is why the bill is in danger of a veto.
As for this legislation no being about health care but payment. The only power the government has is to transfer money or provide punishment. The rest is all a subset of this.
Posted by momma y on August 27, 2007 11:26 AMBe prepared, momma y, Truth shall be returning with the full force of screaming liberal with fire ants in his pants for you exclusion of illegals. You must realize that the blacks have been dropped from the liberal pet project list (much to their benefit as they'll now be free to prosper) and the poor, misused, abused and misunderstood illegal immigrant is now the "in thing" for liberals like Truth to get their panties in a twist over.
Ye hath loosed the righteousness of the illogical liberal..thy shalt pay with a diatribe of justification.
Posted by on August 27, 2007 11:40 AMThanks Truth. I didn`t argue one way or another for this legislation, I just get weary of the old 6 kids with 6 fathers canard.
Remember "welfare queen"?
If that sick little kid has a communicable disease, lets see that marriage certificate before we treat it.
But if you have 10 legitimate little ones, come on in.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 11:45 AMTRUTH:
"No matter how you cut it, our nation is better off making sure all children have good health care." PROVE IT!!!
and "What if they infect other children",You and your what ifs. WHAT IF they were never born to begin with,...then they couldn't hypothetically infect anyone.
WHAT IF, all the parasites were eliminated and the hard workers were left with all the extra resources and Monet. Would America be better off?? And don't come up with, "but a some people need help now and then through no fault of their own" Yes that is correct but the amount needed for people willing to work that occaisionally need a hand, even if it just a limited tax break would require only miniscule amounts of my money.
Or, What if the next Einstein was lost only because he was born to a welfare mother " Well, If I had to bet, I say there is a much greater chance that a genius will be lost when limited money is given disproportionally to so called "at risk" kids at the expense of proven acheivers. And that there is a greter chance a Stalin, Hitler or Idi Amin will come from poverty.
What if doesn't cut it for a lot of reasons.
In a world of limited resources(as I've heard you profess and whine about), the producers and workers ARE more important than the parasites. You yourself said "Lot of people on this forum live by that philosophy" Do a lot of people also share your beliefs?? If it is 50 - 50 then your 50 should pay for what they believe in.
And Sharon B Are the large families "where you come from" taking care of their children and buying them medicine and food? IF so, your point is worthless. If they are on welfare , then yes, they are also part of the problem. Period.
AF
Posted by on August 27, 2007 11:51 AMAF
"...there is a greter (sic) chance a Stalin, Hitler or Idi Amin will come from poverty."
As support for your argument, look at where the majority of "fighting" and attack dogs come from. With a few notable exceptions like Vick-the-Prick, most macho people who breed and train dogs to be vicious extensions of their own wannbe persona come from the lower socio economic layer of society -- those who are in that layer usually by choice (allergic to work ethic and consumes distilled medicines to remedy).
These same macho people breed, nurture and train human offspring of their own. While it is desirable and morally responsible to assist children from these types of parents both medically and developmentally, there is a limit as to the "home emotional and intellectual' training that can be over come.
Look a many of the gang problems that are around all major, and some small, cities. The father is either unknown or absent; or, he is perpetuating the lifestyle he was exposed to in childhood with the development of his own kids. If the now adult gang member turned father is not in prison, statistically he is still leading a live of "getting away with it" off the grid of societal norms.
This isn't an observation made based on ethnicity as we find people such as this from all racial backgrounds. It's just a fact of life that we have a self defined class of people who choose not to live by the accepted moral nor legal codes adopted or recognized by society.
Posted by darfor on August 27, 2007 12:38 PMThe final sentences were cut off the post of 12:38PM:
Yet they seek and expect the same level of public assistance that is available to anyone who actually is in need of such. The fact that they may drive a Lexus and wear diamonds doesn't enter into their equation when making such demands.
Posted by darfor on August 27, 2007 12:43 PMTruth:--
GOOOOOOO Oklahoma!!!! Eff. Nov 1, 2007
The major impact will be on those businesses that for whatever reason employ illegal immigrants. This bill will deter that practice, discouraging their influx into the state and making it difficult for them to remain.
It replicates in state law the federal statute making it a crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants. They cannot get drivers' licenses. Neither can they receive benefits from state or local agencies other than those allowed by the federal government without verifying a lawful presence.
The fact that illegal immigrants are a severe burden on Oklahoma taxpayers is demonstrated in many ways. They contribute heavily to the crime problem, fill our jails and prisons, and absorb taxpayer dollars through benefits to which they are not entitled, costing millions of tax dollars.
Oklahoma taxpayers and citizens will be protected by this legislation and also immigrants and other non-citizens in this state legally. So too will private employers faced with unfair competition from those who hire illegal workers at lower wages.
CA
Posted by on August 27, 2007 12:54 PMAll for you Truth
House Bill 1804 was passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate of the Oklahoma Legislature. The measure's sponsor, State Representative Randy Terrill, says the bill has four main topical areas: it deals with identity theft; it terminates public assistance benefits to illegals; it empowers state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws; and it punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.
Oklahoma is no longer "O.K." for illegal aliens, Terrill observes. "When you put everything together in context," he contends, "the bottom line is illegal aliens will not come here if there are no jobs waiting for them, they will not stay here if there is no government subsidy, and they certainly won't stay here if they know that if they ever encounter our state and local law enforcement officers, they will be physically detained until they're deported. And that's exactly what House Bill 1804 does."
The Oklahoma legislator is pleased the bill he sponsored into law was signed by Governor Henry and believes it will go a long way to curb the illegal immigration problem in the state. "I would remind people that states are separate sovereigns in our federal system," Terrill points out. "Anyone who doesn't understand that needs to go back and take an American federal government class in college," he says.
As a result of that sovereignty, the Oklahoma lawmaker insists, "we have as much right -- in fact, I would argue, a responsibility -- to protect our taxpayers against that sort of egregious waste, fraud and abuse as the federal government should have a responsibility to protect that international border, but doesn't do that."
Terrill says as long as the federal government refuses to do its job of protecting the international borders of the United States, states like Oklahoma must take action to deal with the problem that is costing taxpayers in the state $200 million a year in public benefits, law enforcement costs, and other resources.
Some how we went from illegitimate babies to illegal babies and adults.
From health care of kids who might have unmarried parents to Oklahoma?
Where will this go next?
Diamonds and a Lexus, sounds like, green, seen, oh yes, queen. Welfare Queen from Ronnie's Cadillac to Lexus in 20 years.
The big families I know are from religions that forbid birth control or push parents to have many babies because"God has unused souls that need to be born".
Some get assistance, all get tax breaks. Some pay as they go, some pay only part. But hey all the kids are legal. And so are the parents.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 01:12 PMSharon B:--
I think we made a sharp turn to Oklahoma because momma y unintentionally through the gauntlet to Truth by mentioning illegal immigrants -- he seems to respond very passionately on the subject at a drop of the hat.
That problem is being addressed already. I'm more concerned about what was pointed out above with the fatherless families of gang bangers and others living, as it was put "off the grid" not paying taxes and scamming the system while the fathers are living a players life of luxury.
Families that are having money problems or have lost a parent I have no problem seeing them getting help. I do object to the mother of 4 or 5 kids of different fathers who have become baby factories to draw support with while the fathers take no responsibility.
CA
Posted by on August 27, 2007 01:53 PMmomma y: "The only power the government has is to transfer money or provide punishment."
For goodness sakes, momma y, you certainly are entitled to hate the government, but try to be somewhat intelligent about it. To say that the food and drug administration, to take just one example, does nothing but transfer money is not worthy of being said by an intelligent adult. But then, I can see you needed to vent some more.
Posted by Truth on August 27, 2007 02:22 PMmomma y - do you lie intentionally, or just believe everything rush says?
SCHIP does not provide benefits to illegals.
http://altmire.house.gov/list/press/pa04_altmire/CHAMPimmigrants.shtml
And it took all of 10 seconds to find out.
Posted by Tbone on August 27, 2007 02:46 PMTbone
Allowing illegal immigrant children to received benefits is being advocated by the Democrats via leaving it to the states. While not law yet, it has caused some political games and under handed maneuvers in DC: A couple of reports follow --
The Republican Congress in 1996 passed legislation blocking people who are in the country illegally from claiming benefits from the federal government, and when SCHIP was created in 1997, states were required to verify citizenship. But Democrats want to take that sensible requirement for Medicaid and SCHIP and leave it to the discretion of each state.
This reflects the Democrats' eagerness to offer free services to illegals at taxpayer expense, undermining the principles of both immigration law and good governance. And it is also a step Democrats want to take toward expanding SCHIP, like their plan to expand its coverage to include children from middle-income families that make up to $83,000 per year — a plan encompassing more than 70 percent of American children. (When SCHIP first came into being it was only for families with incomes up to double the poverty level, or $40,000 for a family of four.) Expanding the program will cost $50 billion over five years; expanding it by giving states the option to not enforce the citizenship requirement pushes the price tag up even higher — although just how much would depend on how many states decide to include illegals in the program.
Unsatisfied with thwarting a Republican effort to authorize $3 billion for a border fence, congressional Democrats are trying to enhance the incentive for illegal aliens to enter the United States by removing the citizenship requirement from the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The Republican Congress in 1996 passed legislation blocking people who are in the country illegally from claiming benefits from the federal government, and when SCHIP was created in 1997, states were required to verify citizenship. But Democrats want to take that sensible requirement for Medicaid and SCHIP and leave it to the discretion of each state...
...Recall that SCHIP was born out of a failed attempt at government-run universal health coverage. Indeed, the Democratic expansion of SCHIP will actually allow children who currently have private health insurance to switch to the federally subsidized program, saddling taxpayers with yet another entitlement burden. In the wake of the defeat of the immigration amnesty bill last month, open-borders advocates are attempting to implement their agenda using a piecemeal approach.
Posted by on August 27, 2007 05:35 PMwow. Where'd you cut and paste that from? worldnewsdaily? freerepublic? littlegreenfootballs? lucianne?
Posted by Tbone on August 27, 2007 06:12 PMTbone
Here’s a somewhat more neutral presentation of the argument going on regarding the Children’s Health & Medicare Protection Act, covering Medicare, Medicaid & SCHIP. Keep in mind this still has not received a final vote and implementation.
As it stands now it eliminates the requirement that persons applying for Medicaid or SCHIP service show proof of citizenship or nationality.
One provision, Section 132, would remove a requirement that legal immigrants wait five years before being eligible for government-funded health care coverage.
The other two sections have potential applicability to illegal residents. Section 143 would give states the option of requiring proof of citizenship for enrollment in the programs. Opponents say the provision allows states to "return to a system of blind trust." Any state which might lean toward favoring a sanctuary flavored stance on illegal immigration could essentially ignore status questions prior to providing services.
The third section highlighted by opponents, Section 233, provides grants for translation services.
Critics argue that this could enable illegal residents with a weak grasp of English to take advantage of the provision allowing states to not require proof of citizenship. Opponents also argue that it rejects efforts to "encourage national unity around the English language."
In other words, the bill as currently crafted will provide loopholes that could potentially be exploited by illegal immigrants. But again, nothing has been finalized into law at this time.
Thanks mongoose. Do you have a link?
From your above post, It sounds like immigrant status is more determined by the language they speak. ie - someone who speaks french is automatically a damn canadian, and illegal. Not to mention, "encouraging unity around the english language" sounds a bit.....orwellian.
Posted by Tbone on August 27, 2007 08:42 PMTbone
I stand partially corrected: The bill has passed the House. Here's the index page which provides links to the sections referenced (If you have insomnia you can read the whole bill -- guaranteed to put you right to sleep!).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110V0asym::
Posted by mongoose on August 27, 2007 09:15 PMTbone
First click on this link re section 135; It settles the debate!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110V0asym:e85533:
The following section establishes audits for ensuring application to legal citizens only.
Posted by on August 27, 2007 09:20 PMSorry, neither of those links worked..
Here's a link to the cover sheet, in the body of the letter you will see a link to Summary, follow that to the third and passed version.
Sorry about that!
http://energycommerce.house.gov/CHAMP/CHAMP_index.shtml
Posted by mongoose on August 27, 2007 09:24 PMtbone and others
I stated that the government has only two POWERS: the transfer of money or punishment.
Name me any other power it has that isn't an offshoot of one of these. It has many responsibilities but responsibility is not a power. That said the children's health care program is not a bad idea but one that must not be permitted to go outside the protection of children who are American citizens.
We already have a remarkable control on the children born on welfare and we use it. You get X dollars in aid. No more for more kids. We also use it for children born to married women and those who pay their own bills. In those cases, it's called a paycheck. A "sin" warning to women seems a bit late and stupid these days. What they need is a reason they will consider good when they are too young to think straight or too smitten to think at all. I mention women because they will almost always bear the burden whether the men do so or not.
And we can blame ourselves or our parents for the lack of a father figure in so many poor and minority families when today's 30 year olds were growing up. The war on poverty allowed us to put it all on government and we did. The racial divide happened because back then more poor were minorities than whites and we thought we were doing them a favor to provide help. That help came with strings that tied mothers to child bearing rather than self-improvement. Why get a job when you can't lose your job as a mother? How hard was it to get welfare? Heard lots of stories. Watched my sister struggle with forms and calls and a lot of nonsense to keep her benefits long after all her kids were in school and she was collecting child support, finally, from her ex-husband. She was on welfare for 10 years. Her oldest two boys never graduated from high school although the oldest got such high scores on the ACT that he had dozens of scholarship offers. The middle boy is in jail for drugs. The youngest, born much later than the other two, (her husband came to ask her for a divorce after running out on her then spending 8 years living all over the country with other women) only knows of his mother working since the laws pushed her off of welfare when he was just under 2. He also knows of his uncle and I working full time and saving money. He is a straight A student with a good school record and something else...a work ethic. He spent this summer working for a nursing home doing scut work. He cleaned floors and cut grass and washed dishes. His older brother laughed at him only to be told it was better to be dirty than to be lazy. We denied too many young men this kind of example with government help so I am quite leery of any benefit the government can offer.
So I don't trust the government. I know their intentions are good. It's just the results that smell.
Posted by momma y on August 28, 2007 02:40 AMIt was ironic that my point of people having child after child that they can't afford,be brought to light on the story in the RMN today about the misplaced family from New Orleans living in Longmont.
They are trying to start anew. They have put everything they have into starting a photography business. They have no money left,no insurance,are just getting by,they have 3 children and now another one on the way!
Why in the hell would someone in that situation have another child!
Who is going to pay for their stupidity? How are they going to pay the hospital? Go into more debt ?
This is why I am against paying for anyone's healthcare. I am tired of my tax money going to irresponsible people.
Stop breeding if you can't support them without tax payer's money!
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 29, 2007 12:38 PMCan I get an AMEN
regarding the new one on the way -- oops! accidents do happen even when precautions are taken. and not everyone can accept the alternative of abortion. do you really expect people, especially married people to remain celibate unless their bank account is at a certain level? trying to get kids in high school to avoid sex is almost impossible nowadays.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 01:47 PMWith the advancements of different kinds of birth control and condems,oops don't happen if a person is responsible.
I've been married 24 years and we practiced birth control for the first 14 years of our marriage until we were ready financially and emotionally.
I don't believe in oops.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 29, 2007 05:10 PM