- What about Aurora’s unkempt properties?
- GOP has to draw the line somewhere
- Moveon.org ad tizzy a diversionary tactic
- Campos’ side better be prepared
- Heartbroken
- Those who shouldn’t decide on drilling
- Medical advice from the web
- How Iranian President was treated
- The Rocky Mountain Collegian editorial
- Illegal immigrant issues
Bush administration & health care for children
I rarely, if ever, watch TV anymore but I was able to catch Bush’s press conference regarding the bill expanding SCHIP and his plan to veto. Bush argued that the proposed legislation would help middle income families who currently are paying private insurance companies. I understand his desire to protect the private insurance companies who funded his campaigns. However, my family represents a middle income family. After this year my husband’s company is dropping all their private insurance carriers because costs have gotten completely out of control.
I am so discouraged by the President’s leadership. I do not understand a man who will say NO to our own children. The republican administration has become an absolute disgrace. I don’t care how you spin it, Bush and his followers have compromised the well-being of America’s children and are the cause of suffering among our little ones because they simply don’t have access to a doctor, affordable medicine, and emergency care. I am not merely writing this because our president has gone too far again.
I am writing because I have not gone far enough. We must renew our commitment to the betterment of this country and all of it’s children. I will work tirelessly so that my beloved nation never again sees the likes of leadership like this - leadership that turns it’s back on it’s own children.
This letter has not been edited.
US Hater, traitor, liberal bleeding heart,
Hey I have mine, I don't need to pay for crybabies like you. Bush is the gratest president ever, he is the smartest and bestest. He knows our childrens is learning. If you hate Bush you hate America and are a terorists suporter. We dont knneed medicine we need monbey to go to Iraq not help crybabies like you. Come on An American and Keith get on board with me....
Posted by Hank on September 29, 2007 02:34 PMFree markups, monoplolies socialism blah blah blah. Democrpas are morons. Check the facts
Okay, let me get this straight....you have children and it is my job to pay for their health care...I just want to make sure that I understand. If you have a job that doesn't have health insurance, look for a new job. I think that the system is broken in many ways. I don't want to see anyone suffer, but I don't want to pay for everybody else and their choices either. I have taken lower paying jobs because they offered health insurance. I chose to have children and they are MY responsibility. Yes, health insurance should be regulated more than it is so that families that have made responsible decisions are not bankrupted by a catastrophic medical event. But, the bottom line is personal responsibility. If you can't afford to educate and take care of the medical needs of children, don't have them! And believe my, I have a child with a chronic illness and I know how much of a strain it puts on families. But it is ultimately my responsibility. I choose to provide my kids with the latest technology for their medical needs....I drive a car that is 12 years old. I would love a new car, but I can't afford it. I know that my choice to have children impacts this!
Posted by idk on September 29, 2007 05:04 PMAngela,
Welcome to the world of the compassionate conservative.
Posted by leftside on September 29, 2007 05:29 PMAngela,
You might want to check out WHY the veto is promised. First, the program is an expansion, not just an extension. It increases the amount of earnings you can make and be eligible to 80K. It also defines a child as any person 24 years old or younger. NOW do you understand why it MUST be vetoed?
Give the liberals an attaboy for sneaky and dirty tactics to backdoor in socialized medicine. Just let the young people get a taste of "free" medical care and they will vote to keep it past the age of 24. The politicians hoped we wouldn't notice. I see, in your case, they were right. Check out the bill for yourself. I won't even offer a link (mostly because I used ASK about it and bounced into a few site and didn't keep track of where I was.) I didn't believe anyone would try to stick that kind of expansion in under the worn out "for the children." I was wrong.
As for the rest of those posting. Try using full sentences and properly spelled and punctuated words with genuine ideas if you want to pretend to be conservative. You might also actually try being poor and having terrible insurance that caused you to file bankruptcy papers just to save your home. I am not just trying it. I'm living it. Please don't mess up my health care with government "improvements."
Posted by momma y on September 29, 2007 06:32 PMcompassionate conservative
So what? Many of us suspected this was an oxymoron when it was first uttered by Bush, and as the posts above confirm, the last laugh is on those who really took him at his word. If you did, don't feel bad: he's pulled the wool over many eyes over many issues. Ordinarily we call such things lies, but sadly and strangely, I suspect this president actually believes the untruth he speaks.
Posted by on September 29, 2007 08:58 PMidk and momma y are right on; I have brought-up my children (always with health ins.) now, even though I make far less money then 80K I am expected to pay for Angela's children? Ever been to a nursing home? Visit a Medicare/Medicaid nursing home and then visit a "private pay" nursing home then decide if you want government providing your health care.
Posted by brain on September 29, 2007 09:37 PMhey dont forget that hillbilly now wants to give every baby born in the US, that would include all the illigals too, a 5k bond so they could start saving because only the rich can teach their kids to save. wow now the government will give you more of someone elses money so you can have a savings account. last count there are about 4 million babies born a year and that times 5000, oh hell just tax the rich and its paid for.
Posted by on September 30, 2007 06:45 AMLet's stop the abuse of the 14th Amendment by illegal aliens having anchor babies. Then we can talk about healthcare for kids.
Posted by Hillary trying to buy votes with my money on September 30, 2007 07:13 AMI know know the secret of success, financial security is in me grasp and fortune awaits me.. Deny my U.S. citizenship become, Mexican citizen and enter the country illegaly and apply for everything I can get from the government, set my self up in business through a small business loan from the government, marry another illegal alien, adopt 27 alien kids, each of which will quallify for everything from the government and, set up a family shoeshine enterprise with the 5k each of us would get, which we would not pay income taxes on.
That's is alot easier than fighting to survive running a tavern while the government is trying to run me out of business with smoking bans, increased taxes on alcohol, oppressive regulations, new taxes on coin operated devices, increasing insurance and workmans comp costs,------- yeah, much better to live off the government as an illegal than to stay an honest taxpaying citizen, and employer of equally honest taxpaying citizens businessman in this country.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 30, 2007 08:11 AMI loved how people complain about the hard times they've had and still vote the party that does nothing for them.
The Republican party will always take your tax money and give to big business. You know, the guy's who vote against minimum wage, unions and anything else that threatens to improve the working class. Which is why we have to drive older model cars and pay for terrible health insurance.
The Democrats take your taxes and try to help the working class and you call them socialists.
Posted by leftside on September 30, 2007 08:17 AMLiberal Democrats are all so compassionate that all of them would give you the shirt off of SOMEONE ELSE'S back if you needed it. They are always willing to spend other people's money to buy a vote, make them look like they care more, and expand the role of government into all our lives as far as they can. Cradle to grave is their goal. The $5000 bond idea from Hillary is typical - cradle. They are so willing to give a baby $5000 of someone else's money and at the same time take it away from the dead when you die in the form of a death tax.
momma y is correct - this is not about a veto of a program for poor kids, this is about a veto to expand a program for 'poor' kids to families who make $80K a year and beyond the age when most people think children are adults.Keep the program as is and there would be no veto or even a threat of one. But give the liberals an inch and guess what? They will take that mile.
Here we go again. Some of you don't and get it, I know, but we're already paying for each others health care and the insurance companies profit from our contributions to their lousy "coverage". Basic universal health care will be a reality one day, so get ready. If you want some frills for your comfort and security, go ahead and buy insurance to cover them. Nobody will twist your arm.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 30, 2007 10:26 AMleftside uttered:
"The Republican party will always take your tax money and give to big business."
Can you clarify that statement? How do they "take" our tax money? Aren't the Republicans for Health Savings Accounts (thereby letting taxpayers keep their money), privatizing Social Security (thereby letting taxpayers keep their money), and tax cuts (thereby letting taxpayers keep their money).
Can you name three economic programs or proposals by the Democrats that do not involve more taxes, more government and more regulation?
"The Democrats take your taxes and try to help the working class and you call them socialists."
The key word being try. Their intentions may be good, but their methods are fatally flawed.
"You know, the guy's who vote against minimum wage, unions and anything else that threatens to improve the working class. "
Did you know that the minimum wage increases unemployment, especially among poor young black men?
Mr. Broyles repeated:
"Here we go again. Some of you don't and get it, I know, but we're already paying for each others health care and the insurance companies profit from our contributions to their lousy "coverage"."
Can you explain how we are already paying for each other's health care?
Posted by John II on September 30, 2007 11:08 AMHillary Clinton's absurd idea to give every newborn $ 5,000 is so stupid I don't know where to begin.
It will encouraged illegals to have more than the 5 or 6 kids they already have. It will drain more tax payer dollars from social services to pay for these children.
It will drain more medical dollars for these childrens health care .
It will encourage more children that the American tax payer has to pay for.
I am tired of paying for other people's children.I had 2 children because that's all my family could afford.
This is the most outrageous idea coming out of the Democratic camp,I've ever heard.
What's next paying illegals $10,000 to register their status?
FALSE STATEMENTS BY MOMMA Y:
"[SCHIP] increases the amount of earnings you can make and be eligible to 80K. It also defines a child as any person 24 years old or younger."
Neither of these statements is true. They are part of a campaign to mislead the public about the SCHIP legislation. It is one thing to oppose the legislation with facts, but quite another to oppose it with lies.
Truth read the bill. It's on the congressional web site.
John II,
I'm not going to waste my time, again, explaining to you the obvious. I told you to prepare for universal health care and no matter how much you scream and cry, it's going to happen. Period.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 30, 2007 01:09 PMangela,you obviously didn't listened to the speech or were way too stupid to understand the speech.Another child left behind.
Posted by Keith on September 30, 2007 01:15 PMMr. Broyles,
You have never explained anything to me. You never answer any of my direct questions to you. You simply keep telling me you're not going to waste your time explaining something to me. In other words, you're just emoting with no real rational logic to back up your assertions.
Hey Truth,
If you're going to call someone a liar, at least have the decency to post a link proving the lie (or mistake). Also, if you've wrongly accused someone of being a liar, have the decency to apologize for the slander.
Posted by John II on September 30, 2007 01:20 PMBrian, how does a dishwashrer earn 80k?
Republicans are LIARS!
Posted by Rick on September 30, 2007 02:47 PMWell I read the bill, correction, am re-reading it to find the actual places where the increases in age and income occur.
For starters let me detail where the upper age limit is increased from 18 to 19 to 21 to 25 as the upper limit. In the actual bill before Congress:
Page 54 lines 15-24. Also Page 57 Lines 1-10.
That alone is a travesty but the increase to 400% of Federal Poverty Level is the income increase. I'll post this now as I must rest for a while
Stan,
We will only suffer the disaster of socialized medicine if we somehow give up and declare it inevitable. We can prevent or delay or change things by the way we deal with politicians who attempt to change health care. I was told Hilary care was inevitable the first time. Public outrage stopped it then. We can repeat that as often as necessary to achieve results.
If you want to get some good deals and share a smile I'm working at the Colorado Share Sale next Saturday. 9 AM 'til noon. One sale item, from dozens, 8 oz steaks for 1.95 each. The address is 9360Federal Boulevard. (Behind the Checker Auto Parts Store just north of 92nd Ave.) I'll be working one of the checkout lanes. I CAN sit in a chair for a few hours. Would like to meet you and many others.
Posted by momma y on September 30, 2007 04:28 PMJohn II,
You already know the answers to those questions and you still argue the rights position. Which tells me your either very rich or brainwashed beyond any help I can give you.
Posted by leftside on September 30, 2007 06:16 PMIn other words, leftside, you're not going to back up any of your assertions. You can join the club with Truth, Old Grouch, and Mr. Broyles.
Posted by John II on September 30, 2007 06:34 PMWhat does Angelia mean by "our" children? My son is my son and your children are yours. I provided well for my son (food, clothing, private school, medical care) without freeloading off the taxpayer. You should do the same. I'm sorry your husband is losing his coverage but instead of asking the unwilling to pay your bills, your husband should be looking for a second job and provide for his family like a man would do.
Posted by JLB on September 30, 2007 06:41 PM"Truth read the bill. It's on the congressional web site.
Posted by momma y on September 30, 2007 12:58 PM"
MOMMA Y, YOU DID NOT GET THOSE STATEMENTS OUT OF THE BILL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN THE BILL. YOU SHOULD NOT TELL ME TO READ THE BILL WHEN YOU HAVE NOT READ IT YOURSELF.
THE BILL DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DEFINITION OF CHILDREN AS INCLUDING ANY PERSON 24 YEARS OF AGE AND YOUNGER.
THE BILL DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF ELIGIBLE EARNINGS TO $80,000.
YOU ARE GIVING READERS INFORMATION WHICH IS FALSE. SHAME ON YOU.
Posted by Truth on September 30, 2007 07:57 PMmomma y says that what she wrongly says is in the bill is at page 54, lines 15-24, and at page 57, lines 1-10. These parts of the bill do not contain any definition of children and do not contain any provision for $80,000 of eligible income.
http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/senate_hr976.pdf
"1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECU2
RITY ACT; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CON3
TENTS.
4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as ‘‘Chil
5 dren’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of
6 2007’’.
From page 54, line 12 to page 16, line 2:
"54
H.L.C.
1 ‘‘SEC. 2112. OPTIONAL COVERAGE OF TARGETED LOW-IN2
COME PREGNANT WOMEN THROUGH A STATE
3 PLAN AMENDMENT."
‘‘(1) MINIMUM INCOME ELIGIBILITY LEVELS
13 FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN.—The State
14 has established an income eligibility level—
15 ‘‘(A) for pregnant women under subsection
16 (a)(10)(A)(i)(III), (a)(10)(A)(i)(IV), or
17 (l)(1)(A) of section 1902 that is at least 185
18 percent (or such higher percent as the State
19 has in effect with regard to pregnant women
20 under this title) of the poverty line applicable to
21 a family of the size involved, but in no case
22 lower than the percent in effect under any such
23 subsection as of July 1, 2007; and
24 ‘‘(B) for children under 19 years of age
25 under this title (or title XIX) that is at least
1 200 percent of the poverty line applicable to a
2 family of the size involved."
Here is page 57, lines 1-10:
"57
H.L.C.
1 ment, or similar limitation with respect to enroll2
ment.
3 ‘‘(c) OPTION TO PROVIDE PRESUMPTIVE ELIGI4
BILITY.—A State that elects the option under subsection
5 (a) and satisfies the conditions described in subsection (b)
6 may elect to apply section 1920 (relating to presumptive
7 eligibility for pregnant women) to the State child health
8 plan in the same manner as such section applies to the
9 State plan under title XIX.
10 ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:
11 ‘‘(1) PREGNANCY-RELATED ASSISTANCE.—The"
While I could find nothing in the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 to support momma y's statements, my impression is that there are other laws, perhaps recently passed, which have provisions allowing college students under age 25 to continue as beneficiaries under their parents health insurance policies. Perhaps that is what made her believe that the above act changed the definition of children, which it did not.
Under the above, while the standard for eligible income is 200$ of the Federal poverty line, the act allows states to increase their standard up to 300%. And there is a provision that if a state had already increased its standard to 400% before the act, and if the state got the approval of the federal government, that 400% would be covered under the act. New York had indeed increased its standard to 400%, for at least some areas, but the federal government did not approve of its 400%.
It's all very complicated and if I have misstated something, I'm happy to be corrected.
This is from a senate report on the bill, but I don't know at what stage the bill was:
"Income Levels for Eligibility
Q: Does the bill restrict or make allowances for states wishing to set higher eligibility levels?
A: As under current rules, states will still be allowed flexibility to set eligibility levels. The target
eligibility level for children remains as Congress intended: 200% of the Federal poverty level.
Under this bill, any state seeking to offer new coverage to children in families above 300% of the
Federal poverty level will receive a lower Medicaid funding match rate for that coverage.
Q: Would this bill provide CHIP coverage to children in families making $80,000 per year?
A: No. CHIP has always been a Federal-state partnership, with states making determinations as to
eligibility levels. The state of New York has a state plan amendment pending with HHS that would
allow coverage of children in families at 400% of the Federal poverty level, but only the Health and
Human Services Department, not the Congress, can grant permission to implement this proposal."
This is from a paper released by the White House:
"New York enacted a state law to submit a "State plan amendment." While that amendment was disapproved, the language of the Senate bill would still allow New York to claim the enhanced match if approved by a different Administration in the future."
Truth
If you to want be treated as an idiot please stop being logical and civil.
The PDF file is from the congressional web site. I'll link to the thing. Might have the wrong paging for you. I tried finding it elsewhere but I don't use Heritage Foundation or other partisan web sites to get facts. I was reading the PDF file. I"ll pull a paste for you. It IS an increase in both age and income. I'll see if the democratic web sites have a copy. Maybe then I'll be able to check it out. IF this thing posts without the link the cats decided to go to Catnip Kitties.com again.
This is a news website for American Physicians. I'm still looking for the other place I just downloaded this afternoon. I can't even find the file in my computer. My husband re-organized my desktop while I was resting. Reminded him I know where he sleeps.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/04/23/gvsa0423.htm
H.R. 2581: To amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to permit States to expand coverage for...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2581
"o amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to permit States to expand coverage for children between 19 and 25 years of age under Medicaid and under the State child health insurance program (SCHIP)."
Did find one expansion I'll support and that is adding pregnant women to SCHIP because it does more good than harm.
I've said before that my granddaughter was on Medicaid and we put her on our insurance. We still get calls to put her on CHIP or Medicaid every month. Both agencies count her as uninsured. That is two "uninsured" kids in the count that don't exist. Might have to enroll her for the dental though. Her mother had terrible teeth growing sideways. She is doing that too.
This is the GovTrack website. I hope this helps. As I told another here I'm working the Share sale next Saturday. It's at 9360 Federal Blvd on Saturday from 9 AM to noon. Good prices. Call them for a full list of items. So far I only know of steaks (1/2 lb ribeye, sirloin and strip for 1.95) I'd enjoy meeting you. You're a good person.
Posted by momma y on September 30, 2007 11:00 PMmomma y, the website you referenced for H.R. 2581 reflects that it was introduced but does not indicate it has gone anywhere since then, so if that be the case it is not law. Of course, the proposal doesn't define children or set age limits but leaves that to the states to set. In any case, it is not a part of SCHIP, and even if it were law, it would be because President Bush agreed with it rather than being one of the reasons Bush opposes SCHIP, as you claimed.
"Status:
Introduced Jun 6, 2007
Scheduled for Debate -
Voted on in House -
Voted on in Senate -
Signed by President -"
Good morning John II. I see your still upset. I had thought I answered your question when I said you must be rich but evidently not, so lets try this.
Health Savings accounts and the privatizing of SS are two thing's whose tax benefit do and would benefit the upper middle class and above. As far as tax cuts from this administration they only benefit the upper class. Even Republicans agree with this.
This thread pertains to the middle class and below. Bush intends to veto a proposal to insure, through the government, there children.
Your just in the wrong forum that's all.
Posted by leftside on October 1, 2007 10:22 AMStan Broyles:
"Basic universal health care will be a reality one day, so get ready"
Is that suppose to be a warning? A call to arms so to speak?
Posted by KW on October 1, 2007 11:01 AMleftside,
The money put into an HSA is not taxable no matter who (not just "upper middle class and above") puts money into one.
If teachers and state troopers (two groups of people who are not considered "upper middle class and above") can take all the money that would otherwise go to SS and place it into any private account they choose, why shouldn't everyone else have that same right?
leftside wrote, "Bush intends to veto a proposal to insure, through the government, there[sic] children."
As he should.
There is nothing preventing doctors from treating the uninsured now. The only purpose for health insurance is to insure that the doctors get some money out of it. And I don't believe it should be the responsibility of government to guarantee a doctor's income.
momma y, thanks for your complimentary comments. With a mind that flits around quite a bit, and with a delightful granddaughter who looks after me after on Saturdays who flits around even more, I just let Saturdays unfold rather than make many plans, although I have been known to make plans as much ahead of time as one hour, and sometimes even carry out such plans. But I just might come by and say howdy. While we are on different and often opposing political levels, I do admire much of your analyzes. While personally I am not inclined to homey conversation on the forum, it sure beats the considerable rancor that often seems to dominate in all quarters.
Posted by Truth on October 1, 2007 01:32 PMDave, of course that's true. Unfortunatley, the middle and lower middle class can't afford to purchase the insurance side of the HSA so how will they be able to put money into the tax deductible savings side? They can't. Which is why it's a benefit for the upper middle class and above.
d,
Please don't take my postings out of context.
leftside,
HSAs are available to a lot more than just the "upper class and above". They're not only for people who buy their own health insurance, but also to people who get their health insurance from their employer. It's one way that many employers are able to cut their insurance costs.
Bush considers anythng that helps the American people 'pork'. For some unknown reason he thinks taxes exist only to fund his war and anything spent on social reforms for Americans is pork. The only pork I can see is the PIG in the Whiote House.
Posted by thats all folks on October 2, 2007 07:06 AMleftside,
HSA's allow the middle-class to afford health insurance by purchasing a higher deductible policy.
By the way, you never answered this question:
Can you name three economic programs or proposals by the Democrats that do not involve more taxes, more government and more regulation?
John II, I've already explained why HSA don't in the real world do not help middle class and below with their health insurance problems.
Dave, I do like your idea about employers using HSA's and spoke with an agent friend of mine and he said it is probably the cheapest way for employees to get health insurance. Getting employers to purchase is kettle of fish..
John II, I have no intentions of answering that question. It's off topic and a typical bullying tactic you've learned from years participating in these forums. Were done John. Now you can put me in the club.
Posted by leftside on October 2, 2007 10:28 AM