SCHIP veto a threat to state’s children
When you were a kid, did you get the shots you needed to prevent measles, mumps and other childhood diseases? When you got sick, were you able to see a doctor and get the medicine you needed to get well? Some of us are lucky enough to be able to answer “yes” to these questions.
At 9to5, the National Association of Working Women, many of our members’ children have access to this basic care because they are among the more than 50,000 Colorado kids and pregnant moms who are covered by the Child Health Plan Plus, part of the federal SCHIP program.
For 10 years, CHP+ has covered kids whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford most private insurance. CHP+ provides affordable medical and dental coverage to low-income kids, but the program is in peril.
Another 56,000 Coloradans who would qualify for the program are not enrolled and cannot access basic care. And now it will be even harder to enroll those kids, because President Bush vetoed a bill that would put more money into this program — money we need to reach out to the kids who aren’t enrolled and to pay the doctors who care for them.
I urge all members of Colorado’s congressional delegation to vote to overturn Bush’s veto. Don’t jeopardize Colorado’s kids!
Lorena Garcia
Organizer, 9to5
Denver
If a kid is so dumb as to be born into a poor family, why should the rest of us have to pay for that?
Posted by Looking out for #1 on October 16, 2007 01:36 AMThe veto wasn't issued because of poor children using the program. It was because of too many non-poor adults already using the program and the way the new bill would allow states to include those up to 25 and those who make 4 times the poverty rate. Eliminate those loopholes and the bill will sail through.
Part of the problem is the standard government formula that's part of all funding bills. I label it the "spend it or else" rule.
If a program gives a state ten million dollars for something and the state is so careful with the money they only spend nine million the Federal Government not only takes back that million but reduces the next years benefit to nine million.
Not a product of any side of any issue, just standard bureaucratic business practice. They reward those who don't save and budget. That is the reason some states have used their discretion, a good thing in most cases which is usually lacking in government programs, to add non-children to the plan.
Many of those targeted by this expansion already qualify for SCHIP but are covered by private insurance. (My grand daughter is one of these. She is also one of those twice counted as she used to have Medicaid and we got rid of it when my husband qualified for insurance at his job.)
Perhaps we can all resolve this by setting up a standard of truth and one of fiscal responsibility.
Any state that has enrolled more adults covered than children does NOT get an increase in their funding but a decrease equal to half of that spent on non-children.
All states that have more children enrolled than adults share the money removed from the adults. This sharing is done on a formula that adds funds in relation to the average income levels of the families in each states program.
Don't worry. No matter how complex such a system is it will be far simpler than most funding. It will also be transparent to the taxpayers who will quickly have available the proof of how their state spends money allocated for poor children.
If you want to read the actual text of the bill follow this link
Posted by momma y on October 16, 2007 03:19 AMAnother 'missed' fact in the argument for the overturning of the veto is that this initiative is currently going to be paid for with tobacco taxes. The only problems with that are:
1) every time tobacco taxes go up, people quit smoking - which would be a good thing if the those taxes were going strictly to lung-related illnesses, but - they aren't. The state of Colorado raised taxes on tobacco products by over 60 cents per pack - then whined when income from those taxes was only about 60% of the forecast (hence some of the tax increases the state has requested)
2) according to one representative who voted against it, to FULLY fund this would require 22 MILLION NEW smokers - see #1.
3) the sliding upward scale would make families (depending on the state) earning over $80,000/year qualified for this assistance. While I can understand that the family that the Dems used as their "poster child family" (2 children involved with pre-existing health problems who cannot get coverage for less than 25% of the family's annual income - which as I recall was in the $50,000 range) - somehow, I think if a family earns over $80,000 per year, perhaps instead of spending on cable TV, cable modem, a cell phone for every member of the family, a new car every 3 years, a car for each child as soon as the child hits 16, etc - they should be paying for their OWN healthcare.
BS - if the Democrats hadn't turned it into an entitlement for the middle class it would have been signed. Try again
Posted by Jack Bauer on October 16, 2007 06:35 AMhey lets not taxes the smokers any more but since this is health care for kiddies under 25 and their parents, lets add a tax of say $1.00 per burger and fries. that way all of the health problems associated to overweight would be paid for by the ones who eat the junk food all the time.
its about time the progressives or liberals or dums, all one in the same, stepped up to the plate and put a tax on what the problem is and get off the tax smokers bandwagon. that wont happen though because it would hurt their image in the lower income groups, having to pay more for food and all.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN????
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Posted by truthy on October 16, 2007 06:53 AMIt's called "Compassionate Conservativsm", sorry I couldn't resist either
Posted by just sayin' on October 16, 2007 07:36 AMMary's the first one in awhile to remind us that the planned funding source for all this largesse was people who smoke and not the taxpayers at large. So as a smoker I have an answer to Truthy's (somewhat rhetorical) question about the children:Not my problem,Skippy.If your crotch writes checks you can't cash,too bad.
Posted by Jimminy on October 16, 2007 07:48 AMCompassionate Conservatism:
The political philosophy that advocates leaving the lid up on the dumpster behind the restaurants, so the poor and homeless can enjoy a meal.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 16, 2007 08:03 AMENTITLEMENTS, INCREASED NATIONAL DEBT AND RESULTING TAX HIKES THREATEN EVERYONE--INCLUDING THE KIDS.
Why should any child in a family earning $82,000 per year be moved off a private health plan and onto a public health plan?
THIS IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE'S TROJAN HORSE--KEEP IT DEAD!
Posted by Hank on October 16, 2007 08:11 AMYou know... As a child born in the sixties, i did get all the required vaccinations. However I remember my parents busting their butts to provide for my brothers and I. I remember my parents complaining about the cost of insurance then, but what wasn't covered my folks paid for out of pocket. My dad worked 3 jobs, so mom could stay home with us until we were old enough to go to school all day. Then mom worked too. I also recall my family "never" had a new car, dad always bought some clunker for a couple $100 bucks. And when it died he fixed it or bought another one. We had a fairly modest house, nothing too over the top and far too small for 6 people and a dog by today's standards. We had only one TV. We shopped at JCPenney or Sears for clothes. We made due with what my folks could afford. The extras of life were few and far between. But we survived.
Today, every household is far bigger then needed, has at least 1 or 2 new cars, every new toy that comes out. Designer/label cloths, Starbucks. The list is endless. Today there's more expendable income than ever before, yet "purchasing" health insurance is considered an optional item.
People need to reassess their priorities.
Health care is not a right. It never has been.
Posted by on October 16, 2007 09:07 AM"The veto wasn't issued because of poor children using the program. It was because of too many non-poor adults already using the program and the way the new bill would allow states to include those up to 25 and those who make 4 times the poverty rate. Eliminate those loopholes and the bill will sail through."
This is a common right wing myth about this bill...just like the one about, "if these people worked 8 jobs they'd be fine".
The myth about giving folks coverage who didn't need it is simple to debunk if you do some research outside of newsmax. The jist of it is that different areas are allowed to take into account the high cost of living...like NYC. Furthermore, once ALL the at risk families are taken care of, only then do some of the other extenuating cases get attention...and not before.
The myth about just working harder is simply borne from ignorance about modern costs of healthcare. Not much more needs to be said.
This was a bipartisan effort. This wasn't a Dem or a Rub bill. It was a bill favored by the vast majority of Americans. It rightfully charged smokers a fee to compensate for the billions upon billions of dollars they add to the national healthcare bill every year. They do this by choice...not necessity.
The president should be ashamed for continuing his unfortunate trend of obstruction legislation that has the support of America.
If you're not going to lead...at least get out of the way.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 09:17 AMBush did the right thing vetoing a bad bill.Socialist healthcre doesn't work.
Posted by Keith on October 16, 2007 09:55 AMSO WHAT IS "PROGRESS?"
Moving kids (many are not "kids") from $83,000 yr. families who are covered by private health plans onto public health plans covered by the taxpayers? That's not progress.
What about kids from poor families who are uncovered by any public or private plans? Helping the uncovered is progress.
Beware of this phony medicare TROJAN HORSE, the libdems are trying to flim/flam America and are hidding behind the usual pair of diapers.
Posted by Hank on October 16, 2007 10:15 AMJay
"The jist of it is that different areas are allowed to take into account the high cost of living...like NYC. Furthermore, once ALL the at risk families are taken care of, only then do some of the other extenuating cases get attention...and not before"
Are you saying that $80,000 a year is considered "poverty" in NYC?
President Bush made the statement that only two-thirds of the children currently eligible for SCHP are enrolled and has stated that once 95% of the eligible children were enrolled then he would consider extending the program.
How many of billions of dollars have been spent on health care because our children are being fed fast food, like McDonalds, KFC, Burger King.and Taco Bell? Why do you just want to blame and punish cigarette smokers? Why not tax burgers also, is it because you eat burgers but don't smoke? This way you won't have to pay anything to protect the poor children!
And how many children of illegals will be added with this new program?
This is not about protecting poor children this is about socializing our health care. Anyone without a partisan agenda is well aware of it.
"Socialist healthcre doesn't work."
Works better than ours does....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"Moving kids (many are not "kids") from $83,000 yr. families who are covered by private health plans onto public health plans covered by the taxpayers? "
Again...myth. As I mentioned before, costs of living in NYC (the only place this figure applies) is rightfully considered...and the folks making up to 83K a year would receive benefits ONLY after everyone else was already taken care of...this has been a reoccuring them on many far right wing talk shows...just so there's no confusion where this confusion is coming from....
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 10:21 AMjay,
You're link to a Reuters story about some study (the details of which are never discussed) is pointless.
Does the US spend twice as much on health care than other countries? Yes. So what? We have a higher per capita income. We can afford to spend more. We also spend more on cars, televisions, computers, and sporting equipment. We buy more boob jobs, nose jobs and teeth whitening. We spend more on laser eye surgery, tummy tucks and stomach stapling.
The WHO study attempted a similar study. They ranked the US as 37th, behind countries like Andorra and Malta. The problem is when you actually look at what was measured, you realize the report was a biased and bogus report. In the only measure that actually measured health care quality, the US scored number one.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 10:46 AMyou're should be your
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 10:48 AM"Does the US spend twice as much on health care than other countries?"
Yes we do...for lower quality healthcare than our 5 richest counterparts....therein lies the problem
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 11:01 AMJay,
Based on your understanding, the adults currently on SCHIP should not be receiving any benefits because only two thirds of the eligible children are currently enrolled.
As for your statement regarding Socialized Healthcare works better than ours, states your position very clearly. This new program is nothing more than socialized healthcare and you will use any misinformation to push your agenda.
Posted by on October 16, 2007 11:14 AMjay,
You conveniently ignored the rest of my post. We spend more because we have more to spend. We also have the highest quality health care in the world according to WHO.
You have not actually studied the details of any of the "studies" you are citing. Do you have any idea what the measurements were? Therein lies the problem.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 11:14 AMOne of the measurements in WHO's oft quoted study includes a measurement called Responsiveness. Here's how they defined Responsiveness:
"Responsiveness: Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider)."
France won the overall ranking. But, guess which country ranked the highest in this category? The USA. France ranked 13th.
So, how can a country that ranked number one in overall health care yet rank a mere 13th on a measurement that includes "respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health)" and "quality of basic amenities"? The answer is that WHO arbitrarily gave this category only a 25% weight. WHO gave the inaccurate life expectancy category a 50% weight.
So, according to WHO's study, the USA does get something for their money: The most responsive health care system in the world.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 11:26 AM"You conveniently ignored the rest of my post. We spend more because we have more to spend. We also have the highest quality health care in the world according to WHO."
No we don't....that is simply a right wing myth...as evidenced by the more recent report I posted above
You can refuse acknowledge inconvenient facts...but that kind of debate tactic doesn't do your credibility any good.
Again...we pay more money for the lower quality healthcare than the 5 other richest counties on the planet.
There's no way to spin that fact away.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 11:32 AMJay
This is an example of the misinformation being put onto the general public regarding this new program.
"Another 56,000 Coloradans who would qualify for the program are not enrolled and cannot access basic care. And now it will be even harder to enroll those kids, because President Bush vetoed a bill that would put more money into this program — money we need to reach out to the kids who aren’t enrolled and to pay the doctors who care for them.
I urge all members of Colorado’s congressional delegation to vote to overturn Bush’s veto. Don’t jeopardize Colorado’s kids!"
The kids mentioned in the first letter are already eligible but have not been enrolled. The existing program, the one Bush has purposed to extend and increase by 4 billion dollars, does cover these children so no additional funds or expansion would be needed. According to the original post 50,000 children and "pregnant women" received benefits for the existing SCHIP program and there are still 56,000 uninsured. That means over half of the eligible children are not enrolled in the current program. Why not get them enrolled and covered before you expand it to the next level of "poor" children?
Jay,
I have traveled to many other countries in this world, could you tell me the countries that have a higher quality of healthcare than the US?
Posted by jgd777 on October 16, 2007 11:43 AMjgd777...please see link already posted above.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 12:02 PMSorry to burst your optimistic bubble on how well we all have it, Anonymous 9:07, but in sorry fact not everybody is decked out in designer clothes, driving to Starbuck's in new cars (lots of people take the bus and drink instant coffee!), or living in too-big houses. Sears and J.C. Penney's still do brisk business (when most other big department stores have disappeared), as do Target, Wal-Mart, and a great many thrift shops. Just because the weighty eighties made greed fashionable doesn't mean everybody was rich or even "comfortable."
And to be the bearer of further bad news, prices have gone up a bit since the sixties, while wages--adjusted for inflation--have dropped. The American middle class, as it was known in the fifties and sixties, is receding faster than the polar ice cap. As for the cost of health care--wow!
So save the Horatio Alger "I walked five miles to school each way uphill in the snow" speeches for your kids, who have to listen.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 16, 2007 12:10 PMWell, there you have it. John II has "proved" it. We have more "responsive" health care, which consists of what boils down to, in reality, a better "bedside manner" in our care providers.
Your Doctor - or Social Worker - or Hospice attendent - or whoever, is treating you with "dignity", while you wait for some bean counter in an insurance home office several thousand miles away to tell you that, "NO! We don't cover that kind of treatment."
After which, your friendly Undertaker treats you, and your family, with "dignity" while peddling a "solid bronze coffin" as something necessary to properly "respect" you as the deceased.
But! Remember, that is "responsive"; and that is the reason for our "highest level of qualification" in world Health Care.
Actually dealing with illness, disease, and disability is of no consequence, since they don't matter anyway. There's no profit margin in them.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 16, 2007 12:25 PM“I strongly support universal single-payer government-provided or taxpayer-funded health care” droned a languid Gore in his video, now also listed under the title ‘Gore Goes SiCKO’ on Michael Moore’s Web site.
HAHAHAHAHA....from the same phony imbecile who gave us carbon credits, global warming, Manhattan 25-feet under water, the Internet and "Love Story."
"We spend more because we have more to spend."
Wow. So because "we have more to spend", we SHOULD spend more?
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying, hey, I'm going to buy these shoes for $100. They only cost $50, but I'm going to go ahead and give the store $100, because I can.
Then I assume you support higher taxes for those who can afford to pay them, John II?
Posted by on October 16, 2007 12:41 PM12:41 said:
"That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying, hey, I'm going to buy these shoes for $100. They only cost $50, but I'm going to go ahead and give the store $100, because I can."
No, it's more like saying I can afford these Walmart brand fake plastic shoes, but I can afford to buy these genuine leather, sturdy, all-weather shoes.
There's a few things to consider. One, what is included in the total health care spending figure? If I buy Viagra, does that count towards the total? If so, then countries that can afford erection pills will wind up spending more than countries that cannot afford it.
Also, simply saying that we pay more does not take into account what we are paying for. You may spend $50 for a medical service. I may spend $100 for the same service. But, I received a much better service than the guy who only paid $50. So, were we paying for the same thing?
Two guys buy themselves a car to commute to work. The rich guy buys a BMW. The poorer guy buys a used 1985 truck. The rich guy paid more for his commute than the poor guy. Does that mean the rich guy didn't get his money's worth?
Finally, consider this: half of our total health care spending is by the government. It is bloated government spending that is skewing the total health care spending figure.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 12:51 PMJay,
Wasn't there just a news report on all of the women with difficult pregnancies coming down to the US for treatment. Something like Canada didn't have the facilities to take care of them?
If you took all of the illegal immigrates out of our ERs maybe the legal citizens wouldn't have to wait so long for medical attention. Just a suggestion!!
The bottom line is you want the top 20% of the wage earners to pay for the other 80%'s health care. Or should it just be the smokers?
Posted by jgd777j on October 16, 2007 12:54 PMMary posts: 'the sliding upward scale would make families (depending on the state) earning over $80,000/year qualified for this assistance."
My understanding is that the only states eligible for the $80,000 ceiling are those who had laws in place before the act was passed which set a 400% ceiling, and that New York and perhaps New Jersey were the only ones, and that before they could apply the higher ceiling to SCHIP they had to get the approval of the federal government and that neither got that approval.
What the law does do, as I understand it, is to allow states to up their ceilings from 200% to 300% of the poverty level.
I likewise did not find anything in the proposed law changing the definition of children to include people above the age of twenty-one. Perhaps there is a tie to some other law which produces that result for people in college. If so, then that other law is one of which President Bush approved and very likely one that was passed by a Republican Congress.
While I am hardly qualified to judge the viability of financing through a smoking tax, and while I would put little weight on a figure thrown out by a congressman who opposes the change in the SCHIP law, I agree that financing through a smoking tax does not sound right. Just as a matter of principle, if the law is needed, its cost should be borne by all.
I would much prefer the SCHIP law be restricted to those truly in need of help in order to protect the health of their children. I just don't have the information about health care costs to know where to draw the line. One big problem is the great disparity in health insurance costs, not only in the great variety of programs but also in the geographical differences. I would much rather see the law continued with the 200% ceiling, or perhaps a somewhat higher ceiling to take care of the inflation in health care costs, than see the law die.
Since I have the information before me, I'll pass it on in case someone is interested:
2005 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons in Family Unit
48 Contiguous States and D.C.
1 $ 9,570
2 12,830
3 16,090
4 19,350
5 22,610
6 25,870
7 29,130
8 32,390
For each additional person, add $3,260
BULLSCHIP
Posted by Hank on October 16, 2007 01:10 PMTruth said:
"I agree that financing through a smoking tax does not sound right. Just as a matter of principle, if the law is needed, its cost should be borne by all."
So, Truth, you should be happy that President Bush vetoed the bill.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 01:13 PMLorena Garcia,
if you are financially unable to raise children, then why are you having children. it is not my responsibility to pay for the educational and medical needs of your child. I do not ask you to make payments for my car, or make payments for my insurance, so why should I have to pay for the results of your promiscuity?
"If you took all of the illegal immigrates out of our ERs maybe the legal citizens wouldn't have to wait so long for medical attention"
The unfortunate reality is that our healthcare system's failings are much larger than the care given to 5% of patients who are illegal immigrants. No need to scapegoat them when our system has MUCH larger problems.
"The bottom line is you want the top 20% of the wage earners to pay for the other 80%'s health care. Or should it just be the smokers?"
I'm all for having the smokers pay for this...it is a small drop in the bucket when you consider the billions of dollars they cost our healthcare system every year.
Furthmore, I'd be all about spending a month's worth of funding from Iraq to give our kids at home healthcare.
Better that money go to poor kid's healthcare than a needless war being dragged out indefinitely by political hubris.
jay please go to one of the wonderful countries you speak of so you can get all your needs for free.
dont know what drugs your on but they are really working well on you.
the only americans who want all the free health care you speak of are the lazy give me my due crowd of which you must be president of.
jay said:
"I'm all for having the smokers pay for this..."
jay, can you tell us why a cigarette tax came into existence?
Also, can you tell us who smokes more: the lower class or the upper class?
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 01:47 PMJohn it doesn't matter...smokers are willfully costing our country billions of dollars every year. They should have to pay taxes on that discretionary habit so the rest of us don't have to pick up the bill for their choice.
If this means that more people will quit smoking...all the better...that means that there will be fewer adults dragging our healthcare system down.
Win win.
Can you tell me why you believe spending $500,000 a minute in a needless war in Iraq is more important than healthcare for our poor children at home?
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 02:01 PMjay,
I take it you understand that taxes on cigarettes were for the purpose of reducing cigarette consumption. Now, you want to raise taxes even higher. If the taxes work as expected, cigarette consumption will fall along with the revenue that was collected on them. In other words, by it's very nature, the tax is designed to eliminate itself. In this case, the bill is severely flawed. It sets up a program where additional taxes beyond the cigarette tax will be needed to pay for it. So, the proponents of this bill are being dishonest when they say it will be paid for with new cigarette taxes.
"If this means that more people will quit smoking...all the better...that means that there will be fewer adults dragging our healthcare system down."
So, in essence, what you are saying is that you have no problem taxing the poor. Should we take your attitude to other areas of taxation? The poor cost us more in terms of prisons, courts, police and education. Would you say then that we should increase taxes on them because they cost us so much money?
Posted by George Washington on October 16, 2007 02:21 PMThat GW post was from me. I was channeling George Washington on another thread: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/10/special_tax_to_fund_war_not_ne.html
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 02:25 PMJay, you are a daft as anyone I know. Your statistics are right out of the tobacco control handbook which were paid for by Big Pharmaceutical and there fellow liars, hugh multi billion dollar foundations that own $3.9 billions in their stock. Smokers, the minority, don't cost this country anything close to billions of dollars a day. That's another sign you believe in tobacco controls lies, they exagerate too.
And if more people quit smoking you would loose hundereds of billions of dollars in tobacco tax and pay more for nonsmoke nicotine delivery devices to help you quit which are zero taxed thus creating a hugh tax loss that guess who and what would have to make up for? It's you the taxpaying, anti-smoking public, that's who. Just for your information Colorado gets over a hundred million dollars from tobacco tax. Loose that and again who makes up for the loss, it's you, the non smoking majority.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 16, 2007 02:34 PMlol...you guys aren't lobbyists for phillip morris are you?
I'm okay with getting the money elsewhere too. I'd much rather spend a months worth of Iraq money on caring for our poor at home.
Seems like a better use for our funds than in a losing effort that has made our country less safe, no?
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 03:07 PMHere's a thought about paying the $35 billion over five years this bill would have required (yet another piece of legislation the Republican have obstructed that had the support of the vast majority of americans).
The Republican majority-led Congress and White House passed a prescription drug bill a couple years ago that cost $100 billion more than they promised it did.... so if you think about it...if they hadn't lied about its costs....we would have had the money to pay for healthcare for our children thrice over. Maybe next time we shouldn't let the Pharmaceutical lobby write the nation's prescription drug plan.
Oh well...hindsight is 20/20 and according to the outcome last november...the population learned its lesson.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 03:14 PMEvery time they "jack my price up",more smokes get into the community without benefit of the tobacco tax.Jack it up again and you not only have more business for the already burgeoning controlled-substances cartel,you have more smokers coming up with guerilla tactics for the "benefit" of those who would legislate morality.
Posted by Jimminy on October 16, 2007 03:17 PMjay,
Are you saying that we are overspending by $100 billion for Medicare? Since you feel that the Republicans have spent too much, would you support cutting the program by $100 billion?
Posted by Karl Marx on October 16, 2007 03:30 PMNot at all...I'm saying the Republicans Drug Prescription Program cost 100 million dollars more than they said it would....money that could have been used to pay for schip three times over.
Just curious....would you rather burn more treasure in iraq or do some good for our citizens at home?
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 04:19 PMjay,
You are not making sense. How could the money be used for SCHIP if it's being used for Medicare? You would have to cut $100 billion from the Medicare program to fund the SCHP program. The fact that Republicans spent more than they said they would is irrelevant.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 04:40 PMWhy would we cut medicare to pay for schip? Why would you want to hurt the folks here at home while spending money in Iraq? Wouldn't it be more prudent to find out where the missing billions are in Iraq if we're talking about balancing the books? We could play this game all day long.
Posted by jay on October 16, 2007 05:01 PMjay,
You're the only one playing games. You're not making any sense.
You said this:
"The Republican majority-led Congress and White House passed a prescription drug bill a couple years ago that cost $100 billion more than they promised it did.... so if you think about it...if they hadn't lied about its costs....we would have had the money to pay for healthcare for our children thrice over."
Which means you think the drug bill is $100 billion too much. You may think the Republicans lied about the cost, but the cost is what it is. How can you recover that $100 billion. Your logic is flawed.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 06:32 PMSome of us had parents and those parents were responsible enough to take care of their own kids. If these little baby factories would quit spreading their legs and expecting the rest of us to pay for their orgasms, we might have a decent society again.
Posted by clyde on October 16, 2007 11:06 PMJay,
Congratulations! You've managed to push nearly all the buttons.
You have the War-Is-Wonderful-And-Shooting-People-is-Fun folks all steamed up, by suggesting that money be taken from the Iraq quagmire for a project at home.
You have the anti-social-programs/welfare; and anti-tax cranks all howlling, by suggesting that our children - the future of the Nation - should benefit from anything that might keep those cranks' own greed and selfishness from finally erecting the biggest monument in the cemetary to their own "greatness".
And you have the reactionary regressives, who want everything in the Union's National Government torn down, and the clock turned back to 1789, all wetting their panties (or Depends) as well.
There really must be something to the SCHIP program, and purpose, to get all the negative nay sayers out in so much force.
Too bad that "George IV" can't be bothered by the reality of public opinion when it suits him to keep on playing ideological hard-ball, instead of even attempting to give his own campaign rhetoric about being a "uniter rather than a divider" a try once in a while.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 17, 2007 10:06 AMAny child can press buttons. It takes a bit more intelligence and maturity to actually make any sense.
Posted by George Washington on October 17, 2007 11:00 AMDemocrats claim they want to help people with health care.All they do is say the government made big mistakes in Iraq.We hear this drum beat everyday.Now they say they want that same government to take over our health care !! Either these Democrats are lying about how they think the war in Iraq is going or they are just plain stupid.You be the judge.I think they are stupid liars.
Posted by An American on October 17, 2007 11:03 AMThe far right wingers seen here and I can agree to disagree on the manner in which we should reform our healthcare system in the US...but again...as usual....and fortunately for Americans...they represent the vast minority on this issue...again...as usual.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling health care?"
Approve 30%
Disapprove 63%
Unsure 8%
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling health care?"
Democrats 56%
Republicans 26%
Both (vol.) 2%
Neither (vol.) 12%
Unsure 5%
"There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Supporters say this would provide insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. Opponents say this goes too far in covering children in families that can afford health insurance on their own. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?" Options rotated
Support 72%
Oppose 25%
Unsure 3%
CBS News Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=706 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
"Thinking about the country as a whole, are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of health care in this country?" If satisfied or dissatisfied: "Would you say you are very satisfied / dissatisfied or somewhat satisfied / dissatisfied?"
Very
Satisfied/Somewhat
Satisfied 32%
Somewhat
Dissatisfied/Very
Dissatisfied 66%
Unsure 2%
"How serious a problem is it for the United States that many Americans do not have health insurance: very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not at all serious?"
Very
Serious/Somewhat
Serious 92%
Not Too
Serious/Not at All
Serious 8%
Unsure 0%
"Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?"
One Program For All 55%
Current System 29%
Combination 3%
Neither 4%
Unsure 9%
These polls prove a clear trend that has been in place for some time now.....in particular that the Dems are favored over the Rubs in dealing with nearly EVERY SINGLE issue before America today.
That's significant people.
Again...you folks on the far right can disagree all you want with the plans to deal with the problems before our country...but you continue to be in the vast minority. I'll say it before and I'll say it again...if you want to stop the downward spiral the Republican party is in right now...you need to STOP obstructing legislation and initiatives with the support of the vast majority of Americans. You saw a backlash against such practices last November...but have continued without heed.
The beatings will continue until you get the message.
Your call.
Posted by jay on October 17, 2007 11:06 AMjay,
Do you think we should implement government policy based on polls? If so, why bother voting for representatives? Why not just leave it to the public to vote on each issue?
Posted by John II on October 17, 2007 11:22 AMjay,
60% of Americans aged 18-24 could not find Iraq on a map.
Half could not find Mississippi.
33% could not find Louisiana.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/
Posted by George Washington on October 17, 2007 11:28 AMHey fellas...spin the info all you want.
The bottomline is that you can either represent your constituecy...or you can hit the road.
Again....your call.
Posted by jay on October 17, 2007 11:31 AMjay,
Do you think we should implement government policy based on polls? If so, why bother voting for representatives? Why not just leave it to the public to vote on each issue?
Posted by John II on October 17, 2007 11:34 AMI think the representatives of the people have a duty to represent their constituency John...I take it you don't agree....
Posted by jay on October 17, 2007 12:09 PMThat's not what I asked you.
Posted by John II on October 17, 2007 12:25 PMjay?
Posted by John II on October 17, 2007 06:59 PMJohn II,
He gave you a much more direct, and to the point, answer than you ever give anybody.
Oh! That's right. I forgot. You're off somplace in a trance, chanelling "George Washington". And back in George's day there were no such things as "opinion polls". A pity you never emerge from that trance state long enough to deal with matters in today's real world.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 17, 2007 09:56 PM"He gave you a much more direct, and to the point, answer than you ever give anybody."
If only that were true.
But, the fact is that jay did not answer my question. He said: "I think the representatives of the people have a duty to represent their constituency John."
So, does that mean the representative should vote strictly by poll numbers on any issue? If so, then why bother with representatives? Why not just put each issue up for a vote by the general public?
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 09:36 AM"does that mean the representative should vote strictly by poll numbers on any issue? "
Again...I think representatives of the people should actually represent the people....at least the vast majority of his constituency at the very least.
It is amazing how many apologists on the far right are condoning the new common-place republican tactic of obstructing legislation and initiatives with the support of the vast majority of Americans....
...which is why the beatings will continue until you folks on the far right learn your lesson.
Start representing the will of the people or you will continue to see outcomes at the polls like Nov. 06.
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 10:50 AM"Again...I think representatives of the people should actually represent the people....at least the vast majority of his constituency at the very least."
Instead of repeating "again" ad nauseum, why not just answer my question directly?
The reason you won't answer is because you don't want to admit what we both already know: Democrats determine public policy by licking their finger and sticking it in the air. They don't have the guts to make unpopular decisions. They are strictly poll driven demagogues.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 06:47 PM