PT. 2 of Bush To America's Children: Drop Dead

Archive - Caveat Emptor!

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
spaceprophet
Pirate
Posts: 4052
Joined: 11-20-2002 03:00 AM

PT. 2 of Bush To America's Children: Drop Dead

Post by spaceprophet » 08-21-2007 03:18 PM

This is more on the continuing saga of Bush hating on the poor children of America to go with the other articles posted. The super giant private insurance companies who are already price gouging Americans on health insurance have found a champion in Dumbya. And since Dumbya hates poor children, he'll barbecue 'em up real nice fore 'em. One hand washes the other.

The story should have gone like this: "In a rare moment of bipartisan goodwill, the Democrat-controlled Congress delivered the politically ailing President George W. Bush a much needed domestic accomplishment: legislation to provide health coverage for 5 million poor or near-poor children."

It didn't quite turn out that way.

In a stunning rebuke to congressional leaders, and to the six (out of 10) Republican Senate Finance Committee members who supported legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the White House threatened to veto bills that would have covered millions of children.

To see just how poor the administration's excuses are for saying no, here are a few choice quotes from the Office of Management and Budget's veto-threat statements.

Poor excuse one: "The legislation dramatically expands federal spending far beyond what is necessary to reauthorize S-CHIP responsibly."

The program, pushed and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, has been a clear success. Over the course of last year, it provided health coverage to 6.6 million low-income children at a cost to the federal government of $5 billion. Chicken feed when compared to how much the Bush Admin. has given to Haliburton just for waste alone. If you count waste as pure profit going into the pockets of fat cat corporate defense contractors for virtually doing nothing.

According to a Congressional Budget Office report from May, S-CHIP has led to a 25 percent reduction in the number of uninsured children who are between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level, while children at higher income rates saw no decline.

At current funding rates, however, nearly 1 million children covered under S-CHIP in an average month will be dropped from coverage, while more than 5 million currently eligible for that program or Medicaid will remain uninsured. The White House proposed kicking in an average of only $1 billion a year through 2012, which would mean that hundreds of thousands of children would lose S-CHIP coverage.

So why is allowing children to be dropped from a proven program -- as opposed to insuring 4.2 million more in the House version -- the right way "to reauthorize S-CHIP responsibly"?

Poor excuse two: The proposed expansion "essentially extends a welfare benefit to middle class households."

When you hear statements like that from the administration, you get the sense that the $35 billion to $50 billion S-CHIP expansion over the next five years would go directly to suburban parents lounging at their swimming clubs.

Yet the CBO shows that more than 85 percent of the children who would gain insurance under both congressional bills -- including 4.6 million out of 5 million in the House -- are from families near poverty, or of very modest means, who are already eligible under current guidelines.

Almost all these children come from families earning below 200 percent of the poverty line, or $34,000 a year for a family of three.

Poor excuse three: The proposed expansion "would cause millions of individuals to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan."

It is true that one-third of the 6 million children who would be newly covered by either S-CHIP or Medicaid currently have private insurance. But the White House well knows that every coverage-expansion plan -- conservative or progressive -- benefits some people who already have insurance.

In fact, the proposed S-CHIP expansions are highly efficient compared with the White House's proposals. About 77 percent of the benefits of Bush's plan to expand health savings accounts and 80 percent of his most recent proposal to subsidize purchases of premiums go to those who are already insured.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber wrote to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, explaining that the House S-CHIP expansion was among the "most cost-effective means of expanding health insurance coverage."

And as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, the disappointing rhetoric and name-calling about government-run health care is just a ruse. Seventy-four percent of children covered by Medicaid and more than three-quarters of children covered by S-CHIP are enrolled in private managed-care plans. And virtually all states contract with private providers to deliver health-care services.

Poor excuse four:
"It transforms the program into an effectively unlimited entitlement program."

Forgive me if I gag. This is the administration that was willing to finance a half-trillion-dollar prescription-drug benefit completely with borrowing and deficit spending. It is off the chutzpah charts for the White House to cry fiscal responsibility in regard to S-CHIP-expansion bills when the Democrat-controlled Congress is paying for its entire proposal with spending cuts and tobacco revenue.

What is most inexcusable about the White House stance is what they don't say. They offer nothing -- no better idea, no alternative, no plan -- that has been shown to keep even a chunk of these 5 million to 6 million children from going to sleep every night without health insurance.

They are content to keep the status quo even with heartbreaking reports that uninsured infants with congenital heart problems are 10 times more likely to die because of delayed treatment than those with coverage.

Before, "compassionate conservatism" may have seemed like a political bumper sticker. Now it seems like the punch line of a sad joke, at the expense of millions of impoverished children.

Link
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man. - Jack Handey

User avatar
Psychicwolf
Pirate
Posts: 5999
Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM

Post by Psychicwolf » 08-21-2007 04:53 PM

Quite frankly, I think we should have a "Medicare for kids" program in this country. The benefits would be regardless of income and if the parents workplace policy was better than the benefits that was provided by that plan, then the parents could "opt out" and pay for their kids plan through the normal payroll deduction. Every other civilized country makes sure that their children receive, at least, preventive care free of charge.
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.

User avatar
majda
Pirate
Posts: 2518
Joined: 01-09-2006 04:09 AM

Post by majda » 08-21-2007 04:59 PM

Psychicwolf wrote: Every other civilized country makes sure that their children receive, at least, preventive care free of charge.


No,I would say that 'every other civilized country makes sure that their children and adults receive, at least, preventive care free of charge.' What good are healthy children if their parents are sick or dying from lack of medical care themselves?
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

Divinorumus
Pirate
Posts: 3712
Joined: 08-09-2004 10:17 PM

Post by Divinorumus » 08-21-2007 05:31 PM

at least, preventive care free of charge.
Free of charge? Wow, where did they find qualified (real) doctors that work for free at? This is amazing and news to me. Do you think wherever they got them doctors from, we could get some too? This sounds too good to be true, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt if you can tell me where free slaving doctors can be found? Gosh, I hope we're not too late and they are all gone already. Tell me, please, where did they come from? And, how do they sustain themselves by working for free?

User avatar
spaceprophet
Pirate
Posts: 4052
Joined: 11-20-2002 03:00 AM

Post by spaceprophet » 08-22-2007 02:54 AM

Divinorumus wrote: Free of charge?
Come'on Div. I don't believe you're that much of a simpleton. Obviously you've figured out a way to acquire electricity and a computer.

Doctors have flourished handsomely in Canada, France, Great Britain, and Germany. And patients have flourished as well. Surely you are pretending to be naive.

All you have to do is look at the corruption. Take away that and it doesn't matter. The doctors are still making the same. You're just eliminating the corruption and criminal hand in the whole thing.
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man. - Jack Handey

Divinorumus
Pirate
Posts: 3712
Joined: 08-09-2004 10:17 PM

Post by Divinorumus » 08-22-2007 09:06 AM

All you have to do is look at the corruption.
The healthcare industry is corrupt because they do not have to compete like every other industry. They don't have to be concerned about pricing or competition because they can simply charge what ever they want, and if someone can't pay their extortion demands, no problem, they'll just bill someone else. Imagine if iPod were sold that way, would anyone care what they cost ... other than those who have to pay the bill? Hey, pay for my expensive iPod you slave, pay for all of them, and hey, don't even think of escaping to some tropical island, slave.

User avatar
Psychicwolf
Pirate
Posts: 5999
Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM

Post by Psychicwolf » 08-22-2007 11:42 AM

The whole healthcare industry is not corrupt, just parts. Most providers try to dispense good care. There are always individual stories where that failed but for the most part doctors, nurses, hospitals and other care providers are dedicated to what they do and strive to give good care.
Big Pharm is a problem. When Congress passed the Medicare Part D (the "drug program") prices for medications have risen anywhere between 150-250%. Because the FDA and CMMS (the people who run Medicare) have become populated with Big Pharm and Big Med execs they are not as consumer oriented as they should be.
Hospitals must set their prices on a yearly basis and all non-profit hospitals (about 85% of all hospitals in the US) must charge all patients the same price by law. They cannot charge Blue Cross patients one price and Medicare patients another price. There is a complex pricing model they use based on capital costs, level of acuity of the patients they treated the previous year, etc. Sicker people cost more money.
The reimbursement they receive is ALL discounted.
Now suppose you made widgets. And suppose your customers said we're not paying your price for that part. Customer A agrees to pay 87% of your price, customer B says 75% and suppose, by law, you could not charge for the balance.
That's what happens with healthcare providers. Medicare pays by the diagnosis code. They pay providers for say a 3 day stay and the averaged price for that 3 day stay for a broken hip. Suppose while that pt. was hospitalized she/he had a heart attack which is a huge cost. Because the heart attack is a secondary diagnosis they are paid for the broken hip with a few extra dollars, but not full cost, for the heart attack even though that is what cost the hospital the highest dollar figure in care.
The problems in healthcare are complicated and not going to be fixxed easily. And no Div, people cannot just pay as you go unless you have alot of money.
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.

User avatar
Shimmering Auro
Pirate
Posts: 1600
Joined: 12-25-2005 05:59 AM

Post by Shimmering Auro » 08-22-2007 11:56 AM

Forget about 'national' health care. It appears the real answer to this problem is to place the burden of health care in the hands of each individual state.

Alaska has a program, Denali Kid Care. A lot of information about this program can be found here. http://hss.state.ak.us/dhcs/DenaliKidCare/default.htm


The Feds are hopeless, worthless, and out of touch with the realities facing the people they are supposed to represent. It would be wonderful if each state would take some time to review this probram and use this information as a model to guide them toward real solutions to this health care crisis.

Force your state reps. to acknowledge that if one state can provide a program, every state can. No more excuses! State reps. need to take action... and for crying out loud, DO something.

Take this problem out of the Fed's hands and make it a local (state) issue. Put your local rep's feet to the fire.
shimmeringaurora(at)yahoo(dot)com

User avatar
tiffany
Pirate
Posts: 18974
Joined: 06-28-2003 02:25 PM

Post by tiffany » 08-22-2007 12:07 PM

Shimmering Auro wrote: Forget about 'national' health care. It appears the real answer to this problem is to place the burden of health care in the hands of each individual state.

Alaska has a program, Denali Kid Care. A lot of information about this program can be found here. http://hss.state.ak.us/dhcs/DenaliKidCare/default.htm



I agree about the Feds but what about the unequal budgets in each state. Will those in AR be as well protected as those in CA or Idaho vs WA..that is a question to ponder.

Also a healthcare system should allow all to be covered, not just children or pregnant women.
Last edited by tiffany on 08-22-2007 12:11 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Divinorumus
Pirate
Posts: 3712
Joined: 08-09-2004 10:17 PM

Post by Divinorumus » 08-22-2007 12:15 PM

And no Div, people cannot just pay as you go unless you have alot of money.
Someone is paying for it. Compassion is great and all that, but so-called free healthcare is not a right. What's next, a national food program?

Say, if your parents could afford to pay for your adult medical expenses when you can't afford to pay, why not make them pay first? Hum?

I tell you what, I'll go for a national healthcare program if first, before "I" have to pay your bill, you must first get your parents, or their parents, or your brothers and sisters, or your adult children, to pay your doctor bills first. Sounds totally fair to me! Before you turn to others not in your family to pay, make those in your own family pay first.

You can't complain about this method as being unfair, because if you do I can turn around and use the same excuses times two because we're not even related or family. You can't say that would be unfair to them without insulting me ~ because who am I then? Your slave?

Listen, we need to be realistic here, not everyone in this world is going to be entitled to a new heart at the expense of another. Most of us are just going to have to play the cards we've been dealt and deal with it. Collectively, we can't afford to pay for each others new heart. I'm telling you, if you try, we're all doomed.

I say this because I care. If you think this all the way through you'll see a mandatory national healthcare program will only result in all the most healthy citizens to flee, mark my words.

Cost free hardship loans is the only answer and doesn't leave anyone out in the cold. It is the only fairway to deal with this and you can't deny that. It is not fair to put this burden upon others.

User avatar
Shimmering Auro
Pirate
Posts: 1600
Joined: 12-25-2005 05:59 AM

Post by Shimmering Auro » 08-22-2007 12:21 PM

Baby steps, Tif, baby steps. The country can't sit around waiting for something that (it seems) will never happen (Nat'l health care).

You've brought up a great point about whether or not the care will be equal in each particular state. To that I will reply that ANY care is better than no care at all.

Just my opinion, but I do not know if I support a national health care program. I get the creeps thinking about the feds having complete knowledge of a person's (highly personal) health care issues. Personally, I don't want the feds deciding which doctor a person may see, or how much care each person can receive... there are a lot of issues to consider.
shimmeringaurora(at)yahoo(dot)com

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 08-22-2007 12:21 PM

One of the reasons we need a strong national culture: it's a form of "extended family." We sure don't have that now, do we?

User avatar
Psychicwolf
Pirate
Posts: 5999
Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM

Post by Psychicwolf » 08-22-2007 12:22 PM

Shimmering Auro wrote: Forget about 'national' health care. It appears the real answer to this problem is to place the burden of health care in the hands of each individual state.

Alaska has a program, Denali Kid Care. A lot of information about this program can be found here. http://hss.state.ak.us/dhcs/DenaliKidCare/default.htm


The Feds are hopeless, worthless, and out of touch with the realities facing the people they are supposed to represent. It would be wonderful if each state would take some time to review this probram and use this information as a model to guide them toward real solutions to this health care crisis.

Force your state reps. to acknowledge that if one state can provide a program, every state can. No more excuses! State reps. need to take action... and for crying out loud, DO something.

Take this problem out of the Fed's hands and make it a local (state) issue. Put your local rep's feet to the fire.


Denali Kid Care is funded, in part, by the federal monies, like the ones in the bill that just passed. It's CHIP money. Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) which is a fedral program that allows each state to administer and set income guidelines. It's usually 100-200% above the poverty line for that state. Alaska has additional revenues from the oil and from the AK Native Corporations. I used to do transplant coordination at the UW Med Ctr so I am familiar with AK's funding mechanics.:D
We, here in WA have the same thing.
http://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/maa/CHIP/Client.html
But our income guidelines are set by our state's standards.
Tiffany is right though. Alaska has a pretty serious commitment to it's poor children's health programs, as does Washington. The problem comes in state like Alabama, Mississippi where politically it's seen as a "give away" and because so many of the poor children there are African American.
Last edited by Psychicwolf on 08-22-2007 12:25 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.

User avatar
Psychicwolf
Pirate
Posts: 5999
Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM

Post by Psychicwolf » 08-22-2007 12:24 PM

Div, I know you own a small business, so did I until 1992. Do you pay for healthcare insurance for your employees?
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.

User avatar
Shimmering Auro
Pirate
Posts: 1600
Joined: 12-25-2005 05:59 AM

Post by Shimmering Auro » 08-22-2007 12:35 PM

Psychicwolf wrote: Denali Kid Care is funded, in part, by the federal monies, like the ones in the bill that just passed. It's CHIP money. Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) which is a fedral program that allows each state to administer and set income guidelines. It's usually 100-200% above the poverty line for that state. Alaska has additional revenues from the oil and from the AK Native Corporations. I used to do transplant coordination at the UW Med Ctr so I am familiar with AK's funding mechanics.:D
We, here in WA have the same thing.
http://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/maa/CHIP/Client.html
But our income guidelines are set by our state's standards.
Tiffany is right though. Alaska has a pretty serious commitment to it's poor children's health programs, as does Washington. The problem comes in state like Alabama, Mississippi where politically it's seen as a "give away" and because so many of the poor children there are African American.


Yes, it is partially federally funded through block grants. If AK and WA can do this, why not other states?
shimmeringaurora(at)yahoo(dot)com

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government Pre-2007”