Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program.

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we need to compromise. Extend the current program by one year, then have this debate all over again next October
Then we can propose a nice big increase, have Bush veto it, Republicans get slaughtered at the polls, then Hillary can sign it.
Sounds like a good compromise to me.

Hillary cut the war? lol youre dreaming. She WILL however have no problem expanding our already bloated government and increasing taxes to do it. That much is true.

Providing healthcare to poor children is not bloated government to me, it's common sense government function.

You actually think she can get legislation passed to cover the majority of uninsured kids? LOL Again youre dreaming. Good luck with that. Someone else figured out the projected tax increase to pay for it and it makes Iraq's budget look like peanuts.

I highly doubt it. Plus this so called tax increase would be more than offset by not having to pay outrageous health insurance premiums that are growing far faster than inflation.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I highly doubt it. Plus this so called tax increase would be more than offset by not having to pay outrageous health insurance premiums that are growing far faster than inflation.

Ahhh yes, we need to increase taxes and expand government programs because government interference, incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance resulted in the costs of health insurance to sky rocket. Plus there's the complete lack of addressing tort reform because lawsuits are driving up health insurance costs as well.

And 'So-called tax increase'? When is a 65 cent increase on cigarette taxes (~150% increase) only 'so-called'?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
I highly doubt it. Plus this so called tax increase would be more than offset by not having to pay outrageous health insurance premiums that are growing far faster than inflation.

Ahhh yes, we need to increase taxes and expand government programs because government interference, incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance resulted in the costs of health insurance to sky rocket. Plus there's the complete lack of addressing tort reform because lawsuits are driving up health insurance costs as well.

Get your head out of the sand. Cost of health insurance has been skyrocketing under our current private sector model. Countries with universal government paid healthcare spend far less to get same or better health outcomes.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
I highly doubt it. Plus this so called tax increase would be more than offset by not having to pay outrageous health insurance premiums that are growing far faster than inflation.

Ahhh yes, we need to increase taxes and expand government programs because government interference, incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance resulted in the costs of health insurance to sky rocket. Plus there's the complete lack of addressing tort reform because lawsuits are driving up health insurance costs as well.

Get your head out of the sand. Cost of health insurance has been skyrocketing under our current private sector model. Countries with universal government paid healthcare spend far less to get same or better health outcomes.

I'm able to take my children straight from the doctor's office to another office to get X-Rays or MRI (and yes, I've had to do that numerous times). People in places that have UHC like Canada, England, and Japan have to wait months. How is that "the same or better'?

The USA leads in survival rates among major diseases like cancer. How is that "the same or better"?

One of the main reasons our costs in the private sector have been sky-rocketing is because of government interference with the private sector through regulations and mandates at the local, state, and federal level.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: senseamp

What about so called "childless adults" who are college students?
Yeah, they may be over 18, but they are still not working full time because they are going to college.
I don't think they should go without health insurance.

when i was in college, purchasing insurance through the college was all of about $50 a month. additionally, the clinic was supported by student fees, so any retail medicine was dirt cheap and available to even those without insurance. i don't think there are many college students without some sort of inexpensive medical benefit.

Originally posted by: senseamp


Get your head out of the sand. Cost of health insurance has been skyrocketing under our current private sector model. Countries with universal government paid healthcare spend far less to get same or better health outcomes.

cutting the paperwork (by, say, a common paperwork model and codes shared by all insurers) would cut a lot of the cost in our system vis-a-vis a single payer system.

and when you start with healthier people in general it doesn't cost as much to get 'the same or better health outcomes.'

not to mention that blaming the medical profession for young black men shooting each other doesn't make sense.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: senseamp

What about so called "childless adults" who are college students?
Yeah, they may be over 18, but they are still not working full time because they are going to college.
I don't think they should go without health insurance.

when i was in college, purchasing insurance through the college was all of about $50 a month. additionally, the clinic was supported by student fees, so any retail medicine was dirt cheap and available to even those without insurance. i don't think there are many college students without some sort of inexpensive medical benefit.

Same here. This is practically a requirement from my experience.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
I highly doubt it. Plus this so called tax increase would be more than offset by not having to pay outrageous health insurance premiums that are growing far faster than inflation.

Ahhh yes, we need to increase taxes and expand government programs because government interference, incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance resulted in the costs of health insurance to sky rocket. Plus there's the complete lack of addressing tort reform because lawsuits are driving up health insurance costs as well.

Get your head out of the sand. Cost of health insurance has been skyrocketing under our current private sector model. Countries with universal government paid healthcare spend far less to get same or better health outcomes.

I'm able to take my children straight from the doctor's office to another office to get X-Rays or MRI (and yes, I've had to do that numerous times). People in places that have UHC like Canada, England, and Japan have to wait months. How is that "the same or better'?

The USA leads in survival rates among major diseases like cancer. How is that "the same or better"?

They get same or better health outcomes overall. Both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, while spending much less than we do. You can pick and choose metrics you want, but the end result is that even with taking your kids straight to radiology, and leading survival rates for cancer, we still lag countries that spend often times less than half of what we do on healthcare in our overall health outcomes. Now if you think a country that has to spend twice as much on healthcare to get same outcomes will remain competitive for long, you have not been paying attention for the last 20 years.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
I highly doubt it. Plus this so called tax increase would be more than offset by not having to pay outrageous health insurance premiums that are growing far faster than inflation.

Ahhh yes, we need to increase taxes and expand government programs because government interference, incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance resulted in the costs of health insurance to sky rocket. Plus there's the complete lack of addressing tort reform because lawsuits are driving up health insurance costs as well.

Get your head out of the sand. Cost of health insurance has been skyrocketing under our current private sector model. Countries with universal government paid healthcare spend far less to get same or better health outcomes.

I'm able to take my children straight from the doctor's office to another office to get X-Rays or MRI (and yes, I've had to do that numerous times). People in places that have UHC like Canada, England, and Japan have to wait months. How is that "the same or better'?

The USA leads in survival rates among major diseases like cancer. How is that "the same or better"?

They get same or better health outcomes overall. Both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, while spending much less than we do. You can pick and choose metrics you want, but the end result is that even with taking your kids straight to radiology, and leading survival rates for cancer, we still lag countries that spend often times less than half of what we do on healthcare in our overall health outcomes. Now if you think a country that has to spend twice as much on healthcare to get same outcomes will remain competitive for long, you have not been paying attention for the last 20 years.

It is very difficult to tie overall life expectancy to quality of health care and the amount of money spent. There are too many factors. For one, more Americans drive in cars and get into more accidents that result in injury or death than in any other country. We also have more gun related deaths than any other country. These factors which drag down life expectancy have nothing to do with the quality of health care.

There are also other factors like we do more to try and save a life than other countries. In the United States, every effort is made to save a prematurely born child no matter how premature. If a prematurely born child dies, it is counted as a death. In other countries, no effort is made to save babies born very prematurely (22 or 25 weeks or less...I forget). Additionally, the loss of these babies are not counted as deaths.

So yeah, when it comes to comparing metrics....about the only ones that are worthwhile are those that are measured on the same relative playing field. This would be things like survival rates and waiting times for health care.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: senseamp

What about so called "childless adults" who are college students?
Yeah, they may be over 18, but they are still not working full time because they are going to college.
I don't think they should go without health insurance.

when i was in college, purchasing insurance through the college was all of about $50 a month. additionally, the clinic was supported by student fees, so any retail medicine was dirt cheap and available to even those without insurance. i don't think there are many college students without some sort of inexpensive medical benefit.

Same here. This is practically a requirement from my experience.

It's $50 per month because it's subsidized. So you are not against subsidizing healthcare for childless adults?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
I highly doubt it. Plus this so called tax increase would be more than offset by not having to pay outrageous health insurance premiums that are growing far faster than inflation.

Ahhh yes, we need to increase taxes and expand government programs because government interference, incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance resulted in the costs of health insurance to sky rocket. Plus there's the complete lack of addressing tort reform because lawsuits are driving up health insurance costs as well.

Get your head out of the sand. Cost of health insurance has been skyrocketing under our current private sector model. Countries with universal government paid healthcare spend far less to get same or better health outcomes.

I'm able to take my children straight from the doctor's office to another office to get X-Rays or MRI (and yes, I've had to do that numerous times). People in places that have UHC like Canada, England, and Japan have to wait months. How is that "the same or better'?

The USA leads in survival rates among major diseases like cancer. How is that "the same or better"?

They get same or better health outcomes overall. Both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, while spending much less than we do. You can pick and choose metrics you want, but the end result is that even with taking your kids straight to radiology, and leading survival rates for cancer, we still lag countries that spend often times less than half of what we do on healthcare in our overall health outcomes. Now if you think a country that has to spend twice as much on healthcare to get same outcomes will remain competitive for long, you have not been paying attention for the last 20 years.

It is very difficult to tie overall life expectancy to quality of health care and the amount of money spent. There are too many factors. For one, more Americans drive in cars and get into more accidents that result in injury or death than in any other country. We also have more gun related deaths than any other country. These factors which drag down life expectancy have nothing to do with the quality of health care.

There are also other factors like we do more to try and save a life than other countries. In the United States, every effort is made to save a prematurely born child no matter how premature. If a prematurely born child dies, it is counted as a death. In other countries, no effort is made to save babies born very prematurely (22 or 25 weeks or less...I forget). Additionally, the loss of these babies are not counted as deaths.

So yeah, when it comes to comparing metrics....about the only ones that are worthwhile are those that are measured on the same relative playing field. This would be things like survival rates and waiting times for health care.

These are WHO statistics, you can take it up with them. You can make all the excuses you want, but they don't explain why we spend twice as much to get mediocre results. Gun and car accident deaths and injuries are a drop in the bucket when it comes to life expectancy impact, but no one with a brain can deny that our healthcare costs are out of control because of a systemic failure. The private system is the problem here. Free markets don't work when your choices are getting healthcare or dying. That's about as free market as an armed robbery.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
These are WHO statistics, you can take it up with them. You can make all the excuses you want, but they don't explain why we spend twice as much to get mediocre results. Gun and car accident deaths and injuries are a drop in the bucket when it comes to life expectancy impact, but no one with a brain can deny that our healthcare costs are out of control because of a systemic failure. The private system is the problem here. Free markets don't work when your choices are getting healthcare or dying. That's about as free market as an armed robbery.

Well, we'll have to disagree on why we think health care costs are increasing out of control.

You think it is the free market. I think it is government interference in the free market with all the regulations and mandates from every level of government (local, state, federal). Out of control lawsuits is also a reason. Having to cover illegal immigrants who abuse the system and pay nothing toward health care is also a reason.

I have a hard time swallowing that the answer to government corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, and meddling is more government.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: senseamp

It's $50 per month because it's subsidized. So you are not against subsidizing healthcare for childless adults?

my uni certainly wasn't. large groups of young adults who are educated are cheap to insure.



and i'd rather try a simple solution, like paperwork reduction through common forms and codes (utah did it state wide and their medical insurance rates haven't gone up that much since implementing it), before trying a complex solution like handing the insurance companies a 100 billion dollar subsidy and raising taxes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Looks like we need to fix S-CHIP before we work on expanding it. PDF Link - Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data on how states are spending S-CHIP money.

A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

I'd like to see data for the other 36 states but this suggests that we need to fix the current S-CHIP program to concentrate on the children who need the help before expanding it.

This is extrememly significant information.

I'm frustrated that with all the media coverage on this issue, I hear about this only here.

SCHIP - Won't somebody think of the poor kids? Gimme a fvcking break.

I've consistently advocated childrens' coverage here. I'm angry that the money promissed them is going elsewhere.

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Queasy
A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

And therein lies part of the problem. Now, Democrats want to expand it further. How soon before those states are spending only 20 or 25% of the SCHIP funds on insuring CHILDREN like they are supposed to?

They could probably expand S-CHIP to include more kids at higher income levels just by changing S-CHIP to ensure that monies go only to children's healthcare. They wouldn't even need the additional $35 billion funded by cigarette taxes.

What about so called "childless adults" who are college students?
Yeah, they may be over 18, but they are still not working full time because they are going to college.
I don't think they should go without health insurance.

Most medical insurances allow college students to be covered under the parent's policy as long as they can show they are full time students.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Queasy
Looks like we need to fix S-CHIP before we work on expanding it. PDF Link - Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data on how states are spending S-CHIP money.

A full 44% of S-CHIP is NOT being spent on children. Michigan is spending a ridiculous 71.6% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. New Mexico is spending 52.3% of S-CHIP funds on Childless Adults. In this survey of 14 states, 8 are spending less than 75% of S-CHIP funds on children. 6 are spending less than 50%.

I'd like to see data for the other 36 states but this suggests that we need to fix the current S-CHIP program to concentrate on the children who need the help before expanding it.

This is extrememly significant information.

I'm frustrated that with all the media coverage on this issue, I hear about this only here.

SCHIP - Won't somebody think of the poor kids? Gimme a fvcking break.

I've consistently advocated childrens' coverage here. I'm angry that the money promissed them is going elsewhere.

Fern

The SCHIP bill that was vetoed by Bush phases out "other' insurables in the program - over 2 years , I think.

It sets a threshold that sez you have to insure X-percent of eligible children (can't remember trhe exact percentage) - when you reach that level you may expand other health care programs.

I don't know if the *facts* cited above are actually true - I'd like to see a link or two. FUD spreads kinda fast on the internets - like the BS on SCHIP Boy's family. The Bush Administration has given 14 'waivers' on the program which allow foolishness like what is listed above.

*Foolishment* is probably not fair. I would guess that in New Mexico there are a bunch of gov't workers who already have coverage - same thing with native americans living there. I would think it is more important to compare it to the # of children who actually have coveraage before making a big deal out of it.

The available funds could be used for other programs if a high percentage of children are covered.

- Shoot - are there even 2 million people in New Mexico?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Lookie what I found:

HHS Approves Michigan Request to Expand Coverage to Uninsured Adults

HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced the approval of Michigan's request under the new, more flexible Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability (HIFA) Initiative to expand the use of SCHIP funds to offer health insurance to adults who are currently uninsured

The state will expand health insurance coverage to childless adults with family incomes at or below 35 percent of the federal poverty level. Michigan is the ninth state to use the HIFA waiver to expand access to health care coverage. New Mexico, Oregon, Illinois, Colorado, New Jersey, Maine, Arizona and California also have been granted HIFA waivers.

"This new HIFA initiative gives states the flexibility they need to address the growing numbers of uninsured citizens," said Secretary Thompson. "It is not a cure for the problem of citizens without coverage, but it's a first step.".

So the Republicans and Bush are raising hell about a program they approved.

Can't yah just smell the hypocrisy ???

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Most medical insurances allow college students to be covered under the parent's policy as long as they can show they are full time students.

QFT.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Most medical insurances allow college students to be covered under the parent's policy as long as they can show they are full time students.

QFT.

QFWTF.

Most medical insurances also allow underage kids to be covered under their parent's policy.
So I guess we don't need SCHIP at all, huh? Has it not dawned on you that some kids' parents can't afford insurance themselves, and thus have no policy to cover their kids in the first place?

 

[Pabster]

I Could Qualify For SCHIP!

 

[Pabster]

Oh, and Malkin said it best.

The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don?t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I Could Qualify For SCHIP!

Eligibility is set by states.
Are you against states' rights now?

 

[Pabster]

Fine, then let the States fund it, too. You can't have it both ways.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
I Could Qualify For SCHIP!

Eligibility is set by states.
Are you against states' rights now?

WTF? How does the fact he qualifies somehow imply he's against states rights?

 

[palehorse]

I can't believe that only 3 of 50 states perform any form of asset verification prior to authorizing SCHIP coverage... that's just f'n ridiculous!

That's it, I'm going to actively campaign against ANY/ALL SCHIP programs, including the current system that is only one step away from UHC... bah... it makes me sick to hear of middle-class families willingly riding the government teat; but, what make me even more sick is the government making that possible to begin with!

Fvck SCHIP, fvck UHC, and fvck the socialist douchebags pushing this crap on us!

 

[conehead433]

Following is a list of 31 Republicans who voted against the bill. There were 68 votes for, so we'll see how many who initially voted for the bill change their minds and vote along party lines and with the President. I would love to see the veto overturned.

Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)