Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program.

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: sirjonk
[Trent] Lott added, "Do you really believe Republicans don't want to help poor, low-income children?"

LOL

Next thing Lott will say "Do you really believe I'm racist just because I voted against virtually every important civil rights legislation in the past 30 years?"

"Civil Rights Legislation" meaning entitlement or special treatment programs (Affirmative Action, etc..) for certain groups based on their gender or race? Right on... Nothing helps a minority community out like handouts and special privileges that undermine the accomplishments made by those members of said group that rise above the rest via hard work and achievement in life... Better to keep them poor and on the dole to get votes, right?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: sirjonk
[Trent] Lott added, "Do you really believe Republicans don't want to help poor, low-income children?"

LOL

Next thing Lott will say "Do you really believe I'm racist just because I voted against virtually every important civil rights legislation in the past 30 years?"

"Civil Rights Legislation" meaning entitlement or special treatment programs (Affirmative Action, etc..) for certain groups based on their gender or race? Right on... Nothing helps a minority community out like handouts and special privileges that undermine the accomplishments made by those members of said group that rise above the rest via hard work and achievement in life... Better to keep them poor and on the dole to get votes, right?

Exactly. He denied them healthcare because he really cares about them. Tough love.

"We all gonna die, but if you have insurance you gonna die on a mattress." Chris Rock

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: senseamp
Just a little insight into what Republicans will be up against if they don't override this veto.
http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm

"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 Oppose Unsure
% % %


9/27-30/07
72 25 3

Oh, and before they decide to engage in slippery slope argument that this is only going to lead to nationalized healthcare, they may want to check out this

"Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"


.

Yes No Unsure
% % %


5/4-6/07
64 35 2

So Republicans, don't override this veto, and see what happens to you.

Ask the question.

Do you want tax hikes to pay for Universal Healthcare, and the numbers would be reversed.

Once people start hearing about the tax hikes that are involved in universal healthcare, the majority of americans will NOT want any part of it.

... the poll also fails to mention that the classification of "children" in the bill includes taxpayer funded coverage for millions of able bodied individuals between the ages of 18 and 26.... I'd love to see the poll split into "provide healthcare for children under the age of 18"... and "provide healthcare for children and dependent adults up to age 26," and see how the results split.

Bush did not veto the bill because he doesn't want to provide coverage to children, he vetoed it because the bill purposefully misrepresents the definition of "children" to include able bodied adults. As I understand it, Bush would be willing to sign the bill IF it limited coverage to individuals under the age of 18 which seems like a rational position to take (regardless if I agree or not in principal).

This is nothing more than a play at universal healthcare, I hope the true conservatives left in the Republican party stick to their guns and let this garbage legislation die.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: sirjonk
[Trent] Lott added, "Do you really believe Republicans don't want to help poor, low-income children?"

LOL

Next thing Lott will say "Do you really believe I'm racist just because I voted against virtually every important civil rights legislation in the past 30 years?"

"Civil Rights Legislation" meaning entitlement or special treatment programs (Affirmative Action, etc..) for certain groups based on their gender or race? Right on... Nothing helps a minority community out like handouts and special privileges that undermine the accomplishments made by those members of said group that rise above the rest via hard work and achievement in life... Better to keep them poor and on the dole to get votes, right?

Exactly. He denied them healthcare because he really cares about them. Tough love.

"We all gonna die, but if you have insurance you gonna die on a mattress." Chris Rock

.. because nothing motivates someone to work hard to improve their situation in life like a free handout...

 

[alchemize]

Bush is getting fiscally conservative about 7 years too late.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Fern you should really go back and read the rest of this thread, virtually all the points you brought up were covered and shown to be BS.

-snip-

Fern

Are you disputing factcheck.org's analysis? If so, why?

Of course things have changed in a material way, greater numbers of people are eligible for the program.

Hi eskimospy,

I've checked out factcheck.org. I think they're being disengenious with their *wording* and I do dispute how some here seem to be interpreting what they say.

Factscheck covers only three issues from what I can see:

1. Those making $83K

2. The shift from employer plans to the gov SCHIP plan

3. Covering "poor people"

---------------------------

Those making $83K

The president repeated a false charge that has been bandied about by the administration and other Republicans:

Bush: Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.

In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year.

They say his remarks are false, but then go on to butress that by saying "nothing... forces coverage for...$83k.."

I don't see where he said "forces". Forces isn't the issue. All it has to do is allow it, and it does.

That's already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase. The Bush administration, in fact, just denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four

Here again, what is the relevance of noting there is no requirement for such an increase. The real point is that there is no prohibition. The bill ALLOWS it. That's the issue, not "forcing" it.

Moreover, down below you'll see forbids PROHIBITING the increase? Now why do that if you intend or plan for states to raise it?

So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation "would" result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible. It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation.

I don't see how it's 'simply wrong" to contend that the bill will result in making familes with $83K eligible. Of course it will result in that as soon as the states move to make it so.

AND

He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law.

They contend the "would result" remark is untrue, and try it prove by quoting some estimate about 70%? Next sentance above -Again, the point is not whether the bill mandates raising the cap, it's whether it permits it.

(The compromise bill that was released a few days after Bush's press conference does rescind an administration effort to block New York state from increasing its eligibility cap to that level.)

See above about all the "does not force it" stuff. Here they're moving to prevent the forbiding of such a huge raise in the cap. Geez.

We're doing an awful lot of *wordplay above.

Pretty juvenile stuff IMO. Lets recind the law prohibiting bank robberies. Will that result in more bank robberies? Sure. But oh no, under this logic that's false, you see we're not MANDATING that people rob banks.

-------------


The "Shift"

In the news conference, the president also described Congress' SCHIP expansion as a step toward government-run health coverage.

Bush: The proposal would move millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care. Our goals should be for children who have no health insurance to be able to get private coverage, not for children who already have private health insurance to be able to get government coverage.... Their S-CHIP plan is an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.

It is true that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that the House and Senate bills will cause some who recently had private coverage to sign up for SCHIP or Medicaid coverage, depending on how the state administers those programs. However, Bush is being misleading by leaving out additional details about this shift. The Congressional Budget Office director said he hasn't seen another policy proposal that would reach as great a level of the uninsured with as low of an effect on those who had private insurance

So, they are not arguing that people will not shift. In fact, they are admitting it. Wierd way to debunk stuff, IMO

Health care and government experts, including CBO Director Peter R. Orszag and MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, have said that when the government offers programs that target the uninsured, those programs will inevitably be used by some who already have or could have private insurance. Experts call this effect "crowd-out."

So, their (debunk) article include verification GWB's assertion?

At best any disagrement is over the scope of the problem of shifting. And I don't see much of that here anyway.

-----------------------------------

The "Poor"

The third topic is *word sparring* about the term "poor". I don't think it's worth discussing. Some us feel allowing state's the leeway to raise the cap to 4 times the poverty rate is too much. Debating the semantics is silly and irrelevant.

-----------------------------------

I see nothing about allowing coverage for those above age 18.

----------------------------------

I see nothing about an exp[lanaition for the huge increase in costs. Clearly, Congress is preparing for a whole bunch of new people to qualify under this revision. No amount of obfuscation can mask that fact.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Fern you should really go back and read the rest of this thread, virtually all the points you brought up were covered and shown to be BS.

-snip-

Fern

Are you disputing factcheck.org's analysis? If so, why?

Of course things have changed in a material way, greater numbers of people are eligible for the program.

Hi eskimospy,

I've checked out factcheck.org. I think they're being disengenious with their *wording* and I do dispute how some here seem to be interpreting what they say.

Factscheck covers only three issues from what I can see:

1. Those making $83K

2. The shift from employer plans to the gov SCHIP plan

3. Covering "poor people"

---------------------------

Those making $83K

The president repeated a false charge that has been bandied about by the administration and other Republicans:

Bush: Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.

In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year.

They say his remarks are false, but then go on to butress that by saying "nothing... forces coverage for...$83k.."

I don't see where he said "forces". Forces isn't the issue. All it has to do is allow it, and it does.

That's already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase. The Bush administration, in fact, just denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four

Here again, what is the relevance of noting there is no requirement for such an increase. The real point is that there is no prohibition. The bill ALLOWS it. That's the issue, not "forcing" it.

Moreover, down below you'll see forbids PROHIBITING the increase? Now why do that if you intend or plan for states to raise it?

So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation "would" result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible. It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation.

I don't see how it's 'simply wrong" to contend that the bill will result in making familes with $83K eligible. Of course it will result in that as soon as the states move to make it so.

AND

He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law.

They contend the "would result" remark is untrue, and try it prove by quoting some estimate about 70%? Next sentance above -Again, the point is not whether the bill mandates raising the cap, it's whether it permits it.

(The compromise bill that was released a few days after Bush's press conference does rescind an administration effort to block New York state from increasing its eligibility cap to that level.)

See above about all the "does not force it" stuff. Here they're moving to prevent the forbiding of such a huge raise in the cap. Geez.

We're doing an awful lot of *wordplay above.

Pretty juvenile stuff IMO. Lets recind the law prohibiting bank robberies. Will that result in more bank robberies? Sure. But oh no, under this logic that's false, you see we're not MANDATING that people rob banks.

-------------


The "Shift"

In the news conference, the president also described Congress' SCHIP expansion as a step toward government-run health coverage.

Bush: The proposal would move millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care. Our goals should be for children who have no health insurance to be able to get private coverage, not for children who already have private health insurance to be able to get government coverage.... Their S-CHIP plan is an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.

It is true that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that the House and Senate bills will cause some who recently had private coverage to sign up for SCHIP or Medicaid coverage, depending on how the state administers those programs. However, Bush is being misleading by leaving out additional details about this shift. The Congressional Budget Office director said he hasn't seen another policy proposal that would reach as great a level of the uninsured with as low of an effect on those who had private insurance

So, they are not arguing that people will not shift. In fact, they are admitting it. Wierd way to debunk stuff, IMO

Health care and government experts, including CBO Director Peter R. Orszag and MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, have said that when the government offers programs that target the uninsured, those programs will inevitably be used by some who already have or could have private insurance. Experts call this effect "crowd-out."

So, their (debunk) article include verification GWB's assertion?

At best any disagrement is over the scope of the problem of shifting. And I don't see much of that here anyway.

-----------------------------------

The "Poor"

The third topic is *word sparring* about the term "poor". I don't think it's worth discussing. Some us feel allowing state's the leeway to raise the cap to 4 times the poverty rate is too much. Debating the semantics is silly and irrelevant.

-----------------------------------

I see nothing about allowing coverage for those above age 18.

----------------------------------

I see nothing about an exp[lanaition for the huge increase in costs. Clearly, Congress is preparing for a whole bunch of new people to qualify under this revision. No amount of obfuscation can mask that fact.

Fern

1. You seem to keep skipping the part about the $83,00 being allowed under current law. This bill did not change that. It neither forced nor prohibited. It already existed for the past 10 years whch SCHIP was first passed with bipartisan support. Bush listing the 83k among the reasons for the veto doesn't hold water. Unless he's suggesting his veto is because the bill doesn't require lowering the already existing cap of $83k which no state has taken advantage of. Further, The Bush administration, in fact, just denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four, and Bush would retain the authority to deny similar applications under the proposed legislation.

2. The factcheck.org article (which was written in response to Bush's promise to veto, not the veto itself) also states:
"The House bill would extend coverage to a total of 7.5 million people, 5 million of whom are uninsured, while the Senate bill would reach 6.1 million, 4 million of whom are uninsured, according to CBO reports. The rest of those affected by the expansions would have private or other coverage."

I don't know what the final submitted bill offered, but clearly millions more people are being covered, so there's your increase in cost.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

1. You seem to keep skipping the part about the $83,00 being allowed under current law. This bill did not change that. It neither forced nor prohibited. It already existed.


I thought the part I included about this bill forbidding any rule against raising the cap to $83K covered that. So the current doesn't mandate or prohibit. Sounds like a loophole that needs closed.

2. The factcheck.org article (which was written in response to Bush's promise to veto, not the veto itself) also states:
"The House bill would extend coverage to a total of 7.5 million people, 5 million of whom are uninsured, while the Senate bill would reach 6.1 million, 4 million of whom are uninsured, according to CBO reports. The rest of those affected by the expansions would have private or other coverage."

I don't know what the final submitted bill offered, but clearly millions more people are being covered, so there's your increase in cost.

Uh huh. Millions more being covered.............

Fern

 

[jonks]

Was someone denying this was an expansion in cost?

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting, I've never seen someone call factcheck a biased source before, in fact I know of no other political analysis site that is more respected by both sides of the isle.

You are trying to take unrelated legislation and lay it at the feet of this bill. While you are correct that this bill ALLOWS that magic $83,000 making person to get benefits in theory, so does all other healthcare legislation in existence. This bill simply does not address that issue. It's very odd to oppose a bill based on things that are not in it. By that logic I guess I could oppose it because it also doesn't seem to be providing enough provisions to battle corruption in how Iraqi reconstruction contracts are awarded. What factcheck was saying in its analysis was that Bush is basing his opposition on items that are parts of current law, not in the new bill. That is duplicitous, and you're buying into it.

So yes it is simply wrong to say this bill will make those making $83k eligible. They already were. This bill has nothing to do with that.

Furthermore their analysis states that while some people will in fact depart private healthcare, it is nowhere near the number Bush and the Republicans are claiming, and it is, according to the nonpartisan CBO director the best way he has seen to reach the uninsured. Of course any time a government program provides a service that HMOs provide you're going to "crowd out" some people... I mean that's just a "duh" statement. Their point again, was that it did so in a very minimal manner while still aiding large numbers of the uninsured. This is in marked contrast to the view Bush was putting forth, and so again his assertions are dishonest.

You seem to have taken the parts out of their analysis which reinforce your already held opinions and discarded their overall context and meaning of their piece. As with any reputable nonpartisan organization they are trying to include all the facts, not just those that jive with a particular viewpoint. This will lead to their conclusions not being as clean as other places with an agenda, but it makes them much more honest.

I do think what constitutes poor is worth discussing, because some people look at the numbers without understanding what other factors go into it. If you don't want to, that's fine... but saying "well, I just think it's wrong" isn't a very good argument.

And finally who is trying to hide that Congress is making a whole bunch of new people eligible!?!!? That's the whole point!!!

 

[First]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: sirjonk
[Trent] Lott added, "Do you really believe Republicans don't want to help poor, low-income children?"

LOL

Next thing Lott will say "Do you really believe I'm racist just because I voted against virtually every important civil rights legislation in the past 30 years?"

"Civil Rights Legislation" meaning entitlement or special treatment programs (Affirmative Action, etc..) for certain groups based on their gender or race? Right on... Nothing helps a minority community out like handouts and special privileges that undermine the accomplishments made by those members of said group that rise above the rest via hard work and achievement in life... Better to keep them poor and on the dole to get votes, right?

Uh, no. I'm talking about voting against Martin Luther King day. That type of crap is on Lott's voting record. Look it up for yourself, I'm not lying.

 

[Hacp]

Ok, I live in New York. Guess what? Bush denied the 83,000 thing. Its over. Don't get 83,000 into this, because Bush won't let it happen. The President's people have control over this issue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: sirjonk
[Trent] Lott added, "Do you really believe Republicans don't want to help poor, low-income children?"

LOL

Next thing Lott will say "Do you really believe I'm racist just because I voted against virtually every important civil rights legislation in the past 30 years?"

"Civil Rights Legislation" meaning entitlement or special treatment programs (Affirmative Action, etc..) for certain groups based on their gender or race? Right on... Nothing helps a minority community out like handouts and special privileges that undermine the accomplishments made by those members of said group that rise above the rest via hard work and achievement in life... Better to keep them poor and on the dole to get votes, right?

Uh, no. I'm talking about voting against Martin Luther King day. That type of crap is on Lott's voting record. Look it up for yourself, I'm not lying.

MLK DAY is not a civil rights issue. Sheesh.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
MLK DAY is not a civil rights issue. Sheesh.

It is, if you need a talking point for a far left-wing web site.

I suspect Mr. Lieb was digging the Google, as that particular vote (and the one against the Voting Rights Act a year before) are commonly cited on the nutty sites.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The neocon Rant; "None For You!" "The Poor, The Old, The Sick, Screw 'em!"

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Here's a pretty good editorial regarding Bush's veto. In particular, I liked the quote by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa:

Link

"The bill is not a government takeover of health care. The bill is not socialized medicine. Screaming 'socialized medicine' during a health care debate is like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from looking at the facts. To those of you who make such outlandish accusations, I say, go shout 'fire' somewhere else. Serious people are trying to get real work done. Now's the time to get this done."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Here's a pretty good editorial regarding Bush's veto. In particular, I liked the quote by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa:

Link

"The bill is not a government takeover of health care. The bill is not socialized medicine. Screaming 'socialized medicine' during a health care debate is like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from looking at the facts. To those of you who make such outlandish accusations, I say, go shout 'fire' somewhere else. Serious people are trying to get real work done. Now's the time to get this done."

Grassley has lost his Conservative ways since he's been in Washington so long. A lot of us Conservatives call him a fauxal-conservative. He's barely passable as one, but tons better than his counterpart Harkin.
His defense is not very good since he provides nothing to back up his assertions. This IS an extension of socialized medicine and is just another step towards total gov't control of it. Sure, it may not be "fire" but it's an ember that will soon turn to fire if he and the other windbags in Washington keep blowing on it.

 

[Pabster]

Agreed. Overall I'm fairly happy with Grassley's record, but his support of that ridiculous aquarium park ($200 million+) was absurd. He's wrong, unfortunately, on this one as well.

Harkin? Don't get me started.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Here's a pretty good editorial regarding Bush's veto. In particular, I liked the quote by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa:

Link

"The bill is not a government takeover of health care. The bill is not socialized medicine. Screaming 'socialized medicine' during a health care debate is like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from looking at the facts. To those of you who make such outlandish accusations, I say, go shout 'fire' somewhere else. Serious people are trying to get real work done. Now's the time to get this done."

Grassley has lost his Conservative ways since he's been in Washington so long. A lot of us Conservatives call him a fauxal-conservative. He's barely passable as one, but tons better than his counterpart Harkin.
His defense is not very good since he provides nothing to back up his assertions. This IS an extension of socialized medicine and is just another step towards total gov't control of it. Sure, it may not be "fire" but it's an ember that will soon turn to fire if he and the other windbags in Washington keep blowing on it.

So what do you propose to help lower-income kids whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but have few alternatives for health insurance coverage? Ignore them so that we avoid "socialized medicine"?

Try explaining that to a family barely making twice the poverty rate: that we can't spend $35 billion over five years to help their children out, but we can spend over $2 Trillion (and counting) in Iraq; over two billion a week.

The best way to guarantee true "socialized medicine" is to continue blocking mild measures such as this until working Americans are pushed beyond the limit.

 

[nageov3t]

if "socialized medicine" is good enough for the army, the entire congress, and the white house, you'd think it'd be good enough for kids.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Here's a pretty good editorial regarding Bush's veto. In particular, I liked the quote by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa:

Link

"The bill is not a government takeover of health care. The bill is not socialized medicine. Screaming 'socialized medicine' during a health care debate is like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from looking at the facts. To those of you who make such outlandish accusations, I say, go shout 'fire' somewhere else. Serious people are trying to get real work done. Now's the time to get this done."

Grassley has lost his Conservative ways since he's been in Washington so long. A lot of us Conservatives call him a fauxal-conservative. He's barely passable as one, but tons better than his counterpart Harkin.
His defense is not very good since he provides nothing to back up his assertions. This IS an extension of socialized medicine and is just another step towards total gov't control of it. Sure, it may not be "fire" but it's an ember that will soon turn to fire if he and the other windbags in Washington keep blowing on it.

So what do you propose to help lower-income kids whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but have few alternatives for health insurance coverage? Ignore them so that we avoid "socialized medicine"?

Try explaining that to a family barely making twice the poverty rate: that we can't spend $35 billion over five years to help their children out, but we can spend over $2 Trillion (and counting) in Iraq; over two billion a week.

The best way to guarantee true "socialized medicine" (i.e. something actually deserving the name verses conservatives calling anything whatsoever involving the government "socialism) is to continue blocking mild measures such as this until working Americans are pushed beyond the limit.

They are already being helped. This is an EXTENTION and EXPANSION. Are there things that can be fixed in the current system? Sure, but that can be done without a HUGE expansion.

As to you all too predictable Iraq heart string argument - They are not related - especially since one is Constitutional and one is not IMO. The Feds have overstepped their bounds and need to be reigned in.

I don't agree with your stance. The way to socialized medicine is through small incremental expansions - which this one is. It's the whole boiling of a frog thing...
One of the biggest problems I see is that people have been sinking further into the entitlement mentality of socialism - it needs to be reversed if our nation is to prosper in the future.

 

[nageov3t]

I'd buy the argument that the White House isn't simply playing political games if they had accepted the offer to a seat at the negotiation table.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Here's a pretty good editorial regarding Bush's veto. In particular, I liked the quote by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa:

Link

"The bill is not a government takeover of health care. The bill is not socialized medicine. Screaming 'socialized medicine' during a health care debate is like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from looking at the facts. To those of you who make such outlandish accusations, I say, go shout 'fire' somewhere else. Serious people are trying to get real work done. Now's the time to get this done."

Grassley has lost his Conservative ways since he's been in Washington so long. A lot of us Conservatives call him a fauxal-conservative. He's barely passable as one, but tons better than his counterpart Harkin.
His defense is not very good since he provides nothing to back up his assertions. This IS an extension of socialized medicine and is just another step towards total gov't control of it. Sure, it may not be "fire" but it's an ember that will soon turn to fire if he and the other windbags in Washington keep blowing on it.

So what do you propose to help lower-income kids whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but have few alternatives for health insurance coverage? Ignore them so that we avoid "socialized medicine"?

Try explaining that to a family barely making twice the poverty rate: that we can't spend $35 billion over five years to help their children out, but we can spend over $2 Trillion (and counting) in Iraq; over two billion a week.

The best way to guarantee true "socialized medicine" (i.e. something actually deserving the name verses conservatives calling anything whatsoever involving the government "socialism) is to continue blocking mild measures such as this until working Americans are pushed beyond the limit.

They are already being helped. This is an EXTENTION and EXPANSION. Are there things that can be fixed in the current system? Sure, but that can be done without a HUGE expansion.

As to you all too predictable Iraq heart string argument - They are not related - especially since one is Constitutional and one is not IMO. The Feds have overstepped their bounds and need to be reigned in.

I don't agree with your stance. The way to socialized medicine is through small incremental expansions - which this one is. It's the whole boiling of a frog thing...
One of the biggest problems I see is that people have been sinking further into the entitlement mentality of socialism - it needs to be reversed if our nation is to prosper in the future.

The whole point is that this is an extension for those not already covered by medicare but having little to no options otherwise. How exactly are these families, which according to the article make barely over twice the poverty line, being helped already?

I know that Iraq isn't directly related to this, but I find that many of the people (not necessarily you, but certainly others) so ardently against a fairly small, cost-wise, increase in programs like SCHIPs tend to be perfectly fine spending many times more in Iraq.

At any rate, how is this constitutional? As you said, this is an extension of an already existing program: if the existing program isn't unconstitutional, how can the extension (merely raising the income of families covered) be unconstitutional? The SCHIP legislation wouldn't change what the program provides, it merely expands who it provides it to.


I don't think this expansion is a small step in a boiling frog situation towards socialized medicine: as I posted before, I think it's the opposite way around. By making small expansions like this, we avoid building up the anger that would lead to far more dramatic changes. It's like FDR's programs in the Great Depression: some argued that he was dragging the country into socialism, but in reality his reforms saved the country from a socialist/communist revolution that likely would have happened had the masses been left to languish in poverty.

And people sinking further into the entitlement mentality? Tell that to a family making $40,000, who this expansion would cover: that they have to "suck it up and work harder" because the rest of us making far more shouldn't have to help them out.

If anything, the nation is moving away from the entitlement mentality: ask anyone under 40 or so whether they think social security will be enough to cover their retirement.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

They are already being helped. This is an EXTENTION and EXPANSION. Are there things that can be fixed in the current system? Sure, but that can be done without a HUGE expansion.

As to you all too predictable Iraq heart string argument - They are not related - especially since one is Constitutional and one is not IMO. The Feds have overstepped their bounds and need to be reigned in.

I don't agree with your stance. The way to socialized medicine is through small incremental expansions - which this one is. It's the whole boiling of a frog thing...
One of the biggest problems I see is that people have been sinking further into the entitlement mentality of socialism - it needs to be reversed if our nation is to prosper in the future.

Which is the constitutional one? The one where the government is providing for the general welfare of the country or the one where the executive office decided to go to war without a congressional declaration?

I think that conservatives need to truly take a look back at history and the reality of the "free markets are the answer to all our nation's ills" fallacy.

A prime example would be public utilities. When water, sewage and electricity were strictly regulated by the federal government (socialized utilities anyone?) they were run more effeciently and cheaper for the consumer than they are today. Rate increases were not at the whim of executives who decided that the 100ft yacht would be better for them than the 75 footer.

Competition is good in most areas but when it becomes something that everyone needs and there are only a handful of companies that can provide that service, they should be beholden to the public interest and not the bottom line.

 

[Pabster]

Free markets are the key to our Capitalist system.

Removing a pillar at a time under guise of "for the public good" is unconscionable.

Competition is good in all areas, and health care is no exception.