Democrats & Liberals Archives

Who's in Favor of Children's Health?

What sort of question is this? I would think that everyone in Ameriaca is in favor of children’s health. Everyone, it seems, except President George W. Bush. He is promising to veto the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that was passed by both houses. Why? He thinks it would be a step towards universal coverage.

Evidently he thinks universal health coverage is a bad thing.

This time the senate passed it with a veto-proof majority: 67 to 29. This means that quite a few Republicans voted for it. Among the Republican yes-voters is Senator Orrin Hatch:

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah was among those Republicans who split from the president. "It's very difficult for me to be against a man I care so much for," he told his colleagues on the Senate floor prior to the vote. "It's unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue."

The House passed the bill with slightly less than a veto-proof majority. Will Bush veto the bill? He's done some horrible things. But I have hope that Republicans like Orrin Hatch will convince him not to veto but sign this bill to help children.

Who's in favor of children's health? I'm sure President Bush is.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 28, 2007 5:54 PM
Comments
Comment #234770

George Bush never seems to miss an opportunity to show he’s definitely NOT a compassionate conservative. I like what Trent Lott had to say:

“Thank goodness they’re going to do the right thing for the children…”

While voting against children’s health insurance.

It’s not about trying to take care of the children; it’s about how can we get a political advantage.”

I give him a little credit here, reps should know what they’re talking about when they refer to political stunts.

“Do you really believe Republicans don’t want to help poor, low-income children?”

Yes, I do now, thanks to you and GWB. So much for the party of family values.

Posted by: Silima at September 28, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #234771

Just goes to show that even Republicans can be duped and pressured much like the Dems. How anyone could possibly vote for a bill that includes 25 year old “children” of those making over $80,000 per year is just beyond my comprehension. President Bush wants to continue the program for actual needy “children” as it was originally intended and not be another huge expansion of government with absoutely no way of paying for it except on the backs of smoker’s rights. Well hell, why not universal coverage for everyone except for smokers who only get to pay and not receive.
Don’t any of you get it? Health care will go down the same path as public education…buckets of money squandered for poorer educated students. Try this experiment. Knock on the doors of ten of your neighbors and ask them for $10 bucks each so your 25 year old son can go to the doctor. You’ll find out very quickly how much average folks are willing to pay for your “free” health care.

Posted by: Jim at September 28, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #234773

Democrats wanted 75 billion. Republicans wanted 5 billion. The Conference Committee split the difference at 35 billion. This was the best our inept and incompetent political adversaries could come up with.

Hey, at least they compromised on something. Boot the whole damn lot out, and send a mandate to their challenger replacements to fix the entire system, non-profit health care centers which incur no taxes and spend not a dime on investors halting this spiraling health care inflation and non-profit health insurance that collects only in premiums what is needed to administer payments for non-profit delivered health care.

VOID incumbents who just don’t know how anymore to solve more problems than they create.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2007 8:42 PM
Comment #234775

David, non-profit health care paid for by non-profit health care insurance? You call that a plan? Would it also include non-profit malpractice suits from non-profit lawyers?

If there are no investors backing these non-profit health centers, then they’ll be treating patients by rattling bones together and doing medicine dances because they sure as hell aren’t going to have modern medical equipment or modern drugs.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 28, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #234782

George W. Bush is for the ultra wealthy insurance companies and could care less for the children that are so stupid that they get born into poor families or families who can not afford health care. His statement telling everybody that people who can not afford health care can just go to emergency rooms for health care tells everybody just how unfeeling this man is.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at September 28, 2007 10:40 PM
Comment #234791
Hey, at least they compromised on something. Boot the whole damn lot out, and send a mandate to their challenger replacements to fix the entire system, non-profit health care centers which incur no taxes and spend not a dime on investors halting this spiraling health care inflation and non-profit health insurance that collects only in premiums what is needed to administer payments for non-profit delivered health care.

David,

What I don’t understand is, if this is a good plan and I’m not saying it isn’t, why do we need to LEGISLATE it into law? Why not just set up our own non-profit organization and offer that service up now? It would be cheaper, since it is ‘non-profit’ right? And people would flock.

Of course, we’d have to elminate the law that says you can’t shop for medical insurance now, the main reason we have high cost of medical care along with malpractice insurance costs and the overbearing paperwork shuffle we now see doctors pay. But it seems to me that we don’t NEED the government involved at all if we just did it ourselves…

What is the motivation to have this legislated?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2007 12:17 AM
Comment #234793
Evidently he thinks universal health coverage is a bad thing.

Well, duh. I mean, forcing people to have health insurance whether they want it or not? Seems a bit ‘police state’ ish to me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2007 12:19 AM
Comment #234810

I appreciate people who have the guts to stand for what is right.
There isn’t a magic kitty to pull the money out of for health care.
It isn’t free.
Forcing someone to pay another’s expenses on your terms is wrong.

I am not responsible for other people’s kids. Now compassion dictates that I help them and find means such as charitable contributions. However, a group of congressmen have no right to force their “plans” on my pocket book no matter what my income is. The real motive isn’t compassion; it is soliciting votes by using my money to appear compassionate.

Posted by: Kruser at September 29, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #234812

Kruser

I am not responsible for other people’s war. However, a president and a group of congressmen have no right to force their “plans” on my pocket book no matter what my income is. The real motive isn’t compassion for another country or concern for the safety of americans it is about oil. So tell you what you think of your tax dollars as being alloted for the war and I will think of my taxes dollar going to help the less forunate and then maybe we can both be happy about how our money is spent.

I WOULD MUCH PREFER SPENDING OUR DOLLARS ON THE LESS FORTUNATE HERE THAN LINING THE POCKETS OF THE LIKES OF HALLIBURTON.

Posted by: Carolina at September 29, 2007 9:03 AM
Comment #234817


Caroline: Many Americans own stock in Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil and the Military Industrial Complex. For them, there could not be a better war than a war for oil. It’s like having two wars for the price of one, very profitable.

Taxing people to pay for other childrens health care is a separate issue. Giving tax breaks to people for having and raising children is a separate issue as well.

Posted by: jlw at September 29, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #234821

“If there are no investors backing these non-profit health centers, then they’ll be treating patients by rattling bones together and doing medicine dances because they sure as hell aren’t going to have modern medical equipment or modern drugs.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 28, 2007 09:14 PM

Thanks LO for the best laugh I’ve had in awhile on this blog. You are eloquent. Jim

Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2007 11:49 AM
Comment #234828

“If there are no investors backing these non-profit health centers, then they’ll be treating patients by rattling bones together and doing medicine dances because they sure as hell aren’t going to have modern medical equipment or modern drugs.”

What a patently absurd and illogical comment. Non-profit does not mean volunteer medical staff, or donated equipment and facilities. It means tax incentives to doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators, equipment and resource suppliers who for a profit, provide their services to a non-profit health care delivery facility.

Rhinehold, good question. And the answer is you nor I have the resources to implement non-profit health care delivery facilities. The government does, or more correctly, collectively, we the people do. Tax incentives can motivate for profit clinics and hospitals to convert, and upon conversion, the cost of health care drops dramatically. Same with a universal BASIC health maintenance not for profit insurance plan, provided by we the people for we the people. A plan that does not cover elective procedures, cosmetic procedures, and which has a per capita cap on coverage aimed at preventive health maintenance. This leaves the for profit insurance industry intact to provide additional coverage to those who can afford it and want it, for everything NOT covered by the universal not for profit BASIC health care coverage extended to all American citizens.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #234830

Kruser said: “However, a group of congressmen have no right to force their “plans” on my pocket book no matter what my income is.”

Sure they do. It is called the 16th Amendment. If you don’t like our Constitution, there are other nations with different ones where the people don’t have a say in government policy, which you may find amenable to your comment’s philosophically anarchist leanings.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #234832

Carolina,

Paying taxes to give money for the children of people making more than $80,000.00 per year is, by definition in the VAST majority of our households NOT providing for the LESS fortunate. And If I hadn’t had to pay SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES on the more than twelve thousand dollars I had to spend on health insurance last year I might be able to pay for health insurance this year.

The solution is not giving the government the right to hold a gun to our heads over the health industry. It is they who are intentionally making the whole situation more murky just to drive us toward government control. Basically they want to play it the way the mafia always has- get the poor slob to pay “protection” money so the mafia won’t destroy his place. Then slowly raise the price of “protection”.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 29, 2007 2:17 PM
Comment #234840
Rhinehold, good question. And the answer is you nor I have the resources to implement non-profit health care delivery facilities. The government does, or more correctly, collectively, we the people do.

But David, if ‘the people’ want this, they can do it on a pure voluntary basis with a nonprofit organization, much like the Red Cross or United Way, and do it outside of the politically charged forced method of government, can’t they?

When did we stop being a people that can do things for themselves and start becoming a people that need to give more and more power to a government that increasingly uses these very issues against us come election time?

About the same time we, as a country, started moving from being the great country we all envision it to be to the spiraling out of control police state we enjoy now…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #234842

BTW: http://ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15059

A successful effort by Congress to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) would require low-income Americans to subsidize health insurance for the middle and upper-middle classes, says David Hogberg, fellow and senior policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

5m4r7!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #234843

Lee, there is merit to your analogy to the mafia. But it is not government causing the spiraling health care inflation which widens the distance between citizens and health care access. That is the for profit corporate health care industry and investors causing this as they annually increase profitability while passing actual cost inflation on to the health care consumer.

And do not forget the fundamental driving force here. No for profit health care deliverer or investor makes any profit on healthy individuals. Only insurance companies do that. Therefore, the enormous wealth interests in the health care industry work and lobby surreptitiously against healthy life styles, healthy environmental conditions, healthy diets, and healthy activities.

If for profit health care industries cared about the consequences of smoking, they would create check-in smoking, check-out non-smoking clinics available to smokers (mostly middle and lower class) instead of investing in and lobbying for the tobacco industry and subsidies, and opposing healthy diet initiatives in schools, work places, and public places.

For profit health care profits from illness and injury. Not for profit universally available health care deliverers would profit as much or more far from well care and preventive care delivery, and because they are not for profit, they have no incentive to work in concert with other industries to promote unnecessary, or avoidable, medical procedures and prescriptions, or unhealthy products and lifestyles.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #234844

Rhinehold, I read that article, he is full of crap. He is like the anti-climate change “authorities” funded to counter legislation against the interests of for-profit-entities with misinformation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #234849

My name is CarolinA not Caroline or Carolyn or any version there of.

I will say it again. It is very simple to me. I do not want to pay for this war and would rather be paying for health care for children. Since I have no choice in how my tax dollars a spent and I do pay taxes I choose to think of my dollars as going to things like health care for children. Some of you don’t want to pay for health care some of us don’t want to pay for the war and since none of us have any say how our dollars are spent lets call it a draw.

I don’t care who is making money off of Halliburton it is obscene that they are able to steal our tax dollars and no one is complaining about paying that.

Posted by: Carolina at September 29, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #234852

Forcing people to have health insurance whether they want it or not? Seems a bit ‘police state’ to me…

Yeah, next thing you know we’ll be providing food and shelter for this country’s poor. We’ll be forcing people to be educated. Forcing medicine on sick children! What will they think of next? Really, it’s horrible. Dems are facists.

Posted by: Max at September 29, 2007 5:47 PM
Comment #234855

Yeaterday BBC had a piece about a 12 year old American boy that died as a result of a tootheache. The infection spread to his brain and killed him.His parent could not afford a simple extraction. They were appalled that the most wealthy couintry in the world could let this happen. So am I. GWB says he is a Christian. Perhaps he and the rest might consider the possibility that there really is a hell and they already have a ticket.
Watchblog policy prevents me from being able to adaguatly address those here that seem so bent on swallowing the lies and distortions of the insurance lobby to make themselves comfortable with their reprehensible and repulsive position on this issue. Shame.

Posted by: BillS at September 29, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #234862

Max,

Providing something and forcing something are two different things. So much for the public educational system. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #234866

Rhinehold,
Sorry to say, but the usa is very close to being a police state. I would call it a corperate state, while the people do have the power, it doesn’t matter if the people never really use that power. The funny thing is people have been calling usa a police state for decades and they have probably not even noticed.

And to the other people that say if you don’t like something here then move, please don’t be silly. If americans really believed that, we wouldn’t have more laws then what we had back in 1796.

And when it comes to taxes the 16th admendment gave no new powers to congress then what they already had. There is a supreme court case that already covers this area, just like there is already one saying that income tax is illegal in the current state of things, but that is a seperate issue.

About the children health care, I find it funny that we wouldn’t provide for it. I agree with David that non-profit business is the way to go to reduce costs and still have quality care facilties. Although if you want to know why healthcare sky rocketed at first it was because of the american medical assiocation, and then later with health insurance. Although I agree with the idea behind the children’s health insurance, I still would have to read the bill to see if it made any sense for what it is supposed to do.

Posted by: kujo at September 29, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #234873

Kujo, how does a non-profit business reduce costs?

Unless you radically change the cost-structure (i.e,. reform medical malpractice), the costs for services are the same and simply shifting who pays the costs from one payer to another doesn’t lower costs in the slightest. And it certainly doesn’t make something free. This is a mistake the left makes all the time—the suggestion that we’ll have a free lunch if government instead of the private sector does something. Or that if you eliminate one area of the private sector’s profits, they won’t pass it along to consumers in another.

David may deny that non-profit means non-profit (which should make anybody with access with a dictionary snort with laughter) and illogically maintain that it actually means providing “tax incentives to doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators, equipment and resource suppliers who for a profit, provide their services to a non-profit health care delivery facility.”

But that’s absurd.

What is a tax incentive? It’s a financial incentive that allows a person or a company to increase their bottom line one way instead of another way. Whether a company gets paid for providing goods/services upfront or gets paid later by deducting their costs from their taxes is irrelevant. They’re still getting paid. If the tax-incentive you offer doesn’t equal or actually exceed what they’d make by selling their goods/services in the conventional way, they’re not going to play along.

As described, the way this works is to have tax-payer funded “non-profit” health care facilities that are made possible by slashing tax-revenues. Who pays then? Nobody? I guess the Easter Bunny is gonna come along and make up the difference.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 29, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #234878

Loyal Opp., forgive me if I sound condescending but, even a simple understanding of for-profit vs. non-profit reveals that when profits sent to investors are removed from the equation, the cost of delivering an office visit goes down, as the a share of revenues is not having to be handed up to investors.

The tax incentives are simply to promote for-profit organizations to elect to become non-profit or, to motivate newly graduated health care administrators and practitioners to form non-profit health care facilities and services.

Many excellent non-profit hospitals and clinics exist with some of the best and brightest practitioners to be found, like St. Jude’s Hospital for Children. Cutting edge researchers and top notch staff work for this non-profit organization which has been operating for many, many decades now.

Once a non-profit is up and running on a break even basis with competitive pricing, the tax incentives should end, and be allocated to other non-profit startups or conversions.

It’s very logical and practical and can indeed contribute significantly to ending this health care inflation exceeding real wage growth by 2% per year on average over these last 2 decades.

And non-profit health care insurance via a single payer plan can, and will, make Basic preventive care medicine available to every citizen at the lowest possible cost, most especially when benefits are paid to non-profit medical treatment facilities.

For additional insurance with higher caps or uncovered procedures, the for profit insurance industry can compete for those dollars and that’s fine. But, at least we end the pariah of 47 million Americans being one illness or injury away from bankruptcy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #234882
About the children health care, I find it funny that we wouldn’t provide for it.

Poor children are already covered under Medicaid. This expands the coverage to children up to age *25* and for families up to 82,000 a year.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #234889

David, the funding that Saint Jude’s gets beyond traditional payments from insurers almost entirely comes from private charitable contributions, and their facilities even have names like “The Ronald McDonald House” and the “Target House” (funded by the Target stores).

This is all extremely admirable, but do you really envision a national child health care system entirely funded by charity? Such a system would not depend on the government but the generosity of the rich and others who want to make donations. This is an idea that would be embraced by the most radical of laissez-faire Republicans.

[E]even a simple understanding of for-profit vs. non-profit reveals that when profits sent to investors are removed from the equation, the cost of delivering an office visit goes down, as the a share of revenues is not having to be handed up to investors.

Wrong. Even a simple understanding of economics reveals that investors are not an optional element in the equation. You can’t just “remove” them without also removing your equipment, your staff, and your facilities. This idea that investors are nothing more than predators siphoning away money is nonsense. They’re what allows anything to happen in the first place. Private investors could be eliminated, but then someone else, like the government, would have to step in and pay. And that requires tax money, which simply extracts the same money from the public in a different way and comes with its own extra costs and disadvantages. In any event, this all requires money. And lots of it.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 30, 2007 12:44 AM
Comment #234901

Do a google search on Hsa providers. Check the cost of providing health insurance to your family. Most families pay more out in junk food per month. We have obese kids and expect socialized health care to cover our lack of discipline.
In a republic, the government exists to maintain order and to defend it with a common army. (Anarchist views?) Our government shouldn’t confiscate to produce a nanny state to make up for laziness and buy votes. There are plenty of programs already doing this.
Hospitals accommodate those who have no insurance. The reason I budgeted in an HSA plan was an emergency appendix removal I had to slowly pay off for myself. Lesson learned. How about educating children on managing their finances rather than increasing dependency?

Posted by: Kruser at September 30, 2007 5:50 AM
Comment #234908

A non- profit organization does not make money. However, all the employees do. And, they can give themselves raises. And, they can raise prices. What to do if $20,000 over? Give the President a bonus. That will balance the sheets. Most non-profits spend more than 50% of their take on the staff. Some as much as 80%.
About spending money on the war, health care or othermise—Rule no. 1-Never give the government more money.

Posted by: JoeRWC at September 30, 2007 8:17 AM
Comment #234914

JoeRWC said: “A non- profit organization does not make money. However, all the employees do. And, they can give themselves raises.”

Not accurate, Joe. Every non-profit organization has a board of directors, and it is the Board that decides on the issues of salaries and revenues and expenditures. Not the employees themselves. And unlike for-profit boards of directors, non-profit Boards are either unpaid themselves, or, stipended in accordance with fixed by-laws and charter governing the operations of the organization, and enforced by law.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2007 12:34 PM
Comment #234947

“Some of you don’t want to pay for health care some of us don’t want to pay for the war and since none of us have any say how our dollars are spent lets call it a draw”

Uh, no Carolina, its not a draw.
Article 2, Section 8 clearly gives our govt the authority to declare war and support is armies.

Now, where does it show it is govts duty to give us everything or to steal from one and give to another or to tell us what to believe and how we should care?

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2007 9:47 AM
Comment #234949

no profit does not mean that you do not make money. It means that any profit goes back into the company and not into the pockets of a CEO or shareholders or anyone else. The people who work for a non-profit, as someone else mentioned can have big salaries, but any profit made, does not go into anyone’s pockets as bonuses or anything like that. It goes to the company itself.


I also agree with CarolinA that I wish I could decide where my taxes went to. and many COs/QUakers and others who are opposed to the war refuse to pay a percentage of their taxes with letters to the IRS stating that they will not pay the same amt of their taxes that the govtspends on the war.

And I would rather have a health care system more like Canada or England or Australia which works——and like public education, if you don’t like it, don’t use it! add something different, like in those countries where you can add to your insurance if you want.COngress and every federal govt worker gets the most amazing health care package you ever saw (have any of you actually looked at it?). why not give that to every american? no congressperson complains about it or buys more or says it is too little or too much. Let them have no insurance and see what they start voting on.

Posted by: judye at October 1, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #234970

If the Dems win the presidency this is only the beginning of your taxes going up- and there’s no way they’re just gonna end the war either

Posted by: Nicole at October 1, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #234984
why not give that to every american?

We still need to have money to eat?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #235001


I am more than willing to give up the nanny state when those who have the ability, either with their wealth or their influence, can not give their children an unfair advantage over other children. If a child gets a car for her 16th birthday, it will be because she, on her own, gets a job and pays for it. If a child wishes to go to college, he will get a job and support himself while he pays for his college.

Anyone who claims that everyone in this country has the same opportunities to succeed is lying. Any child who does not have to worry about how they are going to feed or clothe themselves, pay their rent and other bills as well as pay for and find the time to obtain a higher education has an unfair advantage over others who have to overcome those obstacles which impede their ability to be successful. Before we claim that everyone has the same opportunities, let’s make it so.

There is a new reality show on TV featuring Gene Simmons and his family. On the show, Simmions said that he did not want his children to rely on his fame. He wants them to find their own way to be successful. He went on to say, oh sure, they will never have to worry about going hungry or paying their rent but I still want them to make it on their own. I imagine that the Hiltons feel the same about Paris. I imagine that many, many parents feel the same way. As long as there is any form of privilege, there is not equal opportunity.

Privilege - a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or group.

Equal - being the same as another in quantity, degree, value, number, or quality.

Opportunity - a condition favorable for attainment of a goal. a good chance, as for success.

Posted by: jlw at October 2, 2007 10:43 AM
Comment #235193

For all you non-profit type out there. A simple internet search sent me to Dept of Labor. Guess what 76% of all “private” hospitals are non-profit. So much for that reasoning. Next plan to push us the the European level of 50% tax. After all the last heath care program cost more than 5 times what we were told before it passed.

Posted by: David at October 3, 2007 9:12 PM
Comment #251660

Health domain needs someone to organize everything there! Something is not working as it should, so it’s normal that doctors don’t use their all forces when they don’t have assured all the conditions they deserve!
________________________________________________
Ada addiction treatment

Posted by: Ada at April 29, 2008 9:06 AM
Post a comment