Democrats & Liberals Archives

Veto Number Four

It’s official: Bush has vetoed the S-CHIP Bill. So, let’s review:His first Veto was on Stem Cell research, a real winner to be sure, the next two were on Iraq, vetoing plans that had majority support in the nation, and his newest Veto will deny four million children insurance. That banging you hear? Millions of Republicans knocking their heads against the wall to celebrate the President’s latest smooth move.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2007 11:33 AM
Comments
Comment #235113

He vetoed the expansion of the program.

Of course, saying he doesn’t want to grow govt more, doesn’t really get the emotional votes like saying he doesn’t care about childrens healthcare does it.

The knocking of heads you hear is the millions of Americans trying to figure out why the whole story isn’t talked about or reported.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #235114

kctim… c’mon, man! Emotional votes are all that matter… objective substance is nothing… would’ve thought you’d figure that out by now!

The fact that one of the free-est spending presidents in recent history is finally doing something to keep government from getting bigger makes him a monster who hates children… everyone knows that.

To quote Mrs. Lovejoy… won’t someone think of the children?!?!

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 3, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #235115

All… I just re-read my post and it may have seemed like I was endorsing G-Dub’s presidency… nothing could be further from the truth…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 3, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #235117

Stephen, I have two sons, age 35 and 30. Why cut off the program at 25? Don’t my CHILDREN deserve to be covered also? And, just because I earn more than 100 grand a year why should I be discriminated against? Actually, I should be given greater access to the government pig trough because as a smoker I pay more money into these programs. Please help congress muster the votes to overcome this terrible injustice. My sons, if not required to sign up for their employer provided health program, could use the money to buy a luxury gas-guzzling SUV.

Posted by: Jim at October 3, 2007 12:45 PM
Comment #235122

kctim,

If you are going to be fussy about it, he vetoed the bill to reauthorize the entire program.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 3, 2007 1:14 PM
Comment #235125

It’s more like the (Bull) S-chip Bill. :-)

Posted by: rahdigly at October 3, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #235127

How can anyone try to defend this piece of garbage!!!!!!!!!!!

We don’t want to grow government now!!!!!!!
It’s OK to spend 1 trillion on no bid contracts for his buddies!!!!!!
How about just a little bit for the children of this country?????????
Come on all you compassionate conservatives out there!!!!!!!!

Just think about it a little, keep those kids healthy you can use them for canon fodder in your next corporate giveaway scam!!!!!! Remember the boogie man lives in Iran now!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at October 3, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #235133

Outraged,
Agree completely. Bush wants 200 billion more to throw at his failed Iraq war and occupation, so we can all watch it disappear/be ripped off like so many other enormous wads of cash they’ve wasted, but healthcare for the children of this country? Well, that’s right out.
While the GOP is busy self destructing, it seems their fondest wish is to take this entire country right down the tubes with them.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #235134

Woody
So they sent him two bills? One which would make it larger and one which kept it the same? And he vetoed both?
I had not heard that. My bad.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #235135

Bush with the power of the veto pen has once again demonstrated where his priorities lie. It is just amazing that he doesn’t flinch at spending well over half a trillion dollars and forfieting thousands of American lives to supply security and guarantee access to Iraqi oil for the oil conglomerates. Yet 35 billion over five years to provide health care for the children of OUR country is an atrocious and unnecessary over expenditure. God forbid some of our tax dollars should actually go towards the benefit of our own. I guess my mistake is in forgetting that the bulk of our money should go into corporate breaks and insuring that the wealthy remain perpetually so. The man is no better than pond scum.

Posted by: RickIL at October 3, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #235144

What the US spends on the war in Iraq for one day would fund healthcare for 423,529 children….think what a year’s worth of war spending could fund….

Thee US has its priorities screwed up once again…at least Dubya does…

Posted by: Rachel at October 3, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment #235145

God forbid some of our tax dollars should actually go towards the benefit of our own. I guess my mistake is in forgetting that the bulk of our money should go into corporate breaks and insuring that the wealthy remain perpetually so. The man is no better than pond scum.

Posted by: RickIL at October 3, 2007 02:16 PM

Hey RickIL, glad to hear I am not the only smoker left in the U.S. Obviously you use tobacco as you wrote; “our tax dollars.” YOur civil tone is also appreciated. Calling the President of the U.S. “pond scum” is evidence of your moral values. How proud you must be of your witty pontificating and mastery of the English language.

Posted by: Jim at October 3, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #235148

The man is no better than pond scum.
Posted by: RickIL at October 3, 2007 02:16 PM

You have insulted Pond Scum everywhere!!!!!!!
I know that Pond Scum must have some kind of positive impact on the world.
The self appointed little prick they call the smirking chip, has no positive effect on the world at all!!!!!!! He is just polluting our environment and using valuable resources like oxygen!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at October 3, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #235149

Pond scum consists of plant life…it’s heartless, too.

Posted by: Rachel at October 3, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #235151


The Democrats can claim that Bush doesn’t care about the children.

Bush can claim that he is throwing a bone to the anti-socialist base.

The Democrats can claim that while the current bill does not cover all of the children that aren’t receiving health care, they can at least cover some of the children by sending Bush a bill that will reauthorize the current program.

Bush will sign the reauthorization and the anti-socialist base can label him a socialist dupe of the liberal elites.

Seems like everyone can get something out of this except the children who don’t have health care.

One would assume that a family that has an income of $80,000 per year could make health care, at least for their children, a priority. The question is what do you do about parents with the means but not the will to make their childrens health care a priority? Do we take those parents to court and force them to pay up? Do we punish the children for the irresponsiblity of their parents?

I am in favor of government based, tax paid health care for all but, I have my own demands about how it will be run.

1) It must be quality health care based as much as possible on prevention rather than treatment.

2) It must reward rather than punish those who are currently paying for health care.

3) My most important demand is that government must address it current lackadaisical
and wasteful management practices. Unless this is addressed, neither of the first two demands will be accomplished. Considering how the private sector is running health care, there is no reason why good management by the government can’t compete and do a better job.

There is no excuse for government mismanagement. It can be corrected. It is our responsibility to force our government to be accountable.

Posted by: jlw at October 3, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #235152
Hey RickIL, glad to hear I am not the only smoker left in the U.S. Obviously you use tobacco as you wrote; “our tax dollars.” YOur civil tone is also appreciated. Calling the President of the U.S. “pond scum” is evidence of your moral values. How proud you must be of your witty pontificating and mastery of the English language.

This is a critique of the messenger, rather than the message.
Remember folks, never feed the trolls.

PS to RickIL, I agree that the Bush Administration is overflowing with Pond Scum, and yes, I think saying so IS INDEED evidence that one has moral values. To give but a few of the latest examples:

Bush Administration Officials Knew Of “Serious Structural Problems” At Utah Mine Before Cave-In

Or how about:

Fed Employees of the State Dept and the Pentagon Spent At Least $146M On First-Class Airline Travel In One Year

Also, yesterday Bush said while paying tribute to his new chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Navy Admiral Mike Mullen:

“Many people are surprised when told about the admiral’s show business roots. After all, he is humble, well-grounded and filled with common sense. Not exactly what one thinks about when they think of Hollywood values.”

This was in reference to the fact that Mullen’s parents are behind-the-scenes players in the American movie industry. But guess where Dead-Eye Dick Cheney was only a few days before Bush flung this crap? Oh, he was fundraising for the GOP in Beverly Hills and staying at the Bel Air Hotel, that’s all. The GOP is certainly willing to take Hollywood money, even if they want to attack “Hollywood values.”

Pond Scum? You betcha.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #235154

Most all of us have to work and pay for our own health care through payroll deductions or some similar fashion.

We are going to pay for it one way or another, payroll deduction or tax deduction.

If we use the David R. Remer plan (Not for profit healthcare) we cut out the insurance companies and administrative costs. This would bring the cost down so that it would not be an issue. We also have the cost of the uninsured that we all have to pay for; they get medical care in the emergency room at very high cost to all of us.

Posted by: Outraged at October 3, 2007 4:21 PM
Comment #235158

If a person making $30 to over $100,000 a year and cannot afford health insurance for their children and themselves something is amiss. While my children were growing up sometimes I made less than $20,000 but I still provided health insurance for them through my work place. I think it’s time for the government to investicate the health industry and the health insurance industry. When you get charged $10. for a tylenol and $30. for a box of tissue no wonder health insurance is high.

Posted by: KAP at October 3, 2007 4:43 PM
Comment #235160

Rachel… although I am in favor of this veto, you are SOOOOOOOOOOO correct about the whole “What the US spends on the war in Iraq for one day would fund healthcare for 423,529 children…” bit… I can’t vouch for the numbers specifically, but your idea is right on the mark.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 3, 2007 5:11 PM
Comment #235163

Shoot Doug, think how many children would be helped if the liberal Dems who “say” they cared, actually cared enough to practice what they preach.
All that sorros, clinton, pelosi, kerry, kennedy etc… money sure could help alot of them. But no, instead, they would rather have everybody pay to do what they “say” they believe is right, so that they don’t have to give up their lifestyle.

They have great ideas, just not great enough for them to use their own money.

Nothing but more of the two party hypocritical BS!

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #235167

The Republicans are quick to defend their President. Let me put this kindly: this is being pennywise and pound foolish. Kids who don’t get healthcare will be adults who need more healthcare. If this is about not expanding government, he’s picked the worst possible battleground.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2007 6:09 PM
Comment #235169

kctim… doggone, man… how many times do we have to tell you… the only organization caring and efficient enough to do all these good things (minus a minor fee off the top, of course), is the federal government? I mean… it’s so obvious!

One of these days you will understand and become an enlightened fiscal liberal… heck… maybe you’ll even become enlightened enough to become social conservative… but one step at a time, I guess…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 3, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #235175

Jim

Hey RickIL, glad to hear I am not the only smoker left in the U.S. Obviously you use tobacco as you wrote; “our tax dollars.” YOur civil tone is also appreciated. Calling the President of the U.S. “pond scum” is evidence of your moral values. How proud you must be of your witty pontificating and mastery of the English language.

I am sorry that my writing and wit is not up to your standards. Stating my opinion is nothing more than relaying my feelings on a particular matter. It has nothing to do with pride. And actually I felt I was being quite civil.

Please do not preach to me about moral values. Our current executive branch, and as far as I am concerned, anyone foolish enough to support their amoral agendas has no business or rights to claim the moral high ground.

I tried pontificating but simply could not think of a more accurate descriptive to explain how I feel about GW without resorting to vulgarity. I guess for now I will just have to stick with pond scum. And to be honest I know a lot of people who would think that pond scum is being way to kind.

I gave up smoking over 30 years ago. As far as I am concerned anyone who has a problem paying more for smokes should give the habit up. It is an option and it is doable. Perhaps if we were to get out of Iraq we would no longer have to resort to taxing your habit. There would be plenty of funding available.

Posted by: RickIL at October 3, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #235176

I pay for my and my wife’s health insurance through the company I work for. For the 2 of us it cost me $34. a week. When my kids were on it it was a bit more. I make less than $30,000 a year. There are people in the company I work for making considerably less. Yet they provide for their children. There are many programs for children out there. My daughter had my granddaughter on healthy start. She didn’t pay anything for prescrips., dental, glasses, all medical. First off we have to check into WHY these children don’t have medical and I’ll bet most of it is because the parents are to CHEAP to pay for it and want the GOVERNMENT to provide for them.

Posted by: KAP at October 3, 2007 6:53 PM
Comment #235183

FactCheck.org has some good info here:

Bush’s False Claims About Children’s Health Insurance
http://tinyurl.com/yvfrso

As usual much of what Bush is saying is total BS.

Posted by: KansasDem at October 3, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #235187

KAP
You work for a good company in that regard. It cost us about 750$ a month and that with an HMO.Thats employer paid but still it is money that cannot be used for wages.For me and many others they could raise my taxes a thousand a year for universal coverage and I would be money ahead.Many work for companies that do not help at all. Guess what? They also get sick and end up in the e-room where our plans wind up picking up the tab. Thats why we pay 12 bucks for a cotton ball.Better everybody gets covered. That way they can get get help early on and THEIR carrier can pick up the tab.

Jim
Yes your sons should be covered and so should everyone else in the country.

Posted by: BillS at October 3, 2007 8:20 PM
Comment #235189

This is a nice summation of why most of the Right-Wing arguments made on this site are wrong.

Here’s a few choice facts:

1)The figure quoted by republicans as the upper limit is wrong, in no small part because the Bush administration already denies New York’s Waivers for the current program, which is the source for their high number. The text quoted in the blog entry explains:

The bill maintains current law. It limits the program to children from families with incomes up to twice the federal poverty level — now $20,650 for a family of four, for a program limit of $41,300 — or to 50 percentage points above a state’s Medicaid eligibility threshold, which varies state to state.

If you read further, you’ll find that the numbers being used to convince Republicans come from New York, one of the most expensive places to live, and are based on a waiver that Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services doesn’t grant them anyways. The authority to grant the waiver would still remain with the same people, who would obviously continue their current stinginess.

Some Children’s parents would be dropping private insurance for the cheaper S-CHIP, but is that really such a price to pay for many more children having insurance where they wouldn’t otherwise have it?

The real problem here is how ridiculously easy it is to get some Republicans and right-wingers to buy such rationalizations, to back Bush. People who are spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year in deficit spending, with no end in sight, and no intention of raising the taxes necessary to pay for it, lecture Democrats about a minor program intended to give millions of children healthcare.

And of course, throw in “big government”, and the kneejerk could punt a football. Yet, how many of these people batted an eyelash when they passed that monstrous bit of taxpayer waste called the Medicare Drug Benefit? How many of you Bush supporters rationalized that multi-hundred billion dollar waste?

And don’t tell me the Democrats are bigger spenders and more fiscally irresponsible. The Republicans far outdid just about anything Democrats ever did. Democrats have kept balanced budgets in the past, and they can keep them again. It’s Republicans who have flaunted the most irresponsible spending, much of it in the name of defense, much of it wasted on projects that aren’t helping America win wars, but are helping the military contractors make money hand over fist.

It’s interesting and amusing to see Republicans coming out to defend the mercenaries and the military contractors who have basically raised the costs of waging a military campaign in Iraq, while giving the added benefit of an out of control security situation, overpriced logistical services, and convoys which used civilians that needed our soldiers or these hair-trigger mercs to to watch our backs (a service that soldiers assigned to logistical services could do two for the price of one.)

In short, I would really like it if Republicans would stop lecturing us on spending money wisely, because the past few years have demonstrated how little of that wisdom they’re actually employing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2007 8:31 PM
Comment #235190

72% of Americans think Bush is wrong on S-CHIPS

63% believe that Bush is mishandling healthcare.

56% of Americans believe the Democrats would be better on healthcare.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2007 8:42 PM
Comment #235191

BillS
IMO the government ought to put a cap on that cotton ball of $2. instead of $12. How much profit does the hospital make on a bag of cotton balls? Where I live a bottle of tylenol cost $6.50 for 100. If the hospital charges $10. per pill they make a profit of $993.50. My wife was hospitilized for one day after a minor surgery. I look at the itimized bill, there was a $30. charge for a box of tissue. If congress would investigate these practices of charging outrageous fees for certain services. Maybe insurance rates would come down to a level of affordability and programs like the schip would really be for the poor.

Posted by: KAP at October 3, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #235192

Stephen D
Read comment 235191.

Posted by: KAP at October 3, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #235196

“And don’t tell me the Democrats are bigger spenders and more fiscally irresponsible. The Republicans far outdid just about anything Democrats ever did.”

Stephen, comrade, on that point you are correct… but…

“Democrats have kept balanced budgets in the past, and they can keep them again.”

I’m not sure about that one… I may be wrong, but I can only think of a Dem prez and Rep congress doing it in recent memory… can you enlighten me?

“It’s Republicans who have flaunted the most irresponsible spending…”

Once again, correct… but I will be VERY interested to see if Billary wins and she has a dem congress how that will turn out… pork runs high under single party republicrat governments… and that is something to which I do not believe the dems will be immune.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 3, 2007 10:04 PM
Comment #235198
I pay for my and my wife’s health insurance through the company I work for. For the 2 of us it cost me $34. a week.

It costs the two of us over $500 a month (and that’s only half the premium…my husband’s former employer picks up the other $500)…and that’s with one of us on Medicare! $1,000 a month for two people…and that only pays 80-90% after a deductible…and we’re fixed income.

Just think what the premium would be if we still had our kids at home…

Posted by: Rachel at October 3, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #235215

Outraged & Rachel

You have insulted Pond Scum everywhere!!!!!!!
I know that Pond Scum must have some kind of positive impact on the world.
The self appointed little prick they call the smirking chip, has no positive effect on the world at all!!!!!!! He is just polluting our environment and using valuable resources like oxygen!!!!!!!!!!

And to think another poster on this thread thought pond scum was a bit extreme. I can not imagine what he must be thinking about your values. I love it! Thanks for the laugh.

Pond scum consists of plant life…it’s heartless, too.

A very clever analogy Rachel. Don’t forget that pond scum also tends to be slimy and smelly. :)

Posted by: RickIL at October 4, 2007 7:13 AM
Comment #235216

Adrienne

PS to RickIL, I agree that the Bush Administration is overflowing with Pond Scum, and yes, I think saying so IS INDEED evidence that one has moral values.

Thanks for the moral support Adrienne. :) At this point I am not sure that declaring him pond scum has to be said any longer. The larger percentage are well aware of the moral ineptitudes of this administration. I guess sometimes it just does the soul a little good to openly vent some frustrations.

Good links. I can not imagine the size of the novel it will take to index all the inadequacies, deceptions, half truths and mistakes this administration will have made over its 8 year tenure. And what is amazing is that in light of all these revelations they just continue down the same sleazy road.

Posted by: RickIL at October 4, 2007 7:28 AM
Comment #235219

Doug Langworthy-
Lyndon Johnson and Jack Kennedy kept the budgets balanced, though Lyndon Johnson’s actions would eventually upset that.

But lets consider something: Jack Kennedy was no dove, no shrinking violet on Liberalism, but he managed to keep the accounts straight. And LBJ? In many ways, he and Bush are little different from each other. What’s lacking in today’s government isn’t some party whose doctrine will magically set things right. What we’re lacking for is people with discipline, a culture of fiscal discipline. It’s the willingness to let political doctrine go and match what you spend to what you take in that’s the important part.

In the case of the Republicans, they decided defense spending and spending meant to make them popular with voters didn’t count when it came to whether they were fiscal conservatives. It only counted when it came time to strike down legislation that countered their vision of America.

No matter what party a politician belongs to, all look similar when they become corrupt, and behave the same. All of them put up fronts that are nice looking as long as you don’t step back and see the forest for the suspiciously inconsistent trees.

KAP-
I certainly think that should be investigated. What it comes down to, I think, is that when folks offer a service you can’t realistically refuse, they can gouge you if nobody else is looking out for your interests.

It’s why I’m a liberal. I’ve seen too many cases where people in these positions take advantage of others to trust the profit motive to be without a dark side.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2007 9:35 AM
Comment #235222

i work a full time 60 hour a week job i make $32,000.00 a year gross. my employer pays my medical insurance but only covers me($443.00 monthly)i pay nearly 30% of my take home to cover my wife and children. mind you my net pay is about $2200.00 a month. The health insurance industry has bankrupted America and the government has allowed it in the name of big money companies. although i can understand the “chimps” logic on the veto, i cannot condone his stance that doing nothing is a better option. surely something would be better than nothing. and Schip isnt even available in my state/county.


my wife had 5 surgeries over the course of this summer and i incurred over 100k in debt during the course. the insurance industry like the home mortgage industry is bankrupting America. How long are we Americans going to allow these cold hearted practices to continue?

Posted by: john at October 4, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #235228

“How long are we Americans going to allow these cold hearted practices to continue?”

For as long as people are too lazy to save for a rainy day and stupid enough to take out loans they know they can’t afford should things change.
Gotta have the latest and greatest gadgets and keep up with the Jones you know.

Our greed, our stupidity and out “govt should do it for me” attitude are what have corrupted and bankrupted America.

Posted by: kctim at October 4, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #235230

kctim-
Do you have any evidence to back that claim, that consumer overspending is at the heart of the problem? That laziness is the reason people don’t save? That your average American actually thinks like you describe them thinking?

Folks on the right are all too quick to blame folks for their own misfortune, even as regulations allow predatory behavior with the credit card companies and other lenders, even as people have to spend tons of money just to eat and pay the bills.

Next, when the unemployment numbers go up, you’ll be blaming people for losing their jobs, even as the corporations have been cutting payrolls to make their stock portfolios more profitable, and so they can convince people their businesses are running better than they really are. These people have given themselves raises that over the past thirty years have raised their incomes a full order of magnitude, yet they make that claim, that they can’t afford the labor costs.

A great deal of Republican policy like this revolves around rationalizing decisions like these, which tend to benefit the economic elites more than anybody else. The losses of the poor and middle class are then rationalized away as their fault, even as the rich and powerful go out of their way to encourage and enable such behavior.

Take Bankruptcy. Here is a way by which people can get their lives back on track, pay down their debt, and learn those kinds of habits. Did you know, though, that these people are a primary target for credit card companies? Worse yet, because of bankruptcy reform, the law considers half the people who apply for it cheats, and requires that they go to debt counselors, for which there are no clear certifications or regulations set out.

And trust me on this: when you’re at that level of income, you do good to get to the next paycheck without taking on additional debt

Put simply, we’ve created an entropic system, where many can’t get out of the game, can’t win, and can’t break even. At some point, the situation is going to reach a critical point, and the American economy will suffer greatly.

And why? So a few can enjoy great wealth, and not be bothered with helping others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 4, 2007 11:59 AM
Comment #235232

“gave up smoking over 30 years ago. As far as I am concerned anyone who has a problem paying more for smokes should give the habit up.” Posted by: RickIL at October 3, 2007 06:50 PM

RickIL, what a compassionate statement. Following your logic, when all the smokers have stopped smoking, the money for tobacco tax funded programs will also stop? Then what? I have read recently that world food prices are increasing very rapidly with one cause being that food is being burned for fuel. When the poor can no longer afford food should they give up the eating habit? Or, high gas prices, give up the driving habit?

Posted by: Jim at October 4, 2007 12:25 PM
Comment #235235

Egad!! So smokers should keep smoking so the government can get the tax money?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 4, 2007 1:03 PM
Comment #235236

One other comment:

The price for the pills and cotton balls etc, are also paying for the cost of the hospital staff administering/using the supplies.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 4, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #235238

Evidence Stephen? How about that Americans saving has pretty much dropped to nothing and you seem to be blaming everything other than the people themselves.
Do you have any evidence which says the majority of Americans do not save money because of evil corporations?

Predatory behavior? Yeah, I was and still am often approached with these offers. Why am I not a victim? Because I don’t spend money I do not have and because I care enough about myself and family to actually take the time to think things through.

Folks on the left are all too eager to blame everything on someone else to create “victims” which are easier to pander to.

Have you ever thought about why people no longer save or do you believe corporations are just so damn evil it has to be their fault?
People no longer save because they are over taxed.
People no longer save because they feel it is govts job to provide.
People no longer save because they think they deserve everything anybody else has.
People no longer save because they have been trained to believe that govt will take care of everything for them.

Why save for retirement when you have SS? Lets go to the casino and try for early retirement.
Why save for medical expenses when we have universal healthcare? Lets go and buy a six pack and pack of cigs instead of saving that money for a possible, unforeseen health problem.
Why save in case I loose my job? Govt will take care of me if I do.

The truth of the matter is that your nanny state is what has created a country of people who are now dependent on their govt to do everything for them.

And there is no need for me to “trust” you about what its like to be poor. The first 6 years of my life were spent without indoor plumbing or electricity, the next 3 or 4 in a small trailer and the next 20 or so were spent in the military as a dependent and as a proud member.
My parents dropped out around age 16 and I grew up wearing hand me downs and missing meals. I know all to well what its like and my parents nor myself accepted that was how it had to be. We didn’t wait for govt to do it for us, we worked hard to make it.

So, trust me, I know all too well what living paycheck to paycheck is all about and I know exactly how easy it is to get in debt. My parents made their choice and lived with it. I made my choice and lived with. Others make their choices and they should live with it.

Put simply, we have created a nation where personal responsibility is null and void. A nation where it is always somebody elses fault. A nation where one is punished for daring to ask to be his own man.

Posted by: kctim at October 4, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #235252

womanmarine said: “The price for the pills and cotton balls etc, are also paying for the cost of the hospital staff administering/using the supplies.”

Nope! Personnel services are billed separately. The old yarn is that a $10 cotton ball pays for the charity patient’s expenses. Seems very logical until one looks at the profit margins delivered to administrative personnel and investors of for profit health care systems and insurance companies. Then one sees the truth behind the $10 cotton ball.

Not for profit health care systems also charge $10 for a cotton ball. But, the difference is, the gross profit of $9.99 on that cotton ball really does cover more charity patient’s expenses, since there are no for-profit investors to pay it out to.

Not for profit insurance plans and health care delivery organizations already exist, and they are coming under ever closer scrutiny and regulation by state regulators, as their cash reserve assets have balooned in the last several years, and their administrative pay scales have rising sharply.

Still, for every dollar taken in, non-profit health care organizations deliver substantially more health care per dollar than for-profit organizations, and with 77 million retirees living longer and demanding much more and longer medical care as a result of longevity, it only makes common sense that our society move to the system that can provide the greatest amount of health care per revenue dollar.

This is not the whole answer or solution, but, it is definitely a major part.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 4, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #235253
Nope! Personnel services are billed separately.

David, that hasn’t been my experience. While doctor’s services are billed separately, the nurses and all the other support staff are not. Not in any of the hospitalization bills I went over with a fine tooth comb when my parents died in the hospital.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 4, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #235285

To all of you who are paying ridiculously high prices for medical insurance my heart goes out to you. I thought what I was paying was high, boy was I wrong. But that is the reason we should force congress to investigate the health industry and the health insurance industry. I believe we should help the poor and I especially believe we should get our children the best medical we can but giving 35 billion to an already bloated system is like giving an alcholic a key to a liquor store. We need to look for other alternatives like what David Remer suggested

Posted by: KAP at October 4, 2007 6:20 PM
Comment #235319

Stephen Daugherty,

You’ve made some absolutely great points and I applaud you for that. I just had some minor surgery done so I’m more “rummy” than usual.

If you care to do some research regarding who pays for who’s health care it would be very interesting. Just off the top of my head about 16% of Americans are uninsured, about another 10% receive Medicare, roughly another 15% are covered by Medicaid or SCHIPS ………………. sheesh!

Now, factor in ALL of our elected and appointed government officials and ALL of our government employees at every level ——— fed, state, county, local ………… cough, cough!

Then factor in government funds (fed, state, county, local) going to hospitals and clinics!

Come on folks! We are already paying for government funded health care!!!!!!!!

The conservatives (including Hillary) just want to pull the wool over your eyes. They believe that the status quo is just fine.

The Libertarians just want to do away with it all! They believe in trading two chickens for an MRI! Or a whole hog for a kidney transplant.

Stephen, I really hope you might crunch some stats if you have time to reinforce this. Health care is a NEED! It’s not like shopping for a car. When something happens you go where your medical card (or lack thereof) takes you. And everyone pays one way or other.

NOTE: my numbers are off the cuff but I believe they’re fairly conservative.

Posted by: KansasDem at October 5, 2007 12:01 AM
Comment #235334

KansasDem-
My preference would be private healthcare, but things are bad enough in my view that the preference might not be workable.

kctim-
Question: what evidence do you have that people stopped saving when Social Security came into existence? People continued to save for things for quite some time after that.

It wasn’t until credit cards became easy money that people went from saving to spending. Couple that with the stagnation of wages, and it meant that not only was it easy not to save, it has been very difficult to save.

But blaming the average person for this? Blaming government? You underestimate the stigma that goes with being on assistance. Additionally much of Social Security works off of the notion that you pay into the system first. You are paying your way .

But most people want more than that. They go for pensions, they go for 401Ks and retirement plans.

It’s the failure of an economic model that tries to keep wages down but growth up. The trouble is, you can’t squeeze blood out of the stone forever. Sooner or later, circumstances derail people’s economic plans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2007 8:32 AM
Comment #235335

As for responsibility? One of the biggest risk factors for bankruptcy is being a parent.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2007 9:13 AM
Comment #235336

Stephen
I did not say when SS came into existence, but that they feel no need to now because SS is there.
Was SS originally meant to be the forced retirement plan it is now?

I totally agree that credit cards have helped cause people to go from saving to spending. Keyword is “people” though.
I haven’t really ever made all that much money but I save. I live within my means though and if I should change that, then it is I, not you, who should be responsible for my actions.

I understand how SS works. Believe it or not, I actually don’t have anything against it except for the fact that it is forced onto everyone by the govt. Something our founders never intended to happen. Universal healthcare, welfare etc… are the same way.

“circumstances derail people’s economic plans”

I agree. But you do not just roll over and give up when that happens. And if you choose to do that, then that is the life you have choosen and you need to live that life and stop making excuses.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2007 9:20 AM
Comment #235406

kctim-
Our founders never intended a interstate highway system either. What they did intend was a government responsive to what the majority wanted. What they intended was for the government to change to suit the changes in our society.

I don’t really want to argue with you about something so basic as to whether the government can require people in general to pay for something in particular. That’s a basic fact of any government’s behavior. Something we don’t like is forced on everybody by our government, but all taxpayers have to pay for these things.

You might not like having to pay for it, but social security is the law of the land. For most of that time, saving was the preferred way of paying for things. Social Security didn’t change that. If it didn’t change that, then how can you blame social security for people’s bad decisions?

Moreover, what makes you think most people want to settle for just it? When people talk about being on a fixed income, that’s what they’re talking about. But is there necessarily an alternative? For many, there isn’t. For many, the alternative, when they become too old to work, is dependence on others.

With Social Security, what you get depends on what you put in. People are supporting themselves, not getting to skip out on that.

The thing to keep in mind about socialized medicine is that we all pay for medical emergencies anyways. Would you rather pay for Children’s healthcare when the situation is less severe, and relatively inexpensive, or when lives are in danger, and the situation more involved?

And why are we treating good health as a privilege in the first place? The system is broken. If not socialized healthcare, then what? You can talk about saving, but how does that help things when the price of healthcare is so sky high?

You can’t sustain a system like this. Either we must regulate the system back into sensibility, or we must supplement or replace it with something else. Doing nothing is no longer an option. So what’s your alternative?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 5, 2007 10:11 PM
Comment #235570

My alternative Stephen is for the people to let govt run govt, not lives.
Our founders wanted a govt responsive to what the majority wanted, but they also wanted the rights of the minority to be respected. That is why govt was limited to govt and the people were placed in charge of their own lives.

I know its pointless to argue any of this anymore. Our nation no longer cares about the Constitution unless it is in favor of their personal views. We have thrown that freedom away and have accepted democracy.
The nanny state has won, personal rights and freedoms have lost. I will try to stop speaking of them anymore.

Posted by: kctim at October 8, 2007 9:41 AM
Post a comment