Hello:

I think the S-chip debacle finally sealed the fate of the Republicans. It WAS, after all, pretty MEAN of them.

In their attempt to create a permanent majority of Republicans, I think they're going to create a permanent majority of Democrats.

The Dems need about 9 Senate seats to create their veto proof majority. I think they'll do it. Then I think they'll restore the Constitution. Then I think guys like Scalito and the Dude who admits he "hates" the left, will be replaced.

Then I think this attempt at fascism will be a footnote in the history books.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong.

excon

The SCHIP is bad policy but it was probably bad politics to veto it. The truth is that the Democrats used a Sat. morning reply to the President that featured a kid who was allegedly dependent on the program. The truth however is that the kids dad is pretty well off and that he chose not to cover the kid with medical insurance knowing the kid would qualify under SCHIP.

The program is an unnecessary middle class welfare program and it is also creeping universal Hillary care socialism . What doesn't bode well for the country is that so many can be influenced by the sheer demogogery by the proponents . All it takes is for San Fran Nan to moan "what about the children " and she can sell the country the Brooklyn Bridge. That 45 Republicans voted in favor shows how intimidated they are about being baited in next year's elections by Democrat challengers taunting them for being "anti-children."

As Tom said, SCHIP (or as I call it "SCHIT") was an unnecessary program. We don't need it. Most people who are aware of the politics involved agree with that sentiment. Those who don't know the issues behind SCHIT back it because it's a feelgood program and "it's about the kids".

But how many people on the street really know SCHIT? The typical American doesn't read the papers, and unless its big news like the War in Iraq or Britney Spears losing her kids to K-Fed (y'know, important stuff), most Americans don't give a SCHIT. SCHIT isn't big enough news to get most people to notice. To use a PR term, it isn't "sexy" enough. There is no sexy SCHIT. So I think that the veto "debacle" will end up being no big SCHIT.

As for "Scalito" (is that Scalia, Alito or some other character I don't know about) and the Dude who admits he hates the left, they can't be "replaced". Their positions are permanent, lifetime appointments.

Elliot

Hello again, tom:

Truth?? I don't know about that. Here's the REAL truth:

The Frosts and their four children are exactly the kind of people S-chip was intended to help: working Americans who can't afford private health insurance.

The parents have a combined income of about $45,000, and don't receive health insurance from employers. When they looked into buying insurance on their own before the accident, they found that it would cost $1,200 a month — a prohibitive sum given their income. After the accident, when their children needed expensive care, they couldn't get insurance at any price.

Fortunately, they received help from Maryland's S-chip program. The state has relatively restrictive rules for eligibility: children must come from a family with an income under 200 percent of the poverty line. For families with four children that's $55,220, so the Frosts clearly qualified.

Graeme Frost, then, is exactly the kind of child the program is intended to help. But that didn't stop the right from mounting an all-out smear campaign against him and his family.

Right-wing water carriers like Rush Limprod and Michele Malken began insisting that the Frosts must be affluent because Graeme and his sister attend private schools (they're on scholarship), because they have a house in a neighborhood where some houses are now expensive (the Frosts bought their house for $55,000 in 1990 when the neighborhood was rundown and considered dangerous) and because Mr. Frost owns a business (it was dissolved in 1999).

All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud.

And there's one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn't about the Frost parents. It's about Graeme Frost and his sister.

I don't know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.

excon

PS> Yup, I borrowed from your home town rag again.

If you're a smoker, I doubt you would be in very much favor of SCHIP. Why? Because the smokers would have had to carry the burden. We all know that the majority of smokers are in the low to middle class bracket. And Democrats say they look out for the poor, yet they want to raise their taxes?

If you're a smoker, I doubt you would be in very much favor of SCHIP. Hello again, Goddard:

If you're a smoker WITH CHILDREN, I'll bet you would.

excon

I'll admit I'm a little ignorant about the s-chip program, so if someone could point me to an unbiased link, I'd appreciate it.

I seem to remember reading somewhere (can't remember where, though) that this program would FORCE individuals who fall into the income brackets to enroll their children in the plan, giving them no option for private insurance. In other words, if my husband and I make $40K/yr and have 3 kids, we MUST enroll our kids in the program - no private insurance allowed. Is that accurate? Also, wasn't there a loophole in the bill allowing coverage to extend to adults, not just children, as well as illegal immigrants? Or was the article I read full of lies and propaganda? :)

I haven't been following this thing carefully (no kids and make above the limits anyway), so excuse my ignorance. I am curious about it, however. Any links/info would be much appreciated!

No kids here, nor am I a smoker.

Ex ;You know I have to respond to a Krugman quote. He's very good at making the argument that anytime Conservatives question the facts they are out to smear . Even you would have to admit that the choice of spokesperson for the Democrat response could've been better. Now we are forced to unnecessarily subject the family to examination They are the ones who make the Frost family the issue .So here it goes :

All 4 of his children got scholarship to private schools ? Is it full scholarship or partial ? My bet is that most likely they are paying a pretty decent chunk of their kids private school bills while the government foots the tab for the health care. The Frosts have the means to take care of their children ;they should. At very least it shows that the family did not make health insurance a priority until after the accident .

What Krugman failed to mention is that Frost "went out of business"the same year that he purchased the building his business resided in . Now he's a commercial land lord.


“I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period.”

Ever hear of Medicaid ?
Besides ;they already did under existing provisions of SCHIP .Bush vetoed an expansion of the program that would've increased the age of eleigibility to 25 whose parents make $83K a year.


they found that it would cost $1,200 a month . Insureblog punched the #s in for a quote in Baltimore and came up with much less. InsureBlog: $45,000 and No Insurance (http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/45000-and-no-insurance.html)

I could go on but I really do not wish to trash the family . My point was that the Democrats demogogued the issue by using the kid to make their statement . It was a cheap shot .

Hello:

I think the S-chip debacle finally sealed the fate of the Republicans. It WAS, after all, pretty MEAN of them.

In their attempt to create a permanent majority of Republicans, I think they're going to create a permanent majority of Democrats.

The Dems need about 9 Senate seats to create their veto proof majority. I think they'll do it. Then I think they'll restore the Constitution. Then I think guys like Scalito and the Dude who admits he "hates" the left, will be replaced.

Then I think this attempt at fascism will be a footnote in the history books.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong.

excon
First, I don’t think Fascism is the appropriate description; repression under the auspices of the new Anti-Terror Law is a much more accurate description.

Secondly, it does not matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat majority, repression will continue. Having bred the post September 11 hysteria, there is nothing easier for any state, which follows neo-liberal directions, than simply sticking a label "terrorist" onto anyone who is not convenient to them.

A veto proof majority ? Possibly ,but what I see in the Democrat ranks is a substantial block of blue dog's who ran as moderates and conservatives in 2006 and will not likely let San Fran Nan go to extreme.

Thanks for the link, tom.


Bush vetoed an expansion of the program that would've increased the age of eleigibility to 25 whose parents make $83K a year.

That must have been the age thing I was remembering.

Hello again, jillian:

I'm a libertarian. I believe that an unfettered marketplace will better serve the needs of everybody, including the poor.

That, however, is idealistic, because one side or the other rigs the game when they have the chance. That's been going on for quite some time. The result is a rigged economy.

So, if the economy is going to be rigged for either the rich or the poor, I'm going to choose the poor.

No, I don't think government should take care of anybody. But, if the righty's rig it, so the poor can't get out of poverty, then I'd be happy to rig it so that the government acts as a safety net for 'em.

At least, if it's going to be rigged, it SHOULD be rigged for the have NOTS - and not the HAVES.

That is why I think S-chip is a good thing.

excon

So that eligibility to $83 K income a year hand out is something you should be opposed to .

Thanks, excon. I'd say in general I have libertarian views as well; I fully believe people should accept responsibility for their own actions, which is where nationalized health care kind of irks me. On the one hand, I think about the people who are literally living paycheck to paycheck and are NOT driving $80K cars and carrying $900 purses. The ones who taking the kids out to dinner at McDonald's is a treat, and as such, do not have access to decent insurance. It's especially not fair to the kids. Then I think, well, could the parents get better jobs, make more money? Could they have made better decisions in the past and be in a better position? Maybe they've made their bed, now they should lie in it, and why should I have to support them because I made better decisions? But again, it's not fair to punish the kids for the parent's wrongdoing or poor planning. All that does is limit opportunities to the kids and put them in the same boat when they are adults. That's bad for society in general. But then I think about the people who live paycheck to paycheck who DO drive $80K cars and carry $900 purses and whine that they can't afford insurance, that the gubment should take care of them, etc. THOSE people make me angry. I don't want to help THOSE people at all. But again, if there are kids, it's not fair to punish the kids for their parent's poor planning and wrongdoing. This is where I could go on and on about how we need to educate our population about finances and money management so more people would be equipped with the knowledge to make better decisions, but that's another thread! :)

The bleeding heart in me says we should provide a system for children - all children who are US citizens. They should have access to vaccinations, check ups, basic care and so on. We should not have kids dying of scarlet fever in this country because they couldn't get to the doctor for a round of antibiotics. If a program such as that were implemented and enrollment was OPTIONAL, I'd probably be in support of it. I say probably because that does start setting us up for nationalized health care and I just think that's a bad idea. Also because our gubment has a way of buggering things up.

It sounds like the s-chip needs some work (like everything else on Capitol Hill). It seems our political parties are in such strong opposition to one another (not just on this, in general) that if one party says, "I like it!" the other party says, "I hate it!". That's never going to get us anywhere. Boy do our states need more power...

so that eligibility to $83 K income a year hand out is something you should be opposed to .

That's making the assumption that $83K is enough to support a family of four everywhere in the country; that people who make that amount are part of the "have-crowd". I don't know where you live, but in my area, $83K/yr for a dual income family is not part of the "have-crowd".

so that eligibility to $83 K income a year hand out is something you should be opposed to .Hello again, tom:

I'm opposed to punishing children by NOT providing them health insurance, even if their parents aren't good money managers. So my formula for S-chip eligibility would be different than yours.

What formula would that be? I don't know. There isn't a workable formula that only tinkers with a broken health care system. A bigger fix than S-chip is necessary.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I'm opposed to punishing children by NOT providing them health insurance, even if their parents aren't good money managers. So my formula for S-chip eligibility would be different than yours.

What formula would that be? I dunno. There isn't a workable formula that only tinkers with a broken health care system. A bigger fix than S-chip is necessary.

excon

A simple formula would be to provide health insurance for *ALL* children, regardless of the parent/guardians gross income.

Yeah, it's really that simple.

So we are back to the basic principle that the nanny state should provide . I hear all this and then I have to ask ;when all is reduced the basics ,is there a difference between libertarian and social liberal ?

So I go to the voting record and I see that Ron Paul voted against S-Chip ;and Ron Paul is running as libertarian. Maybe he just hates children . Or maybe he sees how well the Vets hospitals are working or the elder care system with it's months worth of red tape to qualify for some of the programs and maybe Ron Paul just thinks that the government doesn't do health care very good . He also voted no on the huge entitlement called Medicare Rx drug coverage so maybe he hates elderly also .

Wake Up America has some facts about SCHIP worth looking at

Wake up America: Facts about SCHIP and what we need to do this week (http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/10/facts-about-schip-and-what-we-need-to.html)

So I go to the voting record and I see that Ron Paul voted against S-Chip ;and Ron Paul is running as libertarian. Maybe he just hates children . Hello tom:

Ron Paul is running as a classic Libertarian. IF he get's elected, and IF he could carry out his policies, S-Chip would be unnecessary, and the children would be well taken care of.

SINCE that ain't going to happen, all we got is short term fixes that only TINKER with a broken system. They don't FIX it.

Look, what I want is children to be taken care of. That's what I want. You can call it Libertarianism. You can call it a Nanny State. You can call it flapjax. I don't care. I just don't want a child to go without health care in THIS country. The system is broken!! We can START to fix it by covering all the kids.

OR, better yet, let's get the insurance companies out of the equation.

excon

I don't disagree, but you don't have to be so poopy about it.

Who's being "poopy"?

I'm dead serious.

Health care for all children, regardless of the parent or guardians gross income, should be free.

Period.

Who's being "poopy"?

I'm dead serious.

Health care for all children, irregardless of the parent or guardians gross income, should be free.

Period.
Yes and all children should all be read fairy tails, pampered and tucked into a clean warm bed every night by loving parents. But What!! Enter the villain of real life… of parents who don’t care and those who would fill the Doctors office with sniveling little monsters who could have been treated at home.:)

Doctors office with sniveling little monsters who could have been treated at home.:)Hello again, DC:

Yeah, taking care of poor people ain't going to be neat and tidy. It's better, doncha think, that these people go to their doctor, rather than going to the emergency room - which is where they all go now.

What?? You don't think they're NOT getting treated, do you?

excon

Of course they are getting treated, excon.

So why are you worried about WHERE they are being treated? Who cares whether it is at an ER, a private medical practice, a charitable free clinic, or a government-run facility? What's the difference? And why does it have to be a GOVERNMENT issue? If kids are being treated, as you clearly agree based on your last post, then what's the problem? And why do you, a libertarian, want to make it the government's problem?

That was the pint of one of my earlier posts in another string. The number of people in the USA without health insurance may be rather high compared to other countries. But the number of people without health CARE is virtually nil. And that includes children without health care.

The safety net is in place. Don't mess with it.

Elliot

Hello again, DC:

Yeah, taking care of poor people ain't gonna be neat and tidy. It's better, doncha think, that these people go to their doctor, rather than going to the emergency room - which is where they all go now.

What??? You don't think they're NOT getting treated, do you?

excon
The truth is I haven’t researched it but you’re possibly right. :)

So why are you worried about WHERE they are being treated? Hello again, El:

For two reasons. 1) Emergency rooms are failing at it, and failing financially because of it (leaving MY local emergency room unavailable to treat MY emergency). And, 2) the treatment given by one's own family physician is MUCH better (and CHEAPER given that we're paying for it).

That's probably five reasons, but whose counting?

excon

Hello again, El:

For two reasons. 1) Emergency rooms are failing at it, and failing financially because of it (leaving MY local emergency room unavailable to treat MY emergency). And, 2) the treatment given by one's own family physician is MUCH better (and CHEAPER given that we're paying for it).

That's probably five reasons, but whose counting?

excon

And so your solution is to get the government involved?

What part of US history leads you to believe that anything the US government touches will become cheaper, faster, more effective, more efficient and higher quality?

If your issue is that ERs are overcrowded, how will getting the government involved improve that problem? If your issue is the cost of care, how will getting the government involved help that problem? If your issue is quality of care, how will the government being involved improve quality?

As I have said before, if you want a good look at what government-provided healthcare will look like, look at the VA medical system. Then tell me if that is what you are looking for for our children.

Elliot

if you want a good look at what government-provided healthcare will look like, look at the VA medical system. Then tell me if that is what you are looking for for our children.Hello again, El:

Or, we could look at medicare. That works pretty damn good. And there are more old farts than there are injured soldiers.

By the way, I agree about the VA. And, you still support the dufus who's in charge of it. Mmh, mmmh, mmmh.

excon

And so your solution is to get the government involved?

What part of US history leads you to believe that anything the US government touches will become cheaper, faster, more effective, more efficient and higher quality?

If your issue is that ERs are overcrowded, how will getting the government involved improve that problem? If your issue is the cost of care, how will getting the government involved help that problem? If your issue is quality of care, how will the government being involved improve quality?

As I have said before, if you want a good look at what government-provided healthcare will look like, look at the VA medical system. Then tell me if that is what you are looking for for our children.

Elliot
The assumption that if the federal government runs a program it’s doomed to mediocrity from the start is interesting…particularly given it runs the country.

I'm trying to come up with an efficiently run Federal program ;but I'm coming up blank .

I'm trying to come up with an efficiently run Federal program ;but I'm coming up blank .
It seems to me efficiently means something different to different people; is the focus people or money?

The people served took a big hit when the federal government got out of the mental health business, but it did serve the federal tax payer better.

I'm trying to come up with an efficiently run Federal program ;but I'm coming up blank .Hello again, tom and El:

I don't disagree. However, even a badly run government program that gives our nations children health care, is better than our children going without.

If you want an unfettered health care system, then stop fettering your damn selves.

You want to know what I'm talking about here, don't you? I can see the blank look in your conservative, but blind eyes.

Your drug war, the bedrock of the right wing, KEEPS poor people poor. Mandatory sentencing KEEPS poor people poor. Your immigration laws KEEP poor people poor. Your laws preventing felons from voting, KEEPS poor people poor. Your laws that allow rip off payday lenders to proliferate in the poor communities, and laws allowing credit card companies to change rules in the middle of the game, KEEPS poor people poor.

These are things amongst many others, that would END under libertarian policy. If they did, we wouldn't need no damn gubment health care.

But, you're not going to end those things are you? I could go on, and of course, I will.

So, if YOU stop fettering at the top, I'll stop fettering at the bottom.

excon

As I recall ;it was Federal money going to the States to administer ,and not the Federal Government actually managing the hospitals... Yeah I remember those days when Geraldo Rivera was a young pup scaling the fences of Willowbrook Hospital to expose the nightmare our tax money brought. I think there has always been poor coordination between Fed.State and local governments in the mental health services.

As I recall ;it was Federal money going to the States to administer ,and not the Federal Government actually managing the hospitals ....Yeah I remember those days when Geraldo Rivera was a young pup scaling the fences of Willowbrook Hospital to expose the nightmare our tax money brought. I think there has always been poor coordination between Fed.State and local governments in the mental health services.
Again, some people are only concerned with money. I worked at Camarillo State Hospital at the time…now the patients roam the streets getting robbed of their Social Security checks which is money robbed from Social Security Retirement recipients.:)

The assumption that if the federal government runs a program it’s doomed to mediocrity from the start is interesting…particularly given it runs the country.

No it doesn't. The country is run by the PEOPLE... despite government interference, not because of it.

Elliot

Hello again:

You want more, cause I got more.

Your laws that allow your buddies in the insurance industry to grab a chunk of our health care dollars - where they have no business anymore, KEEPS health care costs unbelievably HIGH. Your laws that opened the cash window to your friends in the pharmaceutical industry with your Medicare drug benefit, KEEPS health care costs sky HIGH. Your laws that prevent us from negotiating prices with the drug industry KEEPS health care costs extremely HIGH.

ALL of these things would END under a libertarian administration. And it they did, then the kids, ALL OF 'EM, could afford to see any doctor they wanted.

I could go on, and you can believe I will.

excon

Excon,

Regarding Medicare... do you really consider that an efficiently run system? Do you really think it is a system that does the job of covering the people it is supposed to cover? If so, then why are there so many people on Medicare that have to choose between food and drugs? How come so many people are importing knockoff pharmaceuticals on the cheap? How come the government is trying so hard to keep Americans from getting their drugs from Canada? If this system works "pretty damn well", why are so many old people without the drugs they need? Answer, it doesn't work. It is failing miserably. But if all those old folks who paid taxes into the Medicare system had been allowed to keep and invest that money for themselves, they'd be able to afford their meds, and have a much better retirement lifestyle to boot.

As for the war on drugs, I've already told you that I agree that the war on drugs isn't working. (Essentially for the same reasons the war on terrorism had so much difficulty... we're not taking the fight to the enemy. We're trying to play by nice-guy rules and only stop the trafficking without going after the source. We're more worried about maintaining Colombia as a friend --- winning the hearts and minds of the Colombian government--- than we are about actually fighting the cartels, destroying the cacao plantations and eliminating the source of the drugs and the leadership of the drug cartels.) So I'm not going to argue that point.

I'm wondering which legislation it is that you believe keeps poor people poor? How, exactly, does keeping people who are in jail from voting keep poor people poor? What is the mechanism for that? How does that keep other poor people from moving ahead in life?

How does keeping ILLEGAL immigrants from having the rights of legal immigrants and citizens keep poor people poor? If illegals aren't getting jobs illegally, then LEGAL immigrants ARE getting those jobs, which gives them greater opportunity. How does that keep poor people poor?

How does mandatory sentencing keep poor people poor? Doesn't mandatory sentencing apply to rich people too? And how does it affect poor people who have not omitted any crime? How are poor people being kept poor?

And just out of curiosity, who are the ones who put the current lending laws on the books? I certainly agree with you about predatory lenders and their usurous interest rates, but who's legislation was it that allowed that to occur? I don't know. But I do know that both Dems and Reps have been trying to change those laws for a while now (Schumer is actually leading the charge on this issue, and it is the only area where I agree with him) to stop predatory lending practices and put limits on interest rates that credit card companies and mortgage lenders can charge. On the other hand, what ever happened to caveat emptor? What ever happened to the personal responsibility of the borrower to know what he's getting into before he signs the papers? If PEOPLE were more responsible for their finances, predatory lenders wouldn't be able to get away with the crap they get away with.

So again, I'm not sure why you say that "our laws" or "conservatives laws" are keeping people poor. I'm not sure of the mechanism by which that is true, nor am I sure of the factual basis of the statement itself. Can you explain it?

Elliot

No it doesn't. The country is run by the PEOPLE... despite government interferance, not because of it.

Elliot
Isn’t everything run by people…so what does that change about ‘The assumption that if the federal government runs a program it’s doomed to mediocrity from the start is interesting…particularly given it runs the country.’:)

Excon,

Regarding Medicare... do you really consider that an efficiently run system? Do you really think it is a system that does the job of covering the people it is supposed to cover? If so, then why are there so many people on Medicare that have to choose between food and drugs? How come so many people are importing knockoff pharmaceuticals on the cheap? How come the government is trying so hard to keep Americans from getting their drugs from Canada? If this system works "pretty damn well", why are so many old people without the drugs they need? Answer, it doesn't work. It is failing miserably. But if all those old folks who paid taxes into the Medicare system had been allowed to keep and invest that money for themselves, they'd be able to afford their meds, and have a much better retirement lifestyle to boot.


Elliot
There would not be a problem if social security and Medicare was limited to retirees; the problem is politicos started robbing the funds for services to other groups..

Does anyone actually think if we have universal healthcare (with the option of private insurance, that is), that the federal government will actually run it; not contract it out? Doctors and nurses and admin staff who are govt employees? I doubt it. No one actually works for the federal government - it's all contractors! And believe me, contractors are quite inept.

Hello again:

You want more, cause I got more.

Your laws that allow your buddies in the insurance industry to grab a chunk of our health care dollars - where they have no business anymore, KEEPS health care costs unbelievably HIGH. Your laws that opened the cash window to your friends in the pharmaceutical industry with your Medicare drug benefit, KEEPS health care costs sky HIGH. Your laws that prevent us from negotiating prices with the drug industry KEEPS health care costs extremely HIGH.

This makes no sense at all, excon.

We have already established above that poor folks aren't paying for healthcare. It's being paid for by you and me in the form of higher medical bills by hospitals and by higher taxes. Poor people are going to ERs or clinics and getting their care for free. So how is the high ost of medical care keeping poor people down?


ALL of these things would END under a libertarian administration. And it they did, then the kids, ALL OF 'EM, could afford to see any doctor they wanted.

You really think that a libertarian would end the existence of insurance companies?

I think just the opposite. Libertarians, REAL libertarians tend to be of the opinion that the government shouldn't get involved in business at all, and that companies should be free to charge whatever the market can bare for their services. Under a real libertarian, insurance companies would have more freedom to operate as they wish, not less. The REAL difference between how libertarians operate now and how they would under a libertarian is that regulation on business and on individuals would be less.

But it would take more than a libertarian administration to do it. It would also take a libertarian Congress to change the laws and a libertarian Supreme Court to uphold them during the inevitable constitutionality lawsuits that will ensue as the laws are changed.


I could go on, and you can believe I will.

Ya don't say... :rolleyes:

Elliot

You really think that a libertarian would end the existance of insurance companies? .....But it would take more than a libertarian administration to do it. Hello again, Elliot:

I didn't say that they would end insurance companies. I said they would end the laws that allow insurance companies to get a chunk of your dough.

Indeed, if you had the choice, would you write the check to your doctor directly, or would you pay extra to have the insurance company do it for you? Nope, you're right. If given the choice, nobody would have insurance companies in-between themselves and their doctors.

Ok, maybe YOU would.

I'm not holding my breath for change. It's ain't going to happen. But, like I said before, if you're going to fetter at one end - in order to be fair, it's going to require some fettering at the other end.


So how is the high cost of medical care keeping poor people down?I'll bet you had a straight face when you asked that question, didn't you?

It gave me a laugh, though.

excon

Like I said, excon, if as we established poor folks aren't paying for their health care, then what difference does it make to them how much it costs?

The high cost of medical care doesn't affect the poor nearly as much as it affects the middle class... those who have to pay for their health care but can't get ahead in life because of those health care costs.

Elliot

(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html)excon (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html) agrees: Yeah. It IS my money. That's why I'm yelling about gettin ripped off!
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html)

I don't disagree about getting ripped off. It's your solution to that that I disagree with. Getting the government more involved isn't going to put more money back in your pockets. Quite the contrary. There has never been a government-run program that has put more wealth into the hands of the people. As the old saying goes "Government cannot make a man rich, but it can make a man poor."

Elliot

(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html)excon (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html) agrees: Yeah??? There are an awful lot of fat cat Republicans feeding at the public trough. They're gettin rich on MY dime.
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon.html)

Again, I don't disagree with that assessment. But how is getting the government more involved going to fix that problem? It won't. It CAN'T.

Elliot

Hello ex,

I'm a little late to this debate, but I have my doubts about children going without health care. I know if they go without care where I live it's nobody's fault but the parents. If you're concerned that the care given by your family physician is better than that at an ER or clinic, well yeah. That's what happens with government run health care.

Our city sold its municipal hospital a number of years ago and part of the deal was the new owner had to provide care for those that couldn't afford it. They operate a huge clinic in the less fortunate part of town and have a separate system at the hospital so they don't muck up the ER. It seems to work fine even if it is a little inconvenient (and I know first hand). But no one need go without care.

Congressman John Shadegg pointed out some interesting things about the proposed expansion:


• The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) report says that under the Democrats' new SCHIP bill, one out of every two newly eligible children who enroll will drop their current private insurance.


• Studies show 61 percent of children who initially became eligible for SCHIP already had insurance.


• The Democrats' bill allows states (e.g. New York) to enroll children whose families make $82,600 per year or more; neither poor nor near poor by any standard.


• Wisconsin spends 75 percent of its SCHIP money on adults, Minnesota, 61 percent. Adults remain eligible.


• While Arizona has now stopped doing so, it previously paid for 110,000 adults with SCHIP, 85,000 of whom were childless.

Thus, the Democrats' SCHIP expansion is not limited to uninsured poor nor near poor children. In fact, it's not even limited to children.

As for their poster child family, did you also know that reportedly they drive a new Volvo SUV, a Suburban and an F250 - and that their property is reportedly worth around $400,000? If that's true, then they don't deserve any of my money. In fact, I think they could be helping me with MY medical bills.