10/19/2007 2:16:32 PM

Quote :

"sarijoul, the problem with your last statement is that is the mindset that has allowed us to pump more and more money into situations where these kids are raised by parents with no responsibility and thats exactly what thier kids learn. We need to break the cycle."

Off topic I know, but by that reasoning, we should cut off Iraq funding

10/19/2007 2:18:21 PM

^^people are too smart to fall for that sort of horseshit after the past six years

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 2:18:48 PM

Quote :

"sarijoul, the problem with your last statement is that is the mindset that has allowed us to pump more and more money into situations where these kids are raised by parents with no responsibility and thats exactly what thier kids learn. We need to break the cycle."

how do you propose that should be done?

10/19/2007 2:25:12 PM

^

1) stop increasing benefits
2) slowly begin decreasing benefits
3) continue

Quote :

"too smart to fall for that sort of horseshit"

"fall for"?

fall for what?

10/19/2007 2:36:13 PM

Quote :

"1) stop increasing benefits 2) slowly begin decreasing benefits 3) continue"

then poor people will suddenly be able to afford health insurance?

10/19/2007 2:38:54 PM

Lunak, Ive said the iraq war was an interesting bit of irony. In iraq, you have republicans saying the iraqis just need more time and money to get thier feet underthem, while the dems call it hopeless and time to cut our losses. In this country, we have just the opposite, but a much longer and more costly data set.

What would I propose we do? Start by not rewarding bad/irresponsible behavior. We are upside down. People who produce nothing are somehow more valued according to our govt. We need to promote the working class. It should NEVER pay more to not work than to work in this country. If you cannot afford to house, clothes, or feed yourself, you have no business bringing in children who you cannot provide for. Allowing rules that reward people who generally make poor decisions and even encourage them to add to those poor decisions, is where I would start. But that is a discussion for a different debate.

How would I address this in healthcare? Have the govt get out of healthcare completely. Have people purchase thier own insurance. Allow markets to compete. Give tax credits for purchasing health ins and tax free HSA.

10/19/2007 2:40:19 PM

^4 Fear monger that somehow Hillary could be worse than the current administration.

Its obvious that our "free market" has failed these people. A free market for health care will always exist, but a minimal level of service should exist for all. If it wasn't for substantial existing government subsidy, over half of Americans would have no health care coverage at all. I'm certain a large number of the people on this message board wouldn't even be in college if it weren't for government subsidized loans.

Quote :

"How would I address this in healthcare? Have the govt get out of healthcare completely. Have people purchase thier own insurance. Allow markets to compete. Give tax credits for purchasing health ins and tax free HSA."

Given a choice, healthcare providers would rather provide less service at higher cost. A free market system cannot fix problems that it creates. There is little to no profit incentive for free market environmentalism, thats why there must be government intervention. No homebuilders can turn a profit building housing for low incomes/homeless so they build McMansions, so affordable housing must be subsidized. Same goes for healthcare, providers would rather treat a few patients at a much higher cost. Healthcare is one of the few things we cannot allow to be speculated to as high a price as the market can bear, because an ethical and just society cannot allow a basic human right not to be met because the price has been speculated out of the range of most.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 2:42:01 PM

There isnt a free market in healthcare. You have govt providing 52% now. They dont allow you to shop insurances between states, they mandate laws that require hospitals see everyone..damn the cost. THey demand that I pay for a translator or a signer if I cannot.. but not able to bill it. Free market? my ass.

10/19/2007 2:45:00 PM

Quote :

"How would I address this in healthcare? Have the govt get out of healthcare completely. Have people purchase thier own insurance. Allow markets to compete. Give tax credits for purchasing health ins and tax free HSA."

so i still don't know how you address kids of parents who can't afford health insurance

10/19/2007 2:48:21 PM

^^^^^
"suddenly" ≠ "slowly"

^^^
"worse" ≠ "as bad as in a different way"

Quote :

"Healthcare is.....a basic human right"

says you

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2007 2:51:14 PM

so how will the poor slowly be able to afford health insurance?

10/19/2007 2:52:18 PM

Quote :

"so i still don't know how you address kids of parents who can't afford health insurance"

I think he was saying that people shouldn't have kids if they won't be able to afford health insurance in the future....

10/19/2007 2:53:57 PM

That sounds just, I should never have kids because I can't make some doctor's Ferrari payment this month.

10/19/2007 2:58:42 PM

^^no matter what should or shouldn't happen, unless you intend on taking people's kids away from them or somehow keeping people from having kids medically, people who can't afford them will have kids.

10/19/2007 3:02:56 PM

scuba, a free market place results in better quality and cheaper prices.

Put it this way, when a govt contractor gets a contract to build a road, he has no incentive to do it fast or do a good job. Correct?

If i want to stay in business I have to not only do a good job, but purchase newer equipment that allows me to better serve my patients, and hopefully bring in new business. I also need to have a nice place of business so people will want to come in. If im the only doc in town, I can have a rundown place, old equipment, and not give a shit how i treat patients bc where else would they go? How long would someone stay in business if someone else entered that marketplace and provided competition. Dont think that happens? Go take a look at these medicaid dentists offices. There is no free market.

Steve, my 2000 accord is paid for. ass

How about just paying for ONE kid only, then there is actually a consequence to that person to possibly prevent another one. Right now, its more money!!! Never mind raising him, I just got a raise myself. LOL
I strive to be better than the other docs in town, why? Its good business. That is the basis for the free market, out doing your competition. When you take away competition the product suffers.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 3:05:50 PM

you seem to be mixing welfare in with your arguments about health coverage.

Quote :

"Put it this way, when a govt contractor gets a contract to build a road, he has no incentive to do it fast or do a good job. Correct?"

not really. good contracts have incentives for finishing early and/or penalties for finishing work late.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 3:12:46 PM

^yes, but that is in thier contract. So they are paid for it, by the taxpayers.

In a free market, you do those things in order to stay in business.

10/19/2007 3:19:50 PM

so isn't there then, an "incentive to do a fast or a good job"?

anyhow, back to the topic at hand, who is getting a "raise" by their children getting health benefits?

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 3:25:12 PM

I'm aware how economics works. Thats why I said there will always be a free market to provide the best services to people. But for most routine care, it doesn't take a highly skilled specialist to provide service. What we are looking for at least at this point is providing care to people who have been speculated out of affording even a minimal amount of service, mostly because many low income employers do not provide benefits for workers or their families.

10/19/2007 3:34:00 PM

scuba. Thats not the case. You are in denial if you think that the "poor" are getting basic healthcare. Their formulary covers most any drugs and even over the counter as well. So alot of drugs for acne, hair, pregnancy.. that most dont consider basic.. are covered under this plan.. but often not covered by the ones you PAY for.

Does that seem fair? Not only do you provide ins to others and then pay for your own, the ones you pay for have better coverage?

Who is getting a "raise" how about the families making 80k who are already paying for thier kids med. insurance. Now there is an incentive to take the system and save the money. Also, the coorporations who already pay for their employees ins would encourage them to take the system and save them money.

The question you need to be asking is who "suffers."


Oh, and no shit. I just had a patient who was recently diagnosed with DM. She said her doctor told her she was borderline last year, but she kept on eating all the bad things. Imagine that, I cant believe someone didnt listen to their doctor and diet.

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2007 3:42:13 PM

Quote :

" ""Should we be giving free health care to kids of parents who make 85K a year?"" if they dont have insurance? HELL YES. $85K for a family (in many regions of the US), is just barely enough to buy food and pay the normal bills."

_______________________

Sadly, there are far too many parents out there who can afford health insurance [for their kids] but choose not to purchase it. The "startling" statistics showing all these uninsured numbers include this vast group of families. It doesn't end there, these same parents typically choose not to put money away into a college fund for their kids-- but NOT because they can't-- because they like using their income on "fun" stuff and because they have no foresight of the need for good health and good education for their kids.

If you feel this mentality is not widespread then stop kidding yourself. There are families that make average middle class wages who get by just fine by working hard and affording the necessaries such as health insurance and tuition bills. It means a few less vacations and not eating out every other weekend.

Then there are these same families (earning upwards of $80k a year) that have managed to qualify their children for PELL grants and financial aid and feel justified in DEMANDING things like free health insurance and tuition discounts because "they can't afford it".


In the end the middle class family with foresight works hard, saves, and buys health insurance and a college education for both their kids and the middle-classer's lacking the initiative to do so on their own.


PS: Maybe if we weren't already spending $200 million a year on illegal immigrants' health costs the between-rich-and-poor-children would fare better??

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 4:35 PM. Reason : formatting]

[Edited on October 19, 2007 at 4:35 PM. Reason : formatting]

10/19/2007 4:34:49 PM

Quote :

"i dont see how this will hurt supporters of the bill, when the republicans (as led by their wildly-popular president) will be shown as obstructing healthcare access for children."

Well, given that healthcare isn't a right, I don't see why the gubment should be providing it free of charge to ANYONE. Then, the fact that the program doesn't address the actual problem with the healthcare system, namely gov't intervention and meddling, it seems ridiculous to inject more of the problem as part of the solution. But, that's just me. Call me crazy, but it just doesn't seem to make sense to try and heal a person who has been poisoned w/ Arsenic by putting more Arsenic into their body.

Quote :

"This is completely untrue. Studies have shown that people with health insurance have longer life spans, better health, and require less emergency and critical health care than people without."

maybe it's the case that people w/ health insurance tend to give a damn about their health, thus the reason they have health insurance... Call me crazy, but...

Quote :

"It's a correlation that's very likely to be the causation."

Please, Einstein, explain to me how paying money to some random company, on its own, makes you live a longer life. I'm begging to see that one. Because that is what you are arguing.

Quote :

"those all sound like adult problems to me. not problems a child should suffer from"

Dude, if a parent isn't going to drive himself to the doctor, what makes you think he will drive someone else to the doctor? seriously...

Quote :

"That most people with diabetes caused it to happen to themselves?"

In many cases, this is actually true. Not taking care of one's self through proper diet and exercise has been shown to contribute immensely to diabetes.

Quote :

"And I highly doubt people are going to choose to do things that make them more sick because they have a doctor to take care of them."

Actually, it's not that people will do things to make themselves sick. Rather, it's that they will choose NOT TO DO THINGS which will keep them healthy, since uncle sam will pay for the doctor, thus making them sick.

Quote :

"then poor people will suddenly be able to afford health insurance?"

Well, maybe by decreasing gov't meddling in healthcare (which, btw, is what is driving up the cost of healthcare) and thus decreasing the amount of taxes people have to pay in order to support a bloated and ineffective system, there would be less truly "poor" people, and thus more people would be able to afford their own healthcare. Crazy idea, I know.

Quote :

"ts obvious that our "free market" has failed these people."

It's obvious that our "free market" with regards to healthcare is in no way a free market. The gov't has regulated that shit so heavily and fucked it up so bad that to call it a "free market" is to bastardize the term.

Quote :

"... because an ethical and just society cannot allow a basic human right not to be met ..."

too bad healthcare isn't a "basic human right." never had been, never will be, no matter her much the crying crocodiles say it is.

Quote :

"so i still don't know how you address kids of parents who can't afford health insurance"

It's actually pretty simple. By fixing the problem that is CAUSING HEALTHCARE TO BE SO UNGODLY EXPENSIVE, health insurance is NO LONGER NECESSARY.

Quote :

"That sounds just, I should never have kids because I can't make some doctor's Ferrari needless frivolous lawsuit insurance payment this month."

fixed it for you.

Quote :

"no matter what should or shouldn't happen, unless you intend on taking people's kids away from them or somehow keeping people from having kids medically, people who can't afford them will have kids."

then those kids should die off from the lack of healthcare so that we don't have them producing MORE LEECHES on society.

Quote :

"But for most routine care, it doesn't take a highly skilled specialist to provide service."

And yet, you have the gov't mandating all kinds of bullshit that is ungodly expensive in order for someone to do the job that you think a "non-skilled specialist" could do. Where is the logic in that?

Quote :

"What we are looking for at least at this point is providing care to people who have been speculated out of affording even a minimal amount of service, mostly because many low income employers do not provide benefits for workers or their families."

NO ONE has been "speculated" out of service. Rather, they have been GOVERMENTED out of service.

10/19/2007 5:21:06 PM

does anyone in this thread actually know jack shit about the program??

it definitely doesn't look like it. i suggest you do some research before you start throwing out income numbers, assumptions, and talking points you've heard. (from dems or repubs)

10/19/2007 5:22:16 PM

any number higher than 0$/year is too much and unConstitutional, so your point is invalid

10/19/2007 6:21:06 PM

10/19/2007 8:40:01 PM

i know. it's really ridiculous to ask our gov't to follow the laws and shit...

10/19/2007 8:45:01 PM

coming from you, that's hilarious

10/19/2007 10:49:41 PM

please, though, continue this stimulating debate. It is quite enlightening

10/19/2007 10:51:16 PM

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that we have people that are currently benefiting from government healthcare programs telling other people's kids they can't benefit from government healthcare programs?

is all i'm saying.

10/19/2007 11:06:05 PM

Old democrats "ask not what your country can do for, ask what you can do for your country"

New democrats "ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you"

You've come along way baby. I do find THAT ironic.

10/19/2007 11:11:28 PM

^ oh, please. how chirpy. and youre supposed to be a "doctor"?

why don't you tell us about the "new republicans"? Tell us how they have completely abandoned everything your party has ever stood for.

Democrats haven't changed. They still advocate for the same issues. The only difference is, the Dems were obviously wholly unprepared to win both houses of Congress last election, and the leadership is acting like they still don't know how to do anything other than lose.

If I can say one thing for the republicans, their leaders could keep their shit together, legislatively speaking. Of course their ethics, morality, and responsibility were completely out the window --- but still .... if half of the GOP congressmen weren't laundering campaign money and/or whipping their penises out in public restrooms and/or making drunken sexual advances towards little kids, the GOP would still be in control of congress.





[Edited on October 20, 2007 at 3:29 AM. Reason : ]

10/20/2007 3:25:04 AM

Quote :

"the only difference is, the Dems were obviously wholly unprepared to win both houses of Congress last election, and the leadership is acting like they still don't know how to do anything other than lose."

The Dems are ready to fulfill their campaign promises, it just will take until the 2008 election cycle to win enough seats in the house and senate to overcome the filibustering and vetoing. Republican interests are still vastly overrepresented in the US congress due to a lack of proportional representation in the Senate.

10/20/2007 3:32:20 AM

Despite the left-wing disinformation campaign, President Bush actually wants to reauthorize SCHIP and has proposed a 20 percent increase in its funding--and more if necessary. But these facts don't fit the hate-Bush template, do they?

The following is an excerpt from President Bush's press conference on Wednesday:

Quote :

"Now it's time to put politics aside and seek common ground to reauthorize this important program. I have asked Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, National Economic Council Director Al Hubbard, and OMB Director Jim Nussle to lead my administration's discussions with the Congress. I made clear that, if putting poor children first requires more than the 20 percent increase in funding I proposed, we'll work with Congress to find the money we need. I'm confident we can work out our differences and reauthorize SCHIP."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBAo1yCOOLr02NJfYtgrYmyZQKxAD8SB5LLO1

10/20/2007 3:55:35 AM

Quote :

"Dems are ready to fulfill their campaign promises, it just will take until the 2008 election cycle "

at this rate, you think we're going to have a net gain of House or Senate seats in '08????

Yes, we grabbed a HUGE number of seats in '06, but a large number of them were hotly contested, and narrowly won, in districts that had an unusually high percentage of self-described "independent" voters. Voters who, until '06, tended to vote Republican in recent years.

these same House seats are going to be up for grabs again in '08. and with the public approval ratings of the US Congress polling at an all time low (even lower than George "Worst" Bush)... you think this group of freshmen incumbents are going to stand a chance against the public opinion backlash combined with the fundraising abilities and attack-dog campaign strategy of the GOP machine?

have you really thought this through? or are you just driving on the fumes of hope?







[Edited on October 20, 2007 at 4:01 AM. Reason : "we're" ... yeah, i'm still in. ... i got nowhere else to go :-/ ]

10/20/2007 3:55:46 AM

Some Democrats are certainly serious about the SCHIP issue. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) sure as hell got bug-eyed about it on the House floor the other day--and he has since been "rebuked," whatever that means, by Speaker Pelosi for his ridiculous comments.

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked a fellow San Francisco Bay-area liberal Friday for what she said were 'inappropriate' comments about Iraq during a congressional debate. During a debate on children's health care Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark accused Republicans of sending troops to Iraq to 'get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.' Condemnations rolled in from Republican politicians, right-leaning bloggers had a field day, and a White House spokesman declined to 'dignify those remarks' with a response."

Quote :

"Pelosi issued a statement Friday evening rapping Stark, who is in his 18th term representing the liberal East Bay. He's California's longest-serving House members. 'While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand — providing health care for America's children,' Pelosi said. Stark's comment came as the House failed Thursday to override President Bush's veto of legislation to expand the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program. 'You don't have money to fund the war or children,' Stark accused Republicans. 'But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.'"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifc9ATNAgcr4tfkoAW2ZXonnf6jQD8SCIR5O0

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AhK7vdDEMFY

Stark should be ashamed of himself.

[Edited on October 20, 2007 at 5:20 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2007 5:12:36 AM

im not going to dignify his or your comments with a response.

10/20/2007 11:42:27 AM

In my opinion, the past democrates are what we call republicans today. WHile the new democrates are certainly more socialist.

Todays repubs arent about small govt, individual rights/responsiblities as much as in the past, but its still better than socialism. IMHO

10/20/2007 1:04:25 PM

in my opinion, that's about the dumbest thing ive ever heard you say.

10/20/2007 3:06:19 PM

joe, how so?

Its clear the ask not what your country can do for you, attitude is dead among democrats.

You honestly dont see a move towards socialism on the democratic ticket?

Just say no, and ill drop it.

10/20/2007 8:37:32 PM

^^ in my opinion, you're an idiot, because he is 100% right.

Quote :

"and/or whipping their penises out in public restrooms"

well, how the hell are you suppose to pee w/out whipping out yer penis?

10/20/2007 8:37:35 PM

^ well, dad-dangit.

you got me there.

10/20/2007 10:13:45 PM

hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, right?

10/20/2007 10:22:08 PM

Quote :

"You honestly dont see a move towards socialism on the democratic ticket?"

no. i reject that premise. there is no "move towards socialism"

the Democrats have ALWAYS been relatively more progressive socially and economically than their colleagues across the aisle.

If anything, our national government policies have shifted overall rightward in the past 20-25 years to a significant extent. People who favor this shift and want to continue the trend are going to view any reversal as an infiltration of "socialist" bugbears.

10/20/2007 10:25:21 PM

^ In addition, Democratic presidential candidates often run to the left to get the nomination and to the middle in the general election.

10/20/2007 10:56:26 PM

Quote :

"no. i reject that premise. there is no "move towards socialism""

I'm sorry, but raising taxes every chance they get, attacking religion at every turn, and promoting universal healthcare is about as socialist as it gets.

10/20/2007 11:09:39 PM

please do parade around the same tired rhetoric.

because we've only heard it 1000 times, and it definitely gets funnier each time you repeat it.





oh, and by the way, please don't bother actually reading posts before you type off a
kneejerk reply to them. god forbid, a trend might get started.

10/21/2007 12:05:38 AM

^Please....please keep labling everything you dont like as third party rhetoric and talking points

10/21/2007 12:41:19 AM

third party?

10/21/2007 1:17:49 AM

Quote :

" How can this be a "shrewd" political move, as you put it, when it's just one more in a "series of setbacks"?"

Oh yes -- because as a Republican voter, I am sooo into justifying the political machinations of the Democratic party leadership! Thank you for setting me straight!

Shrewd politics. They aren't stupid; they had their PR ready.

Anyway, Robert Novak wrote about this weeks ago and had a good observation:

Quote :

"Democrats flinched at giving Republicans a hard choice: Override the veto or end the existing program. Instead, funding is being extended by a separate bill. Nevertheless, Democrats will eagerly pummel Republicans for ''voting against kids'' by refusing to sanction a long step toward Hillarycare."

(http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/576179,CST-EDT-novak27.article)

10/21/2007 3:19:31 PM