Top two headlines on CNN.com at 9:25 this evening.
# Deal could mean $70,000,000,000 more for war
# President Bush vetoes child health bill again
Happy holidays!
Top two headlines
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
-
- mpbrockman Offline
- Posts: 2734
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:26 pm
- Location: ATX
- Contact:
-
- bradisntclever Offline
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1747
- Joined: February 27th, 2007, 1:25 am
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
Vetoing children's health care is one of those things I just don't understand. I mean it actually saves money and creates more wealth to have healthy, well educated children. Can these people not do math? And have they never read Oliver Twist to see what true "raised by your own bootstraps" brings you? Agh!
To be fair, this is usually why headlines are followed by articles to explain them.
Let's not forget it takes two to tango. Bush's money comes from the Democrats...
"Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they're closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.
...
Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership's failure to push back on Bush's Iraq policy.
"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.
The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. "Yes, in the end, that's where we will be," the aide said."
As for children's health care bill, the plan sucked. It was overly expensive and expansive (unless you consider 25 year olds with parents making 80k, to be poor kids in need of coverage).
"Bush cited the same reasons that led him to veto a version of the bill on Oct. 3 - that it raised cigarette taxes and provided coverage for children of middle-class families instead of focusing on the working poor.
...
In a statement notifying Congress of his decision, Bush said the bill was unacceptable because - like the first one - it allows adults into the program, would cover people in families with incomes above the U.S. median and raises taxes."
Also, it was only an expansion to the existing plan that was vetoed, the original program stays in place and uncut.
Let's not forget it takes two to tango. Bush's money comes from the Democrats...
"Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they're closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.
...
Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership's failure to push back on Bush's Iraq policy.
"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.
The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. "Yes, in the end, that's where we will be," the aide said."
As for children's health care bill, the plan sucked. It was overly expensive and expansive (unless you consider 25 year olds with parents making 80k, to be poor kids in need of coverage).
"Bush cited the same reasons that led him to veto a version of the bill on Oct. 3 - that it raised cigarette taxes and provided coverage for children of middle-class families instead of focusing on the working poor.
...
In a statement notifying Congress of his decision, Bush said the bill was unacceptable because - like the first one - it allows adults into the program, would cover people in families with incomes above the U.S. median and raises taxes."
Also, it was only an expansion to the existing plan that was vetoed, the original program stays in place and uncut.
I heard the 80K was republican hype and 25 year olds refers to people who can't take care of themselves, like retarded and very, very handicapped. Could be wrong, but that's what I heard.
The states are allowed to set the levels at which people get covered, so like people in NY and LA might make more than the US median income, but still be struggling. Besides, if you think that average middle class parents can afford private health care insurance, then you haven't been looking at what insurance costs - ours right now is almost $1000 a month and it's not great either.
Personally, I'd like to see every child covered regardless of how much their parents make. It really is cheaper in the long run. I just wish they could figure out a better way to fund it.
The states are allowed to set the levels at which people get covered, so like people in NY and LA might make more than the US median income, but still be struggling. Besides, if you think that average middle class parents can afford private health care insurance, then you haven't been looking at what insurance costs - ours right now is almost $1000 a month and it's not great either.
Personally, I'd like to see every child covered regardless of how much their parents make. It really is cheaper in the long run. I just wish they could figure out a better way to fund it.
I doubt we'll ever see an effective health care bill in our lifetime. Medical Insurance and Healthcare are two of the most chaotic fields which have ever been brought together.
Medicare and medicaid are two huge entities which have little provided to police those unscrupulous doctors who know how to take advantage of the system and syphon cash from it such as a tapeworm sucks the nutrition from its victim. You can send fake bills into medicare using the patient data and billing info, and then support the 'bill' with phony testing and visit information. So in effect, the medicaid and medicare sysytems are bleeding cash to those who know the loopholes, thereby reducing their ability to pay reputable doctors and such.
A child health care bill would be a disaster, much like the current 'new' medicare drug coverage. Insirance companies would demand certain stipulations and such so they would not lose money paying out all those claims to 'those greedy hospitals and doctors' while the drug companies will just kick their prices up before any bill passes in order to avoid losing money when the bill asks for a percentage cut on prescription drugs. Right now, there's a 'donut hole' in the medicare drug plan. Once the plan pays a certain amount of dollars in prescriptions, the patient is responsible for 100% of the cost for a set amount of money. This is usually a 2 to 5 thousand dollar minimum, and folks on a fixed income, families, and the handicapped don't make enough to support this. I bet this will happen in any child care bill, as the government will have to cede some concessions to the insurance and drug companies in order to get them to go along with the bill.
Physicians and such will find it hard to even get paid. I know of several doctors stillwaiting for medicare reimbursement for patients they saw in February of this year. AND, medicare and the health insurance companies, dictate how much of a doctor's bill he'll recieve. If a doctor bills $125 for an office visit, he may only get $70 if he's lucky. That's why most doctors will give patients a discount if you self-pay. My old doctor used to charge less if you paid in cash for an office visit ( 50 bucks, compared to the 150 you get charged for insurance) and he'd even work out a payment plan with you. Health insurance is a field where the companies are all out to make a profit - low payouts means more revenue, and more revenue means higher salaries for the executives. Check your policy if you have health insurance, and see how many new treatment plans are not covered, like LASIK, or the Lap Band/ Gastric Bypass. The companies refuse to pay for these treatments, yet they'll shell out payments for the problems obesity causes like hypertension, diabetes, and chronic joint pain. Why? Because they'd rather pay small amounts over a long time than drop 45 grand on a surgery that's deemed "Elective". The main goal of the insurance company is not to provide you with the best coverage your money can buy, but to keep you from collecting on any claims. They'll refuse payment/coverage for so many illnesses and procedures, that eventually the claimant will stop trying, and the company gets to keep their cash.
It's a quagmire of red tape and political bullshit. The government is not even able to handle the health care of its' Veterans in a timely and efficent manner; what makes us think we can rely on them to pass legislation to take care of our sick children? I highly doubt we'll see any socialized medicine programs that actually are worth a damn in this country. To do that would require the complete obliteration of the current health care system and policy/procedure and to create the whole system from scratch. And I've never seen this government do anything right from scratch....the Dept. of Homeland Security is a great example.
So I'm not worried that Bush is vetoing these types of bills. I'm more concerned about what will happen to us and our taxes if one of these damn things pass. It's not like they'll actually cut foreign aid in order to take care of their own people for a change.... nope. Not our government.
Medicare and medicaid are two huge entities which have little provided to police those unscrupulous doctors who know how to take advantage of the system and syphon cash from it such as a tapeworm sucks the nutrition from its victim. You can send fake bills into medicare using the patient data and billing info, and then support the 'bill' with phony testing and visit information. So in effect, the medicaid and medicare sysytems are bleeding cash to those who know the loopholes, thereby reducing their ability to pay reputable doctors and such.
A child health care bill would be a disaster, much like the current 'new' medicare drug coverage. Insirance companies would demand certain stipulations and such so they would not lose money paying out all those claims to 'those greedy hospitals and doctors' while the drug companies will just kick their prices up before any bill passes in order to avoid losing money when the bill asks for a percentage cut on prescription drugs. Right now, there's a 'donut hole' in the medicare drug plan. Once the plan pays a certain amount of dollars in prescriptions, the patient is responsible for 100% of the cost for a set amount of money. This is usually a 2 to 5 thousand dollar minimum, and folks on a fixed income, families, and the handicapped don't make enough to support this. I bet this will happen in any child care bill, as the government will have to cede some concessions to the insurance and drug companies in order to get them to go along with the bill.
Physicians and such will find it hard to even get paid. I know of several doctors stillwaiting for medicare reimbursement for patients they saw in February of this year. AND, medicare and the health insurance companies, dictate how much of a doctor's bill he'll recieve. If a doctor bills $125 for an office visit, he may only get $70 if he's lucky. That's why most doctors will give patients a discount if you self-pay. My old doctor used to charge less if you paid in cash for an office visit ( 50 bucks, compared to the 150 you get charged for insurance) and he'd even work out a payment plan with you. Health insurance is a field where the companies are all out to make a profit - low payouts means more revenue, and more revenue means higher salaries for the executives. Check your policy if you have health insurance, and see how many new treatment plans are not covered, like LASIK, or the Lap Band/ Gastric Bypass. The companies refuse to pay for these treatments, yet they'll shell out payments for the problems obesity causes like hypertension, diabetes, and chronic joint pain. Why? Because they'd rather pay small amounts over a long time than drop 45 grand on a surgery that's deemed "Elective". The main goal of the insurance company is not to provide you with the best coverage your money can buy, but to keep you from collecting on any claims. They'll refuse payment/coverage for so many illnesses and procedures, that eventually the claimant will stop trying, and the company gets to keep their cash.
It's a quagmire of red tape and political bullshit. The government is not even able to handle the health care of its' Veterans in a timely and efficent manner; what makes us think we can rely on them to pass legislation to take care of our sick children? I highly doubt we'll see any socialized medicine programs that actually are worth a damn in this country. To do that would require the complete obliteration of the current health care system and policy/procedure and to create the whole system from scratch. And I've never seen this government do anything right from scratch....the Dept. of Homeland Security is a great example.
So I'm not worried that Bush is vetoing these types of bills. I'm more concerned about what will happen to us and our taxes if one of these damn things pass. It's not like they'll actually cut foreign aid in order to take care of their own people for a change.... nope. Not our government.
-
- mpbrockman Offline
- Posts: 2734
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:26 pm
- Location: ATX
- Contact:
Wow, Wes - you're more supercilious than I am. This is difficult and thus I commend you. I actually just posted this because I was struck by the absurdity of the juxtaposition of the two headlines - perhaps I should have posted it the General Discussion.Wesley wrote:To be fair, this is usually why headlines are followed by articles to explain them.
That said, I glad to see some debate.
Yep, the Dems have failed utterly in what they were elected to do. Get the kids back home by defunding the war and staring Bush down. They broke like they'd been waterboarded.Wesley wrote:Let's not forget it takes two to tango. Bush's money comes from the Democrats...
"Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they're closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.
...
Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership's failure to push back on Bush's Iraq policy.
"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.
The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. "Yes, in the end, that's where we will be," the aide said."
SCHIP is one of the more lauded bi-partisan programs to come out of Washington in the last 10 years. It's set up in the form of matching block grants to states which are used by the states to run health care programs of their own devising (under broad federal guidelines) for children who cannot afford private insurance. Since the states establish the criteria for eligibility - some adults (pregnant women, some mental health issues and a few other random things) can be covered by SCHIP funds in certain states.Wesley wrote:As for children's health care bill, the plan sucked. It was overly expensive and expansive (unless you consider 25 year olds with parents making 80k, to be poor kids in need of coverage).
"Bush cited the same reasons that led him to veto a version of the bill on Oct. 3 - that it raised cigarette taxes and provided coverage for children of middle-class families instead of focusing on the working poor.
...
In a statement notifying Congress of his decision, Bush said the bill was unacceptable because - like the first one - it allows adults into the program, would cover people in families with incomes above the U.S. median and raises taxes."
Also, it was only an expansion to the existing plan that was vetoed, the original program stays in place and uncut.
Also, because of state discretion, children whose families make money over and above the national poverty line can be covered in areas that are particularly expensive to live in (a family making $60,000 a year may be eligible if they live in an area with a median income of $160,000 a year).
Despite these exceptions (and, no doubt, some quiet skulduggery by providers), an estimated 91% of those covered by SCHIP-funded programs are children living below the national poverty line. An expansion of the SCHIP program (CHIPRA) would indeed add some adults to the rolls, but it would cover 12 million more kids than it currently does. The ratio of covered kids below the national poverty line to the adults Bush is vetoing this over would remain within a few percentage points of what it right now.
The original SCHIP program was put into place in 1997 and expired in October of this year. Two emergency measures have been passed to keep it funded, the second one of which ends today (Dec. 14th). Without some sort of new bill the original program will not continue as it has. However, because of the nature of block grants, the effects of the lack of funds would not be felt at the State level until spring of '08.
You can find numbers all over the place but it is worth noting that the expanded SCHIP bill Bush vetoed would have cost $60-75 billion over 5 years. In the last 4 years we have spent $477 billion on the war in Iraq (for a fun running total based on CBO numbers go here):
http://nationalpriorities.org/cms/costofwar
For those who don't wanna do math that's 12-15B/yr for a somewhat fiscally wasteful health care effort and 159B/yr for war in Iraq that our doctor-visit-free kids will be saddled with.
Draw your own conclusions about priorities, folks!
Mike, While I totally respect your opinions as someone in the field. I have to say that my kids were on CHIPs for over a year and it worked pretty well for them. Covered OT and ST 2-3 times a week, plus all those nasty regular things you have. This was back when it was fully funded in Texas. I think some things have been dropped. But if you don't have a giant corporate job where they pay for insurance, it is far better than trying to find away to pay the amazingly high insurance bill every month (really, more than mortgage and car payment combined!) or just going with out. I know it is not great, but it is so much better than the alternative.
Hey, as long as you found a program that actually works for you, that's great. I think sometimes the state/ local government actually does it right when public healthcare is concerned.Jessica wrote:Mike, While I totally respect your opinions as someone in the field. I have to say that my kids were on CHIPs for over a year and it worked pretty well for them. Covered OT and ST 2-3 times a week, plus all those nasty regular things you have. This was back when it was fully funded in Texas. I think some things have been dropped. But if you don't have a giant corporate job where they pay for insurance, it is far better than trying to find away to pay the amazingly high insurance bill every month (really, more than mortgage and car payment combined!) or just going with out. I know it is not great, but it is so much better than the alternative.
But I think I should have stated in my original rant that I'm not too big a fan of the private insurance either. Sometimes the health insurance you pay for in your job can suck away 80% of your paycheck. To insure a family is obscene, and like you said can amount to a rent or car payment, especially if you have more than one child.
The whole health care insurance field is one that turned to crap once the companies stopped caring about just making people well, and thought about profits as their main focus rather than people.
What we really need in this country is an administration that will effectively revamp the whole health insurance system, replace funding for low income/non insured clinics and programs like CHIP, and just realize that healthcare insurance should be a non-profit endeavor. Everyone has the right to be free from illness, and if our government can plunge billions of dollars into rebuilding the infrastructure of foreign countries, they should be able to ensure that its own citizens don't pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to get coverage for their families.
-
- mpbrockman Offline
- Posts: 2734
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:26 pm
- Location: ATX
- Contact:
Well said.Mike wrote:...if our government can plunge billions of dollars into rebuilding the infrastructure of foreign countries, they should be able to ensure that its own citizens don't pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to get coverage for their families.
I also agree with what you said about state/local governments being much more likely to get it right. I think that's why SCHIP has been as successful as it has. The Federal guidelines for the block grants are wide enough that states have the leeway to innovate and adapt with programs to meet regional needs.
And the insurance companies waited approximately how many milliseconds to do that?Mike wrote: The whole health care insurance field is one that turned to crap once the companies stopped caring about just making people well, and thought about profits as their main focus rather than people.
*Sorry, I just had to get in my dose of cynicism for today.
It's not so much that insurance companies are evil... it's that they're companies. They are required BY LAW to maximize shareholder profits. THAT is the biggest reason why health care should be at least sponsored by the government.the_orf wrote:And the insurance companies waited approximately how many milliseconds to do that?Mike wrote: The whole health care insurance field is one that turned to crap once the companies stopped caring about just making people well, and thought about profits as their main focus rather than people.
*Sorry, I just had to get in my dose of cynicism for today.
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
-Bravecat