4,000 dead Americans

[EricMM 0]

The fact remains that if the market had a way to provide insurance for Americans as a whole, it already would have. It has had decades.

 

There obviously isn't enough competitive money out there for every American child to be insured.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I know I'm going to sound like a cold hearted "dumbass Nazi motherfucker" here...but no one has ever been able to adequately answer the following question for me:

 

Where has this idea where everyone is entitled to paid (re: very discounted or free) health care come from? America has never had the need for this in years past. Yes, our population is getting older, but we have had old populations before. Just as a personal example, my dad was one of thirteen farm kids. I've never bothered to ask, but I bet they didn't have health insurance, let alone a medical plan, covering them. Yet, they turned out fine. Basically, people seem to want to add more government red tape to an industry that is already full of it.

 

I just don't "get it."

[snuffbox 0]

Here's the bottom line of my feelings on it: If they're going to tax us so much, give us something for it. If it's almost all going to Iraq then let the cheerleaders pay for it & let us keep our money so we can pay for necessities easier.

 

On another level: Sorry, Invader, it's not the 'old days' no more. America can stand to grow up & join the rest of the civilized world. We don't need to spend trillions on bullshit & totally neglect the infrastructure/welfare of our own people.

[EricMM 0]

further more this isn't even for old people who can work for a living.

 

this is preventative care for children. I'm sure that kind of thing will save way more money in future illnesses and/or lost production, education, or life than it costs.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Here's the bottom line of my feelings on it: If they're going to tax us so much, give us something for it. If it's almost all going to Iraq then let the cheerleaders pay for it & let us keep our money so we can pay for necessities easier.

 

On another level: Sorry, Invader, it's not the 'old days' no more. America can stand to grow up & join the rest of the civilized world. We don't need to spend trillions on bullshit & totally neglect the infrastructure/welfare of our own people.

 

Well, yes, I would much rather spend trillions (well, rather not spend that much at all) on Americans rather than Arabs who will just end up hating us more anyway.

 

I realize most of the developed Western world has some form of socialized health care. I'm not necessarily against it. I guess I am kind of ambivalent regarding it, based on the fact that I've heard so many horror stories about Canadian health care. (And yes, I realize we wouldn't have to follow their model, and that our system has problems too). Maybe if the proponents of universal health care would spend more time making coherent arguments and explain how their system would work, and less time demonizing anyone questioning it, I could be swayed.

[EricMM 0]

Under our system, 12 year olds die from cavaties because their mothers cannot afford health care.

 

Yeah, America the great?

 

That's shameful.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Under our system, 12 year olds die from cavaties because their mothers cannot afford health care.

 

Yeah, America the great?

 

That's shameful.

 

Where are these 12 year olds dying? I seriously have not heard of that before.

 

I don't go in for the bleeding heart stuff. Hospitals generally don't just throw injured people into the street to die (yes, I've heard of isolated cases of hospitals in LA and such doing that). Generally though, if someone needs medical treatment in the US, there are ways to get it, regardless of income level.

[snuffbox 0]

And then go bankrupt.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I know I'm going to sound like a cold hearted "dumbass Nazi motherfucker" here...but no one has ever been able to adequately answer the following question for me:

 

Where has this idea where everyone is entitled to paid (re: very discounted or free) health care come from? America has never had the need for this in years past. Yes, our population is getting older, but we have had old populations before. Just as a personal example, my dad was one of thirteen farm kids. I've never bothered to ask, but I bet they didn't have health insurance, let alone a medical plan, covering them. Yet, they turned out fine. Basically, people seem to want to add more government red tape to an industry that is already full of it.

 

I just don't "get it."

 

I support universal health insurance, not government health care (a la Britain).

 

I think the strongest argument for it is the fact that we spend more money than any other country in the world on health care, yet have mediocre health outcomes and a public that is very unsatisfied with the system.

 

Simply having Medicare cover everyone instead of just the old farts seems like a simple plan to me.

 

It actually seems like France probably has the best system from what I've read.

[Jingus 0]

The problem isn't one-time major health emergencies, like being in a car wreck; emergency rooms are required to treat any pateint who needs their care. The problem comes with long-term situations which require a lot of expensive stuff. Organ transplants are one big example, lotsa people die while on the waiting list.

 

I laughed at Vyce's post over at the Trog Board. He forgot to say the money's cool if it's a lot more of it for Iraq, though.

So, you go to the Trog Board, read the posts on the Trog Board, mock said posts on the Trog Board elsewhere... but refuse to post at the Trog Board? What, are you afraid that the kkkonservatives (all SIX of them, they are legion!) are gonna call you names?

[snuffbox 0]

You realize that people get billed for emergencies, right? Being treated isn't the end of it. Bills are a pretty big problem for people working for a living.

 

I did post there. Brilliant arguments like, 'You hate America', can only captivate my imagination for so long. I had to check the SCHIP response there in hopes for entertainment value, though.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am still not sure why the same people who pay ridiculous amounts for health insurance, are so opposed to paying a lesser amount that would give them better medical coverage, merely because it might be called a "tax" instead of a "premium" The right-wing loves to use buzzwords like "socialized medicine" because it strikes fear with some people, "OMG Socialized Medicine!?! Isn't that....*duh duh dun* SOCIALISM? AHHHHH"

 

EDIT: What is the Trog board? I tried visiting The Pit the other day, but the page wouldn't open, is The Pit history?

[snuffbox 0]

Jingus' sig.

[Jingus 0]

You realize that people get billed for emergencies, right? Being treated isn't the end of it. Bills are a pretty big problem for people working for a living.

Well yeah, but I don't think being billed afterwards for medical treatment is the biggest problem here. It's people who need treatment which they can't get unless they can pay for it first, like transplants.

[snuffbox 0]

Whatever you chose to top the list of problems, it doesn't matter. Bush vetoed it, Congress can't override.

 

Meanwhile, another 200 Billion (more than four times the SCHIP costs alone) for Iraq will be absolutely no problem.

[Jingus 0]

Then why doesn't the Democrat-controlled congress simply vote against that?

 

As for SCHIP, it didn't help that the standards really were too low, with an income of $83,000 per year being the cutoff for a family's elligibility. People making that much generally shouldn't need someone else to pay for their insurance.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Then why doesn't the Democrat-controlled congress simply vote against that?

 

The good Democrats in Congress will. The Democrats that are afraid of the big bad (30% approved~!) Bush won't.

 

As for SCHIP, it didn't help that the standards really were too low, with an income of $83,000 per year being the cutoff for a family's elligibility. People making that much generally shouldn't need someone else to pay for their insurance.

 

Bullshit.

 

Nice Bush talking points, though.

 

President Bush claims that the bipartisan bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program "would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes up to $83,000 a year."

 

That's not true.

 

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.

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20169.html

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If Bush & the Republicans continue to block the SCHIP bill, it's going to be a wonderful cudgel to beat them over the head with come 2008 considering:

 

A.) All major Republican presidential candidates have endorsed his veto

 

B.) The bill's crazy high polling numbers:

 

9. There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

 

Support - 72% (Strongly 49%; Somewhat 23%)

Oppose - 25% (Strongly 17%; Somewhat 8%)

No Opinion - 3%

 

I think Bush's three vetoes really encapsulate his presidency very well. The three bills he's vetoed are:

1. stem cell research

2. withdrawal from Iraq

3. health insurance for middle class children

[snuffbox 0]

It's as if the GOP has completely traded in it's political sense for the glee of their looniest followers.

[Slayer 0]

"Why do you hate America's children?"

[snuffbox 0]

Dumb, wrong, & late: the trifecta.

 

Good comedy try, though.

[Jingus 0]

As for SCHIP, it didn't help that the standards really were too low, with an income of $83,000 per year being the cutoff for a family's elligibility. People making that much generally shouldn't need someone else to pay for their insurance.

Bullshit.

Why? $80K per year isn't just way, way above the poverty line, it's above the average income level of Americans period. Why does someone making that much need to ask for a handout?

 

9. There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

 

Support - 72% (Strongly 49%; Somewhat 23%)

Oppose - 25% (Strongly 17%; Somewhat 8%)

No Opinion - 3%

Jesus Christ. "Do you support punishing cancer to help children?" Just a little loaded there.

[snuffbox 0]

Christ, Jingus. There was a little more to smitty's post you might want to read. The whole its-not-83,000-dollar part is kinda important.

 

And the poll described how the bill would work. Loaded? The fuck?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The poll describes exactly what the bill does, the cost, & where the money comes from.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

"Why do you hate America's children?"

 

I actually don't like the way the Democrats have used the whole "save the children" emotional angle to sell the SCHIP thing. It reeks of GOP "support the troops!" style faux emotional pandering. The bill should be promoted on its merits, not through that type of crap.

 

But, Slayer, if your post was mocking me, you failed, because I simply described what the bill provides sans emotionalism: health insurance for middle class children.

[Jingus 0]

Whoops, missed that part. Where then did the 83K number come from?

 

Also, I think that simply using household income as the sole eligibility decider is too simplistic. One person making $39K might have a job that offsets its low salary with a great benefits package that provides excellent medical coverage; the teachers in my part of Texas have a deal like that. On the other hand, some other guy might be making $41,000 but have zero benefits whatsoever. Yet the first person is eligible for SCHIP, while the second wouldn't be. It's just an awfully complicated issue to do just one line that decides You Must Be This Tall To Ride.

 

But in general I do think that the healthcare situation is horribly fucked up. I just think that this is treating the symptom instead of the disease. One REAL important place to start should be litigation reform, as the ridiculous upward spiral in the cost of malpractice insurance is one of the biggest causes of medical cost inflation.

[Slayer 0]

Dumb, wrong, & late: the trifecta.

Smarmy, indignant and contentious: the snuffbox.

 

But, Slayer, if your post was mocking me

No, it was the general irony of one side's mantra meshing with the other

 

My assholish opinion echoes that of Invader's from earlier

 

and why in the hell are you guys discussing health care in the Iraq thread

[snuffbox 0]

Because we will have spent at least a trillion dollars on Iraq (probably going to be closer to 3) & that's all cool with 'conservatives'. When it comes time to spend a fraction of that for Americans (who actually pay for this stuff) then it's bad news.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Whoops, missed that part. Where then did the 83K number come from?

 

Well, as far as this thread goes, it came from you.

 

I'd say you probably got it from Marney at the Pit.

 

Marney at the Pit got it from the Bush Administration.

 

The Bush Administration pretty much made it up.

 

It's a vicious cycle.

 

Here's where the Bushfolken got their talking point, which trickled down to Jingus:

 

The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=14962685

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Whoops, missed that part. Where then did the 83K number come from?

 

Also, I think that simply using household income as the sole eligibility decider is too simplistic. One person making $39K might have a job that offsets its low salary with a great benefits package that provides excellent medical coverage...

 

Um, if they had fantastic health coverage that covered their family then they wouldn't need SCHIP. Seriously, Jingus, it's a program for uninsured children.

 

For instance, my wife and I make a little less than $80K/yr so we don't qualify for KCHIP (Kentucky's SCHIP program). We would have to make around half of that to qualify (the limit is up to 200% of federal poverty line in Kentucky).

 

If we did qualify, we wouldn't need it. Because we work for the same employer, if we had children, we could insure our children for $10.90/month (yes, I have a sweet health plan from my employer). The monthly KCHIP premium for families making 150-200% of the poverty line is $20, so we would just use our employer plan.

 

If my wife didn't work (let's say she gets very sick, heaven forbid), I would be supporting a family making less than $40K/yr. Health insurance for the two of us (under my employer plan, with only me working) would be $400/month. If we had kids and added them, it would be $532/month. I would qualify for KCHIP in this situation, so I would sign my kids up for that and pay the $20/month rather than an extra $132/month (which I wouldn't be able to afford) to insure them through my private plan.

 

Whew...figuring this out makes me glad I don't have kids.