Maybe Even Your Kid
George Bush has once again sided with insurance and drug companies - who will profit over the health and well-being of our nation's children. Friday night, the Bush administration released a letter to state health officials that effectively eliminated health insurance coverage for millions of American kids.
Surprised? Then you've had your head in the sand for the past six years.
President Bush isn't going to take your call. However, when the governor of a state calls, even Bush will listen.
Call Governor Ritter and demand that Colorado stands up to President Bush's anti-children campaign.
Governor Bill Ritter
303 866-2471
Sample smackdown: "President Bush's new rules which reduce the availability of the Children's Health Insurance Program for uninsured kids must be repealed. Governor Ritter must call President Bush today and demand a complete rollback of the new rules. Can I count on the governor to stand up for our kids?"
Please report how your call went here:http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/chipcalls
Please call the Governor right now. Your neighbor's kid might be depending on it.
posted by kate @ 9:25 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Okay, let me go all devil's advocate here. The thing about SCHIPs, it's rapidly growing beyond it's initial purpose, which was to cover uninsured children in a certain target bracket, namely who's total income in a dual-earning family of four is up to 200% of HHS Federal Poverty Guidelines' poverty level.
In 2006, that was, for dual-earning family of four, roughly $40,000. The letter in question sets a 250% threshold for SCHIP eligibility, which puts it at $50,000. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, as the median income for a dual earning family of four is around $67,000.
What is destroying SCHIP is creep. Now many states want to raise the levels to 300% of poverty level or even higher to 400% in California. This does make the program available to more families, but these are families that don't have the same level of need as families in the 100%-200% target bracket. For example, using California's guidelines, a dual-earning household of four would be eligible for SCHIP if they made anything up to around $80,000 a year. The national average, again, for a dual income, four-person household is only $67,000. Admittedly, cost of living is going to be higher in California than, say, Missouri, but even figuring that in you're looking at over half of the families in California being eligible for a stop-gap program that is intended to only serve the poorest of the poor. In effect, you're taking the program away from families that really need it to give it to middle-class families that can afford health insurance.
Bush's letter seeks to stop this creep and reserve the program and it's funds for families truly in need.
I'm not against socialized medicine and I don't for a second think that Bush is acting benevolently in this decision. Furthermore, the way they're end running around an end run is laughable. However, creeping SCHIP up in a half-assed way is going to cause more problems in the long run than it solves. If you want to offer free government-sponsored health care to over half of the families in this country, fine, but do it through a plan specifically designed to do it, not through bloat.
Good point. As always. But until we have the health care we want - we have to work with what we got.
And there are a lot of middle class families out there who don't have insurance. Plenty who do and are going broke. If the scope of this thing can be widened to include them - I say let's go for it.
Why should the government provide Health Care? Show me where it states anywhere in the constitution that the federal government should provide us health care. Our Founding Fathers understood that government should provide certain things. Health Care, Drug Coverage and Retirement weren't included. This is a Republic not a socialist society.
Why should the government provide health care? Because taking care of our sick citizens benefits all of us.
You bring up the Constitution. Interesting. I believe if our forefathers were physicians instead of lawyers - we might have seen a different spin.
Tell me - if a criminal has a Constitutional right to a lawyer, why doesn't a sick person have a right to a doctor?
I'm waiting...
>>Tell me - if a criminal has a Constitutional right to a lawyer, why doesn't a sick person have a right to a doctor?
I'm waiting... <<
Because the Constitution says that you have a right to legal representation if you can't afford it.
Where in the Constitution does it say that citizens have a right to healthcare insurance? Where in the Constitution does it mention insurance at all?
I'm waiting...
BTW, is anyone in this country is sick, I'm not aware of anywhere they can't get medical assistance. There's "free" clinics of which the pharmy companies donate millions upon millions of dollars of "free" drugs for use by doctor volunteers. Anyone can go to an emergency room and by law they can't refuse to treat you.
Also no one ever takes into consideration that some people don't want health insurance for whatever reasons. This is still a country where one can choose to not purchase health insurance if they don't want it, right?
>>If the scope of this thing can be widened to include them - I say let's go for it.<<
And exactly what citizens will pay for this? It it only a certain class based upon income? Is it "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
Yes, I just can't wait to live in a democratic socialist hellhole. Can we hurry and and do it, please? If the USA is going to head down the road to ruin, I'd rather it just get on the freeway and get it over with. Go liberal Democrats!! Hit the f*cking accelerator and let's get it over with.
A criminal buys a gun from a pawn shop, shoots a man and takes his wallet. That criminal has a right to an attorney and free health care while in prison. The guy bleeding to death doesn't have a right to anything. If free health care for all is not in our constitution, shame on us. What does Pro-Life mean anyway?
And we all need to eat and have somewhere to live and wear clothes. If free food, shelter and clothing for all are not rights guaranteed by the constitution, that's more shame on us.
Since when was the Constitution meant to be the end all be all of what our Government is supposed to offer to the citizenry? It was never designed to act in that fashion and to say, "Well, it's not in the Constitution so obviously we shouldn't have it," is a huge cop out. There are these things called Amendments...
One of the chief advantages of the Constitution, an intentional advantage, is that it was written with the understanding that the needs of a populace change over time. At the time of its writing, health care was an entirely different affair from what it is now. Criminals, however, still needed lawyers.
"Anyone can go to an emergency room and by law they can't refuse to treat you."
Which is exactly the problem because there's still a bill and it's hospitals that eat it, pass it on to insurance companies who then pass it on to those of us trying to afford private care in greatly inflated premiums. And that's the best case scenario. The worst case is that the hospital closes down completely and there are no care facilities available for miles for anyone.
And if someone doesn't want health insurance, they're free to not avail themselves of national coverage should it ever come to pass. I'll concern myself with them still having to pay for it through taxes just as soon as I can decide exactly how much of my yearly taxes go to subcontractors like Haliburton or to mismanaged military funds. Taxes don't work like that nor should they ever. The whole notion of, "I don't want my taxes to pay for that," is a huge strawman that needs to be burned for once and for all.
To sit there and think a certain basic level of health care shouldn't be ensured for all citizens is to basically ignore any lesson the Middle Ages might have taught us or third world countries are currently teaching us. If that means you have to live in a little bit of a "socialist hellhole" in order that children, the elderly and even young men and women who have health issues and can not afford even basic catastrophic care health insurance have some sort of safety blanket, then suck it the fuck up and realize you're not the only goddamn person living in this nation.
>>Since when was the Constitution meant to be the end all be all of what our Government is supposed to offer to the citizenry? It was never designed to act in that fashion and to say, "Well, it's not in the Constitution so obviously we shouldn't have it," is a huge cop out. There are these things called Amendments...<<
I never claimed otherwise, did I? But healthcare being a "right" is still not in the Constitution.
>>Which is exactly the problem because there's still a bill and it's hospitals that eat it, pass it on to insurance companies who then pass it on to those of us trying to afford private care in greatly inflated premiums. And that's the best case scenario. The worst case is that the hospital closes down completely and there are no care facilities available for miles for anyone.<<
The point being that no one is refused treatment.
>>And if someone doesn't want health insurance, they're free to not avail themselves of national coverage should it ever come to pass. I'll concern myself with them still having to pay for it through taxes just as soon as I can decide exactly how much of my yearly taxes go to subcontractors like Haliburton or to mismanaged military funds. Taxes don't work like that nor should they ever. The whole notion of, "I don't want my taxes to pay for that," is a huge strawman that needs to be burned for once and for all.<<
I didn't do the I don't want my taxes..." How about sticking with what I did say for a change? Speaking of strawmen, it's in the Constitution that as a country we are to provide for the common defense.
>>To sit there and think a certain basic level of health care shouldn't be ensured for all citizens is to basically ignore any lesson the Middle Ages might have taught us or third world countries are currently teaching us. If that means you have to live in a little bit of a "socialist hellhole" in order that children, the elderly and even young men and women who have health issues and can not afford even basic catastrophic care health insurance have some sort of safety blanket, then suck it the fuck up and realize you're not the only goddamn person living in this nation.<<
Well, if we're gonna do history, then let's look at recent history. For instance these countries who currently have universal care and them having to cut back on services because they've figured out they can't afford it. They're reeling from the very things some here want to adopt. And it's not a matter of whether some people need to be taken care of who don't currently have insurance, it's a matter of how best to remedy that situation. "I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help you." No, thanks. I'm pretty sure if we try we can come up with something better than turning healthcare over to a bunch of bureaucrats. The New Deal has turned out to be pretty much a failure and I don't see how piling on more is going to make things better. Democratic socialism doesn't work long-term.
I thought I sent this earlier, but I don't see it.
I think I have the idea. We all make money and send it to the same bank. The bank pays for lawyers, health care, housing, food, transportation and education for all. I have full trust that the Bank will choose the best options for me in all cases, and no one will get less or more in any and all of the above areas.
I don't think I missed anything -Well maybe. The bank sends money to the political party of .... of..... of....
"I never claimed otherwise, did I? But healthcare being a "right" is still not in the Constitution."
The comment you responded to wasn't directed at you.
"And exactly what citizens will pay for this? It it only a certain class based upon income?"
Deny that a tax argument was exactly where you were going with this. If not in name, at least in spirit.
"The New Deal is a failure...Democratic socialism doesn't work long-term."
Utterly irrelevant, non-unique argument. No system works long term if it is inflexible and refuses to acknowledge, understand and respond to the changing needs of those it touches.
I would agree that having the government administer a national healthcare safety net isn't ideal. I'm perfectly willing for private individuals to step up to the plate and to start seeing some of that "enlightened capitalism" I've heard so much about and used to believe in. The trouble is, no one is coming to bat. At the moment, the only organization that has a shot of providing that sort of national coverage in the government. It needs to be watched closely and defined clearly, but until either corporate or private individuals move to ensure people with legitimate need have some sort of recourse, it's the organ that has the best chance of solving.
>>Deny that a tax argument was exactly where you were going with this. If not in name, at least in spirit.<<
It's more than just a tax argument. It's a whole competition/incentive argument encompassing us as individuals, consumers, and in the business world.
But it was not a "I don't want my taxes going to pay for X" argument.
>>At the moment, the only organization that has a shot of providing that sort of national coverage in the government.<<
If that's the case then heaven help us.
And guy, you gotta do more than just "used to believe in" it. It's only dead if it's not being used. And I'm mean that in all sincerity and passion.
The rest of it I'll pass except to say that I still view socialism (and really Marxism and all its various subsets) to be an economy not worth pursuing.
rw:
what about the other socialist aspects of our society that have been thoroughly accepted - the post office, library, fire and police stations? These have all been completely accepted by our citizens. Why is socialized healthcare judged as such a negative???
You're completely right, becky. There are certain things that everyone must have so it's in the best interest of society that we all pitch in and have joint participation. Let's nationalize all industry.
I guess no one wanted to address having a "nationalized" political party that the bank would send money to
Post a Comment
<< Home