Bush says he'll veto child health funding / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, August 9, 2007

J-W Wire Reports

August 9, 2007

Washington — President Bush vowed Wednesday to veto bipartisan legislation that would sharply increase funding for a popular health insurance program for poor children.

In a wide-ranging interview with economic reporters, Bush also shrugged off Wall Street volatility, discounted fears that credit is drying up in the U.S. economy, said the housing-sector's problems still point to a "soft-landing" and opposed any bailout for homeowners or lenders.

Bush met with economic writers shortly after reading a statement in the Treasury Department's ornate Cash Room, flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney and the administration's entire economic team.

Bush was seeking to calm both consumers and investors rattled by several weeks of Wall Street volatility.

"The underpinnings of the economy are strong, 3.4 percent growth in the second quarter, strong unemployment numbers, low inflation, real wages are on the rise, there is a strong global economy that means it more likely that somebody will buy our goods, our services," Bush said. "The basic fundamentals are good."

Asked if he'd veto legislation that increases funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, called S-Chip, Bush answered while the question was still being asked.

"If S-Chip is used to expand the nationalization of health care, I will veto it," he said. He said that he'd proposed increasing S-Chip funding in his budget, but by much less than Congress wants.

Bush proposed a $5 billion increase over five years. Last week the House voted 225-204 for a $50 billion increase over five years, and the Senate voted 68-31 for a $35 billion increase over five years. The Senate margin would override a veto, but the House's wouldn't. The two versions must be reconciled before Congress sends the measure to Bush for his signature or veto.

Bush also said Wednesday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.

Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

9 August 2007
at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

The headline would be more accurate if it read, “Veto likely for massive increase in taxpayer-funded government program.”
9 August 2007
at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

Or more accurate if it read, “Bush opposes health insurance for poor children whose parents can't afford to keep up with the runaway insurance industry”
9 August 2007
at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jmadison (Anonymous) says…

The House version of this bill labels “children” as anyone under 25, and “low income” as any family with income up to 400 per cent of the poverty level which equates to $82000 for a family of four.
It would include a tax on people who have private insurance of $375 million the first year with increases the following years. To help fund this legislation, the Democrats House version would gut Medicare Advantage, a program allowing low income seniors to choose among private insurance plans and avoid buying Medigap insurance. Some 8.3 million seniors have taken advantage of this program. This bill would in effect end this program in favor of Schip for folks with incomes as high as noted above. The Democrats in the House would take a first step in knocking out private insurance in their quest for socialized medicine. The journalist writing the AP story should have included this information.
9 August 2007
at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

If a bad idea is bipartisan, who cares? It's still a bad idea.

The government should not and may not be in the business of giving insurance to its citizens.
9 August 2007
at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

This is actually 1 good decision in a row for President Bush. This bill is nothing less than a blantant attempt at socialized medicine.
9 August 2007
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…

To: President Bush
c.c.: Setting the Record Straight, Right_Thinker, packrat

You all are truly heros and saints. I, too, hate poor children and wish they would provide for themselves. I'm also impressed that you didn't fall for that silly “bipartisan” trick as well. Kudos and cheers and may you sleep well tonight.

RR
9 August 2007
at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Roadkill-Rob's 9:16 post gets a laughing vash. Well played sir, well played.

http://a503.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/…

9 August 2007
at 9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

STRS whinges: “The government should not and may not be in the business of giving insurance to its citizens.”

Yeah, who needs medical care? Certainly not the poor. We should definitely cut them out since its their own fault insurance premiums have risen beyond the level of affordability, fewer employers offer health coverage overall (particularly those who employ the working poor), and those that do require more contribution from employees. Hey, better yet, let's not just ignore the needs of the poor, but let's specifically target their kids. Yeah, kids suck.

As for jmadison's irrational rant against socialized medicine, s/he conveniently helped us out by outlining WSJ's editorial. Of course, both jmadison and WSJ entirely ignore the Senate version of the bill, the one which is likely to be closer to the final version in order to overcome the veto. This would be fourth veto of Bush's presidency, (FWIW, the last presidency in the single digits was Harding, and he was only in office for 29 months. Last full two-term president to veto so few bills was James Madison, who had seven). So, Bush will have vetoed a timetable for ending a war, federal funding of medical research (twice), and increased access for poor children to health care. What a record!
9 August 2007
at 10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…

“Bush also said Wednesday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations …”

Yes, because the first people in this country who need more tax cuts (i.e. more money) is the coprorations!
9 August 2007
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

That's actually 'non sequitur' without the hyphen.
9 August 2007
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

Interesting. Bush would do anything to protect a frozen zygote because it is “possible life”, but screw any kid once it's born.

Do you kool aid drinkers see how hypocritical you all are? Are you starting to understand why you are the minority in this country and why moderate republicans and independents are against you and this failed leadership you support?

I seem to remember there being something in the Bible about “love your neighbor as you would love yourself”. Matthew 22. Hmmm, the words of Jesus mean nothing to you right wingers????

“Don't be selfish; don't live to make a good impression on others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourself. Don't just think about your own affairs, but be interested in others, too, and in what they are doing.” Philippians 2:3-4

When caring for others, we are caring for the Lord. “The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Matthew 25:40

Let me say it one more time for you right-wingers - hypocrits!!!!!!! Don't you dare say anything on your posts about being religious, having higher morals than liberals, etc… You can't even follow the basic teachings of your savior or the words of your god.
9 August 2007
at 11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…

The headline really says it all here.
9 August 2007
at 11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

daddax98 (Anonymous) says…

“Oh man. Now I guess my point is invalid”

no RT it was invalid when you made it
9 August 2007
at 11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

For being declared an idiot, Bush sure does seem to one-up the Democrats time after time. It will be interesting to see how he uses the recess. I'm sure he'll be busy enacting laws and making appointments.
9 August 2007
at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

Roadkill_Rob ,
I spent 6 years as a social worker on the front lines helping children and families. I know the hassles and heartache that go along with a government run health care system.

I have trouble with anyone suggesting that a 25 year old is a child. If a famliy of 4 has an income of $82,000 they can afford health insurance even if their employer does not provide it. I purchased a good private policy for my family ( size 4 at the time) when I earned considerably less.

What percentage of your income are you willing to give to the government to pay for you health insurance? Do you want bureacrats in Washington rationing your health care?

“Mr Glockowner, your request for the heart transplant dated 01 April 2005 has been denied because the quota for White men has been met. Maybe next year. I hope that you live that long.”

“Mr PackRat, your request for the heart transplant dated 01 April 2007 has been approved because the quota for black men has not been met.”

I never want to see that occuring.

Anyone here who thinks I'm a “bushie” hasn't been reading my posts. I think Bush is a lousy President.

9 August 2007
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

“bushie”!!!
9 August 2007
at 12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

Ladies and gentlemen (and everyone else), I want to issue thanks on behalf of the LJW posters and readers to packrat for creating the perfect example of a straw person argument: “”Mr Glockowner, your request for the heart transplant dated 01 April 2005 has been denied because the quota for White men has been met. Maybe next year. I hope that you live that long.”

“Mr PackRat, your request for the heart transplant dated 01 April 2007 has been approved because the quota for black men has not been met.”

I never want to see that occuring.”

I read that, laughed out loud, and then wondered to myself why packrat is opposed to rationing health care on the basis of race, but totally OK with rationing on the basis of class. “Mr. PackRat, your request for surgery on your child has been denied because you're poor. Maybe next year, if your kid can live that long, if you can take on an extra job to afford private insurance premiums, or if you can find a new job with better benefits (assuming they cover the kid, since it's a pre-existing condition). Have a nice day.” No straw person there, just the brutal, cruel reality for the 46 million uninsured people in this country, more than 8 million of whom are children.
9 August 2007
at 12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

As long as Jenna and Barbara are taken care of, then it doesn't really matter to him. They were never forced to go without a crucial checkup or a dental cleaning.
9 August 2007
at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

Your child would receive a life saving operation and medicaid will pay for it without any changes to the current system if you are truly poor.

Most hospitals perform several million $ in charity care every year.

Bubarubu — the situation you are pointing out is a myth.
Current programs exist
http://www.srskansas.org/services/med…
9 August 2007
at 12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 — you would end up paying consdireably more than you do now.

If the socialized medical system is so good in the UK, why does the demand for a private system increase every year?
9 August 2007
at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

if the privatized medical system is so good in the US, why does the demand for a public system increase every year?
9 August 2007
at 1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

What ever happened to taking care of the children of the world so they have hope for the future and in turn are our hope for the future?
Taking care of the children really is not so much a political issue as it s a social issue.
9 August 2007
at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

This veto is irrelevant. National health insurance is a good idea. National health care is not. The auto industry down to the impoverished (auto industry seems to be impoverished too), cannot afford health care. The only other alternative is to eliminate insurance completely. It would enforce market disipline and health care costs would come done. These two alternatives are the only ones. The middle ground, where we have been for 75 years, is being pulled apart by each extreme. National health insurance will win popular support and be a reality in a few years. The middle ground is no longer viable.

9 August 2007
at 1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

tony88 — because people are being fooled into believing that this will make things better

mommaeffortx2 — 25 year olds are not children. Read what the bill actually does.
9 August 2007
at 1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

but the bill includes children and as human beings that are supposedly intelegent we must all see that.
Agree 25 is not child, well most of them anyway.
9 August 2007
at 1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

Why does everything proposed in dc have to be a big fight between themselves? I do not believe they really care about the issues but just the constant bickering, all poloticians should be put in timeout and miss recess.
9 August 2007
at 1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

Veto this bill and replace it with one that is only for children. I have no issue with that.
9 August 2007
at 1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 - Look up the private hospitals in the UK.
9 August 2007
at 2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

packrat - because people in the UK are being fooled into believing that privatization will make it better
9 August 2007
at 2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

There is a thriving private health care system in the UK that runs in parallel to the public system. The privileged few go to the private system the rest are stuck with the public system.
9 August 2007
at 2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

Here are some truths, coming from someone who travels and deals with offices in Canada, the UK and Germany, all of which have universal health care. Too many here don't have a clue and are just repeating political talking points.

We would not be paying more in taxes than we currently pay now for health insurance and everything that our insurance isn't covering. Figure up how much you actually pay out of pocket each year. It's about what we would pay in additional taxes. I don't have time to google all the stats (you can spend a few minutes doing that), but if we aren't lining the pockets of for profit hospitals and pharma companies, the overall cost of health care declines dramatically. A govt controlled system would negotiate pricing with big pharma to bring prices down. We spend more per person now because we are paying the salaries of everyone working for the insurance industry, big pharma and the owners and overpaid employees at for profit hospitals.

You won't get treatment if the govt controls the health care system - FALSE. The whole point is that everyone would be covered and would get treatment. Today, the closest hospital may be for profit and you have to go to a far away hospital (not for profit) that will actually admit and treat you.

Waiting too long for a dr - FALSE. Canada for example: you want a basic checkup, you will wait 4-6 weeks. If you are sick and need to see a dr asap, you go to the emergency clinics. I've done it! If you are ill, you don't wait. You only wait for routine, non-life threatening stuff. And why the wait? Because unlike the USA, everyone is covered and the majority of the population does get preventative care. Guess what happens when people get preventative care? Less money is spent in the long run because they catch stuff earlier (cancer for example).

And for those of you that keep saying you wouldn't trust the govt to handle a health care system - explain how social security has worked well for 70 years. What about medicare and medicaid? Our govt can do things well, we just have to make sure we don't elect leaders that are just there to line their pockets. Elect competent people that will be accountable to the people (unlike Bush) and the govt will function just fine.

9 August 2007
at 3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

And to packrats comment about private health care - yes these countries do also have private institutions. Some people that can afford it will pay more for a fancy hospital, not having to wait a few weeks for routine procedures, etc…. Just like here in the USA, those with money will pay more for elite services. It doesn't mean the public system doesn't work, some people who can afford it would rather pay more so they can have a fancy hospital room. These are also the facilities and doctors that perform more cosmetic and non-necessary procedures. The govt health care system isn't going to pay for botox, boob jobs, gourmet meals and cable tv in each room. You want luxury care, you pay for it. You want basic services that won't cause you to go bankrupt, you use the public system.

I take all of this very seriously because my uninsured sister passed from breast cancer last year after fighting for 12 months. She received good care from a non-profit hospital and her care was paid for by us tax payers because she couldn't afford the health insurance. You don't want to even imagine what she cost us taxpayers in 12 months of cancer treatment and multiple surgeries. So throw in how much we pay now for the uninsured, on top of what we pay for insurance, and then talk about how we would be overtaxed if we had universal health care. Once you take into account all the money that is paid out in this country, it becomes clear that universal is the way to go.

And please explain to me how we can be the only industrialized nation to not provide this service to its citizens. I guess as always the USA is always right and the rest of the world is wrong. Good lord people, wake up.
9 August 2007
at 3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

Typical socialist response. All party line and no facts or references.

As for the costs.
“U.S. public health care expenditures are comparable to those of other industrialized countries. In 1998, government in the U.S. spent 6.5 percent of GDP on health care compared to Canada (6.5), Great Britain (5.8), France (7.1), Germany (8.1), and Japan (5.8).”

Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD), Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999, Table 1355, p. 838.

A reasonable hypothesis is that the nature of the U.S. health care delivery system bears at least part of the responsibility for its relatively high costs.20 More than half of health care expenditures in the U.S. are funded by the private marketplace. But, in large measure due to the distortions introduced by the tax system, it is not a normal market. Insured persons do not bear directly the costs of the insurance; employers do. More importantly, for insured persons, once relatively small deductibles are met, the marginal cost of consuming health care services is quite small reaching almost zero once the typical 80/20 co-payment is exhausted (typically at $1,000 to 2,000 out of pocket). There is very, very little cost consciousness among insured consumers of health care services. If the marginal cost of consuming a good is low relative to other goods, consumers will consume relatively more of it. Moreover, a consumer gains little or nothing, financially speaking, by minimizing the consumption of health care services. The recent medical savings account (MSA) legislation is an attempt to address this problem. The advent of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and preferred provider organizations or networks (PPOs) has introduced more significant price competition to the marketplace. Price competition in health care is still relatively sedate compared to other markets, however. In addition, HMOs profit from economizing in the delivery of health care where the incentive for health care providers in fee for service insurance systems is to expand the scope of the service being provided. Defensive medicine designed to limit the likelihood of malpractice liability also influences health care providers to provide more services and order more tests than may be warranted. Information about the quality of various health care providers is very difficult if not impossible to come by except anecdotally by word of mouth.
See, e.g., Cutler, David M., “A Guide to Health Care Reform,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 13-29, Summer 1994.
9 August 2007
at 3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

Rationing : “Everything is Free but Nothing is Readily Available” (Frogue et al, 2001)
Like other nations experiencing limitless demand, an ageing population and the costly advance of medical technology, Canada has faced pressure to control health expenditure. It has done so through explicit rationing.
Set up in 1989, the Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment is the Canadian predecessor to our NICE, charged with exactly the same brief and, it seems, carrying out its function in the same way. For example, in the case of new cancer treatment, the latest pharmaceuticals (such as visudyne for macular degeneration), and high-tech diagnostic tests, Canadian governments simply reduce their expenses by limiting the service. Such a method of rationing is only possible in a single-payer monopoly. Medicare also shares other defining characteristics of monopolies: limited information, little transparency and poor accountability.
http://www.cnehealth.org/pubs/health_…

I
9 August 2007
at 3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…

Yet somehow Bush, while fighting the evil socialization of medicine, is now proposing a gas tax to pay for bridge maintenance. Why would he want to socialize transportation infrastructure? Who cares how safe the roads are if we don't care about the people on them?
9 August 2007
at 3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

My 2 above posts were being composed while you were writing about your sister.

I know the cost of cancer treatments. I watched my father die from oatcell lung cancer a few years ago.

How would have you felt if the government rationing would have prevented your sister from receiving potentially life-saving chemo?

“in the case of new cancer treatment, the latest pharmaceuticals (such as visudyne for macular degeneration), and high-tech diagnostic tests, Canadian governments simply reduce their expenses by limiting the service. ” from my post above.

My experience with my father is why I'm against government health insurance. Do we want everything run as poorly as the VA hospitals?
9 August 2007
at 3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

Ah yes, to be “stuck” with free healthcare.—logicsound04

— Public Healthcare isn't free. You pay taxes for it. Canada spends roughly 10% GDP on public health care system.
9 August 2007
at 3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

“For example, in its 2001 annual survey involving more than 2,500 doctors in twelve different specialties, the Canadian think tank, the Fraser Institute, found that, for patients requiring surgery, the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family doctor through to surgery was sixteen weeks, a significant increase over the last year of the study. In every category, physicians felt waiting times had exceeded “clinically reasonable” delays (Gratzer, 2002, pg 20). Canadians wait an average of 5 months for a cranial MRI scan; Americans just 3 days (Bell, et al, 1998). Indeed, Canada has fewer MRIs per capita than Iceland, Hungary, South Korea, and the Czech Republic (Gratzer, 2002, pg 53). Unsurprisingly, many choose to fly south to the US for diagnosis and treatment.”
Gratzer, D., Better Medicine, Reforming Canadian Health Care, 2002, ECW Press, Ontario.
9 August 2007
at 3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

Anyone want to wait 5 months to know if they have a brain tumor?

9 August 2007
at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

emilyhadley — a gas tax is a perfectly reasonable way to pay for highway construction. Let's tax those who use the object being built.

I actually don't like any new taxes.
9 August 2007
at 4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kmat (Anonymous) says…

Packrat - take your butt up there like I do many times a year, use their system (I get to because of workers status) and you'll see for yourself. I'll trade our system for their's any day. All you can do is take some things here and there you find on the web. Big deal. To use the old phrase “until you've walked in their shoes”. Well, you haven't experience a universal system so you have no room to judge.

If we create a good system, there won't be rationing of health care and supplies. You are making up worst case scenario b.s. Instead of looking at negatives, work towards creating a positive system. You seem to think that if the govt is involved, it will be bad. Then explain how my parents receive their SS check on time, every month. Medicare and Medicaid function just fine. If govt is so bad, then I guess it's time for complete anarchy and lets just revolt and destroy the entire civilization as we know it. Are you starting to see how ridiculous you are????

And my final posting for the day before you make me want to blow my brains out with your illogical comments comes from the constitution. Maybe you've heard of that document.

From the preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

See that phrase “general wellfare”. Get that through your head. Do you also see that taxes are to be raised for our general wellfare? But I guess since you are anti-govt, you're anti constitution as well. Why are you in this country then? You don't believe in the basic rights and principles that were guaranteed to us.
9 August 2007
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…

They knew about the OK City Bombings prior to it and the FBI did nothing!!

In Search of John Doe No. 2: The Story the Feds Never Told About the Oklahoma City Bombing
By James Ridgeway
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featu…
Federal officials insist that the Oklahoma City bombing case was solved a decade ago. But a Salt Lake City lawyer in search of his brother's killers dug up some remarkable clues-on cross-dressing bank robbers, the FBI, and the mysterious third man.

Friday, August 3rd, 2007
“In Search of John Doe No. 2: The Story the Feds Never Told About the Oklahoma City Bombing”
http://www.democracynow.org/article.p…
A Salt Lake City lawyer searching for the truth behind his brother's death has uncovered a wealth of new information that could implicate the FBI in the Oklahoma City bombings. The documents he dug up suggest the FBI knew about the plot to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in advance but did little to prevent it. Jesse Trentadue's brother Kenney Trentadue was found dead in his prison cell in Oklahoma City in August 1995. The FBI calls it a suicide, but Jesse maintains Kenney was beaten to death during an interrogation. Jesse believes the FBI mistook his brother for the missing second suspect in the Oklahoma City bombings - the so-called “John Doe #2.” His research also suggests that the bombing was not the work of one or two men, but involved a wider network connected to the far-right white supremacist movement. Jesse Trentadue joins us to talk about his struggle with the FBI in the twelve years since his brother's death. We're also joined by reporter James Ridgeway, author of a new Mother Jones article on this story. [includes rush transcript]
9 August 2007
at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…

Then a bunch of special ops cells come into this town shortly after the OK city bomings looking for something. I know, because I met them, talked to them and was told what they were doing here.

That is how I know that there are AQ cells in this area, as well as skin heads.
9 August 2007
at 4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

kmat — once again no facts just rhetoric.

The Founding Fathers would never have imagined socialized medicine. Read the Federalist Papers or the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

Social Security is going broke.

Why is it that I debate with studies and you just give unsupported opinion. You lost the debate and even your 1 feeble reference is actually invalid. Stop butchering the Constitution by putting things in it that aren't there.
9 August 2007
at 5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

emilyhadley wrote “…somehow Bush…is now proposing a gas tax to pay for bridge maintenance.”

No, he's not, and it's unfair to him to accuse him of taking up a position he hasn't. In today's press conference, President Bush said that instead of a gas tax, the Congressional Transportation Comittee should “examine how they set their priorities. The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that committee gets to set his or her own priorities first. That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.”
9 August 2007
at 5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

packrat, you are one dense bushie. you demand that someone counter your argument with direct experience, then, when they do, you claim they lost the argument… self-righteous bushies… i tell you what.
9 August 2007
at 5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tony88 (Anonymous) says…

“The Founding Fathers would never have imagined socialized medicine.”

You lose an argument then fall back on this tired cliche. Good thing their word is not the word of god. You sound like a Christian citing the words of Jesus or a Communist citing the words of Marx. What a terrible argument. They would probably have never imagined a “civilization” as complex as ours either. It disturbs me that people aren't prepared to reconsider the basis of our government.

9 August 2007
at 6:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

I can sure tell from this action what a good Christian Bush is.
9 August 2007
at 8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

kmat is the person who lost the debate, tony88 I asked for real verifiable evidence. kmat is unable to counter the documented studies I cited. Provide a study about the wonderful Canadian health care system.

To be a bushie, you must support teh President more than you disagree with him. Anyone who has read my posts know hat I don't agree with Bush very often. You socialists are all the same. You can't understand the difference between stories and verifiable facts.
9 August 2007
at 8:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

George_Braziller (Anonymous) says…

How about we just give them a tin can with a few coins inside that they can shake on the street and say, “Please sir, may I have a bit of your coinage so that I might get my TB vaccination? And while I'm at the doctor can I get treatment for the ringworm on my scalp? I would be every so grateful.”
10 August 2007
at 2:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

“packrat (Anonymous) says:

“For example, in its 2001 annual survey involving more than 2,500 doctors in twelve different specialties, the Canadian think tank, the Fraser Institute, found that, for patients requiring surgery, the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family doctor through to surgery was sixteen weeks, a significant increase over the last year of the study. In every category, physicians felt waiting times had exceeded “clinically reasonable” delays.”

When I blew out the disc in my back, my family and I had to wrangle with our insurance carrier to get them to diagnose, approve, and pay for an operation for a total of 9 excruciatingly painful months. At two separate points, doctors for the company looked us straight in the face and lied to us that there was nothing that could be done to fix the problem. In fact, the only way we got a lead on to what the problem was was when my mom mentioned my problem to a church friend who happened to be a doctor, who then, through some amazing genius, diagnosed the problem immediately, and 90% correctly, without even having to examine me. Of course, that was only 6 months into the process. The remaining 3 were spent hammering on them until they finally, reluctantly, agreed to fork over the money they were, by contract, required to pay.

Oh yes, and this has happened twice. Same problem, same problems, except the second time through they yammered on about how there was nothing that could be done since we had already done something before. Also false.

So I guess I have to ask, have you ever actually experienced a surgery or serious problem while using our domestic health and insurance system? I've talked to a number of other people with markedly similar experiences. I'm up in the air on socialized medicine, to be honest, but if you're study says 16 weeks on average, well damn that sounds pretty good.
10 August 2007
at 7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

Once again a non-verifiable story. Where is a study to show this?

I have a story about the US Government health care system. My Mother's boyfriend is an ex-Marine who goes to the VA for his medical treatment. He is 66 or 67 now. He has had severe back problems since being wounded in Vietnam. His spine was fused due to his injuries. 2 years ago he felt a sharp stabbing continuous pain in his back. He waited 4 months for an appointment with the VA doctor. The doctor ordered x-rays. He waited 4 weeks for the appointment. Then another 6 weeks to see the doctor. He learned that one of the supports for his back had broken loose. 4 months later he finally had surgery to correct this.

If the government can't treat our Vets appropriately, how can we expect them to do better with us?

My medical story. I fell off a ladder and hurt my knee. I called my doctor and had an appointment the next day. I saw the doctor. An MRI was scheduled at LMH the next day. I had my operation the next morning.

in 1994 my Father had a Heart Attack. He was rushed to the ER. 4 hours later he was having a bypass performed.

These stories are meaningless.

The facts are Government Run Systems lead to rationing. Read the studies I listed above.
10 August 2007
at 7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

I want to state that I do support a medical assistance program for needy children. I know the benefits to society in general if they receive proper vacinations.

I do not believe in the government trying to act as a nanny state for adults. Adults are responsible for their own actions.
10 August 2007
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

“I do not believe in the government trying to act as a nanny state for adults. Adults are responsible for their own actions.”

Tell you what - you get Social Security and Medicare repealed, and I'll shut up about national health care for us working stiffs. But the doublethink involved in pretending that somehow denying medical coverage to kids is taking a brave stand against adult entitlements, while you have those two giants looming behind you, is just sickening.

What is really sad about it (aside from the whole screw the children mentality) is this:

Bush justifies his stance by saying he doesn't want to increase dependency on government care. But he also says that he believes that private care is superior. I'm at a loss to explain, if he truly believes that private care is superior, why would he be worried that people will prefer public care?

It's obvious he doesn't even believe his own rhetoric.
10 August 2007
at 8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

werekoala — you obiviously don't know what the bill really does. Most people don't have issue with a medical program for children. However the proposal expands the definition of child up to age 25 and defines the poor as a family of 4 with an income of $82,000. That's not my definition of poor.

10 August 2007
at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

Packrat —

Actually, one of the leading demographics of un- or under-insured people is 18-25 year-olds. Many work in lower-wage jobs, often while in college, or while figuring out what profession they choose to go into. And graduating from college at 22 or 23 years old, a job search to get a full-time professional job with benefits can take a few years — it did for me.

This is how you see the misleading statistic bandied about that many uninsured people reside in households making over $75,000 a year. They are children over 18 living at home with their parents, while they try to get a full-time job. And so their parents either help them buy temporary insurance, or they just gamble on not getting a brain tumor or into a car accident.

It also doesn't say that a family of 4 is poor if they make $82,000. What it says is that you can get this coverage if certain other conditions are met, up to a max of 4 times the federal poverty level. For a family of 4, the federal poverty level is $20,500 annual income. Only a very few families would actually qualify for this coverage at the maximum income level — those with high unavoidable expenses. It's designed so that an average family can still get coverage if they have a kid with MS, or who gets paralyzed in a car accident, or something similar. And for those people, I'd absolutely support their ability to access this program. But good luck on your “Screw the cripples!” platform.

Either way, the whole debate is ridiculous, and solely driven by the large vested interests who are making billions off of the status quo. If you figure up how much I pay on health care, how much my employer pays on health care, how much health care prices are inflated to cover the people who can't pay their bills currently, and how much of our taxes pay for programs that provide medical care currently, I'd save money in the long run if you just took a nickel from every dollar I make and put it into a universal Medicare system.
10 August 2007
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubbles (Anonymous) says…

Why do I have to pay for someone elses one night stand?

The country has a bunch of irresponsible breeders that expect other people to take care of their spore?

What a bunch of worthless people.
10 August 2007
at 10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

Bubbles -

The short answer is that, like it or not, you WILL pay for it. You just can pay up front for preventative care, or after the fact in the ER for palliative care at ten times the price. I vote for spending as little money as possible, and oddly, sometimes that means spending more money up front, so we don't spend a whole bunch more later on.
10 August 2007
at 10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

“However the proposal expands the definition of child up to age 25 and defines the poor as a family of 4 with an income of $82,000.”

Can someone point to a reliable source verifying this info? jmadison cites the House version of the bill. I'm looking at H.R. 3162 at http://thomas.loc.gov which was passed by the House on Aug. 1 with a vote of 225-204 - this matches the description of the bill in the LJW article. I can't find any definition of child that includes 25 year olds.

Under “Subtitle B—Improving Enrollment and Retention of Eligible Children,” I found: “qualifying children defined- For purposes of this subsection, the term `qualifying children' means, with respect to this title or title XIX, children who meet the eligibility criteria (including income, categorical eligibility, age, and immigration status criteria) in effect as of July 1, 2007, for enrollment under this title or title XIX, respectively, taking into account criteria applied as of such date under this title or title XIX, respectively, pursuant to a waiver under section 1115.” (God, I hate reading legislation!)

The words “children who meet the eligibility criteria … in effect as of July 1, 2007” make is sound like there is no change to eligibility in this bill. The current income cut off for HealthWave (Kansas' SCHIP program) is 200% of the federal poverty level. According to the Dept. of Health & Human Services website, the 2007 poverty level for a family of 4 is $20,650. 200% of that is $41,300. Only those under age 19 are eligible. (http://www.khpa.ks.gov/HomePageDocume…)

Later in the H.R. 3162 I found: “sec. 131. optional coverage of children up to age 21 under chip.

“(a) In General- Section 2110(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(c)(1)) is amended by inserting `(or, at the option of the State, under 20 or 21 years of age)' after `19 years of age'.”

This seems to imply that the basic coverage is for people up to age 19.

Further down in the bill there are references to families with adjusted gross incomes of up to 150 percent of the poverty level. That would be $30,975 for a family of four.

Can anyone find mention of the age 25 and/or 400% of the federal poverty level thing in this legislation? Thanks!
10 August 2007
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

werekoala — ” It's designed so that an average family can still get coverage if they have a kid with MS, or who gets paralyzed in a car accident, or something similar.”

Children or youg adults who are in the cirmcumstances above qualifiy for coverage under the Medicaid program. There is a program called SSI if you meet the medical criteria for ssi but are above the income guidelines you can still receive a Medicaid Medical Card.

18-25 year olds are adults if they are under-insured they acquire their own insurance. This group is very quick to point out that they are adults as such they should be expected to have the same responsibilities as a 30 year old. That said they should also have the same rights.
10 August 2007
at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

Well, I've partially answered my own question. It seems that H.R. 3162 - when introduced - included a provision for states *optionally* to cover individuals up to age 25 - not including those aged 25. That was revised down in the version that passed the House to allow states the option of covering 19 and 20 year olds.
10 August 2007
at 10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

Here's this about the $80,000 - from an opinion piece:

“Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt told PBS's NewsHour that the legislation would put families earning $80,000 on 'public assistance.' The reality is that few families making that much would qualify. New York State wants a waiver to cover families of four making up to about $80,000 because the cost of living in New York City can be extraordinarily high. Nearly two-thirds of the apartments for sale are listed for over $450,000 - and that's in the Bronx!

“Asked the inevitable question about why expanding government-run SCHIP is bad and expanding government-run Medicare is good, Leavitt responded that Medicare 'was focused on those who are in need.'

“No, it wasn't. It was focused on those over 65. Some if not most members of that group are in need, but Medicare covers senior citizens making $80,000 a week. Why don't Republicans suggest an $80,000-a-year cutoff for Medicare benefits? Secretary Leavitt, are you there?”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/e…
10 August 2007
at 11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

costello wrote: “It seems that H.R. 3162…included a provision for states *optionally* to cover individuals up to age 25 - not including those aged 25. That was revised down in the version that passed the House to allow states the option of covering 19 and 20 year olds.”

Oh, wow. That would mean packrat has been, like, wrong. costello must have simply misread the provisions of the legislation.

10 August 2007
at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

costello (Anonymous) says…

Still trying to track down this 400% of the poverty level thing—

I found these remarks from Mr. Cronyn of Texas in the Congressional Record for July 31, 2007: “The original SCHIP program—again, it is worth spelling out the acronym—State Children's Health Insurance Program—was limited to those families at up to 200 percent of the official poverty level or $40,000 for a family of four. But some States have found a way to expand coverage from first children, then to parents, then to childless adults, and then to families with much higher incomes. Some States, such as New Jersey, now use SCHIP funds to cover families with income of up to 400 percent of the poverty level—up to $82,600 a year for a four-person family. So that is what I mean when I say that SCHIP is now being transmogrified, transformed into a middle-class entitlement, if this finance bill were to pass.”

I wonder if this practice by “some states” is where the whole $82,000 thing is coming from - not the text of the legislation itself? At any rate, the practice pre-dates the bill which was passed last week, so vetoing the legislation won't stop it.

BTW, here are the S-CHIP eligibility requirements in New Jersey: http://www.hrsa.gov/reimbursement/sta… http://www.njfamilycare.org/pages/fac….
It goes up to 350% of fpl, not 400% as Mr. Cronyn states.

New York has a 400% of fpl eligiblity limit: “New York is one of 19 states that set eligibility for coverage at a level greater than 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). New York's upper income eligibility limit is 400% FPL. Families at the higher ends of income eligibility pay higher premiums.” (https://aap.org/advocacy/washing/SCHI…)
10 August 2007
at 2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

I would think those Washington politicos who are so opposed to government-sponsored health care would introduce legislation banning their own free use of government health care. Let them pay for private insurance like everyone else. No more house calls for minor surgery, no more free pacemaker battery replacement, etc.
10 August 2007
at 7:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Packrat: “Give me a study or give me death!” eh?

Well, if I feel like digging for an hour to find a link at some point today, maybe I'll consider it. I can't say that I care much to spend that time one way or the other, but I might surprise myself.
10 August 2007
at 7:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

purplesage (Anonymous) says…

On the surface, it would appear to be an example of Republicans shooting selves in the foot. Closer examination would reveal that it is a bill of such economic proportion that only a Democratic congress could come up with it.

It is another example of “fixing” healthcare without figuring out who is paying for it. Good for today, bad for the future.

One big “fix' would be to end the multiple price schemes in healthcare. The people who need this coverage are among those who are likely to be billed at full price for everything medical. Insured individuals pay 40 to 60 percent less. Cutting the price in half would still leave it unaffordable to most but would provide some equity.
11 August 2007
at 12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

packrat (Anonymous) says…

I was working too many hours and didn't notice the changes to the bill that was passed.

However, my statements regarding the evils of socialized medicine still stand.
11 August 2007
at 12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

Uh huh.