LJWorld.com

getreal (Anonymous) says…

Why is it that President Bush, his family, and all members of Congress can have government healthcare and it's not socialized medicine, but when we offer it to children it becomes socialized?

I send thanks and appreciation to Sen. Roberts, and Congressman Moore and Congresswoman Boyda for their support of Kansas kids.

As for Lynn Jenkins, have some backbone! Make a decision and let the people of the 2nd District know where you stand. The bills are online, so maybe you should take the time to read it. Geez.

And well frankly Nick Jordan and Jim Ryun have never supported the kids of Kansas so why would anyone expect anything less than their selfish denial for insurance for Kansas kids.

There are good, decent elected officials of both parties, and this particular vote in Congress will highlight those individuals.

Again much appreciation to three of the Kansas Delegation for standing up for our kids.

KS (Anonymous) says…

I side with Bush. Too expensive and a step towards socialized healthcare. Of course, in this town, most will disagree because too many want that free stuff. There is room for a compromise if the parties will sit down, but Jenkins is right on that one. Too partisan up there to work for the betterment of the country. It is always for the betterment of their own parties and power control.

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“Too partisan up there to work for the betterment of the country. It is always for the betterment of their own parties and power control.”

“Both Moore and Boyda have been supporters of the SCHIP bill, which passed both the House and Senate with bipartisan support.”

So, which is it KS? Sounds like a bunch of bologna to me.

davidnta (Anonymous) says…

I support socializing health care, but we need to take one step at a time and fund those who would need it the most: children and senior citizens.

How can you side with Bush when he would want a blank check to fight the war while just a little bit of that blank check would take care of our nation's children?

If Republicans continue to support Bush, the war, and deny health care to children, then they have no chance in winning the next election.

coldandhot (Anonymous) says…

One step closer to socialized medicine…This bill requires tax increases…Bush is being responsible with a veto here. Help kids by loving them first and then by producing a less expensive bill.

BigDog (Anonymous) says…

Most Republicans do support the SCHIP funding for childrens health care, those that are opposed most often have an issue with the government providing insurance for people making $83,000 a year. At that rate, a majority of Kansas kids would be eligible for this government sponsored health insurance program.

There are some individuals who both themselves and their children are uninsured because of priorities. I've known people who have great jobs but choose to not have health insurance and complain it is too expensive. But then they have two new cars or have a boat or have two cars and a new motorcycle or satelite dish or plasma tv. They can afford these but not health insurance for their families. hmmmmmmmm

I am not saying Kansas or American government shouldn't help those who can't help themselves. But we shouldn't be paying for those who choose not to help themselves.

Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…

Bush's veto of insurance for children is an immoral disgrace to decency and common sense. It is yet another black mark against Republican conservatives, who love stupid wars and bathroom sex but hate healthy children, it seems.

Children should be insured, period. In fact, all citizens should have health-insurance.

Dani (Anonymous) says…

The $83,000 figure is inaccurate and President Bush should stop using it. That figure comes from a proposal from New York to allow people who make 4X the poverty level to qualify under SCHIP but that proposal was rejected. The way the bill currently reads is to allow people making up to 3X the poverty line to qualify (which is something like $62,000).

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

I'm going to start interpreting “this is a step towards socialized healthcare” comments as:

“I have no specific information with which to criticize this bill, so I'll make a comment that is designed to point out the bill's negatives without actually addressing any of it's components”

If you think this is a step towards socialized healthcare, then you don't understand socialized medicine. This is a funding increase for a health program in the current privatized system.

If you are still confused:
[Socialized medicine or state medicine is a term used principally in the United States to describe health care systems which operate by means of government regulation and subsidies derived from taxation.[1] Socialized medicine can refer to any system of medical care controlled and financed by the government.]

In other words, a fundamental requirement of socialized medicine is for the government to regulate and control the healthcare industry. In other words, they must own the 'means of production'. Please show me where this bill enacts anything to that effect.

sourpuss (Anonymous) says…

Universal health care now - children, elderly, and everyone in between.

Oh, and before you throw around the words “socialized medicine” you might want to realize that there is a huge difference between socialized medicine (where the government owns and controls the entire medical system - England) and guaranteed government-provided health insurance (where the government pays for everyone's basic medical care in a private system - Canada). No one in the US is suggesting “Socialized Medicine.” What people want is guaranteed government insurance.

For those of you who think your procedures won't be approved under government health care - they aren't now anyway since the government doesn't need to make money off of people, but a private insurance company does. A private, for-profit company is much more likely to nix a procedure or drop you as a customer. As well, most government insurance is backed by private, supplemental insurance for things not covered by a basic government plan (in Canada - dental, prescriptions, eyeglasses, etc.) and this is provided by your employer, school, or union, so it is really very little different than in the States in terms of your interaction with the health system, it is just that you CAN'T lose your basic coverage based on employment, and THAT makes all the difference.

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Horrible idea, Sourpuss. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

Horrible.

Horrible.

Horrible.

jasonc_22 (Anonymous) says…

does lynn realize she's running for congress and not homecoming queen?

and, for the love of god, jim, being in lockstep with Bush has already cost you your seat once- the people of your district smacked you for it once, they'll do it again.

Boyda and Moore aren't in danger on this issue but every single Republican who opposes the SCHIP expansion certainly are.

BigDog (Anonymous) says…

Sourpuss

In the Canadian system (other like theirs) there are major flaws which I doubt Americans would find any more acceptable. Yes, they have coverage but there are major waiting lists for many non-life threatening procedures. That is how they attempt to control costs. If your arteries are only a certain percentage clogged ……. you may be on a waiting list for 6 months to have a stent put in. Breast cancer screeenings every two years ….. cervical cancer screenings every three years.

Yeah people have access but how timely of access.

BigDog (Anonymous) says…

And if we need sources ….. here ya go

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/health…

http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dynamic…

Godot (Anonymous) says…

In an interview yesterday, Pelosi argued that increasing the eligibility to families earaning $82,000 by saying that hard working, middle income parents should not be punished by having to pay $12,000 per year to insure a child.

$12,000 per child????? That is so far from the truth, it is laughable.

Bull hockey. Garbage in, garbage out. If she believes those figures and facts to be true, she is delusional, and being delusional, is in no position to be setting policy.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Medicare and Medicaid are on the verge of insolvency, and Pelosi, in her delusion, wants to expand the programs.

The only way out of this would be to force everyone in the country to participate in the ineffecient, corrupt system of government health care, sucking the economy dry.

Oh, wait, that is what Pelosi, et al, aka PelCo, want.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

getreal wrote: “Why is it that President Bush, his family, and all members of Congress can have government healthcare and it's not socialized medicine, but when we offer it to children it becomes socialized medicine?”

There is a little thing in the world of employment, which I realize you may not be familiar with, called, “benefits of employment,” wherein, in lieu of salary, employers provide certain perquisites to make the job more attractive to the employee, with the intent of attracting the best and finest work force.

Granted, that backfired when it came to the Federal government, but that is what health insurance for government employees was designed to be.

We, the taxpayers, have no obligation to insure the children of working, middle class Americans who are unwilling to the health and well being of their children ahead of discretionary spending, which, if the income limit for SCHIP is increased, is exactly what we will be doing.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

getreal, you should not limit your concept about fairness to just receiving the same benefits government employees receive, you should also demand you receive the same pay. Get real!

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

BigDog,

Your sources are hardly definitive.

The first one is just a news article with no information about where it found the wait-time statistics it cites in the article.

The second one is only for British Colombia, not all of Canada.

As for wait time in general—I find the idea of managing care so that the most needy get it when they need it, rather than the most wealthy getting care when they need it, to be preferable. After all, it seems more logical to base caregiving decisions based on the priority of NEED rather than money.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

logicsound, I hope that, if in the worst of all scenarios your vision of health care delivery is implemented, that you do not find yourself in the ER with a heart attack only to find there is someone with hangnail who is poorer (i.e. needier) than you who gets pushed to the front of the care/treatment line.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

You are parsing words. I would think that any reasonable person could figure out that I meant “in need of care”, not “in need of money” by my use of the word “needy”.

I think a heart attack would probably be at or near the top of the list of “needs”.

Not to mention the fact that a hangnail and a heart attack don't utilize the same resources. When was the last time you used a pair of clippers to stave a heart attack, or a defibrillator to remoe a hangnail?

fletch (Anonymous) says…

If those kids wanted insurance, they should get a job.

BigDog (Anonymous) says…

Logicsound

There are plenty of articles about the waiting times for services in Canada unless you don't count Canadian Institute for Health Information as a valid source.

http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?…

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/2…

Have you wondered why people in Canada with money have non-emergency surgery in the United States? I guess if I knew I had a partial blockage of my arteries, I would get it taken care of myself instead of waiting for six months. In Canada, if the procedure is covered under government insurance you can't pay for it yourself ….. thus people have to leave the country to get it taken care of. I guess that is one way to keep down health care costs.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

But, Logicsound04, words are very important in discussing ideas. You are the one who wrote that the needy should be treated before the wealthy, establishing that your point was exclusively about money.

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

“In an interview yesterday, Pelosi argued that increasing the eligibility to families earaning $82,000 by saying that hard working, middle income parents should not be punished by having to pay $12,000 per year to insure a child.

$12,000 per child????? That is so far from the truth, it is laughable.”

If you weren't stripping those words from their context, you wouldn't be you, would you?

Do you know how much it costs to buy private health insurance if your employer doesn't offer a group plan or if you are self-employed? She might have even been shorting it in some states for some plans. That was clearly the context and you know it, but context doesn't serve your selfish agenda, does it?

ljreader (Anonymous) says…

“But supporters of the bill have denied that the program would go toward illegal immigrants, saying that a provision requiring people to show Social Security cards would prevent that from happening.”
Uh- Yeah. That has worked so well in the work place. Those invokved in document fraud will enjoy another spike in their business selling fake SS cards with stolen numbers. Let the good times roll.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Staff04, the person stripping words from their context is Pelosi. To arrive at a figure of $12,000 per child for health coverage, she would have targeted a child in the most expensive city in the US, and the most comprehensive health plan, meaning no deductible, no copayment, co coinsurance and no cost for prescriptions. Even then, I doubt she could find an instance where it would cost $1,000 per month for a child's health insurance coverage.

Pelosi is either cherry picking the worst case scenario and presenting it as the norm to support her argument, or she is flat out making this stuff up.

The fact is parents can find very comprehensive coverage for children, outside of an employer's plan, for less than $150 per month; they can find coverage that requires them to share in the cost via a deductible and co-insurance for under $100 per month.

The older “children” she proposes to include in this plan, those between 19 and 25, can find coverage that has a big deductible, but which will carry them through a serious illness for less than $40 per month; or they can go big time and buy a plan that requires them to pay very little for their medical care for under $150.

Pelosi is either incredibly misinformed, or she is willfully lying to the American public. Either way, she is, without a doubt, the Misleader In Chief when it comes to this particular issue.

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

godot, please tell me who this incredibly generous insurance company you have is. I pay slightly less than Pelosi says, but not a whole lot less. And $100/month gets me nothing but a catastrophic policy for my child - and that is not going to do it for me. Most newborns go to the doctor 1-2 times/month and have plenty of expensive Rx as well.

You must have found the one insurance company in the whole universe that doesn't care about making a profit.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

sfjayhawk, somehow I do not believe you. You admit you can get a catastrophic plan for $100 per month, or $1200 per year, yet you choose to pay nearly $12,000 per year to get “full coverage?” Why?

Why would you not choose to pay $1200 fixed cost with a set cap of $5,000 per year (that is the plan I quoted for under $100 per month) for out of pocket costs for a total maximum cost (assuming the worst happens) of $6200 per year, vs. paying nearly $12,000 in fixed costs for a plan that covers everything, but that you may not need or use?

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“Boyda stated: “SCHIP has not only proven successful at covering uninsured children, but it’s cost-effective to taxpayers. Health insurance prevents low-income families from using the emergency room — the most expensive health care resource — as a first-stop clinic.”

The obvious solution is for hospitals to set up “urgent care” centers staffed by Nurse Practitioners near the ER's and direct the stuffy noses, cut fingers and bumped elbows there, at a fraction of the expense.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Ok, Defender, I did not say $85,000, I said, $82,000; Pelosi admitted it covers famlies making $65K and that, in her opinion, it should, because it is too much to expect such workers to provide their children with health insurance on such a low income. After all, how would they afford their SUV's and their boats and cruises if they had to put their children's welfare first?

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

Some relevant info, re: healthcare costs and expenditures in the U.S.:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670…

Page 15 has a particularly relevant graph when discussing health coverage for the poor.

Waiting for someone to blast the source… ;)

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“But, Logicsound04, words are very important in discussing ideas. You are the one who wrote that the needy should be treated before the wealthy, establishing that your point was exclusively about money.”

––––––––-

Yes, words are important, which is why the discussion loses meaning when posters like yourself and BigDog manipulate others' words to create an argument for yourself to knock-down.

If you'll read more carefully (or maybe if you remove your 'willfully obstinate' filter), you might see that my point was about need of care. And you even seem to acknowledge and disregard that fact all at the same time.

To use BigDog's orignal example, a person who is having a heart attack is a higher priority on the “in need of care” hierarchy than someone with a nasty hangnail. This would be true whether the heart attack was a rich person and the hangnail a poor person or vice versa.

So to recap, the only component of my argument that had anything to do with money was when I said that money should not be the determining factor of who deserves healthcare or not.