Healthcare for children S Chip

[boefixepa]

Personal Responsibility goes from the top to the bottom. I have just as stong of sediments about those in Washington too...I promise.

All people I know personal who have had MAJOR medical issues, due to lay offs, lack of insurance, inability to pay ect., have all been able to find resources either through the hospitals, private charities, Shirner (sp?), or the like.

My grip is that I and my husband have worked our butts off to get to the point where we have PUT OURSELVES through school, we both came from familes BELOW the poverty line, so we can get jobs that offer at least decent health care....and we and others like us...have to pay out the nose to get it!!!! Tell me why I have to pay MORE in the form of taxes for people to continue to 'not bother' to try and get the job with the insurance because they can't afford the part they have to pay anyway!!

I do believe in helping in time of need! I do give GENEROUSLY (over 15% of my gross income and I'm not rich I promise) to MANY organization that I feel are doing a good job to those in real need. But TOO MANY americans, and trust me I know many of them personally, think it's the governments job to do everything for them. " Pay my rent, buy my food, pay my health care and I will damn sure I never make enough so that I don't qualify."

And don't tell me these are the exceptions and not the rule....to me it's more of AT LEAST a 50/50 to be generous.

Oh, and sorry, if I have to pass a drug test to get a job, they should have to pass a drug test to get benifits.

And while I am ranting......should I have to pay for the lung cancer because in their poverty they were able to afford cigarretts, and liver desiase for the drinking.....oh and don't forget drug use and sexual promiscuity...(sp?)

Oh,and how about horrible teeth cause they never brush their teeth and fill their kids full of crap food, when it's ACTAULLY CHEEPER to fill up in the produce department then the sugar ceral and processed food isles.

Or all the health problems that come along with obesity, bad diet and all that....

And last but not least people....put a time limit on it. If people are not ever going to get their life together, why do taxpayers have to support them for life!!

All of this is what I mean by PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.....

If I have to be responsible for myself and my choices....I expect the same of others and that is NOT asking to much.

Life isn't handed to you on a silver platter, you have to work, do something for the things you get in life. There is always going to a disparity, but be FAIR about it. Fair to those and in need and fair to the ones working to pay for it!!

If you are looking for a handout for life....go elsewhere please.

[cptacek]

Keep throwing the money at this damn war that is only making matters worse!
Those of you who are so worried about the governemnt spending should be up in arms about the perks these pompous legislators are giving themselves at our expense! Where is your outrage about that?
You want to talk about RESPONSIBILITY!!
Where in the hell is it with those in Washington?? BUSH ESPECIALLY!!!!

I don't really see how thowing money or not throwing money at the "damn war" has any bearing on if we want socialized medicine. Typical. Your original argument was "let's help the poor children...they need health care". When the flaws in that argument were pointed out (it wasn't exclusively for children anymore, it wasn't only for poor children anymore, many poor children aren't using it now in the already established system anyway, taxes would have to go up, already established government funded health care systems, like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Hospital, are notoriously expensive and non-effective, and most of us don't want socialized medicine), you shifted to another topic (the war and President Bush), which we weren't even talking about.

Oh, and the Democrats are in control of Congress now, so if you are mad at the budget, you can blame them. And, if they wanted to stop the war, they have the power to, just not the balls. Isn't that why they were elected in the first place?

I completely agree with boefixepa. I, too, think the government spends WAY too much money on, well, everything.

Instead of relying on "I know a guy in Canada and he says" or "wait times are too long. No they aren't. yes they are. na na na" how about let's look for some actual statistics.

I found this article from 2006, about how some Canadians want to buy their own health insurance, and their Supreme Court okayed it: CBC News Indepth: Health Care

Here is how bad the VA hospitals can be:
ABC News: Some Veterans' Hospitals in Shocking Shape
I like (?) this quote, from Dr. Jonathan Perlin, the deputy undersecretary for health: "We take care of 7 million veterans. While the majority of care is good, in a big system, bad things happen." So, if all of America was covered like this, what could we expect?

[gackle]

AMEN boefixepa and cptacek! Standing ! Now back to work on my rebuttal....

[Scanner]

cpateck,

already established government funded health care systems, like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Hospital, are notoriously expensive and non-effective

Again, I know moderates can have a reputation as being wishy-washy (just like conservatives have a reputation for being simpletons). . .but that's just an incorrect statement.

Medicare is actually a pretty efficient system, as much as we may rue all the rules.
97% of dollars collected go out in the form of healthcare.

No private insurer even comes close. I beleive Blue Cross has occasionally hit 90% but 80-85% is more th norm.

I know Conservatives like to reduce things to "Private industry good; gov't bad" but it's just not that simple.

If you don't beleive me, commit to mailing me a reason why via UPS and I'll send you a reply via the USPS.

[sweeps]

Scanner is correct. There may be good arguments against "socialized medicine" but government inefficiency isn't one of them.

[gackle]

Medicare is actually a pretty efficient system, as much as we may rue all the rules.
97% of dollars collected go out in the form of healthcare.

Scanner, in the spirit of keeping this debate factual, do you have a source for this? I honestly don't know how efficient the system is, but did a brief search on the web and couldn't find anything. Thanks!

[cptacek]

Do you believe the same thing about the VA?

I thought that there was a law that the post office couldn't operate at a loss...that it had to balance the books and that is why stamp prices keep going up. I can't find anything to back that up, though.

Also, do you want that overnighted? (an overnight letter by Fedex costs less than one by the USPS, at least when I checked it. The reason is because USPS has a government mandated monopoly)

[cptacek]

Also, do you want that overnighted? (an overnight letter by Fedex costs less than one by the USPS, at least when I checked it. The reason is because USPS has a government mandated monopoly)

This is not true. I'm sorry. USPS is cheaper than the Fedex

[gackle]

77% of the children affected by the proposed expansion already have private insurance.

To expand on poundwise’s post, these 77% of already privately insured children contribute to the "crowd out" effect, which in the end raises the cost of insuring uninsured children:

Most of the debate over SCHIP reauthorization hinges on expanding program eligibility to children in higher income families. While expanding SCHIP eligibility would, to some extent, reduce the ranks of uninsured children, these gains would be significantly offset—or even outpaced—by losses in private insurance. As the safety net is cast further up the income ladder, instead of complementing private coverage and reducing the ranks of the uninsured, SCHIP would increasingly become a substitute for it.

…Congress's expansion proposals for SCHIP could cover as many as 2.4 million newly eligible children, but because of crowd out, the ranks of the uninsured would decrease by only 1 million. This is because, for every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), 54 to 60 children would lose the private coverage that they have today.

The Cost of Senate and House Expansions
Estimating the magnitude of crowd out as a result of SCHIP expansions is important because, as the program becomes a substitute for private coverage, assistance flows to families whose children would have otherwise had insurance and away from children who currently go without. Because crowd out causes the ranks of the uninsured to decrease less than expected on a static basis, it increases the cost to the taxpayer of covering the uninsured. For this reason, despite what some in Congress might think, expanding SCHIP eligibility is a costly way to reduce the ranks of uninsured children.
Under the Senate's SCHIP expansion,[8] an estimated 1 million to 1.2 million children would gain SCHIP coverage, but between 467,000 and 611,000 children would lose private coverage. Due to poor targeting and the relative cost of crowd out, the annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the Senate’s expansion plan would increase from $1,418 to between $2,508 and $2,859. This is 1.8 to 2 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 2.5 times the average cost of private insurance.

Moving on....

What is there to be scared of?

Average radiation wait times in Ontario are 4.1 weeks as of third quarter 2006. "Wait time" is defined as from referral to start of treatment. Of course since it’s average, some could wait longer. Does Canada keep mortality statistics for people that died because they had to wait for life-saving care? Probably not. I’m not suggesting that they died in that 4.1 weeks, but just maybe the cancer spread enough in that timeframe that made it impossible to beat once treatment finally started. It’s too hard to measure if someone would have survived had they started radiation treatment as soon as possible after being diagnosed. That’s what scares me about socialized medicine.

There are so many instances where a family has been responsible and tragedy has struck and they are unable to pay medical bills and
high insurance premiums.
There are people who get laid off from jobs they have had for years and find themself in a bad situation.
Yeah, forgot about money to help them!

Bottom line is that the cost of this program is going to be paid by us taxpayers. If you’re feeling so generous with your hard-earned money, then feel free to wire me some as well. I promise, we’ll put it towards paying off our van that my children ride in. It is about the children, right?

Pupart, you like to post threads that promote your causes, which is your right. If you choose to do that, then you need to be prepared to defend your position with documented fact. There are a lot of intelligent people on this board. Loosing your cool when your arguments run out doesn’t fool anyone. Using “because it’s for the children” appeals to our emotions, not our reasoning. While I often find myself on the opposite side of the spectrum as yourself, I do find the debates enjoyable and mentally stimulating so I thank you for that. I didn't know much about the SCHIP debate before your post.

The advantage of the emotions is that they lead us astray. – Oscar Wilde

[Exile]

The quality of health care in those countries lag farrrrr behind the US. Just see how long it takes for someone to get a CT scan in Canada...it's a joke. Bottom line is this....as a society should we pay for everyone that does not have the financial means to access health care? Is it our responsibility as tax payers? The American health care system has numerous problems that can not be solved with one bill.

m3 racer, You want to talk about how long it takes to get access to a medical procedure? When I had coverage under American private HMO plans, I had to wait a loooong time for tests and scans. And considering the premiums and co-pays, the care wasn't exactly free.

BTW if Canada and Europe have such lousy health care, how come they have longer average life spans than Americans?

[sweeps]

You can't compare the market for health care to the market for other products and services. One shipping service is basically the same as the next. And if you make a bad choice and the shipper loses your package, you're not going to die.

One other comment... what happened to the virtue of compromise? At one time being a moderate was considered a good thing -- you could see both sides of the issue and come up with a solution that appeals to both extremes. Now if you're not a flaming socialist or a capitalist pig, you must be a wishy-washy, spineless fence-sitter. This SCHIP thing probably went too far, but subsidized health insurance for children who otherwise won't get healthcare? Who could be against that?

[gackle]

BTW if Canada and Europe have such lousy health care, how come they have longer average life spans than Americans?

That's not a valid argument. There's so many more factors that determine life span than just quality of health care. Diet, exercise, economic status, etc. The U.S. has the greatest obesity rates worldwide. Health care can only do so much for people who neglect their bodies for a lifetime. Ref boefixepa's inspiring rant on personal responsibility.

[gackle]

This SCHIP thing probably went too far, but subsidized health insurance for children who otherwise won't get healthcare? Who could be against that?

Personally, I am not against the extension of the program as is. It's the expansion of the program that I'm against.

[cptacek]

I don't know that we were debating the previous iteration of SCHIP. I am just against expanding it to this level. I also am against just throwing money at it...there needs to be some way to get the kids who DO need help and aren't signed up to sign up.

[m3racer]

m3 racer, You want to talk about how long it takes to get access to a medical procedure? When I had coverage under American private HMO plans, I had to wait a loooong time for tests and scans. And considering the premiums and co-pays, the care wasn't exactly free.

HAHAHAHA...you're unhappy with your HMO? You better get used to it if socialized medicine actually happens in the states.