The Energon Pub

by **Marcus Rush** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:57 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AqQQn0eIokFa4d1W9Nb_3yVg.3QA

Bush: Kids' health care will get vetoed

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
22 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.

At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill.

"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."

by **Cowboy Bebop** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:06 pm

Bush hates children.

Bush makes sense though. If they are paying to bback-up children who already have insurance then it's pointless. His thoughts about giving it to children without any isnurance is the better option.

by **Marcus Rush** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:57 pm

Cowboy Bebop wrote:Bush hates children.

Bush makes sense though. If they are paying to bback-up children who already have insurance then it's pointless. His thoughts about giving it to children without any isnurance is the better option.

Bush hates all people not making a seven didget a year check. Still that is not my thinking here. I am trying to figure out where it leads to people being forced to leave their private insurance providers for government backed ones. Overall his arguement is nothing more than a scare tactic to better favor his insurance backers. Man is there anything in this creature that is not bought and paid for?

News Credits: 1 · by **Pontimax 01** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:59 pm

I hate our government as a whole, but Bush really gets to me with his rhetoric.

As one of 45 million Americans that doesn't have health insurance, I can honestly say that any and all children should have access to medical care and not have to go without. If we never even get it to the adults, children should be the exception.

by **Jar Axel** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:04 pm

Alpha Strike wrote:
Cowboy Bebop wrote:Bush hates children.

Bush makes sense though. If they are paying to bback-up children who already have insurance then it's pointless. His thoughts about giving it to children without any isnurance is the better option.

Bush hates all people not making a seven didget a year check. Still that is not my thinking here. I am trying to figure out where it leads to people being forced to leave their private insurance providers for government backed ones. Overall his arguement is nothing more than a scare tactic to better favor his insurance backers. Man is there anything in this creature that is not bought and paid for?

Any more than the move on demos are?

Besides you must becareful; there is a certainty that there is far more going on here than meets the eye

by **DesalationReborn** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:14 pm

Though nice, I would say health care isn't the inherent job of the government, though it is one of the major walls politicians hide behind. Interesting, the different ideas on keeping the balance between motivation and total security.

BTW, this really belongs in the Philosophers Forum... :WHISTLE:

News Credits: 1 · by **Operation Ravage** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:21 pm

Since when should the government provide for you? If you can't provide for your children then you shouldn't be having them.

by **JaffleMaker** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:00 pm

Animal! wrote:Since when should the government provide for you? If you can't provide for your children then you shouldn't be having them.

You may ahve a point but It isn't the fault of the child what financial situation that they brought up into the world. This is more so to help the kids.

News Credits: 1 · by **Operation Ravage** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:24 pm

JaffleMaker wrote:
Animal! wrote:Since when should the government provide for you? If you can't provide for your children then you shouldn't be having them.

You may ahve a point but It isn't the fault of the child what financial situation that they brought up into the world. This is more so to help the kids.

I have to argue that a line must be drawn. There are responsible parents in the world, those that plan for their children's futures, and those that simply do not. I do not believe that the government should be responsible for caring for children that were unexpected and unplanned; the government should be focused upon foreign policy and protecting the general populace, not the intrinsically personal affair of managing familial operations.

That's just my two cents. I'm a registered Democrat, mind you, but I've also served overseas in the Army and have some conservative leanings.

Should the government care for the people it serves? Yes.
Is there a limit to the extent that the government should extend assistance? Also, yes.
Personal responsibility must enter the picture at some point.

News Credits: 150 · by **GetterDragun** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:35 pm

Animal! wrote:Since when should the government provide for you?

Since every April 15th I provide for them?

News Credits: 1 · by **Operation Ravage** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:43 pm

GetterDragun wrote:
Animal! wrote:Since when should the government provide for you?

Since every April 15th I provide for them?

And you get to live in a society that provides safety, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to assemble peacefully, and eight other guaranteed rights under the Bill of Rights. Lucky you.

Try going to Iraq, where speaking your voice gets you shot.

by **DesalationReborn** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:53 am

I meant to add the ''n't'' to the "is." Kind of a big deal, there. If I had my way, there'd be no government, but they're always be jerks trying to control your life, and at least in this case, they're managable and have decent benefits.

News Credits: 1 · by **Venomous Prime** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:56 am

DesalationReborn wrote:BTW, this really belongs in the Philosophers Forum...

Yeah it does belong there, but it got shut down for living up to its purpose :roll:

Still think that's stupid that it got shut down

Anyway, I'm torn about the health care for kids.

On one side I think that every kid should have a fair shot at the best medical treatment and life in general no matter who their parents are.

On the other side the government shouldn't have to do everything for the populace

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:47 am

Animal! wrote:Try going to Iraq, where speaking your voice gets you shot.

Ah yes, the trump card.

You aren't allowed to disagree with any aspect of the US government so long as living here is better than living in Iraq.

News Credits: 49 · by **Senor Hugo** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:50 am

Caelus wrote:
Animal! wrote:Try going to Iraq, where speaking your voice gets you shot.

Ah yes, the trump card.

You aren't allowed to disagree with any aspect of the US government so long as living here is better than living in Iraq.

Gotta love that. I use it when women decline when I ask them for a date. "Try going to Iraq, where saying 'no' gets you shot."

But, I kind have got to agree with Bush on this. If people have private coverage for their kids already, why do they need the government coverage?

Granted though, it would be a nice fall back in case your healthcare denies you a surgery you need or something like that.

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:09 am

Senor Hugo wrote:But, I kind have got to agree with Bush on this. If people have private coverage for their kids already, why do they need the government coverage?

The article wrote:The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

So really, it's a question of which one do you believe? Or, which do you distrust more?

And of course, what's worse - insuring a kid who can already afford it? Or not insuring a kid who can't?

Although, I'll agree that it is completely unacceptable for people to be having children they can't afford when the government is spending millions to provide them with effective birth control and safe abortion options.

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:53 am

I got a better idea. How about Congress pass a law that regulates the fees that hospitals charge instead? Really, impoverished children don't need insurance, they need cheaper doctor visits.

by **Jar Axel** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:24 am

Caelus wrote:
Senor Hugo wrote:But, I kind have got to agree with Bush on this. If people have private coverage for their kids already, why do they need the government coverage?

The article wrote:The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

So really, it's a question of which one do you believe? Or, which do you distrust more?

And of course, what's worse - insuring a kid who can already afford it? Or not insuring a kid who can't?

Although, I'll agree that it is completely unacceptable for people to be having children they can't afford when the government is spending millions to provide them with effective birth control and safe abortion options.

Try that this is part of a larger bill which most definatly should not be passed. Yea Bush is makeing an excuse but only so he can justify not passing the bill just to get this through.

And FB you have the right idea, I was actualy planning on bringing up a thread on fixing the current system rather than restoring to a different one that doesn't work any better before Ryan clossed the philosophers forum.

News Credits: 6 · by **Dr. Caelus** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:16 pm

Jar Axel wrote:Try that this is part of a larger bill which most definatly should not be passed.

...

and...

... are you going to support that with facts , evidence, or reasoning?

Or can we just make vague unsupported statements in this argument?

Because, at that rate, I'd say the bill should definately be passed because otherwise alien zombies are going to eat all our pickles!

News Credits: 2 · by **First-Aid** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:42 pm

Fender Bender wrote:I got a better idea. How about Congress pass a law that regulates the fees that hospitals charge instead? Really, impoverished children don't need insurance, they need cheaper doctor visits.

They have already...sort of. Actually one should note that majority of th income for hospitals comes from Medicare, which is expected...vast majority of those in the hospitals are elderly. What I can tell you as a fact, since I've worked in health care for 11 years, is this: if a hospital charges 660 dollars a night for a hospital room, Medicare pays them 13 cents for every dollar charged- they have to write off the rest, BY LAW unless that particular MCA plan has a deductible. That means that OTHER charges have to be increased to compensate for the significant losses incurred on Medicare (and Medicaid) patients. So the rest of us have to pay more, especially those who have private insurance and, unfortunately, those with no insurance. However, realizing that some may not be able to afford their bills most hospitals have either payment plans or debt forgiveness/charity plans. If the government were to take over healthcare, ALL costs would be set at the same level of loss for providers. Hospitals would not be able to remain open...within days they would fold from lack of funds.
"Well then, lower the costs of healthcare by limiting how much companies can charge!" That wouldn't work either; one of the fundamental principles of this country is to be successful in business. When you start limiting their prices, you start limiting their rights. It's everyone's right to maximize their potential; in some cases, that just means they make a lot of money. TO limit the costs, you have to limit how much people can make and put a cap on how much a business can make. That is infringing on personal rights. So socialized medicine- while a nice thought- is fundamentally impossible in the United States. What is the fix? Who knows? But I don't want my tax dollars funding medical for some teen crack addict who's having their 4th kid (actually the best one I've seen was a 17 year old, positive for marijuana and meth, having her 6th kid by 5 fathers; all six kids were mentally disabled, and two were physically disabled because of the drug use); it's not the kid's fault, but it should still be the parent's responsibility to provide for the kids.

News Credits: 2 · by **First-Aid** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:48 pm

Caelus wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Try that this is part of a larger bill which most definatly should not be passed.

...

and...

... are you going to support that with facts , evidence, or reasoning?

Or can we just make vague unsupported statements in this argument?

Because, at that rate, I'd say the bill should definately be passed because otherwise alien zombies are going to eat all our pickles!

NOOOO! NOT THE PICKLES!

Actually the part of the bill that shouldn't be passed: 61 cent tax increase on cigarettes, and a significant tax increase (I think it was 0.5%) on households with a combined income over $75,000. Granted i don't smoke, but you'd be surprised how many people live in households with a combined income of $75,000. Any why should smokers foot all the tax bills anyways? Because of their addiction?

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:57 pm

First-Aid wrote:
Caelus wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Try that this is part of a larger bill which most definatly should not be passed.

...

and...

... are you going to support that with facts , evidence, or reasoning?

Or can we just make vague unsupported statements in this argument?

Because, at that rate, I'd say the bill should definately be passed because otherwise alien zombies are going to eat all our pickles!

NOOOO! NOT THE PICKLES!

Actually the part of the bill that shouldn't be passed: 61 cent tax increase on cigarettes, and a significant tax increase (I think it was 0.5%) on households with a combined income over $75,000. Granted i don't smoke, but you'd be surprised how many people live in households with a combined income of $75,000. Any why should smokers foot all the tax bills anyways? Because of their addiction?

Cigarettes have been taxed enough. I dare Congress to raise taxes on Beer and Liquor.....

News Credits: 150 · by **GetterDragun** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:06 pm

Animal! wrote:
GetterDragun wrote:
Animal! wrote:Since when should the government provide for you?

Since every April 15th I provide for them?

And you get to live in a society that provides safety, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to assemble peacefully, and eight other guaranteed rights under the Bill of Rights. Lucky you.

Try going to Iraq, where speaking your voice gets you shot.

Um, other soceties have all that and health care too. Plus it seems lately that a lot of those freedoms have been watered down due to a legal system that favors the person with the most money to spend on a lawyer. If you want to enjoy some of those freedoms a little more, go to some different countries.

No system is perfect, but healthcare should be part of it in this day and age. And I don't want to hear about "well then I'd have to pay more taxes, cause I wouldn't mind spending an extra 5 percent in taxes to get a good national healthcare system. I don't think for profit companies should be the making the decisions about something that a government could do and should do.

The problem with healthcare is that most americans stand in different situations. Some people have none, some are covered but have to pay for their family, some people are out of work, but on Cobra, and some people and their families are covered completely. There has to be a way for the government to put some sort of check box like they do now when filing taxes like "How many people in your family are covered on Health Insurance by your current Employer?" And the answer effects your tax rate.

News Credits: 2 · by **First-Aid** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:31 pm

GetterDragun wrote:Um, other soceties have all that and health care too. Plus it seems lately that a lot of those freedoms have been watered down due to a legal system that favors the person with the most money to spend on a lawyer. If you want to enjoy some of those freedoms a little more, go to some different countries.

No system is perfect, but healthcare should be part of it in this day and age. And I don't want to hear about "well then I'd have to pay more taxes, cause I wouldn't mind spending an extra 5 percent in taxes to get a good national healthcare system. I don't think for profit companies should be the making the decisions about something that a government could do and should do.

The problem with healthcare is that most americans stand in different situations. Some people have none, some are covered but have to pay for their family, some people are out of work, but on Cobra, and some people and their families are covered completely. There has to be a way for the government to put some sort of check box like they do now when filing taxes like "How many people in your family are covered on Health Insurance by your current Employer?" And the answer effects your tax rate.

The British are one example of socialized medicine. However, I would ask any Englishman living in the US what they thought of our healthcare. What they would say (and have said; my bass player was born in England and came over here when he was 26) is that, while all medical costs are paid for, the cost is enormous and the service is terrible. Can you imagine having to wait 1-5 years for surgery? He had appendicitis. It's considered an elective surgery there...until it ruptures and becomes a life-threatening situation. Anyone who has had appendicitis knows how much it hurts; could you imagine living with that for weeks, or months, knowing that it WILL eventually rupture and you better be somewhere close to a hospital because otherwise, you would die.

News Credits: 150 · by **GetterDragun** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:08 pm

First-Aid wrote:
GetterDragun wrote:Um, other soceties have all that and health care too. Plus it seems lately that a lot of those freedoms have been watered down due to a legal system that favors the person with the most money to spend on a lawyer. If you want to enjoy some of those freedoms a little more, go to some different countries.

No system is perfect, but healthcare should be part of it in this day and age. And I don't want to hear about "well then I'd have to pay more taxes, cause I wouldn't mind spending an extra 5 percent in taxes to get a good national healthcare system. I don't think for profit companies should be the making the decisions about something that a government could do and should do.

The problem with healthcare is that most americans stand in different situations. Some people have none, some are covered but have to pay for their family, some people are out of work, but on Cobra, and some people and their families are covered completely. There has to be a way for the government to put some sort of check box like they do now when filing taxes like "How many people in your family are covered on Health Insurance by your current Employer?" And the answer effects your tax rate.

The British are one example of socialized medicine. However, I would ask any Englishman living in the US what they thought of our healthcare. What they would say (and have said; my bass player was born in England and came over here when he was 26) is that, while all medical costs are paid for, the cost is enormous and the service is terrible. Can you imagine having to wait 1-5 years for surgery? He had appendicitis. It's considered an elective surgery there...until it ruptures and becomes a life-threatening situation. Anyone who has had appendicitis knows how much it hurts; could you imagine living with that for weeks, or months, knowing that it WILL eventually rupture and you better be somewhere close to a hospital because otherwise, you would die.

Thats why I would prefer to pay more because I have heard that about other countries. I want the doctors to get rich so they still perform and the drug companies to make a profit so they can still put money towards research. I think removing the middleman could make our tax dollars effective for this.