Oh my, the liberals are in an uproar that we are daring…DARING…to call bulls&%t on this SCHIP family the Democrats pulled out of their hat this last weekend. My favorite comment on this KOS post sums it up:
Yes, they better not have a “high net worth value” before our society decides to assist them with anything for their kids healthcare bills. Bills that by my estimates most likely would be in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands and that might also result in the bankruptcy of even the most average middle class family that possessed health insurance coverage. Yup, the family should have been forced to suffer more (despite the fact the kids are lucky to be alive and will have lifelong issues to deal with from the TBI’s they sustained).
Yes, these people should be forced to suffer and struggle some more….they should have had to sell their small family business and been forced to give up the breadwinner’s income (and he should go work at McWal-mart) …because that is what a humane society insists upon before they provide them with healthcare assistance. Yup and they should have been forced to sell and move out of their house (that had most likely risen in value subtantially like most homes over the past decade did due to the housing bubble)and sold their granite counter tops and been forced to moved into a Section 8 funded apartment because gawd forbid they better most certainly be struggling before those kids and this family were aided by our American society in any way shape or form. That’s the spirit….the American way.
I’m sorry if I sound angry and sarcastic here, (because I am after reading this post)….but perhaps you just don’t fully understand just what this family went through. I have no personal knowledge of this family, but worked in a TBI rehab unit for many years….and it is one of those traumatic medical issues that can just devastate and rip apart people and their families in many many ways and not always just financially.
Well how about this instead Einstein. The family buys insurance at a cost of 400-500 bucks a month instead of buying that SUV, instead of buying those granite counter tops, instead of putting their kids into private school, instead of remodeling their house. That way the insurance then covers the hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills and TA-DA, problem solved.
This is just another Mary Ann Knowles:
Repeatedly throughout his campaign, Kerry has held up Hudson
resident Mary Ann Knowles as an example of President Bush’s failure to
ensure adequate health care for all Americans (as if a President can do
such a thing). Here is what he said during his acceptance speech at the
Democratic National Convention last month:“What does it mean
when Mary Ann Knowles, a woman with breast cancer I met in New
Hampshire, had to keep working day after day right through her
chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of
losing her family’s health insurance? America can do better. And help
is on the way.”Thing is, Mary Ann Knowles did not have to work
through her chemotherapy to keep her health insurance. In fact, she has
great health insurance, which includes 26 weeks of paid disability
leave.Knowles chose to work through most, but not all, of her
chemotherapy because her husband was out of a job. (Kerry said she had
to work “every day” of her chemotherapy. His campaign chalked that lie
up to “a colloquialism.”)She and husband John did not want to
take the pay cut that would have come with disability leave, so Mary
Ann kept working. But that is not how Kerry tells the story. He
deliberately misstates her situation, saying she would have lost her
health coverage if she took a single day off.
Another Winifred Skinner:
It brings tears to your eyes. Here’s this adorable, elderly woman out in Iowa who’s so sick and so poor, that in order to pay for medicines she needs to stay alive, she has to scavenge in a local dump yard for cast-off tin cans.
~~~Mrs. Skinner, who first told her story at a Gore campaign event in Altoona, Iowa, repeated her sad story Tuesday to the nation at large — or Mr. Gore repeated it for her.
~~~As it happens, despite the impression given by Vice President Gore, Mrs. Skinner is not an itinerant hobo. She is not living “hand to mouth” as reported by Mr. Gore, but quite comfortably as the mother of a well-to-do businessman, Earl King, a successful specialist in heating and air conditioning. Mr. King and his wife, in addition to his routine work, raise horses (not a poor man’s hobby) on a farm west of Des Moines. They have made available to Mrs. Skinner a 900-square-foot Des Moines apartment where she would be welcome to live, but she prefers her old home.
~~~“She gets a small pension,” he said. “But in order to pay for her prescription drug benefits she has to go out seven days a week, several hours a day, picking up cans.”
It turns out, as the statement was rectified, Mrs. Skinner goes out zero days a week, for zero hours a day, and that she was only speaking “in the name of” people she assumes must do this. But in whose name was the vice-president speaking in his closing sentences of the debate? Apparently no one’s.
Or Jennifer Bush:
…Jennifer’s mother wrote a widely-publicized letter to the White House.
“Do you know what it is like to choose between purchasing groceries for
the week to feed your family or buying needed medications for your
chronically ill child?” Kathleen Bush asked. Pale and wan, young
Jennifer suffered from unidentified chronic digestive problems and
myriad ailments from birth. She had her gall bladder, appendix, and
fragments of her intestines removed. Those organs were replaced with a
tangled cable of feeding tubes that constricted Jennifer’s 43-pound
frame. Surgeons threaded a catheter into the girl’s heart. After 200
hospital visits and 40 operations, the Bush family had racked up
medical bills worth more than $2 million.~~~
Politicians unquestioningly embraced the Bushes and their tale of need.
Hillary cuddled with seven-year-old Jennifer for the cameras; their
mugs were splashed on the pages of USA Today and newspapers across the
country. Shamelessly coached, Jennifer gave the Clintons a lucky silver
dollar “to bring you good luck so everyone can have good insurance.” In
another pre-programmed, kiddie-sized soundbite, Jennifer dutifully told
the press: “I pray every night that I can get better – and that
everyone can have insurance.”~~~
But who was strangling whom? Several years before Hillary deified Mrs.
Bush and elevated Jennifer to poster-child stardom, suspicious medical
professionals had already begun questioning the mother’s role in making
her “beautiful little angel” sick. Nurses complained that Mrs. Bush was
force-feeding her child with unnecessary seizure drugs that made her
vomit. Independent specialists conducted extensive tests on Jennifer
and found no evidence of digestive disorders. When Jennifer was
separated from her mother for treatment at a Cincinnati hospital, the
starved child feasted mightily on pizza, hot dogs, and chocolate bars.
Meanwhile, authorities discovered that while the Bush family claimed
poverty because of Jennifer’s health problems, they had splurged on
trips to the Bahamas and Disney World, house remodeling, and a new
Harley-Davidson motorcycle.~~~
…[In February 2000], Kathleen Bush — Hillary Clinton’s once-proud
and loud sister in arms — was sentenced to five years in prison on two
counts of aggravated child abuse and one count of fraud. She also pled
guilty to a separate count of welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000
in assets on Medicaid forms. “There was probably more abuse in this
single case,” lead prosecutor Bob Nichols noted, “than in all of the
child-abuse cases I’ve prosecuted in my life combined.”Mrs. Bush’s behavior is an extreme example of the Nanny State
opportunism to which Hillary Clinton has dedicated her life. It’s
enough to make you sick.
That’s all this is. The Democrats chose to roll out a little kid to shamelessly plug for socialized medicine and its backfiring once more. Because any family that can afford a new SUV, a remodeled kitchen with granite countertops, tuition to private schools can damn well afford the 500 bucks a month for insurance. Will they have to do without on some things? Sure. Life is all about priorities. But as a business owner the father decided to spend their money on other things rather then insurance, and now look who paid for it. The taxpayers.
And where the hell was the auto insurance anyways? Did he not add medical to it?
UPDATE
…So executive vice-presidents’ families are now the new new poor? I
support lower taxes for the Frosts, increased child credits for the
Frosts, an end to the “death tax” and other encroachments on
transgenerational wealth transfer, and even severe catastrophic
medical-emergency aid of one form or other. But there is no reason to
put more and more middle-class families on the government teat, and
doing so is deeply corrosive of liberty.
UPDATE II
Good catch once again by the peeps at FR:
Note how Dailykos defends them with the following info: “Ths house that the Frosts currently reside in was purchased in 1990 for $55,000.”
As if that was some sort of proof of how downtrodden they are when in
fact, that is ever so slightly above the median range of housing in
1990:In Baltimore, median household incomes rose from
$24,045 in 1990 to $36,031 in 2006 in the Baltimore City-Towson area.
But median home prices in that same area went from $54,700 to $126,400,
according to census data.
Which also means they have a nice little nestegg of equity built up.
Still, why not get the taxpayers to pay for your insurance?
See author page
Didn’t this program actually pay the young kids (used in this slimey ad) medical bills brought on by the car crash. Funny that the president requested a $5 billion, with a B, increase in funding for the program but the democrats want it expanded to cover the Rockefeller and Heinz (Hanoi John) families.
If the family income is as reported they were already eligible for S-Chip in Maryland. The irony however is that at the end of the day this young man received hundreds of thousands of dollars of care at someone’s expense because he needed it, whether he had private insurance or public assistance. It would seem the real beneficiary here would be the hospital and doctors who weren’t paid for his care rather than the young man whose parents wouldn’t or couldn’t pay for private insurance and didn’t bother to apply for S-Chip in Maryland or didn’t know they could. Either way this bill is not the answer to this young man’s alleged problem.
I don’t really know much about this issue, but I am repulsed by using a child to make political points. (I seem to remember Pres. Bush parading around a fistful of infants when he vetoed the stem cell bill — did that bother you as much as it sis me?)
But really, 400-500 bucks for family insurance? YOU MUST BE BAKED. If you think you can get family insurance for less-than 1,200 a month, then I also have a bridge to sell you.
Hmmmm,
You do realize, because of the injuries sustained by their daughter, they will essentially be denied coverage by any private insurer at _any_ rate, much less $500 a month.
You do realize they don’t actually pay full tuition to those schools, that their son has a significant scholarship that pays for about 96% of the tuition costs?
You do realize there is nothing abnormal about a median-income family buying a (roughly) median income house in the 1990’s? The reason that’s mentioned on the Kos site (among others) is folks such as yourself have been pointing out the house value and effectively saying “hey, if they can afford payments on that house, they don’t need SCHIP” … ignoring the fact they aren’t making payments based on the home’s current value.
If you had bothered to check any of your facts, you might have found out that the boy only pays $500 in tuition per year at that “expensive” school, and that his house only cost $55,000 when his parents bought it, although the neighborhood has improved since then. (How dare a hardworking, honest family help a poor neighborhood to improve?)
Be careful how you sneer at that SUV. A lot of conservatives have been shrieking that an SUV is an absolute necessity for the safety of their children, and that anyone who wants to deprive a family of them must be an environmental terrorist. But when has cognitive dissonance ever bothered you guys, come to think of it? Go back to smearing children.
The GOP:
Smearing children and holding the powerless accountable since 1865.
Not BEFORE the accident. You know, when your supposed to pay for that insurance in the first place. Instead they chose to put that money into a kitchen and a suv. Priorities I guess.
Check the link out yourself.
Face it, this family made enough to get a SUV, to remodel their kitchen, and Im sure we will find out how much more they were able to afford in the near future INSTEAD of paying for insurance, or medical car insurance it seems.
Pathetic.
“Funny that the president requested a $5 billion, with a B, increase in funding for the program but the democrats want it expanded to cover the Rockefeller and Heinz (Hanoi John) families”
Funny that 5 billion, with a B, isn’t enough to fund the needs of the program at it’s CURRENT level.
Why don’t you just say what you really mean: “If you don’t have health insurance it’s your own fault and you deserve to get sick and die. And if you don’t like it then you’re a commie-pinko-treehugger-slacker-lowlife.” Don’t mask your neanderthal-based philosophy with fancy facts and figures — it’s embarassing.
Your damn right its your own fault if you can afford it, which this family most assuredly could.
Funny that 5 billion, with a B, isn’t enough to fund the needs of the program at it’s CURRENT level.
That is completely idiotic.
What’s interesting is that there isn’t really any reason to deny these people insurance. The money is only coming out of your pocket if you smoke, and if you smoke, you’re stealing money from my pocket because your healthcare costs this country billions more than non-smokers. And smoking certainly seems to be more of a choice than having a car big enough for your family, having a house, or “choosing” to follow the dream of working for yourself. Not only that, but all the choices that this family made are choices the boost the economy (choosing to have a family, choosing to buy a car, choosing to buy a house, choosing to be an entrepreneur instead of letting people from outside the country do that job).
A) Why do lower-income children not deserve healthcare? B) Why would you care unless you smoke since it’s not money out of your pocket? B.2) If you do smoke, do you think that YOU deserve the money more than that kid? Or, even if you don’t smoke, do you think smokers deserve that money even more than that kid? Even when health costs of smoking are astronomical? Even when smokers miss more work than non-smokers, costing employers and businesses millions?
And I’ve seen people talking about how smoking taxes punish the poor, but I’d rather punish the poor for smoking than punish their children for their parents being bad fiscal planners.
And finally, let’s assume this family is fairly well off. Would you deny all the families who are worse off healthcare and “let them rot” just because there are a handful of people who MIGHT not have need it (again, only according your misinterpretation of their financial circumstances). Don’t we want to reward people for having families? Look at how great rewarding home ownership worked out for america.
“Funny that 5 billion, with a B, isn’t enough to fund the needs of the program at it’s CURRENT level.
That is completely idiotic.”
But true, caveman. Sorry if the math doesn’t jibe with the cro-magnon mindset.
Oh yeah, your right…the math does say its not enough to cover those who truly don’t need the help but instead chose to spend it on big cars and new kitchens. What was I thinking.
You guys take the cake.
trex and sirocco…
do you really expect the right wing smear machine to check facts? think back to the swift boat vets. heres the key qoute from another right wing smear merchant…”… maybe money can be found for other things…maybe Dad should drop his woodworking hobby and get a real job that offers health insurance rather than making people like me (also with 4 kids in a 600sf smaller house and tuition $16,000 less per kid and no commercial property ownership) pay for it in my taxes.” the righties just want to tell everyone else how to live. they can’t help themselves. at the end of the day the insurance companies are thieves. the answer is fixing insurance, not growing government.
“Oh yeah, your right…the math does say its not enough to cover those who truly don’t need the help but instead chose to spend it on big cars and new kitchens. What was I thinking.”
Nice deflection, Piltdown Man. If you had a brain you would note that my argument had absolutely nothing to do with expannding SCHIP, just that Dear Leader wants to CUT it.
Here is a fact. A FACT, as in not debatable because it is true:
The administration’s request to increase SCHIP funding by $5B over 5 years is not enough to cover the children already enrolled in the program.
Try and refute this. You can’t. Because it is true.
And I am big enough to accept your apology for calling me an idiot when I was 100% right.
Because we commie-pinko-treehugger-slackers are a VERY forgiving group.
I love you and all the other Minions of Bush. I pray for you.
Check this out for facts lib, most states are already using their SCHIP funds for adults. Something SCHIP was never intended to be used for. Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Mexico all show that they will spend more SCHIP money on adults rather then the children it was written and passed for.
The fact of the matter is that the increase suggested by the President would fund those who really need it, you know…the poor, who cant afford their own homes, nor SUV’s, nor new kitchens.
Admit it, you guys want socialized medicine.
What everyone else said.
Plus, I honestly don’t get it. What’s the problem? You guys act like health care for all kids, means everyone gets sent to Siberia and Stalin gets put on the $1 bill. Hasn’t happened in the UK, Canada, or any other NATO nations with health care; do you think America is weaker than them, and can’t handle public medicine?
You don’t have a problem with roads, do you? Roads are paid for by everyone via taxes, whether or not the individuals actaully use roads much, because good roads help *everyone* in the country.
Same for public schools, the military, and the space program. At the state and town level, same for police and fire departments. We all pay in for all these things, because they improve our living conditions. Even if we *never* send kids to school, other peoples’ kids getting educated means a better, happier workforce and a better economy. Even if your house never catches fire, you’re safer because someone will put someone else’s house out *before* it gets to yours. Etc. etc.
So, what’s the damage with SCHIP? Kids get health care, smokers get charged more. Win and win.
“Admit it, you guys want socialized medicine.”
I admit it. I’m not ashamed to admit it. God forbid we give healthcare to everyone. I mean, that would be HORRIBLE, wouldn’t it? It’s not like we’re the richest and most powerful country in the world or anything. Note to cavemen: We are the richest country in the world BECAUSE we are a welfare state, not in spite of it. Like ALL the other rich countries are too, right?
And personally, I don’t get all bent out of shape if a program is abused somewhat, as long as the core purpose is being fulfilled. And in the case of SCHIP it clearly is. If the program was corrupt, don’t you think Rush and all the other the other Minions would be screaming about it with their puffy red swollen faces? Of course they would be. But they’re not. Because it’s a pretty good program.
And that states are allowed to administer the program how they want to. That’s the ‘S’ in SCHIP, you know, for “State”.
And there you go. Redistribution of wealth. We are the richest BECAUSE of Capitalism, not because we have welfare.
If you libs want to take my taxes so a family that earns 80 grand a year (not the Frosts, what the libs plan calls for) can choose to spend their money on SUVs instead of insurance then you can expect a fight. SCHIP money going to those it was intended for, POOR KIDS, and you wont get a fight.
“And there you go. Redistribution of wealth. We are the richest BECAUSE of Capitalism, not because we have welfare.
If you libs want to take my taxes so a family that earns 80 grand a year (not the Frosts, what the libs plan calls for) can choose to spend their money on SUVs instead of insurance then you can expect a fight.”
You’re acting like you caught me in something. I know what I am saying. If it wasn’t for the New Deal, there would have been some sort of commie revolution here. You can pshaw all you want, but that’s exactly what a lot of people were afraid of at the time.
When capitalism was in full-bloom, pre-New Deal, we were a 2nd-rate world power both economically and militarily. Again, this is not a really arguable point.
So you’re quite literally saying we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. That because some people who YOU feel don’t deserve to qualify for SCHIP, the whole program should be underfunded as some sort of twisted Bushie-punishment?
Question: Would you support a full de-funding of SCHIP? Because socialized medicine is socialized medicine, right? Whether or not it’s helping anyone, as a market-driven culture no one should have insurance for free when others are paying cash, right?
“SCHIP money going to those it was intended for, POOR KIDS, and you wont get a fight.”
You’re a liar. Admit it — you were against SCHIP as soon as you heard of it. Which was probably just a few weeks ago.
The problem with SCHIP in its current form is that its eroding the private insurance market. I’m sure if the Frosts couldn’t get this taxpayer help they would have done what was necessary to get that insurance themselves, like get rid of the nice car and doing without the remodeled kitchen.
But, with SCHIP, they can insure the kids and not have to pay for it!
This kind of program, like most welfare programs, give incentives to people to work the system and get free service. They then spend the money on other things. The bottomline = SCHIP is often winding up insuring kids who would have been insured anyway.
With the Democrats new version every uninsured child signed up, TWO insured kids would be signed up, and removed from the private health insurance system.
Which erodes the private health insurance system.
Which increases government control of health care in the United States.
And then you have socialized medicine.
Curt you do know that already have a socialized healthcare system and its huge. Medicare and medicaid. I suppose you are stuck on the term socialized or its bogeyman other socialism. Get over it.
Second by allowing children to have regular checkups over all healthcare costs are REDUCED.
Third you are not following the story. The family makes 45k a year the kid is on a huge scholarship and the house was cheap when they bought it.
Ultimately that you would turn against the health and well being of children over a single example is not a good indicator of your moral center.
Wrong once again. Your making a habit out of this.
First, many of the states are using those funds for adults, not children. Second, I am following the story. They have a house with lots of equity built into, they have a nice new shiny SUV, they have a nice new remodeled kitchen, and they sent their kids to private schools at the cost of the taxpayers. Third, I’m turning against the fact that this couple prioritized wrong. No way they can explain not spending the 500 bucks a month rather then spend it on the SUV.
And bankrupting this country
Off to work, cya later libs
“With the Democrats new version every uninsured child signed up, TWO insured kids would be signed up, and removed from the private health insurance system.
Which erodes the private health insurance system.”
God forbid we erode the private healthcare system! Anyone who either explicitly or implicitly defends the insurance industry is either a) a fool, b) works for them, c) has never really had to deal with them, or d) is just trying to be cute and “anti”. Insurance companies are the AXIS OF EVIL, and you know that this is a well-entrenched stereotype.
I don’t understand why sending taxpayer money to the government, who we get to elect, is so much worse than forking it over to private industry. I don’t like giving my money to anyone. At least with the government greed doesn’t enter into it as often, and we can demand accountability. If CIGNA decides on a Wednesday to cancel your policy, oh well, you’re screwed.
And if you dare say “trickle down” then you’re even dumber than you sound.
Hey Curt — what happened to proving I was wrong about Bush’s lame-ass funding proposal?
Chicken-hawk. Run for cover, sweetie! You might have to back up your bluster with facts, and we can’t have that!
What the whacko neocon psuedo-libertarians here can’t seem to grasp is that the competition created by a government funded system will actually drive healthcare prices down.
Cue the inevitable right wing study to the contrary…
And there you go. Redistribution of wealth. We are the richest BECAUSE of Capitalism, not because we have welfare.
Right. And I’d like to know exactly how socialized HEALTHCARE AS AN OPTION is anti-Capitalist. You free market nutcases don’t even seem to understand the free market, nor the fact that TAXES have created lots of cool things for the nanny state conservatives – such as the corporation designation – a construct designed to protect the individuals involved; roads, airports, infrastructre, schools, and every thing else that NURTURES Capitalistic endeavors. But although everyone deserves a free education, the same can’t be said of healthcare?
You people are just pathetic.
Oh, BTW – and because I don’t have time to sit around and argue with a bunch of disingenuous blowhards today, I don’t recall anyone being in an “uproar” about the fact that the wing-nuts “questioned” the kid – it’s that you numbnuts didn’t even check the facts, and when called out on it all you have to fall back on is the tired old meme about the system being abused, you not wanting to pay for someone else’s healthcare (when you have no problem doing it for their education?), etc. ad-nauseum.
Here’s a thought. If healthcare was free for everyone, nobody could “abuse” the system because every citizen would have access.
“I don’t recall anyone being in an “uproar” about the fact that the wing-nuts “questioned” the kid”
Of course you’re right. But Minions of Bush need to feel oppressed. They need to feel like someone’s gittin’ sumpin’ they ain’t. They NEED to feel like they’ve earned everything they have while everyone else is getting free gub’ment cheese.
Let’s face it, they want to be an aggrieved minority.
The Federal Govt has done SUCH a good job handling money, yeah, let’s give them more to handle more responsibility.
I mean, if a Pentagon toilet costs $600, what’s a catheter gonna cost-$600,000?
If the IRS tax system sees it a national necessity to offer tax credits to Inuit whalers to offset the impact of international whaling treaties, then perhaps we can expect (under a Federally-controlled national healthcare system) to see tax credits for smokers to offset the impact of tax revenue lost from tobacco farmers due to a drop in tobacco sales as a result of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards’ plan for preventative healthcare tax credits?
If Medicare currently sees it as perfectly reasonable to subsidize and facilitate a new heart for McDonald’s addicts or a new liver for lifetime alcoholics, then why shouldn’t we expect better money management from a national socialized medicine administration?
Given that the Federal Budget is loaded with literally THOUSANDS of pages of pork barrel spending projects for new bike paths that cost $25million, or a national security office that does nothing in Jonestown, PA for Rep Murtha, or perhaps a water usage museum in the deserts outside Palm Springs…yeah, I think it’s safe to say that the Feds know how to handle money much more effectively than you know…a business.
Look, national healthcare is a great idea, but it’s a friggin pipedream. There’s no way it’s gonna happen, and just like Global Warming, opposition to the war in Iraq, calling Rush a racist-no wait, sorry, that was OReilly…point is the Democrats are feeding issues out there trying desperately to distract from reality so that they can keep their base energized as the truth has finally come out:
there is no stopping the Iraq War
Bush is not running again
Democrats LIED about having a plan to end the war…or even the motivation.
All this rhetoric about socialized medicine is a joke, but die-hard-Bush-hating-blind-partisans eat it up rather than dare to see the elephant in the room: they’ve been had.
Face it, the Federal government is not good at handling money, and you want them to handle the biggest, most complex, most ethically challenging, spending program in world history? Yeah, great idea. Brilliant. Tell ya what, if I have a history of drug addiction-like Congress has a historical addiction to spending money foolishly-would ya send me some money? No. Probably not, but yet the victims of the Democratic Party’s lies (ie the PEOPLE of the Democratic Party) will argue in defense of anything regardless of absurdity rather than put their own party and HOUSES in order.
Oh, and if you should feel like throwing good money after bad, toss it to the paypal button on this site. It’s not a required tax, but you’ll get more out of it than you do most of your tax dollars now and a lot more than you will after a national, socialized medicine program is enacted by the spending addicts on The Hill.
Scott Malensek at October 9, 2007 9:42 AM
Nice rant, Scott. Do I get fries with that?
I love when people (of any political affiliation) act like they have their finger on the pulse of America.
All the “rhetoric” about socialized medicine? Socialized medicine is not some pie-in-the-sky theory. It is alive and well in virtually every industrialized country in the world, to some extent. We should be talking about the pros and cons about each system, seeing what, if anything, can be adopted by this country.
But we can’t have that debate, all we can talk about is nonsense, because anytime anyone talks about changes to our healthcare system, idiots like you start screaming, “Socialized medicine! Socialized medicine! Run for the hills, it’s SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!”
Don’t worry, honey-buns. Karl Marx is dead. Stalin is dead. He’s not coming for you.
Government is inefficient? DUH! You know what’s NOT inefficient? Totalitarianism. Democracy is inefficient. Do you dislike democracy, commie-pinko-fascist-pig?
Ineffiecient does not mean evil. Inefficient does not mean useless. It would be nice if the world was black-and-white — that way people like you would have informed opinions. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, the world is full of nuance. Maybe you should defer to stronger brains, just like George Bush does.
Question: Would you support a full de-funding of Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP?
“Question: Would you support a full de-funding of Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP?”
Nope. I’d just limit the annual increases, reduce the income level of acceptable applicants to families making $50k a yr or less, and I WOULD NEVER give American taxpayer dollars to support illegal immigrants. There is NO reason in my mind at all as to why a person who is not an American should receive welfare aid from the American government: welfare, social security, SCHIP, medicare, medicaid. Not Americans-not getting American benefits.
Make those changes, and guess what…even GWB says he’d back it.
QUESTION (in return): if it’s perfectly acceptable to give an illegal immigrant welfare money, medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, socialized medicine, social security, drivers licenses, etc….what will distinguish an American from a non-American? The right to vote? Hardly a plus at all if politics is determined by PAC money coming from citizens of other countries (illegal immigrants).
Let SCHIP be SCHIP, and even W says he’ll sign it. Slipping in these bs lines that give American tax dollars to illegal immigrants is wrong.
Since I doubt seriously that the FACTS of this case will sway any of you Bush ass-lickers, I’ll refrain from repeating them.
You’re a bunch of despicable scum…..little boys, pretending to be tough…pathetic assholes somehow hoping to be thought of as men.
The core fact is simple:
The SCHIP legislation was modified in backdoor dealings (identical to the kind of law-making that Democrats vowed to eliminate if elected to control of Congress btw), and in those dealings, they upped the levels of income that can get coverage so that they could get more support, and then they added in coverage for non-Americans to get pac money from those illegal immigration pac groups.
I gotta laugh, I mean, if the left realized that all an Iraqi has to do to get medical coverage is to leave Iraq and sneak into the US, then this revised SCHIP legislation would be tossing more American money to Iraqis…something that the left rails about all the time, but ignores in this case.
Nope.
Give money to those Americans who need it. It’s that simple. Had the Democrats’ Congress left it that way, it’d have been signed and in action by now.
Scott, as obnoxious as I am (though I always aspire to add a little humor), I do appreciate that you actually responded to my comment.
I will answer your question, though I am certain you’re not going to like it.
Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that these rights are only for Americans — it’s more about what rights HUMANS should have. In practice, of course, we cannot make our laws universal, but the Constitution is by it’s very nature INCLUSIVE, not exclusive.
That said, my belief is that the people who are willing to pack their bags and come to this country deserve to be here. All we are is a country of people who packed their bags and came here, and I am not going to be the one to judge who came here for good reasons and who didn’t. If it were up to me, we WOULD let anyone in who wants to come. Of course it could tax the system, but in the end the system would survive, and we would continue to have a vibrant, growing country.
I told you that you wouldn’t like it.
“I gotta laugh, I mean, if the left realized that all an Iraqi has to do to get medical coverage is to leave Iraq and sneak into the US, then this revised SCHIP legislation would be tossing more American money to Iraqis”
That’s funny — I would have absolutely no problem with that scenario. Was I supposed to be thrown for a loop by this cute little conundrum? You’re very confused about what the left believes in.
I think we have a moral responsibility to let every single Iraqi into this country that wants to come in. We did royally f**k up their country, after all, apparently for their own good.
I wonder if all the morons here talking about how great socialized medicine is in other countries are aware of a few things? Like long waits for procedures you can get tomorrow in America. Like how not a single country in Europe has better cancer survival rates than the U.S. Like realizing the BS behind most rankings of Healthcare in the world.
Oh and realizing that all those countries with glorious socialized healthcare have realized that they can’t sustain it and working towards being closer to the US in that regard, while idiots in America want us to move towards them even though its proven to not work.
Nick, you’re wrong. I love your answer. I fully agree. I completely support and advocate people coming here-legally. Despite the great analogy you presented, the United States is not a nation of illegal immigrants-that’s not what Ellis Island was about (where my family came in, and became citizens). I support immigration, just not illegal immigration.
Now, as to the idea that it’s about HUMANS, I defer to the Declaration of Independence-not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and the only reason I do that is because the Declaration of Independence is the first heartbeat of our nation. In any event, I believe that all men are created equal-not just those born in an area between the Atlantic and Pacific and between Canada and Mexico. I believe everyone is given rights by God that cannot be dismissed. They are inalienable (see how the DOC gets more to the point of illegal aliens?). Those rights are the right to live, to live free under a government of their choosing, and to pursue their own happiness. These are rights given to Americans, to Mexicans, to Iraqis, to Afghans, to Iranians, to Somalis, to Rwandans, to Sudanese, and so forth. As such, if this nation is to accept the burden of subsidizing people when they are between lines on a map…then why not subsidize them overseas, protect those rights of men, and enable others to live, to live in a govt of their choosing, and to pursue their own happiness?
It’s a catch 22, if American treasure SHOULD go to pay for illegal aliens, then shouldn’t it go for them regardless of where they are? Why shouldn’t the US give a Mexican welfare, medicine, social security, etc if they live in Mexico? It’s not because they’re contributing to our society by living here since we live in a global economy; a world where it takes less time to fly to Iraq than it does to drive to San Diego (for me at least). No. Either we accept that the US should bear the world’s burdens, or not, and if we look for a middle of the road solution, then the answer is that we do what we can outside the borders, but for people who try to become citizens of the US, there are special benefits: medicare, medicaid, socialized medicine, welfare, protection by police, and the US military.
I’m still amazed at how the proponents of the left are ranting here that there’s something wrong about President Bush’s position on SCHIP since he’s taking the exact same stand on backdoor riders that Democratic Party voters took last fall (and conveniently ignore now since, you know…it’s ok for Democrats, and even if it’s not…we’ll let it slide).
“I wonder if all the morons here talking about how great socialized medicine is in other countries are aware of a few things? Like long waits for procedures you can get tomorrow in America. Like how not a single country in Europe has better cancer survival rates than the U.S. Like realizing the BS behind most rankings of Healthcare in the world.”
Let me get this straight, buzz: You’re saying that socialized medicine in Europe and Canada is not perfect? NO! SAY IT’S NOT SO! MY ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY DEPENDS ON IRRATIONALLY MYTHOLOGIZING ALMOST EVERYTHING!
Let’s get another thing straight, buzz: I am not a f***ing retard. You didn’t rock my world with your pithy analysis of the problems of socialized medicine. Long wait times? Why, I have never heard that before! At least not in the last 1/2 hour.
Questions:
1) Do you think our healthcare system is perfect?
2) Do you think that waiting times and cancer outlook are the only metrics by which to measure a system?
3) Do you think that having 40+ million uninsured people is functionally equivalent to healthcare rationing?
4) Do you think every socialized medicine system is the same?
5) Do you look for one or two cutesy little quips and factoids to define your beliefs, or do you believe that the world is complicated and often contradictory?
6) Do you wonder why so many AMERICANS go abroad for healthcare (mostly plastic surgery, I know, but not exclusively)?
7) Do you even give a flying f**k that many many people need to use emergency rooms for basic healthcare?
8) Do you even care about anyone that you isn’t just like you?
I have to say that I doubt any entity can compete for insurance companies for inefficiency. Claims that fall outside the nominal and routine take a very long time to resolve in the current system and this process in itself adds tremendous cost to the payout. Part of what makes healthcare so expensive is the very fact that insurance companies drag their feet paying what they owe. Hospitals are left in terrible cash flow straits, and they try to make this up by overcharging for their services. Of course this is not their only problem, but it is important to remember this when you’re comparing the existing system to some hypothetical single-payer system.
In addition, high insurance costs are often attributable to the markups charged at various layers of the current healthcare system by private entities (that’s right, private enterprise may occasionally rip people off). These middlemen stand to gain from almost every transaction in the healthcare arena.
Do you think, given their tremendous stake in the status quo from a dollars perspective, that insurance companies might be playing some role in the PR war against “socialized” medicine?
Interestingly, they’re slowly losing many of their traditional allies in this fight — namely corporations (to say nothing of small businesses). Recently GM’s CFO (I think CFO??) Rick Wagoner has made public comments intimating that companies like GM, strapped with huge health care burdens, would benefit tremendously from a single-payer system. And small businesses are growing ever more incapable of offering health insurance to their employees. The number of such businesses offering insurance drops every year.
S-CHIP is only one branch in the tree of healthcare debate, but the overarching anti-single-payer argument is reflexive and anti-capitalist. For a functioning capitalist system, you need regulation, maintenance, government, and some modicum of government-provided services. This is true of banking, manufacturing, infrastructure, everything. Healthcare is no different.
No less a capitalist than Henry Ford recognized the benefit of well-paid, well-fed, well-housed and healthy workers to his bottom line.
Inversely, we can all gauge the cost ramifications if people are unable to stay healthy enough to work.
Finally, taxes and government are necessities in everything. I always wonder how worked up anti-tax zealots get about their monstrous golf club membership dues. They apparently pay them willingly and in full understanding that these dues are necessary for the upkeep of their beloved clubs. Why then are they so unwilling to recognize that living in an organized and prosperous nation also requires some dues?
Due apologies to all you public course right-wingers….
“Like long waits for procedures you can get tomorrow in America. Like how not a single country in Europe has better cancer survival rates than the U.S. Like realizing the BS behind most rankings of Healthcare in the world.”
And I forgot to mention my favorite part about buzz’s rant: buzz belives the statistics about wait times whole-heartedly.
buzz deep-throats and swallows the statistics about cancer survival rates.
But the global healthcare rankings? buzz thinks they’re bs.
So, Mr. Statistics Expert Buzz, can you explain how you cherry-pick which stats you like and which you don’t?
…and wait times for certain procedures are unduly long in the States, whereas they are nonexistent for them elsewhere.
Like another commenter pointed out, having no coverage at all certainly represents a “wait time” for common procedures. Want a physical? No insurance? Please wait indefinitely….
Thanks again, Scott.
My feeling is that there should be no such thing as illegal immigration. My great-greats came through Ellis Island too. But Ellis Island didn’t really turn anyone away unless they had a disease. Quotas and limits came later.
Providing healthcare and education to anyone, citizen or any legal classification of immigrant, is an investment in the future of our country. Do we not want to poach the hardest-working, highly-motivated workers from everyone else?
I realize that a completely open-door policy is not really workable, and I exaggerated to make my point that too much immigration is not such a bad thing.
And we do provide much assistance to people that live in other countries. It is one of the things that makes our country great.
The SCHIP issue isn’t about whether or not the govt should help poor Americans who can’t afford coverage. If that were what SCHIP did, it’d have President Bush’s support. Instead, it goes beyond that in the riders Democrats put on in closed doors, and people are giving that action a free pass-even endorsing it by supporting the SCHIP as is (was). There’s actual common political ground there for using the Fed govt to provide some aid to Americans who can’t afford it, but the left wants to ignore the reason WHY it’s not gonna happen and spin this into a debate on socialized medicine as a whole while the real debate should be accountability for Democrats who behind closed doors put on riders and modified it so that it can’t be passed as is.
Can you explain why you think the solution to insuring 40 million people is to bankrupt the country? Can you explain why you want an organization so completely inept and inefficient as the federal government in charge of your health care?
As for fact vs. statistics. Fact is that nations gather their statistics differently. Fact is that the weighing of those stats are arbitrarily decided on. And part of that information revolves around cost. Fact is that there are wait times in nations with socialized healthcare to the point that there is rationing of treatment, and in countries like Canada people need to come to the US to receive treatment because their glorious system can’t handle them at the moment. Please take a number. And its not about the belief that I think our system is perfect in America. But it is knowing that what you would like to happen is wrong.
Fact is that in the US you cannot be denied medical treatment, even if you don’t have insurance.
And I will take the time right now to answer one of your questions.
“6) Do you wonder why so many AMERICANS go abroad for healthcare (mostly plastic surgery, I know, but not exclusively)?”
That’s easy, medical tourism is becoming big business. Countries are setting up hospitals to cater to foreign clients. You pay money to get treatment at a state of the art facility without the hassles of health insurance, likely treated by a physician who studied in America or Europe. Paying money in exchange for goods or services without interference by the government. Isn’t capitalism grand? Oops you probably don’t like the C word.
Psst.
The troops get socialized medicine.
Pass it on.
Anyone wanna say why SCHIP’s not gonna become law? Nah, let’s not talk about Democrats who promised integrity, open lawmaking, no more backroom deals…let’s not talk about how that Congress has now demonstrated yet ANOTHER lie from their 2006 campaign.
Let’s see, Culture of Corruption…unless you’ve got FBI cash in your freezer.
Um, New Direction in Iraq…yeah, how’s that one going a year later?
Hmmm, accountability for pork spending…nope. That was the first to be cast aside.
impeachment’s off the table, well not off, well not on, oh, we’re elected….fuhgetaboutit
backroom committee deals…see also SCHIP; poisoned in committee to die a public death and keep the base energized.
While people are out there debating whether or not socialized medicine is a good idea, they’re ignoring why this bill is DOA, and pretending like socialized medicine has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming a reality at the same exact time as baby boomers retire and start sucking at the Federal tit of social security. Yeah, by all means Democrats, please, ignore the lies you voted into office, ignore the fact that the Dems have now managed to mislead even worse than the neocons, and let’s pretend socialized medicine is fiscally possible in the shadow of a bill that was effectively killed in committee.
And of course, when they put those riders on and modified SCHIP, the Dems who did it were shocked-SHOCKED that it wouldn’t pass anymore…yeah right. Might as well have put an Iraq timetable on it.
Democrats killed SCHIP, and yall wanna pretend that it’s “right wingers” opposition to socialized medicine. Yeah, ’cause George Bush hates black people, and poor too now.
Psst.
The troops get socialized medicine.
Pass it on.
Posted by: Robert at October 9, 2007 11:13 AM
see also Walter Reed scandal
“Can you explain why you think the solution to insuring 40 million people is to bankrupt the country?”
The most common cause of personal bankruptcy filings is high medical expenses. No idea whether this is for insured or uninsured patients, but my money’s on the insured ones being in the majority of this 80% (if memory serves) of bankruptcy filers. Despite the fact that it’s a great deal harder to declare bankruptcy now than it was four years ago, the number of filings continues to increase.
Personal bankruptcies cost everybody. You want to bankrupt our nation? Keep that up.
Socialized medicine would cost less than paying layer upon layer of private middlemen as we do now. Simple concept.
“Can you explain why you want an organization so completely inept and inefficient as the federal government in charge of your health care?”
Because it is less inept and less inefficient than insurance companies. There are more, and deeper, layers of bureaucracy in insurance companies than there are in the federal government.