Healthcare

[CptSternn]

Delecti - just for you, because I know you are a supporter of this sort of thing...

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

President, Congress battle over $30 billion coverage difference

WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America. "

The White House sought little attention, with Bush casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He was discussing it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa.

Socialized medicine?
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.

Democrats deny that, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Veto override considerations
Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups planned more than 200 events throughout the nation to highlight the issue.


So for the cost of one month in Iraq, 3 million poor children could have access to health care. However, bush feels that saving that money, I guess to pay for another month in Iraq, is more important than the health and lives of 3 million poor American 'childrens'.

[CptSternn]

Oh yeah, the link...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/

[CptSternn]

Also, I said 3 but the I meant 4 million. Typo.

[Rizash]

Originally Posted by delicti

Exactly. Although, to be fair, the highest tax burden is on the rich, so I think everyone will get screwed. That does make me curious though; why are you so adamant we do socialized care if you know it'll be a catastrophic failure?


In the same way Amtrak competes with... oh wait. In the same way city buses and subways compete with... hmmm, that doesn't work either. How about the same way water and public services compete with... do we see the problem here?


And what's wrong with that? Shouldn't you be happy for him? I'm sure his improvements to the property raised the property values of those around him, and I'm sure the people living in those apartments don't mind. He can't fix up those houses forever, so why get upset if he takes advantage of tax codes for exactly the reason they were written?


And if people are willing to pay the rent, why not? For that matter, if you're able to do that in your city, why aren't you taking out a loan and doing the same yourself? Rather complain about how everyone is getting rich while you're staying poor, why not do something about it?


You watch too many movies.


Really? So why does the IRS brag that (only) 1 in 4 people get returns? Oh, and tax returns usually aren't even close to all the taxes you've paid over the course of the year. You need to reconsider what your definition of middle class and poor is, because I've been both, and I've never gotten all my money back. Hell, I've even owed money some years.


I have no idea what that means.


Hey, why not? After all, that would totally bankrupt banks, which would remove large sectors of bonds and totally destabilize our economy. For that matter, you'd never be able to get a loan again, because banks are businesses and loans aren't charity work.

If you're looking for a new career, I wouldn't get into economics, kid.


Ummmm, that's not a loan, that's a credit card. Credit cards have always been a rip off -- that's not breaking news.

Maybe you want to look into these things called banks, they're actually quite good.

- I'm desperate to nationalize it because although it will cost more *AT FIRST* and it *WILL* be abused... it will improve the health/productivity of this nation..... Same benefit as banning products from china. Will cost us a TON of cash and costs on EVERYTHING in the US will go up, BUT. We'll have HUGE reductions in our trade deficit, we'll have HUGE reductions in landfill uses and we'll be much safer.... You have to look at whats BEST not whats the most efficient. I want whats FAIR and I want to make sure EVERYONE has whats important, a CHANCE at life.... A CHANCE for the American dream. If you're sick, and in debt you cant do ANYTHING to help yourself. If you're sick, getting better, and starting with a clean slate you have a much better chance.

-the tax burden is *NOT* on the rich... I dont get this info from movies... I know people who buy properties for tens of thousands, put tens of thousands into them (without doing anything) and sell them for several hundreds of thousands of dollars. My parrents have never had the money to buy their own home and never will own a home.... This is insane... 100% profit for those who already have money and double the cost for those who have to finance.... Thats whats unfair, and thats why I say those who NEED the health care are middle/lower class.... Its only fair to give everyone a fighting chance to actually work for a living (instead of making sure they retire pennyless at an early age and have to live in a "supported living" community costing tax-payers MORE than if they would have been healthy and living off pensions/retirement funds!

-In the same way that Amtrak competes with airlines but charges TWICE AS MUCH.... Aside from people who love scenery and the old world charm of trains nobody is going to sit on a train for two days when you could fly there in three hours for HALF THE PRICE..... Amtrak does have competition, and it COULD compete.... if they would stop charging insane fees and wasting money.

Public transportation *doesnt* really exist... where I am the busses run 6AM to 6 PM and its 50 cents.... Very few routes and it takes you an hour to get there.... Most cities around here charge almost $2 a freaking ride.... Thats INSANE.... for $10 you can get a cab home any time and get there in 5 minutes instead of 50.... Public transit is only there for a "green" image and convenience of those who cant afford vehicles.... Our city busses usually only have 2-3 people on them at any given time unless school is getting out or there is something going on in town.

-As for the upstart who has all the apartments now... I'm very happy for him. He's clawed his way up and he's doing a great job. The problem is within no time if you're out of debt you're making 70-80% profit and can expand your "empire" endlessly. The problem is if this system stands eventually NOBODY will own a house and we'll all be forced to rent houses at whatever price THEY want to charge. Dont believe me? Its already happened... how many people can buy a house without going through a bank? If the bank doesnt like you they dont give you a loan. PS: DONT get me started on banks as they are the 2nd biggest scam ever... after insurance.

- I dont have the income/background required to acquire the financing to buy a house/rental property on my own. I know someone MY AGE who purchased a duplex and is renting out both sides, he makes enough money to pay for the duplex/its upkeep AND his house that he owns off of that rent alone. The only downside is the fact you need the cash to START with in the first place (usually 20% down).

- Look up tax codes, if you own a business you can write off so much stuff its sickening... hide some purchases as your business expenses (they cant prove otherwise) and you're set.... Pay yourself/spouse and deduct from taxes for it.... Write off expenses such as gas, advertising, etc.... Then re-payroll them to yourself. Tax codes are so lax for some things its INSANE.... Its not LEGAL but it is done every day by thousands of people.

-IRS brags about 1 in 4 getting returns? Most people claim the max dependants on their forms when they sign them at work, meaning they NEVER have the taxes taken out of their check at work to begin with. In fact most people that end up having to pay the IRS could avoid this by claiming 0 dependants now and claiming all dependants you legally can when you file taxes.

- If you're BORN with 500K in a bank account.... You're making interest.... Assuming you dont touch that til you turn 18 you would probably be set for a decent middle class life just off the money you already have.

If you start at 22-24 just out of college with 60,000 in debt (as many do) you're pretty much screwed... 10-15 years to pay off debts, another 15-30 to pay off the house, plus car payments pretty much non stop since most car loans are 5-6 year now (half the age a car REALLY starts to lose its value at). Plus health insurance you cant even begin to afford and other bills cost of living increases you never get compensated for and then kids that cost a fortune.... If it wasnt for immigration I'm SHOCKED we arent at HUGE population decreases year after year....

-Totally bankrupt banks... why? Have the gov. run them off tax money. Their only expenses are building maintenance and employees.


- because of all the foreclosures in the housing industry... my CREDIT CARD rates went from 19% to 31%.... even had a nice little notice about it in the mail....


Also dont call me KID.... You strike me as someone a little younger than me....

[Rizash]

And the bush veto was laughable.... $35 billion bucks when he wants another $190 billion for Iraq to fund it through 7/08....

[CptSternn]

Whats worse - the increase in the funding came 100% from tobacco tax - they wanted to raise the price by 0.60 a pack. Cigarettes in Ireland and the UK run you €8-€9 a pack (about $14-$15) and they still sell.

Looks like bush is against childrens health, for the war, and also for big tobacco.

Ironic he shit-canned childrens health care because he wanted to promote more smoking and war.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Rizash

- I'm desperate to nationalize it because although it will cost more *AT FIRST* and it *WILL* be abused... it will improve the health/productivity of this nation.....

The problem is that it is easy for me to prove the first half of that sentence, but you have yet to prove the second half.

-the tax burden is *NOT* on the rich... I dont get this info from movies...

Really?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b..._distribu.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1941.html

That's odd, because according to the Wall Street Journal, the top 20% of the population pays almost 70% of the tax.

-In the same way that Amtrak competes with airlines but charges TWICE AS MUCH....
...
Amtrak does have competition, and it COULD compete.... if they would stop charging insane fees and wasting money.

You do realize that Amtrak is federally-run, right? It's only competition is state run rails. Planes are not the same sector as rail, FYI. So if you like saving money on planes, imagine what we'd be able to get for rates if we opened up railways to more private companies.

Public transportation *doesnt* really exist... where I am the busses run 6AM to 6 PM and its 50 cents.... Very few routes and it takes you an hour to get there.... Most cities around here charge almost $2 a freaking ride.... Thats INSANE....

That depends on where you live, but I completely agree that we should have at least 18 hour, 7 day public transit in place in all urban and suburban areas. Of course, there's a lot of technological hurdles to clear to make this affordable, but it is disheartening to see the government not take initiative here.

The same government who took a man to the moon on your dollar won't take you down the street for the same. It's kind of sad, really.

Our city busses usually only have 2-3 people on them at any given time unless school is getting out or there is something going on in town.

Come to Boston, Providence, or NYC... you'll find things are quite different.

PS: DONT get me started on banks as they are the 2nd biggest scam ever... after insurance.

I don't want to know....

The only downside is the fact you need the cash to START with in the first place (usually 20% down).

The same with any business. Why not start a small one to raise capital for a large one?

- Look up tax codes, if you own a business you can write off so much stuff its sickening... hide some purchases as your business expenses (they cant prove otherwise) and you're set.... Pay yourself/spouse and deduct from taxes for it.... Write off expenses such as gas, advertising, etc.... Then re-payroll them to yourself.

...and pay 35% capital gains tax on everything you make. Pay for federal, state, and town business permits just to stay legal. Pay for certifications to Federal agencies if you're in a regulated sector. Pay "voluntary" membership fees to other regulatory agencies. Pay property tax wherever you have a physical presence.

It's give and take.

-IRS brags about 1 in 4 getting returns? Most people claim the max dependants on their forms when they sign them at work, meaning they NEVER have the taxes taken out of their check at work to begin with.

Look, I'm not going to argue basic tax code with you. That statement is plainly false and you and I both know it.

If you're BORN with 500K in a bank account.... You're making interest.... Assuming you dont touch that til you turn 18 you would probably be set for a decent middle class life just off the money you already have.

Middle class with 500K in the band? Wow, I guess I'm actually poor then, and I make decent money. You need to set some criteria for what each class means to you if you're going to start arbitrarily assigning terms like that.

Totally bankrupt banks... why? Have the gov. run them off tax money. Their only expenses are building maintenance and employees.

I haven't seen that happen since the 80's. The government does back substantial funds in bank accounts. If you have more money than they back, then you should probably be putting the extra money in the market, anyways.

my CREDIT CARD rates went from 19% to 31%.... even had a nice little notice about it in the mail....

EXACTLY. It's a Credit Card, not a loan. You should probably check out how your card's provider has their money divested. The rates were just cut again, so you might want to find a card that reflects that.

Look, in a capitalist society, you're responsible for your own well-being. Whining and moaning has 0% ROI, while actually getting off your ass and doing something can have potentially unlimited return. Your choice.

Also dont call me KID.... You strike me as someone a little younger than me....

Thanks for the compliment!

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Whats worse - the increase in the funding came 100% from tobacco tax - they wanted to raise the price by 0.60 a pack. Cigarettes in Ireland and the UK run you €8-€9 a pack (about $14-$15) and they still sell.

My concern with the bill was the whole thing reeked of political gaming. The package that is in place was fine, and didn't need the increased spending. Even then, if they only increased spending marginally, it would have probably gone through and been heralded as a victory by both sides of the isle.

Since it was being crafted in such a way that even upper-class couples could get health care for their children for free, and at the expensive of the tobacco industry, it does raise a couple flags.

I think the revised bill was made specifically to be a loss for the Republicans (who, while maintaining a low popularity, actually still have higher approval ratings in the House & Senate), and to expose a weakness by revealing more of Bush's unpopular allies. It really is pretty much the same thing that the Kennedy immigration bill was, only with less drama and different people.

It's an election year, and the Democrats have enough numbers to keep forming bills like this to hurt the Republicans as much as possible. It's just politics as usual. Sadly, in this case, a good bill was killed because of this spirit. Thankfully, this program isn't actually set to expire, so the kids will still get health care anyways.

[Rizash]

Originally Posted by delicti

The problem is that it is easy for me to prove the first half of that sentence, but you have yet to prove the second half.


Really?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b..._distribu.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1941.html

That's odd, because according to the Wall Street Journal, the top 20% of the population pays almost 70% of the tax.


You do realize that Amtrak is federally-run, right? It's only competition is state run rails. Planes are not the same sector as rail, FYI. So if you like saving money on planes, imagine what we'd be able to get for rates if we opened up railways to more private companies.


That depends on where you live, but I completely agree that we should have at least 18 hour, 7 day public transit in place in all urban and suburban areas. Of course, there's a lot of technological hurdles to clear to make this affordable, but it is disheartening to see the government not take initiative here.

The same government who took a man to the moon on your dollar won't take you down the street for the same. It's kind of sad, really.


Come to Boston, Providence, or NYC... you'll find things are quite different.


I don't want to know....


The same with any business. Why not start a small one to raise capital for a large one?



...and pay 35% capital gains tax on everything you make. Pay for federal, state, and town business permits just to stay legal. Pay for certifications to Federal agencies if you're in a regulated sector. Pay "voluntary" membership fees to other regulatory agencies. Pay property tax wherever you have a physical presence.

It's give and take.


Look, I'm not going to argue basic tax code with you. That statement is plainly false and you and I both know it.


Middle class with 500K in the band? Wow, I guess I'm actually poor then, and I make decent money. You need to set some criteria for what each class means to you if you're going to start arbitrarily assigning terms like that.


I haven't seen that happen since the 80's. The government does back substantial funds in bank accounts. If you have more money than they back, then you should probably be putting the extra money in the market, anyways.


EXACTLY. It's a Credit Card, not a loan. You should probably check out how your card's provider has their money divested. The rates were just cut again, so you might want to find a card that reflects that.

Look, in a capitalist society, you're responsible for your own well-being. Whining and moaning has 0% ROI, while actually getting off your ass and doing something can have potentially unlimited return. Your choice.


Thanks for the compliment!

-Good luck proving something people are too afraid to look into because they piss off the multi billion dollar companies.


-20% of the population pays almost 70% of the tax, yes.... Then the write offs happen and they get big, fat, refund checks.... Not to mention the money they pay themselves that makes up for that tax burden.....



-As for amtrak why should I go on a TRAIN when I can FLY for half the price in 1/10th the time? Its just a logic flaw to keep amtrak running.... And there ARE private rail companies.... or there WERE... they all went out of business or went to freight only because it wasnt profitable to move people by rail.


-Public transit. As far as this city, its 6 days a week... 6-6 and it SUCKS.... Most cities around here suck.

-Most people will NEVER have the money to start the business they dream of starting until they're in their 50s-60s when they have to save every penny for retirement or end up in an assisted living community.... This country is divided between two groups.... Rich - retire in a condo or the home of your choice and live off your retirement (yes some of you concider this middle class but compared to MOST americans this is rich and almost unattainable)
Poor - retire pennyless at an age that you can barely live on your own, much the less work.... Sell your house and are forced to give ALL your money you have saved (including pensions, retirement funds, etc.) to the gov. or assisted living community you are forced to join because you cannot afford to live anywhere else.... This is a HUGE number of people in this country....

-Again there are ways around taxes and the rich can afford to pay people smart enough to find those holes.... Although rich are taxed more, they pay far less dollar for dollar than we do after you factor everything in. At least the smart ones do. Ask around... tax codes are full of holes.

- As for the born with 500K thing I was simply saying if you were born with 500k in the bank and didnt touch it til 18 or 21 you could live JUST AS WELL as a middle class person who was working their ass off to claw their way up the sewer pipe that is this system -- without ever lifting a finger. You'd have to be smart, yes, but you COULD do it.

-As for putting money in stock markets... why help the rich morons turn real money into monopoly money and use it for toilet paper then send it back to you.... The stock markets are GREAT for companies to get capitol to start/improve their companies.... But you'll never see my money there unless its 100% insured....

-The credit card gripe was more my way of pointing out that like ALL financial institutions they are based on greed and will do ANYTHING to make it look like they're recovering from losses when they're just trying to rob people. If you CLOSE an account -- in good standing -- they can raise your rates. If you have TOO MUCH revolving credit AVAILABLE they can raise your rates.... If you have never opened an account but have always paid your bills on time... good luck getting an account. They're GREEDY.

-*grins* glad you have a sense of humor.... I hate being called kid by anyone -- even if they're in their 80s.... I'm 24 and you strike me as someone just into -- or maybe just about to be done with college.

Although I lack the initiative to look up hard numbers and back my statements with concrete evidence (something you seem to require for every little point) I have a ton of knowledge... I just really dont CARE to back things up. If you dont like my point of view you probably wont listen anyway.... I'm very grounded and I'm a more detail oriented person than most people ever will be..... You're the first person I've ever bumped into on forums that can actually carry on a conversation/debate this long without either blowing me off/ignoring me or just getting frustrated and yelling about something for no reason. Once I was like you and cared enough to look up exact numbers and details to "prove points" but then I realized that people can make numbers and "facts" look however they want.... The only thing that matters to me anymore is finding people that actually are worth having conversations with and people that carry on the nearly lost human spirit. Anyone who has followed this conversation this long gets a pat on the back from me.... You guys are far more patient and far more tolerant than most. You're rare in this day and age.... And I'm glad I ran into you



Keep in touch
-Riz

[dark_dragon_of_ice]

Most of OUR rich tend to be able to avoid most taxes.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Rizash

Good luck proving something people are too afraid to look into because they piss off the multi billion dollar companies.

Actually, this is easy.

Socialized care in the US costs $6000 per participant; average private sector care in the US costs $2500 per participant. That means that fully socialized insurance for every person in the US would cost about 1.8 Trillion dollars. Full privatized health care would cost about $750 Billion dollars.

Now, 1.8T is for health care that is poorer quality than privatized care. In Canada, there's actually a growing private health care economy because the public care is so bad; that means that if you wanted health care that was the equivalent for what most people already get, you'd have to pay twice. That's $2.55 Trillion dollars to get the same health care most people already get today.

OK, did it. Now prove how an extra $2.55 TRILLION in spending into one industry (which we both admit is corrupt) is going to help our economy substantially.

Then the write offs happen and they get big, fat, refund checks.... Not to mention the money they pay themselves that makes up for that tax burden.....

Nope, that's the total tax burden. And hey, didn't you say all poor and middle class people get all their money back, so wouldn't the rich *still* be paying more taxes?

As for amtrak why should I go on a TRAIN when I can FLY for half the price in 1/10th the time?

Or, if it were free and 1/2 the time, I think people would be more inclined to take it. That actually is possible, but it's going to take some heavy spending to get to that point.

Public transit. As far as this city, its 6 days a week... 6-6 and it SUCKS.... Most cities around here suck.

Sorry man, I can't really say anything for that. I don't like how little cities invest in public transit, so I'm with you there.

Most people will NEVER have the money to start the business they dream of starting until they're in their 50s-60s when they have to save every penny for retirement or end up in an assisted living community....

Well, I don't think that's an inequity issue. Being able to open a business isn't in the Bill of Rights.

This country is divided between two groups....

Not yet, but it's definitely getting there.

Again there are ways around taxes and the rich can afford to pay people smart enough to find those holes.... Although rich are taxed more, they pay far less dollar for dollar than we do after you factor everything in.

Well, obviously it doesn't work that much since they're still paying 70% of the tax burden. And what's so bad about being rich that you don't like the fact that some people are? Wouldn't you rather have opportunity for some people than no opportunity for all people?

As for the born with 500K thing I was simply saying if you were born with 500k in the bank and didnt touch it til 18 or 21 you could live JUST AS WELL as a middle class person who was working their ass off to claw their way up the sewer pipe that is this system -- without ever lifting a finger. You'd have to be smart, yes, but you COULD do it.

You wouldn't have to be that smart. In fact, if you invested it into a low-interest, low-risk fund, you'd be able to live like a rich person by the time you were 18.

As for putting money in stock markets... why help the rich morons turn real money into monopoly money and use it for toilet paper then send it back to you.... The stock markets are GREAT for companies to get capitol to start/improve their companies.... But you'll never see my money there unless its 100% insured....

Your loss, because that's really the best way to make sure you don't end up in "the poor" you're obsessed with not becoming. And why help companies? Because the money you get in return helps you, or you could even find companies in industries who you support and help grow that industry while making a tidy profit in the meantime.

The credit card gripe was more my way of pointing out that like ALL financial institutions they are based on greed and will do ANYTHING to make it look like they're recovering from losses when they're just trying to rob people.

I believe what you mean is they're out to make money, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Money is how people survive in society. So unless you can think of a better way to get people food, health care, utilities, water, law & order, and all sort of other things, you might relax about the whole "money" thing.

I hate being called kid by anyone -- even if they're in their 80s.... I'm 24 and you strike me as someone just into -- or maybe just about to be done with college.

I'll refrain from it in the future. Sorry, I call a lot of people "kid." I've actually finished college once, and I'm going back soon, albeit quite a bit later than I expected.

Although I lack the initiative to look up hard numbers and back my statements with concrete evidence (something you seem to require for every little point) I have a ton of knowledge... I just really dont CARE to back things up.

See, here's the thing.

You say X. I say Y.
I say I don't like X, and you say you don't like Y.
So, we tell each other to prove it.
I prove Y, but you don't prove X, and suddenly Y looks a lot more appealing.

It can go both ways. Sorry, but if I disagree with you on something, you're going to need more than opinion, because there's too much of that out there to just take everyone's at face value.

[CptSternn]

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/...hs-schip-veto/

Brilliant.

[Saphyra Runa]

SCHIP was adopted in 1997 to help the states finance health-insurance coverage for children whose parents theoretically couldn’t afford it, but who were not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. The program runs out on September 30 unless it is reauthorized.

President Bush proposed to increase funding for SCHIP by $5 billion, from $25 billion to $30 billion. But House Democrats passed a bill tripling spending to $75 billion. The Senate bill merely increased spending by more than 100 percent to $60 billion.

In the process, this program supposedly to help poor children get health insurance would finance subsidies to families earning as much as $82,000 a year and the maximum age to twenty-five.

Moreover, around 50 percent to 60 percent of the children newly covered under this massive expansion of the program are already covered by private insurance today. So the massive SCHIP expansion mostly involves a takeover of private insurance coverage by government coverage, as President Bush has said. Under this SCHIP expansion, the cost of covering each new child not currently insured would be as much as 3.5 times the cost of private coverage.

In the 2006 election, voters made clear that they opposed the government-spending increases that had occurred under the prior Republican majority. But the enormous spending increases for SCHIP that the Democrats are now yelping through Congress are ridiculously unjustifiable. Republicans tempted to vote for this gravy train “for the children” should be aware that they will be held accountable as well for supporting runaway spending yet again.

Moreover, our nation already faces an unmanageable crisis of runaway costs in the entitlements programs we already have. The Congressional Budget Office projects that without basic reforms Federal spending will soar over the next 35 years or so from 20 percent of GDP today, where it has generally been for over 50 years now, to close to 40 percent. That is primarily due to our major entitlement programs Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Paying for all of this increased spending would require Federal taxes to double as a percent of GDP. That would be such a fundamental change in our economy that the prosperous America we know today would become unrecognizable.

The Democrats are responding to this by completely ignoring it and just proposing instead the massive expansion of new welfare state programs, such as SCHIP. This constitutes an abuse of the taxpayers and of the public trust.

Republicans rightly trying to fight this SCHIP expansion have unfortunately become bogged down in trying to develop an alternative through the income tax code. Since the bottom 40 percent of households in terms of income do not pay income taxes, and the middle 20 percent pay relatively little, trying to provide assistance to low-income families this way is really not workable.

Republicans should really go on the offensive instead on the whole entitlements issue. We already have a huge program to help the states finance health coverage for the poor — Medicaid. The real Republican/conservative alternative to the SCHIP expansion should be to block grant both Medicaid and SCHIP back to the states, using the model of the highly successful 1996 reform of the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Under those reforms, the welfare rolls under the old program declined by about 60 percent nationwide.

Send the federal funds now spent on both of these programs back to the states in a finite block grant for each state, with the money to be used for a new program designed by each state for its own citizens. Each state would decide at what level of income assistance would be provided, and what would be covered. Each state can then decide if government financing of health insurance for children, which is not expensive and which the vast majority of Americans in truth can really afford, is really the most urgent priority.

Because the block grant is finite, any increased costs for the new state programs would have to be financed by the state itself. And any innovative savings the state achieves would be kept by the state.

The federal financing should be kept level for several years, and then limited to grow no faster than the rate of growth of GDP. That would solve the exploding entitlement problem for these programs.

Conservatives and Republicans can then present this question to the nation: Do you really want to see total federal taxes double relative to the economy?

[Saphyra Runa]

In a press comference, the President's Press Secretary stated that the administration will work with Congress to ensure the neediest of children are receiving health insurance coverage. In particular, the administration is focusing on children in families tha have an annual income of less than $41,300 which is 200% of the 2007 poverty level for a family of four. The President has always taken the position that he will expand the SCHIP program by $5 billion without raising taxes which constitutes a 20% increase in current spending on the program.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Saphyra Runa

President Bush proposed to increase funding for SCHIP by $5 billion, from $25 billion to $30 billion. But House Democrats passed a bill tripling spending to $75 billion. The Senate bill merely increased spending by more than 100 percent to $60 billion.

In the process, this program supposedly to help poor children get health insurance would finance subsidies to families earning as much as $82,000 a year and the maximum age to twenty-five.

Thank you.

I am not opposed to SCHIP at all, but the Congressional expansion of spending was completely ludicrous. We are not in the middle of a Democrat congress; the same party that believes that the middle class starts at $100,000/year household income.

While it bothers me some that this was simply a political ploy to make the current administration look bad (which shouldn't take that much effort), it bothers me even more that we're returning to the Democrat tactics of lying, misrepresentation, and being completely out of touch with the people they claim to represent.

I may not like being screwed by Republicans, but at least they have the courteousy of letting me know exactly how they're going to do it.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by delicti

You do realize that Amtrak is federally-run, right? It's only competition is state run rails. Planes are not the same sector as rail, FYI. So if you like saving money on planes, imagine what we'd be able to get for rates if we opened up railways to more private companies.

Would private companies have much incentive to invest in most of Amtrak's routes if they were given the offer, though?

Originally Posted by delicti

Socialized care in the US costs $6000 per participant; average private sector care in the US costs $2500 per participant. That means that fully socialized insurance for every person in the US would cost about 1.8 Trillion dollars. Full privatized health care would cost about $750 Billion dollars.

Where did you get those numbers, if you don't mind my asking?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

Thank you.

I am not opposed to SCHIP at all, but the Congressional expansion of spending was completely ludicrous. We are not in the middle of a Democrat congress; the same party that believes that the middle class starts at $100,000/year household income.

While it bothers me some that this was simply a political ploy to make the current administration look bad

Ludicrous, eh? Raising the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $0.60 to give millions of more poor children access to health care is ludicrous?

They asked for 35 billion over 5 years. Thats 7 billion more a year. That's almost the exact amount the government is spending every month in Iraq.

So for the cost of one month in Iraq, spread out over a five year period, is too much to spend on poor, sick childrens health - especially if it mean increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes (which are the cheapest in the world - cigarettes in Europe are over DOUBLE the current price in America).

Yet that is 'ludicrous' in your eyes.

I fail to see how thats a bad thing. Denying poor, sick children access to health care for any reason, especially when you have a large majority of all political parties behind it is ludicrous.

Trying to defend that position just means there is a special spot in hell for you, right next to gw. I mean, IMHO - on judgement day these are the sort of things that will come up, If your the sort to believe in an afterlife that is...

[Saphyra Runa]

Are you merely attacking Delecti or the veto? Bush is not for witholding money from the children's health care program but how they expanded the program to include those not even close to poverty level nor child age thusly increasing the budget for the SCHIP program.

Why should only smoker's pay for the budget on the SCHIP program? Isn't one of the motto's of one of the Dem's running for President....It takes a villlage? Guess you just have to belong to the "left" village to opt out.

[Saphyra Runa]

Passing a tax that not many will complain about but won't sustain the revenue they budgeted for seems reasonable enough. Then when the projected revenues don't appear, they'll blackmail people into another tax increase by threatening to cut programs.

Here in Iowa we just had a $1.00 tax increase on top of our .36 tax on tobacco products that the revenue will be going to Hawk-I, a health care program for impoverished children.

Oh wait, it is for the teacher's new pay raise.

No, no, it's going to be used to provide better care for the mentally ill in Iowa. Iowa ranks dead last in the country as far as funding for the mentally ill, disabled and handicapped. The mental health professionals are still waiting for the promised improvements.

While we don't exactly know where the tax revenue is going we do know as of today that tobacco sales are down 30% in the last three months and the downward trend should continue.

To say it isn't a factor is to overlook the obvious, the reduction in sales directly corresponds to the implementation of the tax.

The end result is the same, the tax was promoted as a revenue source for specific problems, if the trend continues, which it most likely will, they'll either need to cut the programs they fund with the revenue or find another revenue source.

This is what happens when you decide to target a specific minority group based on their political weakness, that source eventually shrivels up and you need to single out someone else.

So while they can't seem manage this on a state level just how are they planning on managing this on a national level? Especially when so many states are or will be talking about going 100% smoke free on a local level or even state wide?

This map should show you just how unfeasible a .61 tax increase would be.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/100Map.pdf

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

They asked for 35 billion over 5 years. Thats 7 billion more a year. That's almost the exact amount the government is spending every month in Iraq.

Well, I know you're not paying taxes over here, but I'd like to have that money back, period.

I also still think that there's ways to make health care more affordable to the poor than government care. Government care is still over twice the price and worse in quality than private care. I've listed previous ideas that would actually work in prior posts.

Originally Posted by Saphyra Runa

Here in Iowa we just had a $1.00 tax increase on top of our .36 tax on tobacco products that the revenue will be going to Hawk-I, a health care program for impoverished children.
...
Oh wait, it is for the teacher's new pay raise.
...
No, no, it's going to be used to provide better care for the mentally ill in Iowa.

I'll bet you that each new proposed program is smaller and smaller in size. ;-) That's another reason to be against the pay increase that I didn't mention, but probably should have. It sounds like they're gambling pretty largely on only having smoking drop the 10% they expect, whereas when dealing with health care for children, shouldn't we be trying not to gamble at all?

Ironically, even though the expansion will help even the rich, the people the new tax would hurt the most, is the people they claim this tax will help the most:

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_7050638

Isn't one of the motto's of one of the Dem's running for President....It takes a villlage?

Heh. You know, it takes a village to raise a child, but it only takes one woman to steal a book:

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index....rbara_Feinman/

;-)

[delicti]

Originally Posted by viscus

Would private companies have much incentive to invest in most of Amtrak's routes if they were given the offer, though?

I actually doubt it. Public transit is one of the few things you'll see me advocating socializing, because the profit margins are too slim (when existent) for the private sector to invest money in, and the need for it is enormous.

I actually have quite a few ideas on how to make railways into a cost-saving (not revenue-generating) endeavor; maybe I'll post a new thread with details.

Where did you get those numbers, if you don't mind my asking?

I don't mind at all.

Private health care costs:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ate-per-capita

Pubic health care costs:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...lic-per-capita

Keep in mind that those numbers are per capita, which means that for private health care, it is per health plan member, but for public health care, it is per person.

Roughly 30% of the population is covered by public health care, and our current population is roughly 300,000,000. Using some vaguely shoddy math (simply because it puts the number lower than it should), we get the complete health care cost for 100% socialized health care thusly:

($ 2,200 * 3) * 300,000,000 = $ 1.98 T

When I did the math above, I wrongly remember the average cost of socialized care at $2,000 per capita, which is why the number there is actually at $1.8 T.

Hope that helps!

[viscus]

Originally Posted by delicti

I actually doubt it. Public transit is one of the few things you'll see me advocating socializing, because the profit margins are too slim (when existent) for the private sector to invest money in, and the need for it is enormous.

I actually have quite a few ideas on how to make railways into a cost-saving (not revenue-generating) endeavor; maybe I'll post a new thread with details.

*nods* I was under the impression that Amtrak's raison d'etre is that the freight companies who used to run passenger service didn't want to anymore because they were losing lots of money on it. So the federal government just came in and nationalized it.

Now, if our vast road networks were privatized and people had to pay for access to them, we might see a market emerge for private rail transport. But that scenario is pretty far flung.

Anyways, this is turning into a long digression.

Originally Posted by delicti

I don't mind at all.

Private health care costs:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ate-per-capita

Pubic health care costs:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...lic-per-capita

Keep in mind that those numbers are per capita, which means that for private health care, it is per health plan member, but for public health care, it is per person.

Roughly 30% of the population is covered by public health care, and our current population is roughly 300,000,000. Using some vaguely shoddy math (simply because it puts the number lower than it should), we get the complete health care cost for 100% socialized health care thusly:

($ 2,200 * 3) * 300,000,000 = $ 1.98 T

When I did the math above, I wrongly remember the average cost of socialized care at $2,000 per capita, which is why the number there is actually at $1.8 T.

Hope that helps!

I'm still a bit confused. Those charts you linked have US private and public care almost on par with each other, you had said that public care costs $6000 per person. And since private costs are per plan member, you're assuming most plan members have family on their plans?

And by the way, I remember reading in the Economist a while back that some 60% of health care costs are picked up by the government, if not thought medicare/medicaid, through tax subsidies given to employers for providing health insurance.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by viscus

And by the way, I remember reading in the Economist a while back that some 60% of health care costs are picked up by the government, if not thought medicare/medicaid, through tax subsidies given to employers for providing health insurance.

That's where it gets pretty confusing, no problems. The numbers on that site are per capita, so it's essentially per population.

Since the only population contributing to private care are the participants, that means that private insurance costs are true at face value - roughly $2,500 per participant.

Now, since everyone contributes to socialized care, what we have is roughly $2,200 per citizen. Hence, to get the actual number per participant, we have to multiply the number over what the actual tax burden is, so that we know what it would cost the individual if they were not being subsidized by the population at large.

The last bit of the math is to then take that number and multiply it by the entire population, so that we know what it would cost us to cover the entire population, if they were paying that amount.

Any better? *shrug*

As far as the government cover private costs for employers, that's something I don't know anything about. Do you have a link?

[CptSternn]

Heh - did anyone watch NBC news last night? They did a whole piece on healthcare in America and the insurance problem.

With almost 15% of Americans NOT having insurance, and that number growing daily, uninsured are going to ER's to get treatment.

This causes many issues, first of all, ER's are now maxed out across America, and patients are waiting *hours* for a bed, and they are setting up trolleys and beds in the halls at *all* major hospitals because all of the uninsured which are packing ER's for minor issues like flu, strained ankles, etc.

What's even more ironic is many of these people can't pay their bills, since they don't have insurance, so the hospital has to eat the cost. They share the costs with the federal government, who pays a large chunk.

So if you have insurance, your paying a large chunk of money that goes to pay for those uninsured in the ER, well, part of it - the rest is paid for by your taxes.

Socialised health care is emerging one way or another. By fighting it and refusing to fund it they have merely created a second rate health care system which can't meet the needs of the people, everyone suffers, and those who can afford health care are now paying for everyone else as well.

It reminds me of the whole record label court battles - trying to fight for an outdated system thats passing it by, and losing every step of the way.

It's also funny to see in this thread people who are priveldegd enough to have health care, arguing why they think poor people don't desever the same level of access to health care they have.

Talk about elitism. Looking at this thread and the people who try and 'break down' the monetary values here, we are talking about human life, the lives of your fellow countrymen.

It's sad to see people arguing their lives are somehow more important than those around them, and that they shouldn't have to help poor sick children because thats not what they want to do with their money, yet have no problem with their taxes going to pay for war, bombs, and death across the globe.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by delicti

As far as the government cover private costs for employers, that's something I don't know anything about. Do you have a link?

I can't find that particular article (and you'd probably need to subscribe the Economist to access it anyway), but I did find this release from the Department of Health and Human Services reporting that gov't tax subsidies for employer-provided health insurance topped $200 billion last year: http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2006/taxsubpr.htm