Bush vetoes expansion of child healthcare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ScreamingEagle, Oct 3, 2007.

  1. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Chalk one up for GWB.

    The Democrats are in their element (going beserk) on this one -- the poor little children you know...even though the bill would have extended the definition of "poor" children into the middle class families making $83,000 a year.

     
  2. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    President Bush to Democrats:

    "Hey dummies! Seniors vote... so we gave them billions in Medicare drugs! Kids don't vote... so I vetoed it. Duh. Nyah-nyah!"
     
  3. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Democrats to Public:

    "Wah, wah! Bush is such a tight-fisted meanie. He hates little kids. He only wants to increase the health program for poor kids by only 5 billion instead of the 30 billion we want so we can also pay for the health care of "poor" little children whose parents "only" make $80k per year."

    [aka back-door socialism]
     
  4. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    That $80,000 is so misleading as to be meaningless. First, states help determine the threshhold, and $80,000 in NYC is a great deal different than somewhere in Iowa. Second, and more importantly, the threshold depends on how many children the family has. I believe that the higher dollar thresholds apply to families with 3 and 4 kids, which is a great deal different than a 1 child household.

    Also, I think the $80,000 figure is actually wrong. It was $70,000+ that was suggested, but that figure was ultimately rejected anyway.
     
  5. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Why would employers continue to provide health care to workers who can get it from the state because their family "only" makes three times the poverty level?
     
  6. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    Well, if they knew that there employees were going to accept government health care instead of employer-sponsored health care, then it wouldn't matter if they offered it or not. A better question is how many people would take the government subsidized health care that are now utilizing employer-subsidized health care. Here are some excerpts from different sources on that particular question.

    Editorial of WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001208.html

    Still, one might think that a crowd-out rate of one-third is too much. However, Bush apparently is not of that opinion with respect to his own proposal, which is tax-incentive based.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brownstein26sep26,0,3879518.column?coll=la-opinion-columnists

    Anyway, if this issue must be debated, let this help frame the debate. If crowd-out is inevitable, then what will we accept in order to insure several million children?
     
  7. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    why wouldnt capitolists who, otherwise, look to reduce expendatures for businesses be upset about a program that takes providing health care for employees out of their realm of cost?
     
  8. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    A bill that says a family is eligible for three times the poverty level means that a family of four, with two children, earning $61,332 would be eligible for CHIP.

    This means that lots of middle class kids could be put on welfare [aka socialized medicine].

    Health care welfare help should be appropriately doled out to the states according to what a family actually needs in that particular state...$61k in most states is middle class income, in places like NYC maybe that's considered poverty level, I don't know.

    And by the way, who is making a regular $30-60k per year without getting any health benefits from their job? Maybe they need to move or change jobs.
     
  9. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164

    I don't know if the legislation is tailored to different regions. It is a federal-state partnership, so perhaps it is. I just don't know.

    SCHIPs isn't socialized medicine. It is a health care insurance scheme. The doctor and hospital you would go to would still be private.

    Fewer and fewer employers are providing good (or any) medical insurance benefits. It is a huge expense, and if employees could readily switch jobs to obtain better benefits, I am sure that they would.
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,436
    The way the law existed was that the states administered the federal funds in the way they determined appropriate.

    I figure we should be able to get the same coverage as congress voted for themselves. I wonder why SE isn't whining about THEM being on welfare.
     

Share This Page