Do you need a hug? Maybe we can hug a tree together... that always make me feel better.
Health care for children & pregnant women first$n
- Thread starter Supposn
- Start date
Do you need a hug? Maybe we can hug a tree together... that always make me feel better.
alan1
Gold Member
The last tobacco tax for SCHIP was signed into law by Mr Obama, not by Mr Bush.
Anybody that doesn't smoke is against child health care.
- Thread starter
- #23
I do not approve of our present method for under-funding Medicare but it delivers quality medical care and operates as an entitlement rather than a as a charity. Medicaid is a method for providing Medicare benefits for those unable to afford it. Medicaid operates as a charity rather than an entitlement.
CHIPS operates similarly to Medicaid. CHIPS operates as charity rather than as an entitlement.
Respectfully, Supposn
CHIPS operates similarly to Medicaid. CHIPS operates as charity rather than as an entitlement.
Respectfully, Supposn
KittenKoder
Senior Member
I second that! Support our children's health, buy lots of cigarettes!
I support children's health by three cartons a month. I am very generous.
- Thread starter
- #25
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
Cecilie, 11% of USA's children under the age of six not medically insured. (CHIPS which is a charity rather than an entitlement) is for these purposes considered to be as health insured.
The U.S. Census BureauÂ’s statistics indicate (not surprisingly) that familyÂ’s likelihood of being covered by any kind of health insurance, (including the CHIPS state welfare programs) is positively related to family incomes.
Cecilie, you believe that parents of lesser income families have lesser regard for their children’s health? 24.9% of families with incomes under $25000/Yr. don’t want their children to be seen by a doctor? Over 20% of families with incomes within the $25,000 – $49,000 range, share that same view?
I contend that this proportion of uninsured children is due to CHIPS being a welfare rather than an entitlement program.
The uninsured proportion of those over the age of 65 is only 1.5%. The 98.5% of the elderly that are insured is due primarily to the Medicare entitlement program. I would prefer that the entire CHIPS program should be federal entitlement insurance. I'd be pleased to achieve a partial loaf rather than spending federal funds for an ineffective program. A federal health care act will certainly be enacted within this year or next.
I advocate including pregnant women and children under the age of six within our Medicare program.
Respectfully, Supposn
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
You might want to tell the federal government your interesting little definition system, since they have Medicaid and SCHIP listed under the heading of "Mandatory spending and entitlements". Interestingly, defense spending falls under the heading of "Discretionary spending".
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
So? Do you have any idea WHY they are "uninsured", or are you just assuming that they're destitute and heartlessly being allowed to go unprotected by bad parents and cruel, uncaring government?
By the way, government programs cannot, by strict definition, be considered "charities", so you can just give up peddling THAT bill of goods right now.
Wow. You mean people with jobs and money can actually afford to spend money on insurance premiums? Gloryosky! Is that supposed to be in the way of a major revelation?
Did I say they did? No? Then you will kindly refrain from trying to stick your putrid, half-baked, underthought words into my mouth. I already brushed my teeth this afternoon, and don't want to have to go do it again right now.
Did I say THAT? No? Same response. You may also refrain from assuming that your self-serving, obnoxious, arrogant "caring" automatically equates to actual health care for those people.
I contend that this proportion of uninsured children is due to CHIPS being a welfare rather than an entitlement program.
You're right. Old people are automatically enrolled in Medicare as soon as they qualify, whether they want to be or not.
And again, the question becomes, who the hell gave YOU the right to prefer ANYTHING where MY child is concerned? Where do you get off thinking my children, whom you have never met and whose day-to-day lives you have no connection to, are any of your freaking business to "care about" or prefer anything for?
Take care of your own people and stop your arrogant, infernal assumption of other people's lives and families to use as human shields for YOUR self-interest.
Same question. Who died and left you in charge of "advocating" any damned thing on behalf of other people? I don't recall anyone electing you Supreme High Spokesperson for Pregnant American Women.
- Thread starter
- #28
Cecilie, there are some federal parameters bit CHIPS is primarily governed and administered by the individual states and their countiesÂ’ laws and regulations. It is a welfare program rather than a medical insurance entitlement program for individual persons or families; (unless individual states pass laws and regulations that it should be otherwise).
If CHIPS were a federal entitlement, there would not be in excess of 11% of USA children under the age of six that are not insured.
Medicare is an insurance entitlement. Medicare participants choose to be insured by Medicare. They voluntarily pay for their Medicare coverage. They do not wish to endure the consequences of being dependent upon the private insurance industry. They can decline to commence or at any time cease to continue making Medicare payments.
Only 1.5% of all the USA elderly over 65 years of age are not insured by Medicare or Medicaid.
Medicaid is a medical program that operates similar to CHIPS. I suppose that in most, (if not all) states, the state or county government pays part or all medical expenses that are not covered by the federal government. Medicaid is not an entitlement. Its purpose is to cover those that can not afford to pay MedicareÂ’s deductibles, annual fees and treatment co-payments. Because it is not an entitlement, State and county laws and regulations in many instances mandate that Medicaid patients are not entitled to the same freedom of choices that are available to Medicare participants.
CHIPS is similar to Medicaid. Many parents are able and willing to make some financial sacrifices to provide something better such as Medicare for their children. Unfortunately there is nothing like Medicare available to them.
Respectfully, Supposn
If CHIPS were a federal entitlement, there would not be in excess of 11% of USA children under the age of six that are not insured.
Medicare is an insurance entitlement. Medicare participants choose to be insured by Medicare. They voluntarily pay for their Medicare coverage. They do not wish to endure the consequences of being dependent upon the private insurance industry. They can decline to commence or at any time cease to continue making Medicare payments.
Only 1.5% of all the USA elderly over 65 years of age are not insured by Medicare or Medicaid.
Medicaid is a medical program that operates similar to CHIPS. I suppose that in most, (if not all) states, the state or county government pays part or all medical expenses that are not covered by the federal government. Medicaid is not an entitlement. Its purpose is to cover those that can not afford to pay MedicareÂ’s deductibles, annual fees and treatment co-payments. Because it is not an entitlement, State and county laws and regulations in many instances mandate that Medicaid patients are not entitled to the same freedom of choices that are available to Medicare participants.
CHIPS is similar to Medicaid. Many parents are able and willing to make some financial sacrifices to provide something better such as Medicare for their children. Unfortunately there is nothing like Medicare available to them.
Respectfully, Supposn
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Short Bus, ALL federal giveaway programs are administered on a state level. This is partly because it would be insane to try to do it on a federal level, and partly because it allows the states to integrate them with their OWN giveaway programs. And it doesn't make a damned bit of difference what type of word games you try to play with "medical insurance entitlement" versus "welfare". It's all frigging welfare. Get the hell over it.
Yeah, there would, because "entitlement" does not mean people are forced to get it whether they want it or not. Since we don't live in your perfect, ideal slave state, people still have a choice about whether or not they put themselves under government jurisdiction. I know you can't grasp this, but just because you WANT to spread your benevolent, socialist arms and hug the whole world doesn't mean everyone WANTS to get hugged.
So basically, your definition of "entitlement" is "Goddamn it, I'm going to run things for you and make you a ward of the state whether you like it or not, now sit down and shut up" as opposed to "You can get it if you want it, but you can choose to tell us to go **** ourselves if you like". Got it.
Yeah, because they don't get any choice in the matter unless they're rich enough to pay out of pocket.
Yes, we've already established what your definition of "entitlement" is. I'm sure most people who aren't you, Short Bus, can understand now why my reaction is "Who gave you permission to 'care' about me anyway? Where do you get off?"
Still waiting for you to answer my question, Short Bus, to whit: who the **** asked you to "care" about total strangers, let alone "advocate" or "demand" anything on their behalf, anyway? When did YOU get elected as Spokesperson?
- Thread starter
- #30
Cecilie, you express yourself in a noteworthy manner. IÂ’m sure that many readers appreciate your eloquence and logic. Your mother must be proud of you.
You presume and are upset that I care for you. It may please you to read that IÂ’m not particularly concerned about you. My concern for you and your circumstances is relative to their interrelationship with whatever common society we share. My concern for you is less personal and more political.
I understand that we‘re displeased to opinions that are contrary to our own. but many of us believe that free exchange of contrary opinions is characteristic and advantageous to a democratic republic. I understand honest disagreement as to what is factual.
I and apparently the vast preponderance of Medicare insured persons and their children are pleased with Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries or their guardians chose to commence and continue to being insured by Medicare. Medicare is solely regulated and administrated by the federal government.
Respectfully, Supposn
You presume and are upset that I care for you. It may please you to read that IÂ’m not particularly concerned about you. My concern for you and your circumstances is relative to their interrelationship with whatever common society we share. My concern for you is less personal and more political.
I understand that we‘re displeased to opinions that are contrary to our own. but many of us believe that free exchange of contrary opinions is characteristic and advantageous to a democratic republic. I understand honest disagreement as to what is factual.
I and apparently the vast preponderance of Medicare insured persons and their children are pleased with Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries or their guardians chose to commence and continue to being insured by Medicare. Medicare is solely regulated and administrated by the federal government.
Respectfully, Supposn
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
My mother lives in awe of the fact that she produced such intelligent, educated, and articulate children. Congratulations on your perceptiveness.
That's exactly the problem, Short Bus. You AREN'T concerned about ME. Me or any other individual human being in the country, outside your own family and friends, I assume. That's because you don't KNOW us as individual human beings. What you presume to "care" about are generic, faceless groups of demographics, which you then continue to have the monstrous gall to advocate on behalf of. That is EXACTLY why I'm offended by your alleged "concern": because it has nothing to do with really caring about any of us as people, and everything to do with using us as some sort of shield to hide behind for political power.
To put it bluntly, screw you and your faux "caring". It doesn't make you compassionate or enlightened. It makes you a pretentious prick.
Actually, I don't honestly care about opinions that merely disagree with me. It's when you have the colossal nerve to try to legislate your opinions on behalf of people you don't know or personally give a damn about, simply because you consider yourself smarter and more moral that I start getting tetchy.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your statement that people are "happy" with Medicare. What they are is stuck with it. They didn't "choose" to go on Medicare. They were herded onto it, with every other option being pulled out from under them like rotting floorboards. Offer them a REAL alternative that doesn't scare them to death with the possibility of being left hanging out in the wind with no way to pay for the healthcare they need to survive, and see how many seniors say, "No, I just LOVE dealing with Medicare bureaucracy. The federal government is WONDERFUL."
If you really thought people were dying to be wards of the state, you wouldn't be so damned terrified of giving them the chance not to be.
Why? Why should pregnant women and children take priority over the rest of the nation? Why should evryone else be expected to be responsible for YOUR breeding? Is a six year old more valuable than an 8 year old? What about the twenty year old that we've invested 13 years of public education in? If it's male, is it expendable? Or how about the 60 year old filled with a lifetime of skills and knowledge? Why should someone get to step ahead of him just because she got pregnant?
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Waiting for Supposn's head to implode when his huge sense of personal moral rectitude and compassion runs up against logic and reality.- Thread starter
- #34
Vel. If itÂ’s your contention that we should have universal heath care for all Americans, I agree with you. Unfortunately there are many people that contend we should stay the course and continue to be almost exclusively dependent upon commercial health insurers.
Many believe that employers should be mandated and squeezed to provide health benefits. If place of employment determines segregated health insurance pools, employers would cut their expenses if they could cease employing or hiring those who are more likely to increase their health insurance costs. Employees would be bound to their employers if they develop adverse health conditions during their employment.
People who now drop out between jobs when they can least afford additional medical costs, and the people who are bound to their employers due to their pre-existing conditions are within our present system, the unavoidable victims of the system. This is the status quo that some defend.
[IÂ’m generally opposed to any discriminatory mandates or taxes that target only employees and/or employers. I agree that generally all direct or indirect taxes upon commercial entities are eventually paid by their customers. If specified or hidden labor expenses are in aggregate 50% of all sales, the FICA payroll tax is a 7.65% tax upon wages and additionally a 3.5% hidden sales tax upon all goods and services. Wage earning families in effect pay 11.15% for FICA. Additionally because FICAÂ’s a payroll rather than a sales tax, it inhibits job creation. FICA is the most regressive of all federal tax methods].
IÂ’d rather that we had congressional bill that would provide affordable health care for all. It doesnÂ’t seem politically feasible at this time. IÂ’d be pleased with a compromise bill that will provide for significant improvement of pregnant women and children under the age of six. They are our future. IÂ’m opposed to laws that would be a federal expense with little or no significant improvement for any segment of our population.
Respectfully, Supposn
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
In other words, "I'm going to snow you under with another speech on what you have to do to please me with your treatment of my unwilling constituency, and hope that you never notice that I was too big of a poltroon to ever answer your questions."
Why am I not surprised?
5 paragraphs and you still fail to address the point of my post. And no, I do not believe that our government should provide universal healthcare. Back to the point.. is the eight year old less valuable than the six year old and why should someone choosing to breed be given priority over another contributing member of society. And please don't go with the, they are our future crap because it's incomplete. What good does it do society to save the 6 year old if you'll cast it aside when it turns 7? If we let the old knowledgable man die, who will teach the skills to the young?
- Thread starter
- #37
Vel,
You asked why we should have a health plan that grants preferential treatment to some. I assumed that you are displeased with preference to some, and I agreed with you completely. My agreeing with you also seems to evoke your displeasure.
I do believe that if our nation is incapable of providing all of our population with access to adequate health care, we should at very least make it available to the those that our nationÂ’s future. I f weÂ’re incapable of providing that opportunity for their entire lives, we should provide for the most critical years of their lives.
Vel. You object the MedicareÂ’s method of providing health care but what method of providing health care for our nation do you support? Would your preferred method actually provide health coverage for all?
Respectfully, Supposn
You asked why we should have a health plan that grants preferential treatment to some. I assumed that you are displeased with preference to some, and I agreed with you completely. My agreeing with you also seems to evoke your displeasure.
I do believe that if our nation is incapable of providing all of our population with access to adequate health care, we should at very least make it available to the those that our nationÂ’s future. I f weÂ’re incapable of providing that opportunity for their entire lives, we should provide for the most critical years of their lives.
Vel. You object the MedicareÂ’s method of providing health care but what method of providing health care for our nation do you support? Would your preferred method actually provide health coverage for all?
Respectfully, Supposn
- Thread starter
- #38
Vel,
I do not agree with your contention that people were herded onto it, (Medicare), with every other option being pulled out from under them”.
Prior to Medicare, people who could not afford private insurance coverage in their younger years, certainly couldnÂ’t afford it when they grew older. Many, if not most of those that did have medical coverage in their younger years, couldnÂ’t afford to sustain that coverage when they grew older. Private insurance plans were incapable of meeting their needs.
My Medicare coverage did not commence until I agreed to pay for it. I can at will halt my payments and my Medicare coverage. I have exercised my right to select my medical providers. I also have exercised my right to cease patronizing some doctors for what ever my reasons. The governmentÂ’s administration of Medicare does not intervene with the treatment that my doctors provide me.
I have never encountered a U.S. citizen over 65 who is a dissatisfied Medicare or Medicaid. I went to a few town meetings conducted by my NJ. Democratic congressman. There were many elderly citizens opposed to any government managed health care. I can assume that the overwhelming majority of them were also Medicare or Medicaid clients. I heard many elderly persons or their children praise Medicare. I heard some young and middle aged people speak against Medicare. Not one elderly person spoke out against Medicare.
Vel, you may believe the elderly are displeased with Medicare. You may believe the world is flat. Your belief does not make it so.
Respectfully, Supposn
I do not agree with your contention that people were herded onto it, (Medicare), with every other option being pulled out from under them”.
Prior to Medicare, people who could not afford private insurance coverage in their younger years, certainly couldnÂ’t afford it when they grew older. Many, if not most of those that did have medical coverage in their younger years, couldnÂ’t afford to sustain that coverage when they grew older. Private insurance plans were incapable of meeting their needs.
My Medicare coverage did not commence until I agreed to pay for it. I can at will halt my payments and my Medicare coverage. I have exercised my right to select my medical providers. I also have exercised my right to cease patronizing some doctors for what ever my reasons. The governmentÂ’s administration of Medicare does not intervene with the treatment that my doctors provide me.
I have never encountered a U.S. citizen over 65 who is a dissatisfied Medicare or Medicaid. I went to a few town meetings conducted by my NJ. Democratic congressman. There were many elderly citizens opposed to any government managed health care. I can assume that the overwhelming majority of them were also Medicare or Medicaid clients. I heard many elderly persons or their children praise Medicare. I heard some young and middle aged people speak against Medicare. Not one elderly person spoke out against Medicare.
Vel, you may believe the elderly are displeased with Medicare. You may believe the world is flat. Your belief does not make it so.
Respectfully, Supposn
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,930
- 0
- Banned
- #39
Dumbshit. Respectfully...pregnant women and kids already have health care.
185 percent of the FPL pregnant women and children can get free healthcare...and we ignore that if there's domestic violence involved.
Get real.
Signed,
A caseworker. Eligibility worker. Etc.
- Thread starter
- #40
Allie Baba,
To the extent that anything is a personÂ’s undeniable right, it is an entitlement. To that extent, CHIPS is not a federal, (and in your own state), a universal entitlement. Eligabiliity workers would have little to do with respect to entitlements.
The U.s. Census Bureau reports USA children in excess of 11% are not covered by ANY health care insurance. They consider CHIPS for the purpose of the survey, as health insurance.
I assume that your message has a typographical error and you meant 85% rather than 185% are covered by insurance.
Your message then indicates in your county or possibly in your state, 15% of children and pregnant women are not covered by any medical insurance. If your statistics are correct in your case, health care insurance coverage for children is less than the national average.
Extremely poor people can not cover their own medical expenses. If they are not receiving medical care paid for by third parties, (medical insurers), they are not receiving any medical care.
Other than the poorest of people, non-wealthy families become poorer to the extent of their uninsured medical expenses. Only extremely wealthy people can financially survive extraordinarily great uninsured medical expenses.
Loss of income or illness not covered by medical insurance are the primary causes of personal bankruptcies.
Respectfully, Supposn
To the extent that anything is a personÂ’s undeniable right, it is an entitlement. To that extent, CHIPS is not a federal, (and in your own state), a universal entitlement. Eligabiliity workers would have little to do with respect to entitlements.
The U.s. Census Bureau reports USA children in excess of 11% are not covered by ANY health care insurance. They consider CHIPS for the purpose of the survey, as health insurance.
I assume that your message has a typographical error and you meant 85% rather than 185% are covered by insurance.
Your message then indicates in your county or possibly in your state, 15% of children and pregnant women are not covered by any medical insurance. If your statistics are correct in your case, health care insurance coverage for children is less than the national average.
Extremely poor people can not cover their own medical expenses. If they are not receiving medical care paid for by third parties, (medical insurers), they are not receiving any medical care.
Other than the poorest of people, non-wealthy families become poorer to the extent of their uninsured medical expenses. Only extremely wealthy people can financially survive extraordinarily great uninsured medical expenses.
Loss of income or illness not covered by medical insurance are the primary causes of personal bankruptcies.
Respectfully, Supposn
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Dow Jones Industrial Average surged over 1,300 points or roughly 2.85%- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Worker demands higher wages and gets life in prison- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
