Hey, the 12-year-old started it

[Lanya]

    Don't give up the SCHIP
    A fight for kids' health is worth having
    October 9, 2007

    The surest sign that President George W. Bush is losing the war of words over government-funded health insurance for children is that he's now talking compromise. Bipartisan supporters of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program should hold firm. Their plan to cover millions of additional children is the right thing to do.

    SCHIP currently funds insurance for 4 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to buy private insurance. Still, there are another 9 million children nationally - including 400,000 in New York and 68,000 on Long Island - without medical insurance. Congress voted an additional $35 billion over five years to extend SCHIP coverage to millions of those children.

    Bush has vetoed the bill, but his opposition is ideological and partisan. He insists that expanding SCHIP would be a step toward socialized medicine, shift the focus from the poor and cost too much. He has proposed a miserly $5-billion increase that wouldn't even cover the rising cost of continuing to cover the children currently enrolled.

    SCHIP is not socialized medicine. It is government-paid health insurance, but most states use the money to buy coverage from private insurance companies. And though SCHIP was originally limited to children from families under 200 percent of the poverty line - about $41,000 a year for a family of four - times have changed. More employers have dropped medical coverage for their employees, leaving many middle-income families out in the cold, particularly in high-cost areas such as Long Island, where yearly incomes well above $41,000 just won't stretch to cover the $12,000-plus yearly cost of private insurance
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpschp095406820oct09,0,4458735.story

From Florida Today:

    Grassley rightly pointed out that Bush's plan to increase the program by only $5 billion over five years wouldn't even cover the number of children already in the program.

    The expansion is desperately needed in Florida, where 658,000 children are uninsured. As many as 47 percent of those kids could gain health coverage under the new SCHIP. That includes an estimated 7,500 uninsured children in Brevard.

    But while the Senate has the votes to override Bush's veto, that's not the case in the House, where some lawmakers-- including Space Coast GOP Reps. Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney -- continue to spin shameless lies about SCHIP.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/OPINION/710090321/1004

[BT]

You do realize that CHIPS is a state fed program.

Which means that if the states want to offer greater benefits they make up the difference.

Bush didn't veto health care for children. He did not kill the CHIPS program. He vetoed a badly thought out increase to the program. So let's put to bed that lie from the left.

[Amianthus]

    The surest sign that President George W. Bush is losing the war of words over government-funded health insurance for children is that he's now talking compromise.

I seem to remember him discussing a compromise long before he vetoed the bill - and the Dems rejected it outright.

[_JS]

If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality.  But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.

You could under my plan.

Too bad the cheap bastards who want it all using other peoples money don't want to compromise.
Guess they don't care about the children.

How much more sales tax would be required under your plan? Would it cover everyone? Will fraud be an issue? If so how will you oversee the program? Why sales tax, noted as both a regressive tax, but more importantly a tax most susceptible to economic recession? If the economy goes into recession do you believe fewer people will be ill?

[Mr_Perceptive]

Why can't the Federal government offer a basic level of coverage and then, if the states want a HIGHER level, they can pay add'l? Oops, That is what is already done!

[sirs]

If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality.  But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.

You could under my plan.  Too bad the cheap bastards who want it all using other peoples money don't want to compromise.
Guess they don't care about the children.

How much more sales tax would be required under your plan? Would it cover everyone? Will fraud be an issue?

You've got to be kidding??  Will Fraud be an issue?  As rampant as abuse & fraud is currently in just the Medicare and Medical systems alone, you're worried about fraud at just the state level??  Js, such fraud will not only be an issue at the state level, but will be exponentially worse at the fed level, given the size and scope such a beheameth monopoly it would be, while you're apparently focused that folks like Limbaugh, Soros, and Gates are covered     

[_JS]

If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality.  But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.

You could under my plan.  Too bad the cheap bastards who want it all using other peoples money don't want to compromise.
Guess they don't care about the children.

How much more sales tax would be required under your plan? Would it cover everyone? Will fraud be an issue?

You've got to be kidding??  Will Fraud be an issue?  As rampant as abuse & fraud is currently in just the Medicare and Medical systems alone, you're worried about fraud at just the state level??  Js, such fraud will not only be an issue at the state level, but will be exponentially worse at the fed level, given the size and scope such a beheameth monopoly it would be, while you're apparently focused that folks like Limbaugh, Soros, and Gates are covered     

Why would fraud be more of an issue if the hospitals are publically run, the medical staff public employees, and all Americans covered equally?

Who would be defrauding whom?

[BT]

How much more sales tax would be required under your plan?

5-7%

Would it cover everyone?

Yes, that is by definition what UHC means

Will fraud be an issue? If so how will you oversee the program?

Fraud is always an issue. There is fraud in Social Security.

Why sales tax, noted as both a regressive tax, but more importantly a tax most susceptible to economic recession? If the economy goes into recession do you believe fewer people will be ill?

Because everybody pays. And it is a pay as you go system.

Federal tax based systems would also be subject to reduced revenues during a recession.

As far as the tax being regressive, too bad, so sad.

A 12 pack of coke costs the same to rich or poor, i don't see why a commodity like health care should be any different.

[_JS]

Because everybody pays. And it is a pay as you go system.

Federal tax based systems would also be subject to reduced revenues during a recession.

As far as the tax being regressive, too bad, so sad.

A 12 pack of coke costs the same to rich or poor, i don't see why a commodity like health care should be any different.

So basically you just don't give a damn about people on low incomes. And yes, the income tax is susceptible to poor economic cycles, but not nearly as much as a sales tax. Sales taxes perform very poorly in recessions, yet healthcare costs have not decreased during these economic downturns.

So you want Tennessee to have a sales tax of 13% plus the 4% local option would make our sales taxes 17%! I'm guessing that your plan isn't going to happen and honestly I wouldn't support it. It will destroy states during recessions and also loses the clout of the Federal Government's collective power as a broker on behalf of the people. Insurance is simply collective risk management. There is no sense limiting that to state boundaries.

[BT]

So basically you just don't give a damn about people on low incomes

To be quite honest, i don't see why they should be treated any differently than any other class of people. It's that whole equality thing i hear so much about. Strangely enough, i bought into that, and take serious exception when i see some people treated more equally than others.

And the reason i am going with a sales tax is because the mechanism is in place to collect it. And the sales tax increase would be offset when medicare taxes are no longer deducted from your paycheck and a whole bunch more people are covered.

This peicemeal patchwork system is for the birds.

BTW does TN have an income tax?

[BT]

This whole discussion started about a state run CHIP program. Did federal clout dissipate when Kennedy wrote that into the law?

Let the feds set minimum standards, negotiate GSA pricing and let the states administer the programs like they do Medicaid and Chips.

The fed model would be the VA and we see numerous posts from Lanya about how horrid that is.

[_JS]

So basically you just don't give a damn about people on low incomes

To be quite honest, i don't see why they should be treated any differently than any other class of people. It's that whole equality thing i hear so much about. Strangely enough, i bought into that, and take serious exception when i see some people treated more equally than others.

And the reason i am going with a sales tax is because the mechanism is in place to collect it. And the sales tax increase would be offset when medicare taxes are no longer deducted from your paycheck and a whole bunch more people are covered.

This peicemeal patchwork system is for the birds.

BTW does TN have an income tax?

It is simple really, those with lower income do not have the excess conspicuous income to spend. It is not a matter of being "more equal," it is a matter of having the opportunity to actually save money. An increase in the price of milk (and a sales tax is nothing more than an increase in price to the final consumer) is likely meaningless to those in the middle and upper class brackets, whereas it can be a very serious increase to those with low income.

Of course you know that.

You may not have considered that the addition of such a large sales tax increase within a short span of time, effectively a large price increase, may also lead to an increased inflation rate. It is something to consider.

Tennessee has no income tax, true. Well, in essence there is a small tax collected on a special kind of income, but very few Tennesseans fall under this tax.

[Richpo64]

>>One of thes principle of federal government is that it strives to provide a level playing field for all of its children.<<

LMFAO!! Find that one in the Constitution you moron.

Yellow streak wants the government to take care of his children because he's not up to the task.

Man, liberals are so fucked up it's frightening.

[BT]

t is simple really, those with lower income do not have the excess conspicuous income to spend. It is not a matter of being "more equal," it is a matter of having the opportunity to actually save money. An increase in the price of milk (and a sales tax is nothing more than an increase in price to the final consumer) is likely meaningless to those in the middle and upper class brackets, whereas it can be a very serious increase to those with low income.

And?

UHC .....universal participation and universal contribution.

[_JS]

We see things differently Bt.

I don't see any equality in building anything else on the backs of the poor. Enough of our society is built on the necessity of an underclass and the neglect thereof as it is.

I'm just not Nietzschean enough to buy into your conecpt.