• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Adult use of children's health plan originally passed Bush muster

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,992
5,037
126
Link
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In vetoing one children's health bill and threatening to veto a second, President Bush has complained about adults receiving benefits under the program for which Congress wants to more than double funding.
Yet it was the Bush administration that granted the majority of current waivers that enable states to enroll parents under the State Children's Health Insurance program, and it has approved every one of the waivers that enable the enrollment of childless adults.

"The administration has been shocked to find adults in the SCHIP program. Well, my goodness, they are the one who put them there," said Stan Dorn, senior research associate with the Urban Institute.
Childless adults gained the ability to receive benefits in 2001, thanks to the Bush administration's Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability initiative. Six states currently have waivers, according to CRS.
Never trust a Republican. They'll screw up a good government program, then use their own screwups to try to kill the program, even if it provides healthcare to kids.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
We already know this. IIRC, the dept also gave out waivers for higher income. The WH has said this was a mistake to do.

If you also think it's a screw up, you shouldn't support the bill in it's current form. It needs restrictions to prevent further waivers and focus on lower income children

Fernh
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,992
5,037
126
Originally posted by: Fern
We already know this. IIRC, the dept also gave out waivers for higher income. The WH has said this was a mistake to do.

If you also think it's a screw up, you shouldn't support the bill in it's current form. It needs restrictions to prevent further waivers and focus on lower income children

Fernh
I don't think it's a screw up to help adults with healthcare. Until the so called market based system restores sanity and stops this runaway inflation in healthcare premiums, the government needs to make sure that the citizenry is getting the health care it needs.
But I love how all along, the useful idiots say that yeah, Bush screwed up in the past, but he's right now, and he continues to screw up everything he touches. It seems like the possibility that a guy who screwed up everything in the past could be screwing everything up in the present as well never crosses your feeble Reaganite minds.
Everything this guy has done on healthcare has been a complete disaster, but we need to trust his latest decision to block SCHIP. This is the same guy that rammed through the biggest expansion of Medicare in decades, while hiding it's true costs until after it was passed, and now he's concerned about a program that costs pennies in comparison because it may do what he supported it doing in the past.
Seems to me that the only reason he switched his position on SCHIP is because it's the Democrats pushing it now, and not the GOP. This is a guy who didn't veto the biggest expansion of government since LBJ when his party was the one doing the expansion, but now he found Jesus and stopped drinking again? Give me a break.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
It is a screw up to help adults with healthcare under a program that intended to help poor children.

And it is government interference and regulations that have helped drive up the cost of healthcare. Last thing we need is more.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0


SCHIP Michigan Waiver
Jan. 16, 2004

SCHIP New Mexico Waiver
August 23, 2002

SCHIP Oregon Waiver
October 15, 2002

SCHIP Illinois Waiver
Sept. 12, 2002

SCHIP Colorado Waiver
Sept. 27, 2002

SCHIP New Jersey Waiver
Jan. 31, 2003

SCHIP Maine Waiver
Sept. 13, 2002

SCHIP California Waiver
Jan. 24, 2002

SCHIP Arizona Waiver
Dec. 12, 2001

SCHIP Idaho Waiver
Nov. 4, 2004

SCHIP Minnesota Waiver
June 13, 2001

SCHIP Nevada Waiver
Feb. 7, 2002

SCHIP Rhode Island Waiver
April 17, 2003

THE FIRST 100 BUSH DAYS: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Between Jan. 20 and April 20, 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services approved 247 waivers and state plan amendments for programs like Medicaid and SCHIP.

Press Release
You can't spell Republican without H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,992
5,037
126
Originally posted by: Queasy
It is a screw up to help adults with healthcare under a program that intended to help poor children.

And it is government interference and regulations that have helped drive up the cost of healthcare. Last thing we need is more.
SCHIP is not intended to help poor children, Medicaid is.
SCHIP is intended for the middle class by definition. So this shock that the GOP is experiencing that SCHIP is helping the middle class is somewhat surprising, considering they are the ones who supported this program's creation to help the middle class obtain healthcare coverage, and supported expanding it to cover the people it covers now, including adults. All of the sudden they realized that a government program is helping the middle class and we can't have that? Good luck with that position at the polls.
They are entitled to be against SCHIP now, but they should stop pretending like they are for it, even though they voted against it. If they don't think we need to help the middle class with healthcare, they should just come out and say so, and take their lumps.
Of course you also completely ignore the fact that countries with single payer universal coverage spend much lower percentage of their GDP on healthcare and achieve better outcomes. What else is new?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Fern
We already know this. IIRC, the dept also gave out waivers for higher income. The WH has said this was a mistake to do.

If you also think it's a screw up, you shouldn't support the bill in it's current form. It needs restrictions to prevent further waivers and focus on lower income children

Fernh
I don't think it's a screw up to help adults with healthcare. Until the so called market based system restores sanity and stops this runaway inflation in healthcare premiums, the government needs to make sure that the citizenry is getting the health care it needs.

-snip-
If you wanna program for adults, other than playing politics I don't see any reason it should be squeezed into a kids program.

As I've said many times, I think kids health care is very important and I'm for it.

But that aside, my concern is the structure of our health care system. We have several players:

1. care givers (physicians, hospitals & clinics etc)

2. Insurance companies

3. Consumers of health care

Unless and until we dump the current system, and move to where the caregivers are gov employees (as is my understanding of other countries system) and insurance companies are eliminated, the gov is just subsidizing a private company (insurance & caregivers).

I.e., the gov is giving money to consumers to turn around and buy health insurance from private companies. That amounts to a subsidy to the insurers IMO. Then the insurers pay the money to the caregivers. In this country we pay far more for health care than other countries, so the gov's solution is to EVEN MORE freakin money to them? And taxpayer money to boot!

Yeah, I can think of no better place for our tax dollars to go than the physicians hanging around the country club with their convertable Porshe's and trophy wives.

Why doesn't the gov also give money to people so they can pay me to do their tax returns? (I'm a tax CPA). Why can't my customers be subsidized as well?

Fern
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,992
5,037
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Fern
We already know this. IIRC, the dept also gave out waivers for higher income. The WH has said this was a mistake to do.

If you also think it's a screw up, you shouldn't support the bill in it's current form. It needs restrictions to prevent further waivers and focus on lower income children

Fernh
I don't think it's a screw up to help adults with healthcare. Until the so called market based system restores sanity and stops this runaway inflation in healthcare premiums, the government needs to make sure that the citizenry is getting the health care it needs.

-snip-
If you wanna program for adults, other than playing politics I don't see any reason it should be squeezed into a kids program.
Because Bush administration said it should. The waivers are not part of the bill, these are addons by the Bush administration at the request of the states.
As I've said many times, I think kids health care is very important and I'm for it.
It's so important to you, you are for blocking it? Yeah, that makes sense. Tough love, huh? :D
But that aside, my concern is the structure of our health care system. We have several players:

1. care givers (physicians, hospitals & clinics etc)

2. Insurance companies

3. Consumers of health care

Unless and until we dump the current system, and move to where the caregivers are gov employees (as is my understanding of other countries system) and insurance companies are eliminated, the gov is just subsidizing a private company (insurance & caregivers).
There is a difference between single payer and single provider systems, one that's been explained plenty of times on this board.
I.e., the gov is giving money to consumers to turn around and buy health insurance from private companies. That amounts to a subsidy to the insurers IMO. Then the insurers pay the money to the caregivers. In this country we pay far more for health care than other countries, so the gov's solution is to EVEN MORE freakin money to them? And taxpayer money to boot!

Yeah, I can think of no better place for our tax dollars to go than the physicians hanging around the country club with their convertable Porshe's and trophy wives.

Why doesn't the gov also give money to people so they can pay me to do their tax returns? (I'm a tax CPA). Why can't my customers be subsidized as well?

Fern
The government solution is not to give more tax dollars, but to set limits for what it will pay, as it does for Medicare. That's why it works so well in other countries. Here, doctors feel entitled to unlimited amounts of your money, because they simply stick the insurance company with it, and insurance company doesn't care as long as it can pass it back to your employer. The only person with the interest in controlling the costs, the employer, is also the one who has no decision making power at all, except the decision to drop coverage.
The doctors with convertible Porsches are the ones b!tching and moaning that the government doesn't reimburse them enough and they can't overcharge medicare like they do the insurance companies and the uninsured. Someone has to put its foot down on these price hikes, and the insurance companies aren't doing it. Only the government can.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,434
79
91
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Queasy
It is a screw up to help adults with healthcare under a program that intended to help poor children.

And it is government interference and regulations that have helped drive up the cost of healthcare. Last thing we need is more.
SCHIP is not intended to help poor children
Originally posted by: senseamp
I know it's sad that Republicans can't be in CA bragging about bringing fed money home, and in DC voting against healthcare for poor children.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Their choice is vote for the Democrat bill or vote against healthcare for poor children and pay the price.
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's just too hard for Republicans to resist an argument that bashes Mexicans and justifies blocking healthcare to poor children in one sentence.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans will get plenty of opportunities to block healthcare for poor children if they are busy with wildfires now.
Originally posted by: senseamp
a bill that would pay for healthcare for poor children

Which is it?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,992
5,037
126
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Queasy
It is a screw up to help adults with healthcare under a program that intended to help poor children.

And it is government interference and regulations that have helped drive up the cost of healthcare. Last thing we need is more.
SCHIP is not intended to help poor children
Originally posted by: senseamp
I know it's sad that Republicans can't be in CA bragging about bringing fed money home, and in DC voting against healthcare for poor children.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Their choice is vote for the Democrat bill or vote against healthcare for poor children and pay the price.
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's just too hard for Republicans to resist an argument that bashes Mexicans and justifies blocking healthcare to poor children in one sentence.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans will get plenty of opportunities to block healthcare for poor children if they are busy with wildfires now.
Originally posted by: senseamp
a bill that would pay for healthcare for poor children

Which is it?
We've been over this already. You don't have to be "poor" as in below poverty line to be poor enough to not afford health insurance. Republicans used to get it when they passed SCHIP, but now it seems like they changed their mind because they think obstructionism will help them score some points.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,323
777
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Link
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In vetoing one children's health bill and threatening to veto a second, President Bush has complained about adults receiving benefits under the program for which Congress wants to more than double funding.
Yet it was the Bush administration that granted the majority of current waivers that enable states to enroll parents under the State Children's Health Insurance program, and it has approved every one of the waivers that enable the enrollment of childless adults.

"The administration has been shocked to find adults in the SCHIP program. Well, my goodness, they are the one who put them there," said Stan Dorn, senior research associate with the Urban Institute.
Childless adults gained the ability to receive benefits in 2001, thanks to the Bush administration's Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability initiative. Six states currently have waivers, according to CRS.
Never trust a Republican. They'll screw up a good government program, then use their own screwups to try to kill the program, even if it provides healthcare to kids.
The problem is some states have adults as 75% of their SCHIP enrolles.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Queasy
It is a screw up to help adults with healthcare under a program that intended to help poor children.

And it is government interference and regulations that have helped drive up the cost of healthcare. Last thing we need is more.
SCHIP is not intended to help poor children
Originally posted by: senseamp
I know it's sad that Republicans can't be in CA bragging about bringing fed money home, and in DC voting against healthcare for poor children.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Their choice is vote for the Democrat bill or vote against healthcare for poor children and pay the price.
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's just too hard for Republicans to resist an argument that bashes Mexicans and justifies blocking healthcare to poor children in one sentence.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Republicans will get plenty of opportunities to block healthcare for poor children if they are busy with wildfires now.
Originally posted by: senseamp
a bill that would pay for healthcare for poor children

Which is it?
ohhhh SNAP!

He never did respond adequately to the same challenge I made to him in the last SCHIP thread... I highly doubt he'll do so now.

you can add this beautiful quote to the bunch:
Originally posted by: senseamp
SCHIP is not designed for genuinelly poor children, those are covered by Medicaid. It's designed for lower middle class children whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid, not genuinely poor children.
It's fun to watch him prove our points for us, isn't it?

BTW, I'm against all forms of SCHIP, new and old.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Fern
We already know this. IIRC, the dept also gave out waivers for higher income. The WH has said this was a mistake to do.

If you also think it's a screw up, you shouldn't support the bill in it's current form. It needs restrictions to prevent further waivers and focus on lower income children

Fernh
I don't think it's a screw up to help adults with healthcare. Until the so called market based system restores sanity and stops this runaway inflation in healthcare premiums, the government needs to make sure that the citizenry is getting the health care it needs.

-snip-
If you wanna program for adults, other than playing politics I don't see any reason it should be squeezed into a kids program.
Because Bush administration said it should. The waivers are not part of the bill, these are addons by the Bush administration at the request of the states.
Fern here- Yes, and I'm opposed to it no matter who did it. Yes, it's just another mistake by the GWB admin.

As I've said many times, I think kids health care is very important and I'm for it.
It's so important to you, you are for blocking it? Yeah, that makes sense. Tough love, huh? :D
Fern here - I want it passed, but with modifications to prevent what I believe are abusive practices - funding for adults and higher income people. I belive the focus of the assistance should remain the lower income children. How is it all contradictory to be in support of health care for childresn and oppose those funds (for children) being diverted and spent on adults?

But that aside, my concern is the structure of our health care system. We have several players:

-snip-

Fern
The government solution is not to give more tax dollars, but to set limits for what it will pay, as it does for Medicare. That's why it works so well in other countries. Here, doctors feel entitled to unlimited amounts of your money, because they simply stick the insurance company with it, and insurance company doesn't care as long as it can pass it back to your employer. The only person with the interest in controlling the costs, the employer, is also the one who has no decision making power at all, except the decision to drop coverage.
The doctors with convertible Porsches are the ones b!tching and moaning that the government doesn't reimburse them enough and they can't overcharge medicare like they do the insurance companies and the uninsured. Someone has to put its foot down on these price hikes, and the insurance companies aren't doing it. Only the government can.

Fern here- Either you misunderstand the point I was trying to make, or (just as likely) I didn't explain it very well.

IMO the goverment is merely subsidizing the customers of "for profit" companies. Replace health care with transportation (another necessity) and you'd have Washington DC using our money to help people purchase their automobiles. Nothing other than a subsidy to Detroit auto makers.

The gov, not this one or any other, can control prices. It's been shown/proven time again taht they simply cannpt do thta. They're kidding themselves, and people like you, when they claim they can and pursue (ineffective) policies in an attempt to do so.

See bold italicized remarks.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY