While California burns and nearly a dozen Republican Reps go back to the state...

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Debate on the new S-CHIP expansion bill is still on-going. Republicans are trying to delay the vote until Monday. Makes sense since many have not even seen the new bill that Pelosi is trying to ram through.

Many GOP members support this alternative via Rep. Tom Price.

The More Children, More Choices Act, H.R. 3888, fully funds and reauthorizes SCHIP to cover children in households with annual income up to $43,000 ? the original intent. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that $8.5 billion in new spending is needed to ensure that all children in the current program are covered. H.R. 3888 responsibly provides these needed funds, plus an additional $3 billion for outreach to find children who are currently eligible but not enrolled in the program ? all without a tax increase! Rather than providing bureaucratic, government-run health care for those in middle-income homes, this reauthorization keeps SCHIP focused on needy kids first.

SCHIP is not the answer to those children who are uninsured but do not qualify for the program. Rather than bluntly expanding the program, The More Children, More Choices Act provides premium assistance for the purchase of private, personal coverage for children in households with annual income up to $63,000. This proposal will reach the same number of children as the Democrat plan, without expanding government-run health care. Instead of pulling children off personal insurance for the government program, as the Democrat bill would do, this legislation would preserve current coverage while expanding the purchase of personal insurance for millions more children.

Our health care crisis is undoubtedly not confined to our nation?s youth. We must provide access to health care coverage for all Americans. A third important component of H.R. 3888 would provide incentives for health care coverage to the uninsured through state initiatives. The program offers grants and promotes innovation and flexibility from federal regulation, allowing states to use a combination of ideas that best meets their specific needs.

So they were for SCHIP before they voted against it? They don't get to get their SCHIP passed, they lost the election. Their choice is vote for the Democrat bill or vote against healthcare for poor children and pay the price.

 

[palehorse]

As long as they limit it to age 18 (in ALL cases!), properly audit the applicants, prevent illegals from using the program, and cap the income levels accordingly, I see no reason to veto another SCHIP...

Then again, I highly doubt the Dems will do all of the above. Anything less is entirely unacceptable.

 

[theeedude]

Anything less than complete and unconditional Republican surrender on SCHIP is unacceptable to me. Otherwise they should get pounded over the head with it until they leave Washington with Bush.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anything less than complete and unconditional Republican surrender on SCHIP is unacceptable to me.

That's because you're a partisan hack.

Were you expecting us to be surprised?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why are California Republicans back in their districts? Do they now believe it IS the federal government's role to help people in need? To provide for the general welfare of those fire victims so to speak?

Uh because House of Rep members are REPRESENTATIVES of their DISTRICTS.

House Members spend about a 1/3 of the year in the districts.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: techs
I didn't see the Republicans having any problem with scheduling votes during the Presidential election so Kerry would have to leave the campaign trail.
And then when Kerry showed up, they cancelled the vote.
Until he was back on the campaign trail. And then called the vote again.
So Republican should stfu since they started this.

The Senate and House both recess in August, October, and November in election years.

Yeah they are still going to have votes in every othe month. They have a sh!t load of stuff to do and very little time to do it.

Also, the Senate is not like the House, the minority party has a much greater infuence in the Senate than in the House.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: techs
I didn't see the Republicans having any problem with scheduling votes during the Presidential election so Kerry would have to leave the campaign trail.

And then when Kerry showed up, they cancelled the vote.

Until he was back on the campaign trail. And then called the vote again.

So Republican should stfu since they started this.

BFT

So what you guys hated the Repubs for doing, you don't mind Dems doing it? WTF?

I'm more bothered by the OP's -- and pretty much every conservative on this board's -- blatent hypocracy.

on the face, it shares some similarities with tactics that the republican congress used, but the republicans used it to, say, force a woman to stay hooked up to a machine instead of provide healthcare for kids.

Presidential campagining != going home to view a disaster area...

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Payback is a Bitch. I recall many warnings in years past about how Republican tactics were going to come back to haunt them some day. Well, Some Day has arrived and now you know to listen to warnings.

I like how people think the Republicans tactics are new?

Who do you think did the same thing 50 years before the republicans took power in 1994? Heres a hint it starts with D...

Its called politics, and its an election cycle...

Its called House Politics. Take a class on Congress. While today it is much more partisan, the House has been a majority institution since early on. They have ALWAYS treated the minority party like this.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This isn't surprising, Pelosi is playing standard political games to justify legislation that the country supports. Look at the polls; a majority of Americans want gov't-run healthcare, a majority want it to be required much like car insurance is, a majority want employers to help pay for coverage, etc. Even more striking is that a mere 24% of Americans think individuals should have to pay for health insurance themselves; the other 76% want gov't-run healthcare, employer-covered healthcare, or a combination of both.

Bush is right in that the SCHIP bill is in a very real way an end to justify the means of big bad socialist medicine; i.e. universal healthcare. Americans seem to want it in one form of another, so they're eventually going to get it. Me personally, the only way I'd be OK with it is if we cut out all the fat from all the other horribly inefficiently run federal gov't programs to save on the wasted taxes we pay; namely Welfare and Agriculture subsidization (which artificially inflate food prices), and of course save a few hundred billion dollars by pulling out of the disaster in Iraq. Our own health is far more important than anything we do aboard, after all.

Yeah but they don't want to pay for it.

Americans want everything, but they dont want to pay for it.

 

[Wreckem]

They arent trying to force anything through, they are trying to score political points.

So far it doesnt appear to be working...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This isn't surprising, Pelosi is playing standard political games to justify legislation that the country supports. Look at the polls; a majority of Americans want gov't-run healthcare, a majority want it to be required much like car insurance is, a majority want employers to help pay for coverage, etc. Even more striking is that a mere 24% of Americans think individuals should have to pay for health insurance themselves; the other 76% want gov't-run healthcare, employer-covered healthcare, or a combination of both.

Only if you consider 29% (according to that poll) a majority.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This isn't surprising, Pelosi is playing standard political games to justify legislation that the country supports. Look at the polls; a majority of Americans want gov't-run healthcare, a majority want it to be required much like car insurance is, a majority want employers to help pay for coverage, etc. Even more striking is that a mere 24% of Americans think individuals should have to pay for health insurance themselves; the other 76% want gov't-run healthcare, employer-covered healthcare, or a combination of both.

Only if you consider 29% (according to that poll) a majority.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

CAN'T YOU READ:


Sixty-two percent said they supported requiring large employers to help pay for coverage whereas 31% opposed it. And 51% said they favored a mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, much as drivers are required to carry auto coverage; 39% disagreed.
The poll found that Americans were divided on one of the basic questions surrounding the healthcare debate: who should bear the main responsibility in securing health insurance.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

YOU TWISTED IT COMPLETELY. OVER HALF THE PEOPLE FEEL EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. ONLY 24 PERCENT SAID IT WAS THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLITY.


Sixty-two percent said they supported requiring large employers to help pay for coverage whereas 31% opposed it. And 51% said they favored a mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, much as drivers are required to carry auto coverage; 39% disagreed.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This isn't surprising, Pelosi is playing standard political games to justify legislation that the country supports. Look at the polls; a majority of Americans want gov't-run healthcare, a majority want it to be required much like car insurance is, a majority want employers to help pay for coverage, etc. Even more striking is that a mere 24% of Americans think individuals should have to pay for health insurance themselves; the other 76% want gov't-run healthcare, employer-covered healthcare, or a combination of both.

Only if you consider 29% (according to that poll) a majority.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

CAN'T YOU READ:


Sixty-two percent said they supported requiring large employers to help pay for coverage whereas 31% opposed it. And 51% said they favored a mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, much as drivers are required to carry auto coverage; 39% disagreed.
The poll found that Americans were divided on one of the basic questions surrounding the healthcare debate: who should bear the main responsibility in securing health insurance.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

YOU TWISTED IT COMPLETELY. OVER HALF THE PEOPLE FEEL EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. ONLY 24 PERCENT SAID IT WAS THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLITY.


Sixty-two percent said they supported requiring large employers to help pay for coverage whereas 31% opposed it. And 51% said they favored a mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, much as drivers are required to carry auto coverage; 39% disagreed.

You need to take your own advice. Since when did "employers should help pay for it" translate to "the government should run it"? Because that's exactly what you are claiming that article says, when anybody with 2 ounces of reading ability can see that you are in fact the one who can't even read your own article.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This isn't surprising, Pelosi is playing standard political games to justify legislation that the country supports. Look at the polls; a majority of Americans want gov't-run healthcare, a majority want it to be required much like car insurance is, a majority want employers to help pay for coverage, etc. Even more striking is that a mere 24% of Americans think individuals should have to pay for health insurance themselves; the other 76% want gov't-run healthcare, employer-covered healthcare, or a combination of both.

Only if you consider 29% (according to that poll) a majority.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

CAN'T YOU READ:


Sixty-two percent said they supported requiring large employers to help pay for coverage whereas 31% opposed it. And 51% said they favored a mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, much as drivers are required to carry auto coverage; 39% disagreed.
The poll found that Americans were divided on one of the basic questions surrounding the healthcare debate: who should bear the main responsibility in securing health insurance.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

YOU TWISTED IT COMPLETELY. OVER HALF THE PEOPLE FEEL EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. ONLY 24 PERCENT SAID IT WAS THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLITY.


Sixty-two percent said they supported requiring large employers to help pay for coverage whereas 31% opposed it. And 51% said they favored a mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, much as drivers are required to carry auto coverage; 39% disagreed.

You need to take your own advice. Since when did "employers should help pay for it" translate to "the government should run it"? Because that's exactly what you are claiming that article says, when anybody with 2 ounces of reading ability can see that you are in fact the one who can't even read your own article.

Ironic isn't it? He claims I twisted it when the spin is not coming from my side by any means. The results of that poll are plain to see. Only 29% percent support .gov health care. The UHC movement doesn't have near the momentum and support that some apparently think it does.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This isn't surprising, Pelosi is playing standard political games to justify legislation that the country supports. Look at the polls; a majority of Americans want gov't-run healthcare, a majority want it to be required much like car insurance is, a majority want employers to help pay for coverage, etc. Even more striking is that a mere 24% of Americans think individuals should have to pay for health insurance themselves; the other 76% want gov't-run healthcare, employer-covered healthcare, or a combination of both.

Only if you consider 29% (according to that poll) a majority.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

Bottom of the LA Times article:

The survey found that 53% supported the idea of extending Medicare to cover all Americans, creating a government-run system; and 36% opposed it.

That's gov't healthcare exclusively. Though, as noted in the last sentence, the syntax used in the question may have conflated the responses. It's not hard to twist questions to get the answer you want. However, it should be noted that plenty of polls show Americans (usually by nothing more than a slight 50% majority) preferring basic gov't-run health.

And much like Britain and Canada, the healthcare everyone gets via the gov't is basic, standard healthcare, with the real serious healthcare needs (e.g. heart transplants) requiring private insurance. I think most Americans are fine with that. And I would be if we didn't have to have a tax increase to get it; unfortunately, I don't think Congress has the fortitude to cut out the rest of the tax-wasting bloat that could pay for UHC.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anything less than complete and unconditional Republican surrender on SCHIP is unacceptable to me. Otherwise they should get pounded over the head with it until they leave Washington with Bush.

Way to debate the points I made! I'm not surprised...

Here, let me repeat them so that you can try to tackle them in your next reply. If you need to, borrow a few braincells from one of your friends:

As long as they limit it to age 18 (in ALL cases!), properly audit the applicants, prevent illegals from using the program, and cap the income levels accordingly, I see no reason to veto another SCHIP...

Exactly which of my points do you take issue with?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anything less than complete and unconditional Republican surrender on SCHIP is unacceptable to me. Otherwise they should get pounded over the head with it until they leave Washington with Bush.

Way to debate the points I made! I'm not surprised...

Here, let me repeat them so that you can try to tackle them in your next reply. If you need to, borrow a few braincells from one of your friends:

As long as they limit it to age 18 (in ALL cases!), properly audit the applicants, prevent illegals from using the program, and cap the income levels accordingly, I see no reason to veto another SCHIP...

Exactly which of my points do you take issue with?

I don't see where you get to set the rules seeing how your party lost in the last election and the overwhelming majority of people supports this bill. Plus you obviously haven't read it as citizenship and nationality verification is already included in it. Income level cap is up to the executive branch, Bush administration, which granted waivers to some states to lift income cap. Now Bush is saying the reason why he opposes the bill is that it covers people who he himself signed off on covering. We should properly audit all people's income. If they are lying about it, IRS should ALREADY be going after them. This administration has gutted IRS' enforcement abilities to where it's now a "kindler, gentler" IRS that doesn't have enough teeth.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This isn't surprising, Pelosi is playing standard political games to justify legislation that the country supports. Look at the polls; a majority of Americans want gov't-run healthcare, a majority want it to be required much like car insurance is, a majority want employers to help pay for coverage, etc. Even more striking is that a mere 24% of Americans think individuals should have to pay for health insurance themselves; the other 76% want gov't-run healthcare, employer-covered healthcare, or a combination of both.

Only if you consider 29% (according to that poll) a majority.

Twenty-nine percent said it is the responsibility of government; 23% said employers; 24% said individuals should take care of themselves, without help from government or employers; and 19% said it is a shared responsibility.

Bottom of the LA Times article:

The survey found that 53% supported the idea of extending Medicare to cover all Americans, creating a government-run system; and 36% opposed it.

That's gov't healthcare exclusively. Though, as noted in the last sentence, the syntax used in the question may have conflated the responses. It's not hard to twist questions to get the answer you want. However, it should be noted that plenty of polls show Americans (usually by nothing more than a slight 50% majority) preferring basic gov't-run health.

And much like Britain and Canada, the healthcare everyone gets via the gov't is basic, standard healthcare, with the real serious healthcare needs (e.g. heart transplants) requiring private insurance. I think most Americans are fine with that. And I would be if we didn't have to have a tax increase to get it; unfortunately, I don't think Congress has the fortitude to cut out the rest of the tax-wasting bloat that could pay for UHC.

Medicare is for prescription drugs. It's not UHC.

I believe you're reading that sentence wrong as well, though I can understand why because it was poorly written. It doesn't imply that Americans want UHC. It claims that 53% of Americans want a government run prescription drug plan (Medicare extended to cover all Americans). I'd also be willing to bet that a portion of those questioned in that poll had absolutely no clue what Medicare actually is and what it covers.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anything less than complete and unconditional Republican surrender on SCHIP is unacceptable to me. Otherwise they should get pounded over the head with it until they leave Washington with Bush.

Way to debate the points I made! I'm not surprised...

Here, let me repeat them so that you can try to tackle them in your next reply. If you need to, borrow a few braincells from one of your friends:

As long as they limit it to age 18 (in ALL cases!), properly audit the applicants, prevent illegals from using the program, and cap the income levels accordingly, I see no reason to veto another SCHIP...

Exactly which of my points do you take issue with?

I don't see where you get to set the rules seeing how your party lost in the last election and the overwhelming majority of people supports this bill. Plus you obviously haven't read it as citizenship and nationality verification is already included in it. Income level cap is up to the executive branch, Bush administration, which granted waivers to some states to lift income cap. Now Bush is saying the reason why he opposes the bill is that it covers people who he himself signed off on covering. We should properly audit all people's income. If they are lying about it, IRS should ALREADY be going after them. This administration has gutted IRS' enforcement abilities to where it's now a "kindler, gentler" IRS that doesn't have enough teeth.

ok, let me approach this a different way to try and get a straight answer from you without all the bullsh*t.

1) Do you believe SCHIP coverage should be cut off at exactly age 18, with no exceptions? YES/NO

2) Do you believe the entire financial status of each applicant should be investigated thoroughly so as to prevent fraudulent hiding of income, etc? YES/NO

3) Do you agree that the maximum income for applicants should be set at what is recognized as the national poverty line, without ANY exceptions? YES/NO

Three simple questions with a one-word answer for each. Don't hurt yourself.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Medicare is for prescription drugs. It's not UHC.

Yes it's not UHC, but no current gov't program is, so that's all polls can really compare to. But it's close in a lot of ways.

And I once thought Medicare was just prescription drugs, but Medicare actually includes multiple levels of coverage now, including hospital stays for free (depending on length). Whether those polled knew that is, obviously, debatable. Via Wiki:

Medicare is a health insurance program administered by the United States government, covering people who are either age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria.

The "Original Medicare" program has two parts: Part A (Hospital Insurance), and Part B (Medical Insurance). Only a few special cases exist where prescription drugs are covered by Original Medicare, but as of January 2006, Medicare Part D provides more comprehensive drug coverage. Medicare Advantage plans are another way for beneficiaries to receive their Part A, B and D benefits.

[edit] Part A: Hospital Insurance

Part A covers hospital stays (including stays in a skilled nursing facility) if certain criteria are met:

1. The hospital stay must be at least three days, three midnights, not counting the discharge date.
2. The nursing home stay must be for something diagnosed during the hospital stay or for the main cause of hospital stay. For instance, hospital stay for broken hip and then nursing home stay for physical therapy would be covered.
3. If the patient is not receiving rehabilitation but has some other ailment that requires skilled nursing supervision then the nursing home stay would be covered.
4. The care being rendered by the nursing home must be skilled. Medicare part A does not pay for custodial, non-skilled, or long-term care activities, including activities of daily living (ADLs) such as personal hygiene, cooking, cleaning, etc.

The maximum length of stay that Medicare Part A will cover in a skilled nursing facility per ailment is 100 days. The first 20 days would be paid for in full by Medicare with the remaining 80 days requiring a co-payment (as of 2007, $124.00 per day). Many insurance companies have a provision for skilled nursing care in the policies they sell.

If a beneficiary uses some portion of their Part A benefit and then goes at least 60 days without receiving skilled services, the 100-day clock is reset and the person qualifies for a new 100-day benefit period.

[edit] Part B: Medical Insurance

Part B medical insurance helps pay for some services and products not covered by Part A, generally on an outpatient basis. Part B is optional and may be deferred if the beneficiary or their spouse is still actively working. There is a lifetime penalty (10% per year) imposed for not taking Part B if not actively working.

Part B coverage includes physician and nursing services, x-rays, laboratory and diagnostic tests, influenza and pneumonia vaccinations, blood transfusions, renal dialysis, outpatient hospital procedures, limited ambulance transportation, Immunosuppressive drugs for organ transplant recipients, chemotherapy, hormonal treatments such as lupron, and other outpatient medical treatments administered in a doctor's office. Medication administration is covered under Part B only if it is administered by the physician during an office visit.

Part B also helps with durable medical equipment (DME), including canes, walkers, wheelchairs, and mobility scooters for those with mobility impairments. Prosthetic devices such as artificial limbs and breast prosthesis following mastectomy, as well as one pair of eyeglasses following cataract surgery, and oxygen for home use is also covered.[3]

As with all Medicare benefits, Part B coverage is subject to medical necessity. Complex rules are used to manage the benefit, and advisories are periodically issued which describe coverage criteria. On the national level these advisories are issued by CMS, and are known as National Coverage Determinations (NCD). Local Coverage Determinations (LCD) only apply within the multi-state area managed by a specific regional Medicare Part B contractor, and Local Medical Review Policies (LMRP) were superseded by LCDs in 2003.

Part C: Medicare Advantage plans

With the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Medicare beneficiaries were given the option to receive their Medicare benefits through private health insurance plans, instead of through the Original Medicare plan (Parts A and B). These programs were known as "Medicare+Choice" or "Part C" plans. Pursuant to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, the compensation and business practices changed for insurers that offer these plans, and "Medicare+Choice" plans became known as "Medicare Advantage" (MA) plans. In addition to offering comparable coverage to Part A and Part B, Medicare Advantage plans may also offer Part D coverage.

Part D: Prescription Drug plans

Main article: Medicare Part D

Medicare Part D went into effect on January 1, 2006. Anyone with Part A or B is eligible for Part D. It was made possible by the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. In order to receive this benefit, a person with Medicare must enroll in a stand-alone Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) or Medicare Advantage plan with prescription drug coverage (MA-PD). These plans are approved and regulated by the Medicare program, but are actually designed and administered by private health insurance companies. Unlike Original Medicare (Part A and B), Part D coverage is not standardized. Plans choose which drugs (or even classes of drugs) they wish to cover, at what level (or tier) they wish to cover it, and are free to choose not to cover some drugs at all. The exception to this is drugs that Medicare specifically excludes from coverage, including but not limited to benzodiazepines, cough suppressant and barbiturates.[4][5] Plans that cover excluded drugs are not allowed to pass those costs on to Medicare, and plans are required to repay CMS if they are found to have billed Medicare in these cases.[6]

It should be noted again for beneficiaries who are dual-eligible (Medicare and Medicaid eligible) Medicaid will pay for drugs not covered by part D of Medicare, such as benzodiazepines, and other restricted

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I believe you're reading that sentence wrong as well, though I can understand why because it was poorly written. It doesn't imply that Americans want UHC. It claims that 53% of Americans want a government run prescription drug plan (Medicare extended to cover all Americans). I'd also be willing to bet that a portion of those questioned in that poll had absolutely no clue what Medicare actually is and what it covers.

If Americans didn't know what Medicare was when they answered the poll, I bet more often than not they thought it was basic gov't healthcare than they thought it was purely prescription drugs, which it isn't.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

ok, let me approach this a different way to try and get a straight answer from you without all the bullsh*t.

1) Do you believe SCHIP coverage should be cut off at exactly age 18, with no exceptions? YES/NO

2) Do you believe the entire financial status of each applicant should be investigated thoroughly so as to prevent fraudulent hiding of income, etc? YES/NO

3) Do you agree that the maximum income for applicants should be set at what is recognized as the national poverty line, without ANY exceptions? YES/NO

Three simple questions with a one-word answer for each. Don't hurt yourself.

I'll give it a go!

1) Do you believe SCHIP coverage should be cut off at exactly age 18, with no exceptions? YES/NO

No, it should be extended to cover all ages, pre-natal to grave.

2) Do you believe the entire financial status of each applicant should be investigated thoroughly so as to prevent fraudulent hiding of income, etc? YES/NO

No, coverage should be universal, regardless of income. Princes and paupers should be covered equally.

3) Do you agree that the maximum income for applicants should be set at what is recognized as the national poverty line, without ANY exceptions? YES/NO

No. If you gots a navel, you should be covered.

Howda I do?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
Anything less than complete and unconditional Republican surrender on SCHIP is unacceptable to me. Otherwise they should get pounded over the head with it until they leave Washington with Bush.

Way to debate the points I made! I'm not surprised...

Here, let me repeat them so that you can try to tackle them in your next reply. If you need to, borrow a few braincells from one of your friends:

As long as they limit it to age 18 (in ALL cases!), properly audit the applicants, prevent illegals from using the program, and cap the income levels accordingly, I see no reason to veto another SCHIP...

Exactly which of my points do you take issue with?

I don't see where you get to set the rules seeing how your party lost in the last election and the overwhelming majority of people supports this bill. Plus you obviously haven't read it as citizenship and nationality verification is already included in it. Income level cap is up to the executive branch, Bush administration, which granted waivers to some states to lift income cap. Now Bush is saying the reason why he opposes the bill is that it covers people who he himself signed off on covering. We should properly audit all people's income. If they are lying about it, IRS should ALREADY be going after them. This administration has gutted IRS' enforcement abilities to where it's now a "kindler, gentler" IRS that doesn't have enough teeth.

ok, let me approach this a different way to try and get a straight answer from you without all the bullsh*t.

1) Do you believe SCHIP coverage should be cut off at exactly age 18, with no exceptions? YES/NO

Not if the person over 18 is a full time student who does not get insurance from the college.

2) Do you believe the entire financial status of each applicant should be investigated thoroughly so as to prevent fraudulent hiding of income, etc? YES/NO

No, I do not believe we need to set up another bureaucracy to do do what we already have IRS to do.

3) Do you agree that the maximum income for applicants should be set at what is recognized as the national poverty line, without ANY exceptions? YES/NO
Three simple questions with a one-word answer for each. Don't hurt yourself.

No, this is program intended to cover people who are don't qualify for Medicaid, people above poverty line who cannot afford their own coverage. How much a person needs to earn to be able to obtain coverage varies from state to state due to cost of living and premium prices based on their health conditions. Capiche?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
As long as they limit it to age 18 (in ALL cases!), properly audit the applicants, prevent illegals from using the program, and cap the income levels accordingly, I see no reason to veto another SCHIP...

Then again, I highly doubt the Dems will do all of the above. Anything less is entirely unacceptable.

One of the things the revised SCHIP proposal from the Democrats definitely does is take measures to prevent illegals from using the program. Basically they require states to bounce the names and Social Security numbers of applicants against the national database and investigate if things don't match up properly. Since illegals are not eligible legally under the program period, its always possible to investigate if suspicions are raised period. Keep in mind any illegal trying to use the program risks deportation if they get caught.

 

[theeedude]

The whole illegal thing is a red herring. It's just too hard for Republicans to resist an argument that bashes Mexicans and justifies blocking healthcare to poor children in one sentence.

 

[Aegeon]

Basically a national poverty line for the program is flat out a stupid idea. You can end up with a way too generous limit for most states if you use one of the highest cost states for your baseline, or an excessively low level for a variety of states meaning the people who truly need it are not all eligible in some states.

The reality is living in New York City simply means flat out higher basic living expenses than living in North Dakota or Alabama. (Check out monthly apartment rental costs for New York City if you want to start to get an idea why.) Adjusting by state is actually by far the most efficient way to do things to help make sure you cover who you want to, but don't end up giving this program to people who obviously don't need it in states with a low cost of living.