Schip

State Children's Health Insurance Program has been in the forefront lately and I just wanted to point out a few FACTS. Bush is open to expanding the plan to children in need witch I fully support and that would expand the plan but he is not willing to expand it to the point of the first stage of nationalized health care. The Democrat proposal would make children up to age 25 with house hole incomes up to $84,000 eligible.

I also would like to point out that the Frost kid is eligible now as the program is even though his parents could get his very own child only personal policy. In his state Child only policies start at $40 for a high Ded and $125 on the high side for coverage that is better than most groups.

from the little i've read that figure is for new york were the cost of living is higher,also what the president is worried about is families who have coverage,dropping it in favor of this program. I also have read the figure of children covered would increase from six to ten million with illegal aliens now covered. Keep in mind that many republician law makers voted in favor of the increase,i hope everyone can come to a agreement as this is a good program for children whose families dont qualify for medicare but cant afford insurance.

Can't afford to spend $50 Billion over 5 years for SCHIP... this from the values party?!?

Can't afford to take care of sick kids... nice values

Steve

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101702108.html
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP): An Overview
Wednesday, October 17, 2007; 7:46 PM


Frequently Asked Questions about the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

Q: How does the program work and who does it cover now?

A: The $5 billion-a-year program was created 10 years ago with the goal of covering children from families with annual incomes at or below about twice the poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. The target population is children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance on their own.

Currently, 18 states and the District of Columbia have eligibility levels above 200 percent of the poverty level. New Jersey is the highest at 350 percent. No other state is above 300 percent.

About 6.6 million children and 671,000 adults received health coverage through SCHIP in 2006, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

About 83 percent of those enrolled were children at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, and another 9 percent were low income adults, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The remaining 8 percent were children from families with incomes above twice the poverty level.

Q: How many children are eligible, but not enrolled?

A: About 5.4 million uninsured children are eligible for coverage under SCHIP or Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor, according to an analysis of Census data by the Urban Institute. Of those, 1.7 million are eligible for SCHIP and 3.7 million for Medicaid.

About 90 percent of children who are eligible but still uninsured are from families with incomes below twice the poverty level. Some eligible families have incomes above twice the poverty level because some state SCHIP programs have income limits above 200 percent.

Q: Who would be covered under the bill approved by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?

A: Under the bill, states could receive the full federal matching rate to cover children from families earning as much as three times the poverty level, or $61,950 for a family of four. States seeking to cover families with higher incomes would receive a less favorable federal matching rate. In either case, states would have to receive approval from the Bush administration to raise their eligibility levels that high.

About 70 percent of those who gain or retain coverage under the bill would be from families earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute. The analysis includes an assumption that some states would raise eligibility levels.

Q: How much additional money, on top of the $5 billion-a-year baseline funding, is needed to preserve the same size program over the next five years?

A: Keeping the program at current levels would require expanding funding by about $13.4 billion over five years, for total funding of $38.4 billion between 2008 to 2012, according to a CBO report in May. Part of the reason is rising medical costs. President Bush has proposed a $5 billion expansion, for total program funding of $30 billion over the next five years. He has said he might be willing to go higher. The bill Bush vetoed would increase funding by $35 billion over the five years, for a program total of $60 billion. Ultimately, it would cover 10 million people.

Q: What about adults?

A: About 671,000 adults were enrolled in SCHIP in 2006, according to the CBO.

Under the bill, states would have to transition childless adults to Medicaid. The 11 states that cover parents on their SCHIP programs could continue to do so for two or three more years. After that, those states could continue covering parents only if the states first meet certain benchmarks for covering children. No other states could decide to start covering parents. Pregnant women would remain eligible for coverage.

Q: Does the bill cover children from families earning as much as $83,000 a year, as President Bush contends?

A: No. New York recently asked the Department of Health and Human Services for permission to cover children from families earning as much as 400 percent of poverty -- $82,600 for a family of four. But HHS turned New York down. The White House argues that a future administration could grant the request if New York asks again.

Q. How many children are uninsured in America ?

A: There are about 9.4 million uninsured children age 18 and under, according to Census data.

Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, The Urban Institute, congressional aides.

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/staccess.htm

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/18005.html

AARP and AMA to President Bush,'Don’t veto kids’ health'
e-mail story | print story
For immediate release
September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON – AARP, representing more than 39 million Americans 50-plus, and the American Medical Association (AMA), the nation’s largest physician group, together strongly urged President Bush today to sign CHIP, a bipartisan bill that would ensure that nearly 10 million children get the health care they need. The President has made public statements announcing his intent to veto this legislation.

AARP and AMA are not alone. Groups including the nation’s governors, private insurers – and a vast majority of Americans – overwhelmingly support strengthening the successful kids health insurance program. Further, the bill passed both the House and the Senate by wide, bipartisan majorities – one of the few pieces of legislation to do so in Washington’s partisan atmosphere.

The AARP and AMA urged the President not to be taken in by the rhetoric of the few members of Congress who opposed the bill. In their letter they state, “And, contrary to much misinformation, the bill focuses the program on serving low-income kids who are U.S. citizens. The legislation does not increase income eligibility limits, nor does it provide for coverage of illegal immigrants.

“This is not a debate about government versus private insurance – both will be part of any real solution to our nation’s growing health care crisis. It is about ensuring that we do right by our children so that they can grow into healthy, productive adults.”

The full text of the letter follows:

September 27, 2007

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of the American Medical Association and AARP, we strongly urge you to sign the bipartisan Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act that will soon be on your desk.

This legislation will strengthen the successful CHIP program and ensure that nearly 10 million children get the health care they need. We should ensure that as many children as possible have access to proper health care. Our nation has a duty to give all children the best possible start in life.

CHIP is a public-private partnership in which 70% of kids get coverage through private insurers. It has the overwhelming support of the nation’s governors, as well as America’s Health Insurance Plans who represent private insurers. In fact, the carefully crafted bipartisan compromise bill can even strengthen private sector insurance because it allows states to use CHIP funds to help families purchase qualified employer-based coverage.

And, contrary to much misinformation, the bill focuses the program on serving low-income kids who are U.S. citizens. The legislation does not increase income eligibility limits, nor does it provide for coverage of illegal immigrants.

This is not a debate about government versus private insurance – both will be part of any real solution to our nation’s growing health care crisis. It is about ensuring that we do right by our children so that they can grow into healthy, productive adults.

We respectfully urge you to sign this important health care legislation.

Sincerely,


William D. Novelli
Chief Executive Officer
AARP
Edward Langston, MD
Board Chairman
AMA

I agree with you Steve, It is a good idea in its original form, but you know the abuse is going to creep infrom all sides and that includes the medical establishment. They will all find a way to defraud the government. The fox will be guarding the chicken coop.

So Steve, you think families with income of $84,000/yr. should have free healthcare for their kids? Remember, free in this case means we pay for it!

I can see covering families really in need.

Bryan

jhelton1976 Wrote:

Bryanm362 Wrote:

Eric,
It is my understanding that in an effort to prevent further nationalization of the Federal Health Care plan that you mentioned, Bush is trying to get the management of this plan handed over to private insurance companies. Right now it cost the government $7.00 to handle each claim but if it gets switched it will only cost the government $13.00 a claim. Great Idea, Not!!
Cartoy

Steve - it was my understanding that the "administration" of the SCHIP system was left to the States. I know that in Michigan, it is already run by Blue Cross. I think it works similarly to "self insured" businesses that have Blue Cross administer the paperwork and payments.

If that is his (Bush's) complaint, then why do the Republicans so vehemently object to a "healthcare for everybody" scheme paid for by tax dollars but administered by private insurance programs. I thought this was what Hillary (and no, I am not a fan) suggested years ago.

My real problem is that they want to deny people a system that they willingly accept for themselves. Sort of the pot calling the kettle black. I repeat, if lifetime, taxpayer funded healthcare is good enough for our politicians, why isn't it good enough for us too?

Hmmm....I wonder, if all the politicians that are trying to make a name for themselves on this issue, took their campaign money, put it in a fund to pay for medical care for all those that they want the vote from instead of spending it on TV adds, how many needy people could they provide medical care for?

It's mighty easy to give away someone else's money for social programs, but how many would support giving away their own money? That is one of the problems as I see it, people love to support programs that they do not have to pay for themselves.

Here are a couple of links that cover most of the ground of the current health care debate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCHIP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

In addition to these arguements for universal care, I would add WWJD? Our justifiable bias against socialism should not blind us to solutions to the larger problem.


Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:

Health care is a basic human right or entitlement.

Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.

Coverage should be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay.

The current US system is already funded 64% by tax money with the remaining 36% split between private and employer spending. A universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with tax revenues. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.

A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.
Administrative costs in the US health care system are estimated to be substantially higher than in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of US health care spending.

For profit healthcare has been shown to have higher expenses and worse results.

Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide prefer a universal healthcare system over our current system

Health care is increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.

Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.

Providing access to medical treatment to those who cannot afford it reduces the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers.
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.

America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country, and has worse ratings on a variety of subjects such as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times according to the commonwealth fund. New Zealand, which spends one third per capita what the US spends on health care beats the US on every marker of efficiency and care. Although not definitive, this does lend credence to the idea that universal health care is more efficient than our for profit health care system as the US was inferior to Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser degree Canada in nearly all health care quality issues. This despite the fact that the US system costs 2-3x more per capita than the systems in these other countries.

A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.

By reducing paperwork a universal system would allow doctors to spend more time with patients, thereby increasing physician productivity.

Patients would be encouraged to seek preventive care enabling problems to be detected and treated earlier.

A centralized national database would make diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.

Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)

Managed care networks, with their extensive provisions and guidelines, reduce doctor flexibility and limit patient choice.

The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.

The profit motive adversely affects the motives of healthcare. Because an applicant with a pre-existing condition (possibly from birth) would require more care, they are often blackballed from being able to obtain health insurance at a reasonable cost. Health insurance companies have greater profits if fewer medical procedures are actually performed, so agents are pressured to deny necessary and sometimes life-saving procedures to help the bottom line.

According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of healthcare dollars are spent on healthcare, the rest go to various middlemen and intermediates to providing healthcare. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money spent on healthcare goes to healthcare.

"Schip of fools" .....doggonit...who said that famous quote?

Gerry Wrote:

Eric,
What I was refering to was in an article I read a few weeks ago. But I sure do agree with you. I wouldn't mind having what they get, especially for the little some of them do while in office. I worked in municipal government for decades and I had a cartoon in my office that I just loved. It showed two guys in prison with one of them saying "I've done some pretty bad things in my life but I never held public office"
steve

A great post Ryan.

Having grown up with a National Healthcare system, I can see both sides of the argument, but I do agree that as a "civilised" society, we should all have the right to adequate healthcare.

Many of the complaints about taxpayer funded healthcare has been that it extends to those not paying taxes (for whatever reason) and that they "over use" the benefit. Perhaps if some fiscal/personal responsibility were built into the system, it would help alleviate some of these fears and issues.

As an example, the dental insurance I currently have will cover two "checkup/cleaning" visits per year. However, if I miss two consecutive checkups, the dental coverage drops 50%, and is eliminated if I miss checkups for more than two years (I think). Coverage is fully reinstated when I have completed two checkups in 12 months.

This seems to be a great incentive for preventative medicine and I find it odd that many preventative tests or examinations are not covered by most insurance plans!

Maybe their media for campaign ads should be prescription bottles... :D

"Having grown up with a National Healthcare system, I can see both sides of the argument, but I do agree that as a "civilised" society, we should all have the right to adequate healthcare."

I do not see this as having anything to do with the "right to having adequate health care" Instead I see it as a issue concerning having health care with the public directly picking up the costs. I do not feel like I am entitled to free health care, why should anyone else be entitled to free health care? If there was a group of people that were entitled to free healthcare for the rest of their lives, IMHO, it would be service personal, not politicians, and not illegals from other countries.

Everyone's money already goes to provide a sort of universal care now. Dear Leader pointed this out in Cleveland, Ohio back in July.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070710-6.html

"Let me talk about health care, since it's fresh on my mind. The objective has got to be to make sure America is the best place in the world to get health care, that we're the most innovative country, that we encourage doctors to stay in practice, that we are robust in the funding of research, and that patients get good, quality care at a reasonable cost.

The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room. The question is, will we be wise about how we pay for health care. I believe the best way to do so is to enable more people to have private insurance. And the reason I emphasize private insurance, the best health care plan -- the best health care policy is one that emphasizes private health. In other words, the opposite of that would be government control of health care."

In a sense, that’s true. If you’re sick, there are public hospitals that will treat you in an emergency room. Of course, it’s extremely expensive to treat ill patients in this way and it would be far cheaper to pay for preventative care so that people don’t have to wait for a medical emergency to go to the hospital.

Under the Bush administration model, a sick person with no insurance goes to the emergency room for treatment. Does he get a bill once he’s taken care of? Probably, but it doesn’t matter because he can’t afford to pay it.

If the patient can’t pay the bill and hospital can’t treat sick patients for free, who pays the medical bill? Everyone else.

Yes, everyone pays, everyone gets treatment. Bush and his team support the most inefficient system of socialized medicine ever devised.

Steve64B Wrote:

Darn Gerry, you are giving me a run for my money,hee..hee.. in being the biggest curmudgen on this forum. While many see some of these posters as compassionate humanitarians,...I see pigs at the trough. I fail to see any civility in more corerced compassion. A and B decide to be generous with their money for the needs of D. A and B dont quite have enough funds, so they pass a law requiring D to particapate in their gererosity,..now we have compassion for D at the forced expense of C. Simplistic,...maybe...but no less true. As explained in a book called "The Forgotten Man" written by Yale professor....William Graham Sumner at the turn of the 20th century. Glorify Robin Hood all you want....he was still a thief.

I see pigs too...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Apparently someone's definition for happiness is to have the Government take care of all their needs. That's not mine. I grew up expecting to have to work all my life and to work for everything I get. I just don't understand why some expect someone else to pay their way through life. I do understand why one political party uses the promise of a free ride to capture the votes of those who believe they are "owed" something from the gov't. Dangling the carrot in front of the donkey's nose has worked very well for many years.

First of all, NOT all men are created equal... I'm not sure why Jefferson said it that way, perhaps it's what he meant - in which case I'd disagree with him. On the other hand, men should be equal in the eyes of their government and treated as such.

I don't understand why everyone thinks that it's government's job to MAKE MEN EQUAL. It's not. If they want the trappings of others, it's their duty to do what it takes to get them. If on the other hand they want to donate to others less fortunate than them, then by all means they should do so.

The government should ensure that the playing field is fair, not that all people standing on it are turned into cookie cutter images of each other.

schutnik Wrote:

Soyokaze 72MGB Wrote:

MudSnow Wrote:

So are you saying that those who cannot afford health care - for whatever reason, should be left to be sick, die, or worse, spread what they have to others?

Seems to me, we pay for it one way or another. There are lots of references that show we have a very expensive, inefficient, and ineffective system. If a system could be devised that was cheaper to run, and was paid for by taxes, would you object to it?

Lets see, Wyatt goes to his boss for his annual review. Boss says to Wyatt "we have a new health care deal, but it will increase your taxes $100/month. However, if you accept it, we do not have to pay your insurance, so we will increase your salary by $1200/month". Wyatt will say "no thanks"?

The point is that health care for everybody is actually cheaper than health care for those who can afford it!

If we "follow the money", we should be looking at the cost of becoming a doctor and establishing a practice. Given the cost of the education, the duration of the educational process and the opportunity costs, added to the costs of equipment and liability insurance to open a practice, doctors are behaving just like any other "business" and they are expecting to make a profit commensurate with their skills and investment.

If we lower the cost of the investment, we should be able to lower the cost of the service that they provide once in business.

Further, if we limit their liability, we can reduce the liability insurance costs that they have to bear, further reducing our cost of service.

Having the government take more money from my pocket and redistributing it is not a solution I will ever support, though. I've gotta take care of my own kids and I'm not going to feel guilty because there are people out there whose parents can't do the same.

Increasing the entitlement mentality is not the best long term solution...

People who can't afford haircuts can go to a barber college. How about we let people who can't afford medical coverage go to medical schools as patients?

The illegals and abusers aside it just galls me when someone can stand there and basically say the "the hell with everyone else, I got mine, you get yours". There are people out there breaking their butts every day to make a living and try to enjoy their time on the planet. But they don't make enough to afford health insurance and/or its not supplied by the employer. There are not enough banks for all of us to be bank presidents, or CEOs or CFOs. Some poeple have to do some of the jobs we don't want to do like office help, bowling alley manager, candle maker, etc. Those people need some help so what is so wrong about helping them. Sure you can make the employers provide insurance but they will only pass the cost on to us plus a little more.

So get your foot off the thoats of those that need some help and help them. Again, I'm not talking the illegals or abusers. Just the poor slob that works damn hard for a living. At least get Congress to pass a law that will allow a person to deduct the cost of health insurance. I don't know about you but I would have to have open heart surgery just so I would have ENOUGH medical expenses to get a deduction.

Just some thoughts.
Cartoy

UTDave Wrote:

My guess is that most of those who think that way have never been without health insurance. I WORKED for two years without it. I had to provide it for my son - it was $500/month for very basic coverage (this is also 12 years ago) - the cheapest I could find. I DREADED getting sick, or hurt - I simply could not afford it!

At the time, I worked for Volvo/GM Heavy Truck Corporation - but as a "temp". So if you think it is only the unemployed, undereducated slobs who cannot afford healthcare - think again!

Eric.....never said that at all,never even implied it. I said pigs...not indigent children/adults. First and foremost we have protectionism in the health care field. Not unlike unionism. We have to take Doctors et el off their pedestals and think of them more like mechanics. We also have to open up the field to more competition.There are reasons we get 2nd and 3rd opinions.They are not infallible. Health care was affordable 50 years ago,...what happened? At first it was a perk offered by employers to a select few,now the ball is rolling.Then it seemed like such a good idea that Gov't got into the act.Politicians never want to be left behind. Their constituents demanded it...."The freakin Jones's next door got it....I WANT it. Now make somebody pay for it!!!!"......Fast forward to today.... the here and now....this forum.....I am expected to suspend all my logic and common sense, and believe that...$$$$$82,0000.00+ G-Dm dollars a year is a worthy sympathy figure and that I am a villianius uncaring heathen because I say B.S.

It ain't gonna happen,and I want whoever is making that figure to stand in front of me, look me in the eye, and plead poverty.
I have said it before, I'll say it again...get your porky fingers out of my pocket.

PS, Limey,its rather hard for me to relate to your dental cost posts as I stare at your airplane.

Limey,..ya left out the..."forgotten man" again. Which is so easy for so many to do. I shave my employers face everyday.

Ooh, one more thing...Shaiawasse county Mi employees...(our state), gave themselves a 10 percent raise of the taxpayers money. They needed it, because we all know this state is near bankrupt, and its the taxpayers duty to maintain the standard of living for them,as they are in an upper caste level. Move Gov't at its finest.

I apologise if I took your post the wrong way.

I fail to comprehend the comment regarding my airplane and the post on dental insurance. FYI - my airplane cost $25,000 (yes, it is paid for), and I have no problem with an insurance system that insists that I maintain my health in order to maintain my benefits.

What has my airplane (which probably cost less than most people's cars) got to do with it? I could understand if I was complaining about not being able to afford things, I am not. I am more than willing to pay a fair price for my healthcare, and to help those who cannot afford it. If a "means test" is required to qualify for the healthcare benefit, then so be it. I just think that a self proclaimed "civilised" society should take care of its sick and aged - especially those unable to take care of themselves.

Its an analogy,you can afford to be charitable,..but please...not with my money. Thats theft not charity. Did you not read my other posts else where??? Or do you just not give a sh*t?

By the way this is a gentlemens argument, not an indictment on you as a fellow...errr...aaa....uuhhhh...uummmm.....I'll get back to ya on this.

O.K. - fair enough.

I get your point - but want to know what happens when it is you that is on the receiving end? Do you refuse because you do not want to depend on somebody else's hard earned money? If so, I want to know where that ends - cause in that case - you owe me! ;)

However, I will say that I have no problem putting my money into a system that supports those who cannot afford it. I do believe charity begins at home - and if I could not afford it, I would not own the airplane either. Similarly, I don't mind paying taxes to provide roads, security etc. I do object to paying taxes for an elitist benefits system that politicians create for themselves, but refuse to extend to the rest of us because they need to "look after" the taxpayers money. BS says I!

So - how about a "voluntary" system that says if you can afford to donate, you may do so, and then you may reap the benefits. If you do not donate, you receive no benefits (at all). If you cannot afford it, you must pay when you can afford it - and you cannot opt out. That way, I am not asking you to pay for something you do not want, but I am able to offer it to those who want it, but cannot afford it!

Blimey Limey, I think you just invented the free market.

Point number one, I resent the assumption that individuals who don't need insurance assistance are not hard working. I bust my a$$ at my job and it isn't always very rewarding.

Point number two, I feel the pain of medical costs. I have high blood pressure and degerative disks in my lower back. I've had 2 back operations and more are on the horizon. My annual out of pocket for medical expenses is in excess of $2,500.

I'm asking why another $1,500 needs to come out of my pocket for government insurance.

Mandate that recipients of government insurance have an appropriate BMI, don't smoke, eat well and exercise and I might feel differently. But as I bust my tail to stay in shape (6'2", 210, sub 7% body fat) and provide for my family (ex-wife and two teenage daughters), don't tell me that I'm some kind of monster for not wanting to give more of my income to the government.

I haven't seen many people on this board think that the government is efficient, or trust their decision making, what will be different with socialized medicine?

PS, Limey,...that airplane comment...it was for display only....please don't fire bomb my house.... You English and your playing with matches....

Limey Wrote:

wyatt Wrote:

UTDave Wrote:

schutnik Wrote:

Limey Wrote:

schutnik Wrote:

UTDave Wrote:

I think we should just set charity buckets beside cash registers to help working class people with unusually high medical bills.

http://www.mgexperience.net/phorum/read.php?47,659875

schutnik Wrote:

I have personal experience with three people who are on the government managed health care system of Louisiana. My involvement has be dismal at best. The following has been observed......

-Driven 75 miles to a different city to take my Brother in Law for diagnostic procedure(heart cathadozition). We had to be at the hospital for 3am. We arrived on time. We waited, and waited and waited. When 11am arrived they told us there was no paperwork. We had given them the paperwork when we arrived. Then they told us because there was no paperwork we were not on the schedule for service. At 3:30 they finally found the doctor's orders and paper work and took him in. We waited another 2 hours and were told the techniton had gone home for the day. At 6pm we left for home without the procedure being done.

-Sister in Law waited 6 hours after a heart attack for a doctor to see her in the charity hospital in Baton Rouge. She survived, but just barely. It's not hard to figure that here present condition would be better today had she gotten the proper attention when she arrived at the E-room

-Another lady I know needs a CAT scan. She is in the charity system as well. It is scheduled for sometime next August! Yes, that's ten months away! There was no openings any time sooner.

Three examples of the service you get when the government gets involved managing health care services. That's not what I want for myself or my family. That's why I bust my but and do without some things I'd like to have so I can afford health insurance. You can do the honorable thing and pay for someone's else health care with your money but don't expect me to be willing to pay for it when I have a hard time paying for my own.

schutnik Wrote:

Soyokaze 72MGB Wrote:

If one wants to increase the health care for the under-privileged, then a good way to do it would be to offer tax incentives to the service providers for providing their services to this group. Say have a list of services/prices and use this list to form a income tax credit based on the amount of these services provided to documented patients. Documented is the key word here. Need to prove that each case is a legit need.

How's this sound...

Confronting Fear Factor

From a member of my firm.

I think I agree with nearly everything this paper says. I'm not sure that their 'safety net' should be funded by tax dollars - I think requiring those that profit from the system to pay for and/or provide benefits to the less fortunate is a better answer.

FYI - I don't know the author of this document personally, and I've never heard him speak, I just found the article on my company's site, read it, and found that I agree with it.

I'm not an expert on Louisiana, but poor and rural areas will have a problem under almost any system we have. Any doctor in Louisiana can make a better living working in DFW or Houston. If all of the poor/underinsured in the state had an ability to pay for care, rural/smaller hospitals would end up with more resources then they have now. The democrat buried in front of the capital would also point out that the value of the oil under the state has trippled in value in the last 7 years, yet there is no money for health care.

There are several stop-gap measures that most people could agree with that would help costs.

Everyone's medical records should be in an online datebase that has safeguards to prevent misuse and violations of our civil liberties.

If you want to become a doctor or a nurse/radiologist/etc., tuition is free as long as you get good grades and complete the program in a set number of years. The nation needs a lot more GP's, but the cost of medical school forces many doctors to choose a specialty. More personnel helps the supply of care available.

I don't think I'd consider Baton Rouge and Lafayette as poor or rural areas. They are two of the largest cities in the state.

Huey Long was a true politician. He knew the value of promising those on the lower end of the population whatever they wanted to get their votes, all the while doing what he wanted instead.

I find it interesting the amount of hype that is given to the high tax rates in countries that have socialised healthcare - especially when those complaining typically have no experience.

I have found that, typically, the amount of money I pay in taxes, plus what I pay for services that are covered by taxes in the UK, is roughly the equivalent in percentage terms to the tax I paid in England! There is no free ride - you pay for it one way or the other.

I also have first-hand experience with the NHS in England - and while I agree there are horror stories, there are similar stories right here in the states! However, I will defend the HNS for their stance on preventative medicine:

After I was diagnosed with colon cancer, my sister's doctor (in the UK) recommended we go through a genetic screening process to determine if the cancer was genetic. I consulted my doctor here, and she agreed it was a great idea, but that it would not be covered by insurance in the states! The NHS said they would do all the testing, they just needed a sample of my blood. My insurance would not even pay for that and it was cheaper for me to fly to England and have the NHS take the sample than pay for it here (about $5,000 cheaper!).

When I arrived for the sample to be taken, I was taken in exactly on time - and the whole process took less than 10 minutes! The result was that my cancer is not genetic - this means much longer spacing between colonoscopies (3 years for me, 5 for my sisters and other family members), and that my son can wait until he is 50 before he needs one. This saves the healthcare system huge amounts of money - but the insurance companies here refuse to do it! I have already saved my insurer more than the cost of the whole process!

Interesting story and a happy ending. Its as simple as choice Limey....Give me a choice. I thought that was the mantra of "progressives"...choice. Allow me to make my lifes decisions, and how I will spend my money. The best choice for taxes in this country is a consumption tax, what could be fairer.

It is not that they are poor or rural in absolute terms, just in relative terms when it comes to attracting doctors and other medical professionals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baton_Rouge
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Population (2004)
- City 229,553
- Density 2,964.7/sq mi (1,144.7/km²)
- Metro 751,965

The median income for a household in the city was $30,368, and the median income for a family was $40,266. Males had a median income of $34,893 versus $23,115 for females. The per capita income for the city was $18,512. About 18.0% of families and 24.0% of the population were below the poverty line, including 31.4% of those under age 18 and 13.6% of those age 65 or over.
Lafayette, Louisiana
Population 110,275 (2000)
- metro 512,720 (2000)
The median income for a household in the city was $35,996, and the median income for a family was $47,783. Males had a median income of $37,729 versus $23,606 for females. The per capita income for the city was $21,031. About 11.6% of families and 16.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 18.3% of those under age 18 and 14.5% of those age 65 or over.

Louisiana
Per capita personal income is US$30,952, ranking 41st in the United States.
Population
- Total (2000) 4,468,976
- Density 102.59/sq mi


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas/Fort_Worth_Metroplex
Population
- Total 6,003,967 (2006 est.)[1]
- Density 634 /sq. mi.
Dallas
The median income for a household in the city was $37,628, and the median income for a family was $40,921. Males had a median income of $31,149 versus $28,235 for females. The per capita income for the city was $22,183. About 14.9% of families and 17.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 25.1% of those under age 18 and 13.1% of those aged 65 or over.
Fort Worth
The median income for a household in the city was $37,074, and the median income for a family was $42,939. Males had a median income of $31,663 versus $25,917 for females. The per capita income for the city was $18,800. About 12.7% of families and 15.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 21.4% of those under age 18 and 11.7% of those age 65 or over.
Arlington
The median income for a household in the city was $47,622, and the median income for a family was $56,080. Males had a median income of $38,612 versus $29,339 for females. The per capita income for the city was $22,445. About 7.3% of families and 9.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 12.3% of those under age 18 and 6.4% of those age 65 or over. Average rents in Arlington in 2005 were $537 for a one bedroom apartment, and $701 for a two bedroom apartment.
Plano
According to a 2006 estimate, the median income for a household in the city was $77,038, and the median income for a family was $96,867.[4] Males had a median income of $64,668 versus $39,617 for females. The per capita income for the city was $36,514. About 3.0% of families and 4.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 4.6% of those under age 18 and 7.8% of those age 65 or over.

Houston
Population (2006)[1][2]
- City 2,144,491
- Density 3,701/sq mi (1,429/km²)
- Metro 5,539,949

The median income for a household in the city was $36,616, and the median income for a family was $40,443. Males had a median income of $32,084 versus $27,371 for females. The per capita income for the city was $20,101. Nineteen percent of the population and 16 percent of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 26.1 percent of those under the age of 18 and 14.3 percent of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.

FYI - another member of my firm is posting an article on Nov 1 about SCHIP. I've read it and believe there's not much info really there, but I'll post a link to it here when it comes out publicly and you can decide. The point of this article, so far as I can tell, is simply to raise questions - not to answer them, so I think it's very fairly written, just I'd like to hear the authors opinion sometimes...

A question-at what point do we quit making the working class pay for entitlements for others? When you have taken away everything the working class has worked for and given it those "less fortunate" or when the incentive to get and hold a good job and provide for your family is completely removed from the masses?

Gerry Wrote:

Gerry,

There is a concept that has passed down from the Greeks and was an important idea in the development of Western civilization, and that is that those who benefit the most from the association of people into communities have the greatest responsibility to pay for the needs of the community.

That idea has been distorted in this country by the tax code, and by the culture wars that have developed.

It stands to reason that the community that has the healthiest, best educated people will be the most productive. That prosperity will benefit everyone, but the people who make a living off the work of the community will benefit the most, consequently they owe the most.

The rich and powerful who have stoked the culture wars have worked very hard to convince the masses that their enemy is the “rich” guy making $100,000 a year… who’s not paying enough taxes, and the “poor” guy who’s sucking up all the welfare dollars.

The tax code favors the hyper rich to the exclusion of everyone else. Until our political system stops trying to lay the cost at the feet of the vast middle class, and forces those who are receiving the greatest benefit from our society to pay more than they currently do you and I will continue to work for our boss, our family and the guy down the street.

Steve

Geez... I hope i didn't miss quote anyone anywhere ;-)

Steve64B Wrote:

The "rich" are also the very people who build the factories and build the companies that provide for the employment of those who are not rich. Without the "rich" providing places for the rest of us to work, we'd all be starving. The "rich" is not MY enemy, but rather my friend. Those who consider the "rich" to be an enemy have a very shortsighted view of what makes the whole world function.

Personally, I favor a flat tax rate with NO exemptions and no minimum taxable income rate-make everyone pay the same rate no matter what their income because everyone reaps the benefits of society, some more than others.

Gerry,as one of those middle class working people your refering to,i agree with you.I for one think we as the greatest country in the world do have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate,its just to bad so many abuse the system but remember this post was about provideing health care for families already working but cant afford coverage for there kids and i personaly think thats a good thing.

I'm afraid "can't afford health care" is a relative thing. I know plenty who claim they cannot afford health insurance but still can afford alcohol, tobacco, cable TV and weekly trips to the local casino. If I blew my pay on these same things, I would not be able to afford health insurance, either. I know very well what it's like to be without. I went for two years with no coverage for my wife, and had to pay over $500 a month for her prescription meds. We got by by doing without a lot of things like cable TV, eating out, Christmas and birthday presents and vacations, but my wife did not do without her meds. When someone wants something bad enough, they will find a way

Gerry your absolutely right,there is folks who do that and obviously you know what its like to have no coverage,five hundred a month is big money,but thats not a good enough argument to suspend a program like this,remember the president was'nt against it,he said it went to far in what was proposed,he offered a plan.In the end kids wont be getting medical attention untill they end up in a emergency ward and that we cant have

Sorry, but education and health care are inalienable rights of every citizen and a GOOD basic level of each should be provided by the State. If you want something "better" you can pay for it (and when it comes to private enterprise, they will try and fool you into taking whatever they can make the most money out of, whether you need it or not).

"When a person calls a medical practitioner for an appointment, the first question of the medical office staff is if the person has health insurance. If the person doesn't have health insurance, the attitude of the office staff changes dramatically. A lot of times the person is asked abrasive and invasive financial questions. Cash payment is requested before the visit will be scheduled, or at the time of the visit prior to services being provided. Some medical offices refuse to provide medical care if there is no health insurance and the person is unable to pay cash in advance. Uninsured people seeking medical care face embarrassment because they cannot pay in full for medical services without benefit of a monthly payment plan. They are made to feel like their health does not matter because they are uninsured."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Insured-vs-Uninsured---The-Segregation-of-American-Health-Care&id=749387

Everyone can find horror stories in every country's health systems, but the above situation is what we fear most of all in our country.

We have some issues with the public hospital system (only manifesting in waiting times right now - the quality of the care is generally remarkable... I have never paid a cent for emergency or other hospital care and it has always been of a fantastic quality) - but these could be solved if government money was re-directed from areas that government should not be spending money on, and that includes propping up private enterprise.

schutnik Wrote:

Steve64B Wrote:

"Sorry, but education and health care are inalienable rights of every citizen and a GOOD basic level of each should be provided by the State."

That is PURE BS! Show me where it says that in out Constitution. Next thing I expect you to be saying that having a new car every three years and all the booze you want is inalienable right as well.

a flat tax,is OK, but a consumption tax is better. Read up on it. It is the fairest tax proposal yet.....thats why it has little chance.

A consumption tax sounds like a great way to discourage consumption. Ya, that would be great for the economy.

So two guys live in the same neighborhood, and drive the same kind of car. One makes $3,000,000/year by paying his employees minimum wage and the other makes $80,000 by paying his workers almost as much as he makes. They consume the same so they pay the same tax. Ya, that sure sounds fair to me. Plus the lower paid workers consume less, which slows down the local economy even more, as well as decreasing tax revenue even more.

I like living in a state with no sales tax. It allows working class people to have a higher standard of living, and in turn, there are more people to stimulate the economy.

Gerry, when did being able to walk without limping or dying become a luxury? Sick people drain more from the economy than healthy people do. Do you really feel the public interest is being served when cancer causes bankruptcy and foreclosure? Or when expensive prescription drugs that some innocent person is forced to take for no reason other than getting the short straw of fate causes that person to spend their lives in subsistence living, just barely scraping by when all their neighbors are enjoying life through the luck of chance?

Do you guys believe in Hinduism or karma, where you think that sick and crippled people did something in a former life to deserve it?

And would you really be paying $1500 in addition to $2500, or instead of $2500?

I guess I don't mind so much if some guy who makes more money in a month than most of us will make in our lives chips in a little extra to help out the serfs and peasants, who provide most of the labor and brains that helped him get rich in the first place.

Nathan, Two people again. One who has worked hard all his life, build and paid for a home and done everything he could to improve his situation in life, the second , one who refuses to work for a living, lives off welfare and government aid. He pays no income tax because he does not work. He does nothing to learn a trade or support himself with work. Why should the person who works and supports his own family and pays his own bills support the fellow who would rather live off of others work instead? I know may examples of both sides. Even have four or five examples of the second in my own family. They feel like they are "entitled" to a life of sitting on their rear watching TV and drinking beer that someone else pays for. That's my beef-I'm tired of paying the way for those not inclined to pay their own way.

Honestly, I have never met anyone who lived off welfare.

But I was raised on food stamps by a diesel mechanic father, until he got promoted. For every welfare bum, there are several thousands of hard working folks slaving their butts off five or six days per week and still barely getting by. One tumor or heart attack later, and they are bankrupt, homeless, or worse.

What makes the problem even worse is that the lower paid jobs are also the most physically demanding. The people who are most likely to become disabled because of injuries are also the people who can least afford it.

Thousands of people in this country do jobs that I wouldn't wish on a pack mule, and way too many of them get nothing for it but a poverty level income and a worn out body. I have seen a lot of that happen myself, as I have moved from the kid pushing the mop and broom, and turning wrenches out on the shop floor to eventually getting a job in an airconditioned office.

One place I worked at had an insurance policy that would pay $100 if you lost a finger on the job, $500 if you lost 2 fingers (only if one of those fingers was your thumb), and $1000 if your whole hand got ripped off in one of their machines. At the same time, the boss had a new Mercedes every couple of years.

"Honestly, I have never met anyone who lived off welfare."

Well come on down here an I'll introduce to quite a few. Have one brother in law who has not worked in 10 years. Claims he's over qualified for every job that comes along. So he and six kids play video game all day long. No one in the household works although four of the eight are of working age. Wife does not even drive a car. His two brothers still live at home off their father who has been living off SS since he was 50. He was on Bikini Atol when the US tested the bomb so he and his two sons get a monthly payment from the government, and have received this since the boys, now in their late 40's, were born.

Knew a pair of brothers that all they did is collect welfare and food stamps. Knew another family of 6 who was taking the neighborhood kids to the welfare office and claiming they were hers. The next week, her husband would do the same thing. They had welfare and food stamps for two families of 9. Went on like this for four years until they dissappeared one night. Both have a long drug history. At one time, three out of the four kids were in state custody because of crimes like stealing, rape and drug use. Not a single member of the family made it past 10th grade and were proud of that fact!

Had a man working under me at LSU who quit working so he would not lose his welfare and food stamps. "Why should I work if I don't have too" was the reason he gave me when he quit a couple of years ago.

I could keep on but I think you should get my point. Gives me the reds every time I see one of the many people like this that I know. Even more so when I look at my paycheck and see that I bring home only a bit over 60% of what I earn.

That sounds like a problem with the welfare system. Not a reason to keep the people who do work from getting good health care.

That may also be mostly a problem with your state government, since many states have a limit on how many months you can receive unemployment or welfare. Have a hard time believing that currently you can just pick kids off the street and claim them for benefits with no proof.

mudsnow,....Wow....nothing like critiquing a book before you read it. MudSnow...whats your last name???..."shoot from the hip"???

I would like you to at least read the proposal then comment, I bet you will like it. Most thinking people on both sides of the political spectrum do. It is the vested interests in the present chaotic tax system that oppose it.

I have read many of the tax proposals. I don't like it and neither do a lot of other people.

The luxury products industry took a huge hit and ended a lot of jobs when the luxury tax was passed, and the consumption tax is more of the same, but worse.

It's the same philosophy as with the cigarette tax. Anytime you put a tax on something, you get less of it. The last thing our economy needs is a slow-down on big ticket items and retail sales.

Imagine what would happen to the auto industry if a huge chunk of the price of a new car was taxes.

wyatt Wrote:

Gerry,no offense but what's up with this constant negative attitude,if lower income families cant afford health insurance what happens then? You know that they end up in the e.r.and ultimately we all pay.Im most definitely not looking to start argueing with you but not everyone is like you and i.I know your a honest hard working person as am i,but if we eliminate most or all of these social programs what becomes of us as a nation,do we just let people die because there less forunate then we are?I agree we do need checks and balances and we cant give the store away but we cant lock the door either ---steve

There are plenty of countries in the world where you can sit on the porch of a multimillion dollar condo and look out over tin roofed shacks, as children pick rotten food out of the dump and harvest the junk yards for cans and scraps. Where Rolls Royces cruise past skeletal men pedaling rickshaws for a nickel. I hope the USA is never one of them.

schutnik...you too huh... You young guys are the computer whiz's...can you not look up the consumption tax info? Its also called the fair tax,..NOT the flat tax,which is a ripoff.

If you have been reading any of my posts you have realized I am quite an anti big Gov't type. Why on earth would I propose any more taxes on anybody, why would I want to price myself out of the market to buy anything. Why would I want to put myself at a bigger disadvantage to the wealthy than I already am.
Maybe it's this kind of ignorance that has gotten us to where we are today. Condemn it first,then refuse to listen next.

I don't want you guy's money,and I don't want you guys to get mine. I want those that play to pay. What the feck is more fair than that. Now read the info,..then kick the crap outta me.

I have read about "consumption tax". From what I have read so far it seems to consist of a fairly complicated blend of federal sales taxes, VAT, and savings incentives.

I am all for savings incentives in the form of expanded IRA and 401k programs, and even privatized social security accounts.

But I am highly opposed to any kind of federal sales tax. Sales taxes on big ticket items discourage spending in one of the best areas of the economy, and sales taxes on less expensive items end up being not only flat, but regressive. If two people buy the same TV, but one makes twice as much money, the poor guy ends up paying a tax percentage higher than the other guy for the same item.

Plus, increased sales tax just encourages people to buy cheaper items; what that usually means is more Chinese imports.

Plus many states already have sales taxes of 9% or even higher.

Mudsnow, there would be NO income tax,on anybody or corporation. Business will charge LESS for their products,the free market will garrantee that.You will take home income tax free money. Jobs will run back to the USA.The USA has the highest corp taxes in the world. You wont file an income tax return. Business will come back to the USA. You will only pay tax when you consume,not for just being alive and breathing. This is not a new concept, it is how the USA used to operate before the income tax started at the turn of the 20th century. Back when we experienced our fastest growth. The Gov't will have increased revenues.etc..etc.

Wyatt, have you researched into the reasons for creating an income tax?

Very wealthy people spend a small percentage of their income. Poor people have to spend just about every dollar they have. With just sales tax, poor people would get taxed 20-30% on every dollar they have except for exempt items such as food. Rich people would get taxed 20-30% on a small portion of their income (the part they spend) and nothing at all on most of their income (the part they don't spend).

No matter how it is figured, poor people would end up paying between 10% and 65% higher taxes than they are currently, and rich people would be paying less than they are now, in every report that I have seen so far.

What about when you retire? With income tax, when you stop earning income, you stop paying taxes. If we had nothing but sales tax, you would keep right on paying the same 20-30% tax rate that you were when you were working, even though you no longer have any income.

The only way to keep a pure sales tax from screwing the poor is to set a complex system of refunds based on income. So instead of filing income tax forms, we would have to file income rebate forms.

Sales taxes and flat taxes don't help anyone except the filthy rich, and that is why the rich people and corporations are the people that you hear talking about them.

Also, you are not necessarily right when you say consumption tax means no income tax. Besides sales tax, one of the other methods of achieving consumption taxes is combining income tax with savings and investment deductions.

I agree that it would help companies to do business and be more competitive internationally if we lowered or got rid of corporate income tax. But not personal income tax. There is very little that any one person can do with 40 million dollars per year that they couldn't do just as well with 10 million per year.

schutnik Wrote:

1862? I think it came much later than that... However, maybe I'm wrong...

schutnik Wrote:

The first was to fund the Civil War. After the war, it was repealed. Popped up again in 1894, and finally in 1911. And it was the poorest states who were arguing FOR an income tax.

In 1917, the top rate was 77% during WWI, lowered to 25%, then back up to 79% during the Great Depression. During WWII, people who had incomes of $1,000,000 paid 94% income tax.

To me it's not about insuring the poor, it about another entitlement program that will grow and grow until it is a another monkey on the back of the working people. Once in place it will be expanded to lease an ever growing number of people including many many people who could provide their own coverage but will choose not to because they can get it for free from the government.


Just curious-any of you remember when the working man could pay off FICA in the last quarter of the year? I do. Any of you able to pay it off now? Been 20 years or more since I was able to pay it off and lose that deduction from my paycheck for a month or two.

racer76 Wrote:

MudSnow Wrote:

Come up here to Oregon and tell us that increased property taxes and regressive sales taxes would be better than an income tax. And I haven't researched it, but I am guessing Texas gets a few dollars here and there in oil revenue.

MudSnow Wrote:

MudSnow Wrote:

MudSnow Wrote:

schutnik Wrote: