Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But my position is the government running things will be worse than they are now.

Based on what, though, Gary? All indications are that any government, anywhere in the world (including this very government of ours), is doing a better job of running an efficient health care system than the private industry does in the US. That's a fact that you cannot dispute. So, what are you afraid of? Efficiency?

I look to the mess that SS and Medicare are in to base my opinion on. I also see $500 hammers in the military and government budgets filled with pork. Say I have no faith if you want but I just don't trust the government.

Medicare performs much better and more efficient than the private industry. The $500.00 hammer still comes cheaper than the $50,000,000.00 bonus if you get my drift. There's tons of pork in corporate budgets. Again, there's nothing that supports the stance that the private industry does a better job in terms of efficiency on health care than the government. There's plenty that supports the opposite. It all boils down to whether you support waste or efficiency. If you support the former, you'll be for the status quo. If you support the latter, you will support a public health care system to replace the existing wasteful private insurance machinery.

I guess I am for the status quo. I don't trust the government to do anything right.

Even though it is in plain sight that it does better in this particular field than the private industry? How bad does the private system have to fail and how much does it need to cost the taxpayer above and beyond what we individually pay for premiums until you see that the private model ain't working?

[GaryC 7]

But my position is the government running things will be worse than they are now.

Based on what, though, Gary? All indications are that any government, anywhere in the world (including this very government of ours), is doing a better job of running an efficient health care system than the private industry does in the US. That's a fact that you cannot dispute. So, what are you afraid of? Efficiency?

I look to the mess that SS and Medicare are in to base my opinion on. I also see $500 hammers in the military and government budgets filled with pork. Say I have no faith if you want but I just don't trust the government.

Medicare performs much better and more efficient than the private industry. The $500.00 hammer still comes cheaper than the $50,000,000.00 bonus if you get my drift. There's tons of pork in corporate budgets. Again, there's nothing that supports the stance that the private industry does a better job in terms of efficiency on health care than the government. There's plenty that supports the opposite. It all boils down to whether you support waste or efficiency. If you support the former, you'll be for the status quo. If you support the latter, you will support a public health care system to replace the existing wasteful private insurance machinery.

I guess I am for the status quo. I don't trust the government to do anything right.

Even though it is in plain sight that it does better in this particular field than the private industry? How bad does the private system have to fail and how much does it need to cost the taxpayer above and beyond what we individually pay for premiums until you see that the private model ain't working?

Thats just it, I don't think the way we do things now are bad enough to turn it over to the government. And I think it would get much worse if we did.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But my position is the government running things will be worse than they are now.

Based on what, though, Gary? All indications are that any government, anywhere in the world (including this very government of ours), is doing a better job of running an efficient health care system than the private industry does in the US. That's a fact that you cannot dispute. So, what are you afraid of? Efficiency?

I look to the mess that SS and Medicare are in to base my opinion on. I also see $500 hammers in the military and government budgets filled with pork. Say I have no faith if you want but I just don't trust the government.

Medicare performs much better and more efficient than the private industry. The $500.00 hammer still comes cheaper than the $50,000,000.00 bonus if you get my drift. There's tons of pork in corporate budgets. Again, there's nothing that supports the stance that the private industry does a better job in terms of efficiency on health care than the government. There's plenty that supports the opposite. It all boils down to whether you support waste or efficiency. If you support the former, you'll be for the status quo. If you support the latter, you will support a public health care system to replace the existing wasteful private insurance machinery.

I guess I am for the status quo. I don't trust the government to do anything right.

Even though it is in plain sight that it does better in this particular field than the private industry? How bad does the private system have to fail and how much does it need to cost the taxpayer above and beyond what we individually pay for premiums until you see that the private model ain't working?

Thats just it, I don't think the way we do things now are bad enough to turn it over to the government. And I think it would get much worse if we did.

Then we'll just have to leave this in disagreement.

[Sinergy 3]

There is a better way to pay for it, but it would likely get on the bad side of a lot of parents. Right now parents get tax deductions and credits for having kids. We can remove that and simplify the tax system, and use the difference to pay for health care and education.

yea i wouldnt go there

i dont think parents should be penalized for having kids! basically we DONT get tax breaks on ######! we have to buy more food, more clothes, more everything. theres our contribution to taxes.

Shouldn't you also be paying for any benefits the government gives to your children?

I see it this way, provide no tax benefit, but instead provide better education and health care for children. Or provide a tax benefit, but no other benefits. Giving both is basically giving incentive to parents who cant afford children to have them. Thus generating more drain on public services.

Benefits from the government? what benefits? the government doesnt do ###### for my kids. I DO.

im not one of those moms, and i dont think that hard working parents should be punished tax wise to pay for others kids. i do believe that EVERY child should get free medical and im sure if they stopped this war going on wed have the money to do just that.

If they want to raise tax for children insurance, im find with that, but i dont think the parents should be the only ones to pay for it. i mean one day non-parents will have kids too, and then they will benefit as well.

and what tax benefit do parents get? other than being able to claim our kids on tax season? is that whats your referring to? if it is, and you want that extra money have kids. again we pay all that out all year, i pay more in clothes, food and whatever else a year than the average non-parent, yea i dont find getting a bit back at the end of the year a crime.

They do stuff for your kids, but you take it for granted. Take a look at public education for one. It isn't free.

The money for the war, comes from selling Government bonds. In other words, we are running up a really big credit card to fund the war. That would not be sustainable for a social program.

Not everyone will have kids. Why should they pay for programs that benefit kids? They will too some extent no matter what, but they are getting a rather large share, when parents get the benefits and tax breaks for kids.

What it comes down to, is if you want the government to provide health insurance for your kids, which isn't a bad idea, you should be willing to fund it. Pay full taxes just like any other person, that way you will be paying a fairer share of the benefits your children get. Whether its education or health care.

i take it for granted? your right i should take my kid outta school and refuse her an education so i wont take the government for granted by sending her daily. what BS. thanks for the support, and i guarentee youll be singing a different tune when you have kids. and if you already do, shame on you

i was all for the higher tax on ciggies, as im a smoker ANYWAY, i have no prob paying the extra tax for the insurance. its shallow ppl who have a prob with helping kids get free insurance. if it doesnt benefit you, then you have a prob with it and blame the parents for not funding it all. uhm, i have a hard enough time paying the insurance they are on NOW. i pay $240 a PAYDAY for my kids to have insurance, it would be WONDERFUL to be able to by some extra things like GAS, and other financially impaired things bc while im TAKING CARE OF MY KIDS we go without things. oh how id love a vacation, that tho will prolly never happen, but im sure if insurance became free for kids and i got my vacation id be a selfish b**ch for having the money to take them to disney land. i think if ANYONE in america should get free medical it should be KIDS.

[Sinergy 3]

There is a better way to pay for it, but it would likely get on the bad side of a lot of parents. Right now parents get tax deductions and credits for having kids. We can remove that and simplify the tax system, and use the difference to pay for health care and education.

yea i wouldnt go there

i dont think parents should be penalized for having kids! basically we DONT get tax breaks on ######! we have to buy more food, more clothes, more everything. theres our contribution to taxes.

all the direct results of your choices. do you get earned income credit?

duh...i never said i dont want to do it, but im SO SICK OF THE NON PARENT B***ING ABOUT THE THE KIDS! and wanting the parents to be punished more money wise then anyone else.

trust me, no matter what YOU or anyone else says, im not going to sit here and think its ok to tax ONLY the parents for childrens insurance. ppl are ppl, who cares who they are, i certainly didnt complain over other ppl having kids when i didnt, and im sure my mom didnt trash your mom for having you!

so lets all get over the who "you have kids and i dont so im not gonna spend my presious dollar on your brats insurance"

I have raised a total of 5 kids now. So I think I have the right to comment here. I think socalized health care sucks. And I think that my tax money shouldn't go to pay for someone elses kids. If you want to have kids then fine, pay for it yourself. I paid for my own.

Tell that to someone who hasnt the money to get their kids on insurance and the government says you make too much money to be on medicade at 10.00 an hour and your kid is sick and dieing of cancer. gary tell that to my friend who struggles everyday to pay her bills but cant even get her kids medicine. and i wanna see you do it while looking into her eyes. its not like you have to pay hundreds a month for the kids, i dont think it will kill you to sacrifice a few dollars a month. oh and hi im a working mom, id be paying the taxes FOR MY KIDS, not you

Edited October 4, 2007 by Ionescu

[Sinergy 3]

You know, plain and simple, im paying my company $240 every 2 weeks to keep my kids insured so god forbid one of them get hurt or sick and need to use it. its too expensive, its insanly retarded. my company pays for me but not for my family. i just wish there was a way ppl who are not as well off as gary and others who can use pocket change for broken bones and medicine for whatever my 2 yr old will catch from the 2 yr old next door to get GOOD affordable or free healthcare for our kids. i didnt make mistakes while young, i chose to have kids bc i love kids, and i have taken care of them since day one, never asked for help, but with health care, its a pocket breaker.

[Cantankerous 0]

I just have to keep wondering if I missed the part in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the Ammendments or something somewhere that said as an American citizen you will be fed and clothed and housed and receive health care because we are going to tax and tax and tax and tax all of you like you have never seen taxes before so we can pay for all of those things??? #######!!!

Again, you're missing the central point: The health care system we have costs more per capita than any public system anywhere in the world while delivering less in overall service. The private industry has failed to come up with a sustainable modus operandi. It's fiscally irresponsible not to put an end to it.

Fiscally irresponsible for who? The people who are paying or the people who can not afford to pay? The healtcare system costs more for who, the people who are paying to use it, right, not the people who can not afford to use it. If the government wants to step into private business and say "hey you guys are running your business so poorly that you are killing people and as the government I am going to help regulate some rules for your business" I am OK with that.

If the government wants to step in and take over the business I am 100% against that. The government needs to govern not do the job and more people need to remember that.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

(AP) A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.

Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.

Sign me up!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/...html?cmp=EM8705

[Peikko 1,575]

Pointing out that there are weaknesses in a public health service doesn't invalidate either that service in it's entirety, or somehow make the US system better than it is.

It seems that in the US, unless you can independently finance health care over and above your insurance plan, you are screwed if you get a serious/long lasting or otherwise expensive to treat condition.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies are piling up the dollars because profit is more important than health care. That's just so messed up.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Pointing out that there are weaknesses in a public health service doesn't invalidate either that service in it's entirety, or somehow make the US system better than it is.

It seems that in the US, unless you can independently finance health care over and above your insurance plan, you are screwed if you get a serious/long lasting or otherwise expensive to treat condition.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies are piling up the dollars because profit is more important than health care. That's just so messed up.

But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.

A three year wait? Glad thats acceptable for you, its not for me. I will sell you my house but you cant move in for three years,great deal heh?

I know its just a mere weekness. Geez!

Edited October 4, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I just have to keep wondering if I missed the part in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the Ammendments or something somewhere that said as an American citizen you will be fed and clothed and housed and receive health care because we are going to tax and tax and tax and tax all of you like you have never seen taxes before so we can pay for all of those things??? #######!!!

Again, you're missing the central point: The health care system we have costs more per capita than any public system anywhere in the world while delivering less in overall service. The private industry has failed to come up with a sustainable modus operandi. It's fiscally irresponsible not to put an end to it.

Fiscally irresponsible for who? The people who are paying or the people who can not afford to pay? The healtcare system costs more for who, the people who are paying to use it, right, not the people who can not afford to use it. If the government wants to step into private business and say "hey you guys are running your business so poorly that you are killing people and as the government I am going to help regulate some rules for your business" I am OK with that.

If the government wants to step in and take over the business I am 100% against that. The government needs to govern not do the job and more people need to remember that.

Fiscally irresponsible for all of us. We pay the most - per capita - on healthcare. We get the least in return in terms of overall coverage. The whole point of privatizing typically is to gain efficiency. The private health care sector has not delivered on that end. We sport the most inefficient health care system in the world. From all the responses I have read thus far from the supporters of the broken status quo, we do so just to satisfy some anti-government fetish. All the while we keep on ignoring the fact that any government, anywhere in the world - including here at home - is delivering a more efficient health care system than the private industry does. Seems silly to me.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not an expert on the Canadian health care service so I can't comment on the FREQUENCY of these incidents however, it is that frequency that determines whether this is a huge mess in the system, or if this is something that needs to be worked on at a local level.

What I do know is, that I have lived with a public health care system for over 40 years, and used it's services. I never had to wait an unacceptable time for these services and nor was I terrified that if I did have an accident or get sick, that it would bankrupt me or my family. I didn't have to worry about whether I could afford to pay for health insurance that may or may not cover a disease/accident that I might have, nor worry that my health care would be cut or fall short if I just happened to get a disease that was hugely expensive to treat.

I also know that in the US there are millions of people who don't seek treatment for many severe/debilitating conditions because they can't afford to even find out what could or couldn't be done to help them. That isn't acceptable to me!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What I do know is, that I have lived with a public health care system for over 40 years, and used it's services.

I have as well - not quite as long - and I agree with your overall statement.

The only place I know where it was hard to find a doctor to go to is actually here in the US. And that even with insurance. I remember all too well the 50 or so calls to doctor's offices trying to find one Ob/Gyn that would see my pregnant wife after we moved 6 months into the pregnancy. The vast majority of these doctors plain refused to see her since she was more than three months pregnant. And it did not help that she was under care for the first six months of that pregnancy, that it was a normal and uncomplicated pregnancy and that we had the complete file from the other doctor's office to prove it.

That is a scenario that would not have happened anywhere but in the US and it most certainly opened my eyes to just one of the various aspects of what is fundamentally wrong with the system.

[no name 1]

Yes to both questions. I have in the past changed jobs to get better health care. I have also paid for treatments myself when it wasn't offered.

NEWSFLASH!

Even with socialized medicine - you can pay for other treatemnts too! Wow, the genius of it all.

You have the control to say that you have the control? You have the control to change companies? Or, do you have the control to have the treatments you need at a cost you can afford?

I can't see where you would think that. Profit is the prime motivator for everything.

So, when you got married it was for profit? When you had kids it was for profit? That's just crazy. People with obsessions create things. People with obsessions are the innovators. The world doesn't just spin around money, and my world certainly doesn't

I thought we were talking about innovation and invention.

and you said it's all about $$. READ Gary, READ.

[no name 1]

Socialized medicine sucks.

agreed

Based on what? Not your own experience, surely.

I can assure you it does not suck, from my own experience.

amazing you cut out the part i was primarily agreeing with

amazing how one replies to the last quote yet somehow it is not the primary thing you agree with! I better read up on mindreading.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_...ildren_s_health

agreed

Sorry but that first statement has nothing to agree or disagree with. So I take it you agree with raising the cig tax - something I find hard to believe since you are a smoker.

Edited October 4, 2007 by devilette