Conservatives target 12-year-old boy and his family in S-CHIP debate

[Peikko 1,575]

are you telling me that everyone is paying the same amount with that statement?

No, I most certainly am not, but then again, does everyone pay the same with the current system? You are paying through the nose for people to go to get primary care through ER's but somehow you don't want to pay the same money to get system where people get comprehensive health care not just last resort care? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

are you telling me that everyone is paying the same amount with that statement?

No, I most certainly am not, but then again, does everyone pay the same with the current system? You are paying through the nose for people to go to get primary care through ER's but somehow you don't want to pay the same money to get system where people get comprehensive health care not just last resort care? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

the jury is still out on that and i strongly believe the price tag will shock most people.

also - anything in this to prevent anyone not paying into the system from being treated on an emergency basis - i.e. illegals?

[Peikko 1,575]

No, I don't suppose there is any way of preventing those cases from being treated. Well, unless you are happy with the idea that people might be left to die on the streets. However, they are being treated now, so I guess there is not much difference, or is there?

Also, what you 'strongly believe' is not really a good argument for anything. I 'strongly believe' the price tag will shock you. Therefore, these cancel each other out. Or are we going to start keeping score?

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

No, I don't suppose there is any way of preventing those cases from being treated. Well, unless you are happy with the idea that people might be left to die on the streets. However, they are being treated now, so I guess there is not much difference, or is there?

Also, what you 'strongly believe' is not really a good argument for anything. I 'strongly believe' the price tag will shock you. Therefore, these cancel each other out. Or are we going to start keeping score?

the point being - if anyone not paying into the system can't be refused, how exactly is this supposed to save me money when the current fiasco allows them to be treated at taxpayer expense anyways?

you can keep score if you'd like, grab your crayons.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the point being - if anyone not paying into the system can't be refused, how exactly is this supposed to save me money when the current fiasco allows them to be treated at taxpayer expense anyways?

I think the general idea there is that universal coverage would - if not eliminate - dramatically reduce the number of people receiving late and expensive emergency care as they would be able to take advantage of more readily available and certainly much less expensive preventive and timely care. The savings on the ER bill should pay a good part - if not all - of the regular care that people would receive instead.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

the point being - if anyone not paying into the system can't be refused, how exactly is this supposed to save me money when the current fiasco allows them to be treated at taxpayer expense anyways?

I think the general idea there is that universal coverage would - if not eliminate - dramatically reduce the number of people receiving late and expensive emergency care as they would be able to take advantage of more readily available and certainly much less expensive preventive and timely care. The savings on the ER bill should pay a good part - if not all - of the regular care that people would receive instead.

sorry but i'm still doubting that will occur.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the point being - if anyone not paying into the system can't be refused, how exactly is this supposed to save me money when the current fiasco allows them to be treated at taxpayer expense anyways?

I think the general idea there is that universal coverage would - if not eliminate - dramatically reduce the number of people receiving late and expensive emergency care as they would be able to take advantage of more readily available and certainly much less expensive preventive and timely care. The savings on the ER bill should pay a good part - if not all - of the regular care that people would receive instead.

sorry but i'm still doubting that will occur.

That you may. I haven't done the math on it either but the concept certainly make s a lot of sense to me.

[joelunchbox 0]

the point being - if anyone not paying into the system can't be refused, how exactly is this supposed to save me money when the current fiasco allows them to be treated at taxpayer expense anyways?

I think the general idea there is that universal coverage would - if not eliminate - dramatically reduce the number of people receiving late and expensive emergency care as they would be able to take advantage of more readily available and certainly much less expensive preventive and timely care. The savings on the ER bill should pay a good part - if not all - of the regular care that people would receive instead.

sorry but i'm still doubting that will occur.

The 'Merican Way--sell everything you own to provide medical coverage for a couple of years so that then you can really be impoverished. Good thinking. And where is the daugher going to live when the parents die? What will support her? It looks to me that at the worst, the parents are trying to look ahead for when they won't be there. Sell the house!! right. Yep that'l do 'er.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

the point being - if anyone not paying into the system can't be refused, how exactly is this supposed to save me money when the current fiasco allows them to be treated at taxpayer expense anyways?

I think the general idea there is that universal coverage would - if not eliminate - dramatically reduce the number of people receiving late and expensive emergency care as they would be able to take advantage of more readily available and certainly much less expensive preventive and timely care. The savings on the ER bill should pay a good part - if not all - of the regular care that people would receive instead.

sorry but i'm still doubting that will occur.

The 'Merican Way--sell everything you own to provide medical coverage for a couple of years so that then you can really be impoverished. Good thinking. And where is the daugher going to live when the parents die? What will support her? It looks to me that at the worst, the parents are trying to look ahead for when they won't be there. Sell the house!! right. Yep that'l do 'er.

i seriously doubt any of this above would occur.

[GaryC 7]

There is something that everyone (including me) is missing about this story. The kid was and is being covered by SCHIP as it exists right now!!!!! He was getting health care!! The veto didn't take away his coverage!!! Bush vetoed an 35 Billion EXPANSION of the bill and he was even in favor of an expansion just not this big of one!!!

Quoting myself because it seems to have been missed.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

There is something that everyone (including me) is missing about this story. The kid was and is being covered by SCHIP as it exists right now!!!!! He was getting health care!! The veto didn't take away his coverage!!! Bush vetoed an 35 Billion EXPANSION of the bill and he was even in favor of an expansion just not this big of one!!!

Quoting myself because it seems to have been missed.

not missed, just no one wanted to comment on it

[Fandango 1,439]

Deductions can most certainly add up to enough to pay for health insurance btw.

I'm sure they can - but if $45k is his gross earnings they almost certainly don't.

Well his assets can

I assume his house hasn't increased in value while all the others in the area remain static so I'm a little sceptical that selling up would solve all his problems.

Who said a thing about selling?

Scroll back and see what you missed re: the house

There is something that everyone (including me) is missing about this story. The kid was and is being covered by SCHIP as it exists right now!!!!! He was getting health care!! The veto didn't take away his coverage!!! Bush vetoed an 35 Billion EXPANSION of the bill and he was even in favor of an expansion just not this big of one!!!

Quoting myself because it seems to have been missed.

not missed, just no one wanted to comment on it

I commented on it somewhere above!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

There is something that everyone (including me) is missing about this story. The kid was and is being covered by SCHIP as it exists right now!!!!! He was getting health care!! The veto didn't take away his coverage!!! Bush vetoed an 35 Billion EXPANSION of the bill and he was even in favor of an expansion just not this big of one!!!

Quoting myself because it seems to have been missed.

not missed, just no one wanted to comment on it

I hear bubbles bursting!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Who said a thing about selling?

So what are we talking about when we refer to "assets"? Selling his house or his business?

[Fandango 1,439]

Who said a thing about selling?

So what are we talking about when we refer to "assets"? Selling his house or his business?

Again...who said anything about selling???

I'm not looking to discuss 'what is an asset' as I think we all can figure that out....

Re: the house, a HELOC is available, so is a 2nd mtg. A refi is avail on the commercial prop as well. Hell, Daddy can work from home and they can rent out the building...

There are several options that don't include selling the home.