Won't somebody think of the children? (Trees And Things)

ThePlague: Re: Won't somebody think of the children?

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:33:52 EST

Well, congress failed to override the veto. I for one am glad, as the funding source was absurd. Why should smokers specifically foot the bill for other people's kids? They're already paying outrageous taxes, nominally to fund smoking-rel

pO157: In the words of Bob Slydell....

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:00:32 EST

What if - and believe me this is a hypothetical -

But what if the current SCHIP plan was scrapped, and replaced with government funded catastrophic health insurance? We have all heard horror stories of that one guy who got some cancer and has to pay $1

pO157: Re: The real reason behind the veto...

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:51:52 EST

I'd buy one, but I would be afraid I would get hit by a bus and wheeled into the ER only to be summarily ejected by Dr. Kelso who would find it not worth his employees time to rifle through my pockets to find my insurance card having summarily accepted the

thefadd: Re: bit of cognitive dissonance here

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:27:38 EST

This is only true in the sense that the government considered the bill in the same fashion that it considered going to war. However where your example breaks apart is that the government in this case has chosen NOT to spend the money deeming it a bad id

wetkarma: bit of cognitive dissonance here

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:18:40 EST

In the current health insurance market, lower middle class does as outlined in this law.
Ah but the law didn't pass..or rather it was not extended. Therefore your standard is not shared by the majority and obligates you to defend it more str

thefadd: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:55:35 EST
What counts as unable to take care of themselves?
In the current health insurance market, lower middle class does as outlined in this law.
More importantly, why should my (hypothetical) daughter forgo ballet lessons so that someone el

wetkarma: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Mon, 8 Oct 2007 05:15:33 EST

The fact of the matter is, it's not a work place productivity issue. It's a the government takes care of those who can't take care of themselves issue. The government should ensure children have proper health care just like it ensures old people ha

gerrymander: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 19:12:16 EST
It seems clear to me that health care providers aren't competing, so if you're sick you have to pay what they want you to pay.
That's a faulty premise. A sick person has a number of options, besides "pay what they want you to pay." Patients can

DEMachina: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:26:52 EST
For this balancing to work requires equal power on both sides, and that is not the case here. If healthcare costs go up across the board, where is a sick person supposed to go? It seems clear to me that health care providers aren't competing, s

DEMachina: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:24:59 EST
The amount of providers isn't kept artificially low, it's low because of what it takes to be a (good) provider. Med school is hard, and it should be hard. Medical equipment is specialized and complex enough it's going to be expensive. So

Lou: Re: Sarcastic response with a serious vibe

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:23:48 EST
the question becomes, "should a national tax be imposed to protect that lifestyle choice,
No, the question is should a children's health care program be expanded to include somewhat higher income families taking into account the cost of living <

gerrymander: Re: Sarcastic response with a serious vibe

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:02:32 EST
doesn't moving from a high wage/high rent area to a low wage/low rent area pretty much leave you at the same point in terms of health care?
One doesn't need to move cross-country to find lower rents in the highest cost-of-living areas. If a famil

1fastdog: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:16:22 EST
Many people would be glad to be pulling in that $80k. And if a location's cost of living is the sole consideration for why families cannot make it work on $80k then there is always moving to another area, or commuting.
For fuck's sake, man, nobod

Lou: Sarcastic response with a serious vibe

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 08:40:46 EST
I still do not understand why we should subsidize health care for a family who chooses voluntarily to live in high cost areas.
I'm with ya, bro. And while I'm thinking about it...what's up with these frigging Darfurians? Why should we

pO157: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:18:22 EST
Everybody who works at a $9 hour job in Manhattan lives in an apartment there? No, they likely commute thereby getting the most out of the higher wages and saving housing costs. If things get rough, they move. Eventually labor gets tight and the price of s

thefadd: Re: The real reason behind the veto...

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 21:03:50 EST
what's up with t-shirts these days anyway?

Lou: The real reason behind the veto...

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:39:01 EST
Bush didn't want SCHIP to take the thunder away from the rollout of his new health care plan

thefadd: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:49:30 EST
Yes, the national poverty level. The poverty level in Los Angeles County is twice that. Of course the median national household income couldn't handle life in a major metropolitan area. Topeka just doesn't have the cost of living that Manhattan has.

pO157: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:40:11 EST
From up thread the poverty level is ~$20.7k/yr for a family of four, although some adjustments seem to be made for higher cost areas such as AK or HI

thefadd: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:19:16 EST
Do you know what the poverty line is where I live for a family of four? Last time I checked, for the purposes of federal assistance on a housing loan it was over $47k. $80k sounds like a lot in some places but you're not supporting a family of four on it v

pO157: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:02:07 EST
OK, let me make it clearer. Why does the government need to help out an average family with their children's health care if the household income is 45-60 or 80k/yr?

thefadd: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:56:40 EST
What child earns $45k per year?

gerrymander: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:34:09 EST
This is one advantage, IMO, of socialized healthcare (which is not to say that'd be a panacea for this country's health care problems): with one insurance provider, that organization could dictate costs. As long as the balance between profit for t

pO157: Re: Getting A Handle On This

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:33:55 EST
The fact of the matter is, it's not a work place productivity issue. It's a the government takes care of those who can't take care of themselves issue.
I'm sorry. Somebody makes $45-60k a year (or $80k+ a year in some jurisdictions) and can't <

pO157: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:30:43 EST
Perhaps, but I don't think that's the reality. Competition definitely exists in this market, and prices are going through the roof.
-More healthcare providers = more competition for the same amount of business then the costs go down. Comp

thefadd: Getting A Handle On This

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:26:12 EST
The fact of the matter is, it's not a work place productivity issue. It's a the government takes care of those who can't take care of themselves issue. The government should ensure children have proper health care just like it ensures old people have prope

DEMachina: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:16:35 EST
It sucks. I know. But by opening up the market to more competition it should hopefully go down.
Perhaps, but I don't think that's the reality. Competition definitely exists in this market, and prices are going through the roof. In a w

pO157: Re: Won't somebody think of the children?

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:28:35 EST
Because no company would try to shift costs to taxpayers by axing its health insurance plan once SCHIP came out.

wetkarma: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 03:24:28 EST

I presume you've never had children, and never worked with people who did? Because let me tell you, my productivity plummets when my kid is sick. And I don't mean it drops by 10%, like when I have a cold. I mean it drops by 50% pl

port1080: Re: Won't somebody think of the children?

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 01:53:10 EST
This isn't entirely true - my understanding of the rule is that if the child is already enrolled in his/her parent's employer's plan, then they must stick with that plan, but if the child is not automatically covered by his/her parent's plan then th

Thalia: Re: Won't somebody think of the children?

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 01:26:08 EST
Trying for the talking points avoids mentioning the fact that SCHIP mostly covers families that cannot get other care. If you're working in a company that has a healthcare plan, you're not eligible for SCHIP.
Thalia

Thalia: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 01:22:59 EST
Reality check: for GM and most of those companies, they're not offering healthcare out of the goodness of their hearts. They're offering it because it is essential to retaining good employees. For GM, it's part of a negotiated package for

Thalia: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 01:21:41 EST
I presume you've never had children, and never worked with people who did? Because let me tell you, my productivity plummets when my kid is sick. And I don't mean it drops by 10%, like when I have a cold. I mean it drops by 50% plus, as I

zyxwvutsr: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:36:07 EST

...the gov't routinely gives out billions of taxpayer money in corporate welfare...
I won't deny that the federal government does give out corporate welfare, but neither of those programs you linked to are examples. Th

gerrymander: Re: Regarding Point 2

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:27:50 EST
At least as it concerns Iraq, I think the politicians, Dems in particular, have realized that Iraq is something the public wants the president to deal with, and not legislators.
Also, every Iraq resolution is a bludgeon handed directly to the Rep

thefadd: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:24:47 EST
Yeah, but then your co-workers are taking money out of your paycheck to subsidize the medical costs of their unhealthy lifestyle choices. Medical costs have *got* to come off the shoulders of corporate America. It's perverting the medical system and weighi

thefadd: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:17:53 EST
I just don't see employers wholesale downgrading their coverage...yet, although I could see them requiring using SCHIP first. Corporate jobs that have coverage as part of their compensation package where people are supporting a family of four -- hell, prob

pO157: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:04:22 EST
Or not. Do you have any idea how much it costs for a family of four to purchase insurance for a month - it's about 2500 month, and that's for a family that's w/out pre-existing conditions. Do the math - that's 30,000 a year minimum to self insure. Thes

pO157: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:57:54 EST
Good point. Bad example.
Unless... the union takes the cash and spends it on whatever unions spend money on and transfers all their members retirees children to SCHIP. Hmmm....

uncarved block: Regarding Point 2

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:33:53 EST
At least as it concerns Iraq, I think the politicians, Dems in particular, have realized that Iraq is something the public wants the president to deal with, and not legislators. This doesn't mean your average voter isn't concerned, just that w

1fastdog: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:24:51 EST
A family of 4 with an income of $62,000 appears to be above the national median income. Hell, it is way more than the household median income for most states. What this bill does is expand the subsidized health care coverage into a wealthier section of

thefadd: Re: Talking Point.

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:24:48 EST
What I'm wondering is why anyone would want in on managed care in the first place. None of these ever cover the healthier and more effective alternative care options I want so I'm out of pocket anyway.

thefadd: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:20:11 EST
Didn't GM just successful off their health care into a union-run trust?

pO157: Re: Talking Point.

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:01:59 EST
Poo. I forgot to link to my source for bullet point #2 (pdf doc). Sorry.

pO157: Talking Point.

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:59:13 EST
Since everybody on the TnT day shift thus far seems to be in agreement with President Bush (Does anybody have their AM radio on? Is the apocalypse nigh?) I thought I'd throw out some points of discussion:

Do you think Congress notice

gerrymander: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:57:20 EST
HR departments are going to start canceling coverage and benefits packages for underage dependents faster than you can say "TPS Report" if this goes through.
Yep. Might as well have titled it the "Slouching Toward Hillarycare Act of 2007."

pO157: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:57:51 EST
Not after this gets passed. I laughed when one of the articles noted something along the lines of opponents are afraid upper middle class families will dump their kids on the dole once this gets approved.
Are you kidding me? It's not going to be parents

gerrymander: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:51:33 EST
What this bill does is expand the subsidized health care coverage into a wealthier section of the middle class who could be able to afford insurance on their own.
Not only able to afford, but also likely to already be covered by privately. Employ

wetkarma: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:59:13 EST

I'm going to have to go ahead and somewhat agree with President Bush on this one. Please excuse me while I vomit into this bucket.
Get your own bucket..or at least hold my jacket while I hurl as well.
I'll go a step beyond and say this --

port1080: Re: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:42:25 EST
. We are not talking about dirt poor people with few options. We are likely talking about a group of people with options, likely educated, and the means to move or change jobs if health coverage is an issue. What about couples who remain childless or wh

pO157: I'll be the designated Jerk here

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:08:47 EST
I'm going to have to go ahead and somewhat agree with President Bush on this one. Please excuse me while I vomit into this bucket. Okay, now that the awkward preliminaries are out of the way...
A family of 4 with an income of $62,000 appears to be abov

port1080: Re: Won't somebody think of the children?

Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:16:46 EST
Whatever else you say about it, this seems (at least on its face) to be smart political strategy. The areas where cost-of-living is high enough for this increase to be needed are almost uniformly deep blue states - so if people actually understand ho