It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Veto Torpedoes Bipartisan Effort to Provide Health Coverage for Uninsured Kids

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Bush Veto Torpedoes Bipartisan Effort to Provide Health Coverage for Uninsured Kids


www.commondreams.org

“The President’s veto today was a triumph of ideology over bipartisanship, of politics over the public good, and of cynicism over compassion and common sense.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.allhealth.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.billingsgazette.net...




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Once again The American government is more interested in protecting their own agenda, instead of serving the american peoples interest.

www.commondreams.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
again, can someone explain to me .....

if someone is working and paying their taxes, and their income is just a few dollars too much to get any of this aid, but the employer doesn't offer insurance, or their family plan is just too costly for him......
well, why should he be paying for the kid's down the street to have their healthcare while at the same time, having to deny his own kids medicines that they might need?

and, why should the smokers be paying for it?

both bush and congress is wrong on this one.
Bush is by insisting that only the severely poor should be the only ones getting the aid when there are way too many that aren't that poor that can't afford the high cost of insurance also.

And, congress is, by targeting a small group of people to shoulder the cost of the aid.

Ten to one, if it had been passed, this grand giveaway to the healthcare industry would have been absorbed right into the salaries and bonuses of the top management positions, and then to top it off, they would have increased the insurance premiums....so more aid would be needed in the future...after all, got to keep the people needy, so the government will keep on giving!

ain't none of them looking out for the average american citizen. and they all are helping to drive this nation into a socialist system, where "another day another dollar" turns into another day, another penny and the cost of living is so high that all but that upper 20% is looking to the government to help them make ends meet.

the only thing they differ on is just who should be paying for it all once the 80% are so poor that they can't get get any taxes out of them.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


This is why i like to have "free healthcare for everyone" here where i live.

Its all covered by tax, and the majority of our people like it and are willing to even be taxed more, to get a better healthcare system.

I can sleep well at night, knowing that all children in this country, gets the healthcare they need, and then i turn over and praise the fact that we don't value money over life.


apc

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
No, but you apparently value life over freedom. Me? I'll take freedom. Let the irresponsible die.

You just contradicted yourself by the way, Bluess. "It's free for everyone... It's covered by taxes." Taxes != Free. Unless people can opt-out of receiving the stolen health care and in return not have their earnings robbed from them, it's majority tyranny.

People still seem to believe health care is something they are entitled to because employers have been offering it for so long. WRONG. Someone's gotta pay for it, and that someone should be the person receiving it. S-CHIP originally was only for children who's families were legitimately incapable of paying for it. This reincarnation was nothing short of an attempt to offer socialized medicine to families that are fully capable of paying for it themselves, and to get a foot in the door for further socialist expansion.

Screw these politicians that not only think people can't be responsible for their own lives, but that they shouldn't. Good job Mr. President.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


I live in Denmark and i do fell responsible for my neighbors and my community, and i dont mind paying tax to get "free heathcare" for all, even thoose who don't have a job, or visitors.

Hospitals in Denmark are owned by the country and paid thrue our tax. We only have a few Private hospitals.


Everybody who is a permanent resident in Denmark can use the Danish healthcare system freely. Most examinations and treatments are free of charge.
All permanent residents will receive a national health insurance card from their local authority.
The card works as an identity card and must be presented at all visits to doctors, emergency rooms and hospitals.

In Denmark, everybody who becomes acutely ill is entitled to free treatment at a hospital. This entitlement also applies to visitors from other countries.
Source


If I wind up unemplyed due to something, I can still be sure to get the healtcare I might need, without going bankrupt.

If I get terminal ill, and would need very expensive surgery or the likes, I never have to consider where the money comes from, but can concentrate on getting better.



No, but you apparently value life over freedom. Me? I'll take freedom. Let the irresponsible die.


This is a wierd way of thinking.. Freedom has nothing to do with money, but with the way you can live your life.

And are you really so naive, as to think only irresponsible people get sick? And only irresponsible people can loose their jobs?

I'll remember that, if you ever get really sick or loose your job.. I'll be sure to tell you how irresponsible you must have been...what a joke!

Irresponsible people, are people who only think of themselfs!

Freedom is the power to act, or speak, or think, without externally imposed restraints!


apc

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
Freedom is the power to act, or speak, or think, without externally imposed restraints!

Restraints like my earnings being forcibly taken from me in order to financially support others who are able but choose not to support themselves?

I've been really sick and spent a few days in the hospital. I paid my $2500 deductible and my insurance covered the rest. I didn't demand that my neighbors pay my medical bills. I've even gone a couple months without a job, and because I planned ahead like everyone else should be doing, I still paid my insurance premiums. If you wish to pay the way of everyone around you, that is entirely your right. But you have no right to force them to pay for you.

People like you seem to think people like me are just selfish. We are nothing of the sort. This is about freedom to decide what my earnings, which I work for, are spent on and more importantly what they are not spent on. I do not want to wake up each day and go to work just so that some truly selfish pile of dirt can go buy a new car rather than pay their child's medical bills. That is EXACTLY what the revised S-CHIP would have done. It would have allowed working parents who are more than capable of being responsible for their own families to steal [other people's] money so they have more of their own money to blow on whatever.

>
s/my/other people's ... I don't smoke.


[edit on 14-12-2007 by apc]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
I do not want to wake up each day and go to work just so that some truly selfish pile of dirt can go buy a new car rather than pay their child's medical bills.


I dont want that either, And since everyone is automatically covered thrue tax, I don't have to worry.

But you see there is a little side affect with the way the healthcare system works in Denmark.

It gives you the freedom to not worry about getting sick, It gives you the freedom to spend your income after tax, on whatever you want.

Instead of having to pay Private or public health insurance companies, who will do anything they can, to not pay you what is rightfully yours, should you ever get sick.

You like to pay the insurance after you recieve your check, with the possibility of not getting covered.
I like to pay my tax and be 100% sure, I will be covered no matter what desiase or illness i might get.

It is also nice to know that all your family and friends will never get in trouble with healthcare.

Either way, we both have to pay, i just prefer our method, alot more than yours. I find it more reliable and more humane.


apc

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
You've been listening to too much Michael Moore garbage.

I know exactly what my policy does and does not cover. Actually, I can't really think of anything it doesn't cover. I think if I get in a car accident it wouldn't cover anything covered by my car insurance medical. That's probably it though.

This is somewhat of a tangent though as the issue here is S-CHIP, which while a precursor to it is not outright socialist medicine like you have. We (the sane ones anyway) believe in personal responsibility here. You believe in communal responsibility there. There's nothing inherently wrong with that... we share many of the same aspects. But we believe such a system should be voluntary. Government mandating participation is simply... Un-American.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
You've been listening to too much Michael Moore garbage.


actually I said "no thanks" when my better half asked if i wanted to go see it.


I know exactly what my policy does and does not cover. Actually, I can't really think of anything it doesn't cover. I think if I get in a car accident it wouldn't cover anything covered by my car insurance medical. That's probably it though.


But wont you agree, that insurance policies can be very hard to understand? And that poor people tend to be less educated, and therefore are having a hard time getting the right/full coverage?


This is somewhat of a tangent though as the issue here is S-CHIP, which while a precursor to it is not outright socialist medicine like you have. We (the sane ones anyway) believe in personal responsibility here. You believe in communal responsibility there. There's nothing inherently wrong with that... we share many of the same aspects. But we believe such a system should be voluntary. Government mandating participation is simply... Un-American.


I suppose it would be un-american, I just can't see, why kids of socalled "irresponsible" parents, should suffer for their parents mistakes.



[edit on 14-12-2007 by Bluess]


apc

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Not their parent's mistakes. Their parent's choices. For children who's parents for one reason or another are incapable of providing I agree it is our obligation as members of society to protect. But it's the parents who are fully capable but would rather use my money instead of their own that have no such right. That is who the expanded S-CHIP would have included.

Say for instance your government started offering tax-funded fuel cards with no limitations. You've been paying for your own gas for years but suddenly the government says you can have their card and never pay for your own gas again... except through a tax increase. You could waste as much gas as you want and fill up your tank every day and your gas-tax would never change. Meanwhile someone who hardly ever drives would be paying the same tax but not using the fuel. So in reality, they would be paying for the majority of your fuel costs, even though you're financially able to pay for it yourself.

Obviously petroleum doesn't compare to health care, but health care isn't even the issue here. The children that the new S-CHIP would have covered would have been covered anyway. The only difference is who would be paying for the coverage, and whether or not they had any say in the matter.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Thanks for the discussion, We basically agree although we come from different countries and different government systems, witch is an achievement in itself.

I see now my OP was very Harse and written without my full understanding of the S-CHIP, I understand that it is not as fullfilling as i thought it to be.
Thanks for filling me in and enlighten me on the way the american healthcare system works.

We may not agree to witch way works best, but we do agree in the need of healthcare insurance, one way or the other.

The best from here



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
The children that the new S-CHIP would have covered would have been covered anyway. The only difference is who would be paying for the coverage, and whether or not they had any say in the matter.


It was my understanding that the new S-CHIP would cover those working families who have some income but not enough for family health insurance. The people who really get screwed in this country are the ones who make too much to get government benefits but not enough to live on adequately. There are many of those.

It sounds like you have very good coverage. You must have a very good job to get those kinds of benefits; the "average Joe" is not so fortunate. You're saying you would spend any amount on health care for your own family but not for anyone else's. I think most parents would spend everything they have, but with health care costs as high as they are, everything they have is often not enough. Should they just die, then?


apc

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Actually I pay for my own insurance and have what is called a High Deductible Health Plan with the highest deductible allowed for an individual HSA (2500). The problem is these families you speak of are still of the old school of thought where your employer covers most of your health insurance, you have a low-low deductible with no out-of-pocket expenses, and you never see so much as a bill from the provider. Those days are over. But affordable options exist. If someone has to pick up a part-time job or cut back on some other expenses, then that's just what they have to do. It's never forever. Better that than become a dependant.

>
I forgot cost of my insurance... $300 a quarter (100 a month). That's pretty cheap but it's actually relatively high for my age of 25. It's because I'm a former smoker and already have breathing problems. There's also something wrong with a valve in my heart. I've quoted a perfect health person of my age at around $50/mo.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by apc]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
People still seem to believe health care is something they are entitled to because employers have been offering it for so long. WRONG. Someone's gotta pay for it, and that someone should be the person receiving it. S-CHIP originally was only for children who's families were legitimately incapable of paying for it. This reincarnation was nothing short of an attempt to offer socialized medicine to families that are fully capable of paying for it themselves, and to get a foot in the door for further socialist expansion.



But, some of us might believe that health care is something that they are entitled to mainly because they've watched their tax dollars flowing into the the health care system their whole working lives for drug research, education for doctors and nurses, and yes, so others not as fortunate can have access to the system.

And are you sure that it covered all of the children whose parents couldn't afford to pay for it themselves? Just wondering, because I have first hand experience of the opposite being true. And, no, there was no new car, luxury house, new tv in every room, ect.....



Originally posted by apc

For children who's parents for one reason or another are incapable of providing I agree it is our obligation as members of society to protect. But it's the parents who are fully capable but would rather use my money instead of their own that have no such right. That is who the expanded S-CHIP would have included.


Ya know, I have no problem extending a hand to someone else to help them out, even bring them up to my standard of living, but, do I really have the obligation as a member of society to help them have a standard of living that I do not have the pleasure of myself?
While middle class parents across this nation are going hopelessly into debt for their kid's hospitalization, their education, and are struggling just to provide decent housing, clothing, and food on the table....should they really be expected to help provide these things free to others? I'm sorry, but one of my coworkers just went to the doctor's this past week for chest pains. He was given five perscriptions, on of which would have cost him over $150 bucks...just that one, the whole lot of them probably would have eaten up over a half of month's pay. And, this is with the insurance that the company provides (our company had to downgrade their insurance they offered us....THEY COULDN'T AFFORD IT...so, now, we pay upfront for our perscriptions, and the company itself will reimburse a portion of it. which is fine and dandy if you have a nice sum of cash on hand, just in case you get sick. But, well, this guy is relyling only on his check from work to begin with and well, it isn't that much. So, in reality, he pretty much wasted the money on the doctor, since there is no way he can follow thru on the treatment that was perscribed......
you sure that this guy should really be obligated to pay for the healthcare of that single mom's children, ya know, the one that has a new boyfriend every other month secretly living in her apartment and is popping babies out yearly? what about the guy up north that lost his decent job when Nestles shipped the jobs to singapore and then went back to work for the same place after it was sold to a group in south america only for far less pay and losey benefits? Last I heard, he was thinking about just dropping his insulin since he didn't have insurance, and well.....the medicine costs too much..
Simply put, you don't have to be in utter proverty to not have the funds necessary to gain access to the system without going hopelessly into debt. Family health insurance plans are out of the range of many families, and even with the insurance, the bills tend to rack up rather quickly even for relatively minor injuries. The lower middle class isn't considered poor by the standards used to determine need for this assistance and this is why we are a nation in debt up to our ears. And, you can preach on and on about living within your means, not having kids you can't support, ect. ect. ect....
but, there's nothing you can say to me, that wouldn't also pertain to that mother that lived down the street from us a few years ago who is getting the assistance now is there? So, you tell me, why the heck was I obligated to pay to heat her house when she had all her windows open during the winter to "air the place out" while my house was cold? why was I obligated to help pay her child's doctor bills when she ran her to the doctors at every sniffle while my kids went without his medicine? why her car was a newer year than ours? why her kids would gossip about my kids, and the fact that some of the clothes they wore were given to them by my friend, while hers always had nice new clothes. No, the middle class isn't the new slave class of america, working their tails off to provide the "poor" and the rich of this country this luxurious lifestyle....sorry!
cut the aid and the poor can live like the lowest of the middle class and the rich can settle with the fact that the costs that are charged for the basic necessities have to be lowered and thus, their profits, salaries and bonuses might be less. let the wages in this country and the cost of living adjust themselves to more in line with each other.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by dawnstar]


apc

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
My brain is so fried after reading that. I've got no idea what's going on.

I do know this much though: Two wrongs don't make a right, and UPS is always hiring.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Surprisingly they're not....lol...they usually are, so I picked the a nearby job location instead.

"UPS is hiring individuals to work as temporary, seasonal Driver Helpers. This is a physical, fast-paced, outdoor position that involves continual lifting, lowering and carrying packages that typically weigh 25 - 35 lbs. and may weigh up to 70 lbs. It requires excellent customer contact skills and a lot of walking."

doubt if they provide many benefits for a temp job.....and well, the job isn't for me obviously since well......after liftling a few of the 35 lb packages I wouldn't be doing much walking, forget about the 70 lbs....that isn't gonna happen. Hey, I know, how about that mom down the street popping the babies out, she looks like she could lift an ox!! and hey, it would actually pay most of the childcare costs involved with her working!

no, two wrongs don't make a right, but there's no justice in taking the bread of one and giving it to another when it means the first one is left to go hungry either.


apc

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Then your fight is the same as mine. To reduce taxation to fund social services, not increase it. Relieving the tax burden on low-income families that are still above the poverty line was the intent of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Personally I would like to see the end of the IRS altogether (Fair Tax Ra-Ra-Ra!), which would be the absolute best thing possible for such families.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
and I would like to first see our fine government reduce their spending level about 50% or so, not just take it from the social services sector, but an across the board cut, including their salaries.
Since well, I got a feeling that a fair tax won't be providing more revenue to the government and quite possibly might give it less. preaching to the pions the idea of living in your means isn't gonna help much if the government itself isn't following the same rule. Their spending needs to be cut!! That should be the first and primary objective, since it they don't reduce that deficit, we will soon be seeing money becoming quite worthless and our taxes skyrocketing so high that no tax reform is gonna help! And, we ain't gonna be able to provide so much as a slice of bread to the poor then!
Many businesses are recording record profits at the moment. Maybe it's time to clue them in that hey, it's time to feed, clothe, and shelter your own employees and their family and get it off the back of the taxpayer? As well as end all those nice handouts to them? Let a free economy equalize the mess out a little bit and give the government a break, lest we have no government to do squat for us?

www.nytimes.com...

That is where all the money is flowing to, from the economy, and from the government. Ya, the businesses can get away with paying the majority of their employees near minimum wages, and well, that savings is eventually passed onto these guys. While the government will step in and provide the majority of the workers their food, the roof over their head, their healthcare, their heat in the winter, their childcare, ect. And, any of the workers who are refusing to step in line and accept this nice gift from the government and are demanding a livable wage are finding themselves being left in the dust gong without what is being given away.

Look at the charts that determine need in this country over the past couple of decades....they get higher and higher, those that aree in need today, were doing quite nicely a decade ago, they will be made dependant in this decade, and the need will move up the income bracket...a new crop of needy will be created to fill the gap, and well, it will just keep on going till all but a small section of the population is in need and being helped by the government (sounds quit socialistic to me!!!) and when it gets there do you really think that that small section that is still unneedy is gonna shoulder the entire burden for the 80% or more of the needy? It probably costs 10 times as much, if not more to deliver $1 to a needy person through the social services system. It would be much cheaper just to tell the business sector to reduce their prices on the necestities and take care of their own!

[edit on 15-12-2007 by dawnstar]

[edit on 15-12-2007 by dawnstar]


apc

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Good morning to you too! Your coffee must be a lot stronger than mine.


You'll get no argument from me on government spending, that's for sure. Unfortunately with the way things are looking in DC politically, spending is only going to increase. As far as companies posting "record profits," that basically amounts to a list of who to be buying shares of. I don't think businesses should be told to do this or that. If they don't pay their employees enough, they don't have any employees. But the problems you describe are, in my opinion, orchestrated to bring about the very situation you predict. Basically the enslavement of the people. That's what scares the hell out of me with these ambulance chasers like Edwards and his chum Hillary. They've worked hard to make costs prohibitive for some people, and they want more S-CHIP-like legislation to gain more control over people's lives. "Mandatory preventative care." Unbelievable.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join