Bush's Poison Pill for America's Kids

Sometimes in politics, you think you've seen it all. Turns out I was wrong.

Just when you thought things at the White House couldn't get any stranger, the president has decided it is good public policy to increase the number of uninsured children in our country.

In the last year, we've seen public opinion building around the principle that no American should be denied health care. The president has answered that call by attempting to limit eligibility for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP is a program that provides health care to children whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance.

The president is trying to tell governors like me across the country that until we enroll 95 percent of those eligible for S-CHIP in households making under 200 percent of the poverty line ($41,300 for a family of four), we cannot provide health care to children in families making above 250 percent of the poverty line ($51,625 for a family of four).

Make no mistake. This is a poison pill meant to deny thousands of children health insurance.

While state governments make every effort to enroll as many eligible kids as possible, there will always be some individuals who fail to take advantage of this important program. In New York, we currently enroll 88 percent of children in families making below 200 percent of the poverty level. No state has yet cleared the 95 percent hurdle.

Since many states already enroll children at income thresholds above 250 percent of the poverty level, this means that these new regulations will have the effect of forcing children who already have coverage out of the program. Moreover, New York's historic effort to provide universal coverage for children through SCHIP will not be able to get off the ground because of this bureaucratic sleight of hand.

The president surely knows this. But then that begs the question: Why would he choose to pursue this path?

This isn't about fiscal restraint. The initiative is paid for through a tax on unhealthy cigarettes and other revenue sources. This isn't about good public policy. SCHIP has been wildly successful in providing health care for nearly seven million of our nation's vulnerable children.

The actions of the White House speak to what we've all known for far too long. When faced with the choice of covering thousands of children, they'll bring up the "big government" bogeyman and then stick their heads in the sand, ignoring the realities facing working families across the country.

This is not the way it has to be. Health care for our children should not be a partisan issue.

I have joined governors of both parties from across the country in trying to expand SCHIP coverage. My initiative to expand SCHIP and provide universal coverage to New York's children was passed by a large bi-partisan majority in our state legislature. I have even committed to taking legal action if CMS refuses to do what is right, follow the law, and insure these kids.

While we promise to keep doing our best to hold the President accountable, we cannot do it alone. We need your help

There are 400,000 uninsured children in New York and 9 million around the country who are counting on you to be their voice. Call your congressman and tell him or her to overturn the president's decision. Write the White House and tell them what you think.

I just wrote a column in the New York Daily News about this issue, which you can find here. Writing a letter to the editor of your local paper is a great way to make your opinion heard.

Standing by and letting this injustice go unanswered is simply not an option. The stakes are too high. You must do your part.

If we fail to act, 400,000 children in New York - and millions more across America - will continue to rely on the oldest and most precarious health insurance policy of all: waking up every morning and praying that they don't get sick.

Click here to watch a video of Governor Spitzer and Congressman Rangel and discussing this issue. Governor Spitzer and Governor Schwarzenegger also recently wrote a letter to the President demanding that these new rules be be withdrawn (more).

Comments

[JackMonroe]

The way I see it, the government is already too large and intrusive. (I've been unjustly accused of owning some back taxes, which, considering that I've been out of work and on disability for as long as I can recall, only goes to illustrate my point.) Now the way I see it, and I'm basing this on my own experience as a father, is that kids in this modern era have it too easy - they should be working. And if they were working they could pay, or, at the least, contribute to their own health care. If kids can indulge themselves in drink and smoke and drugs and sex then they can darn well assume the responsibilities that go along with such extracurricular activities. Like paying for it. I remember my grandfather telling me about how during the Great depression he had to work two jobs and find time to get what he could of schooling. And that's the sort of thing that made America great, was that can-do spirit. Back then a fourteen year old could get a job in a coal mine or a saw mill. Now days you have to be at least eighteen before you're expected to carry your own weight. I hope you have better luck with your kids than I did mine.

[madbluemom]

Excellent ideas here. Lets put elementary aged kids to work in a coal mine. Maybe we could also rent them out as slave labor in a sweatshop! While they are working to support themselves, they'll be getting very little in the way of education so that they have no opprotunity to improve their lives. I don't know if you've noticed, but here lately it's just a bit more competitive in the job market than it was 30 or more years ago. Not having an advanced education can pretty much promise that you'll never advance above crap jobs that pay very little. These are the people who you will be depending on to pay into the system so that when you're old enough to collect Social Security there might actually be some money there. There's nothing wrong with a teen taking a part time job to help with expenses, but obviously the problems you seem to have had raising your kids are coloring your perceptions just a tad.

[UpstateThinker]

Um, who's been paying you disability for "as long as (you) can recall"? Is that some God-given benefit that you deserve more than others deserve health care? You sound like a greedy freeloader to me.

[mommamia526]

Yes, I had much better luck with my kids, and grandkids as well. But that is because I am educated, and you are not, I see. Yes, my kids worked their way through school and the grandkids do as well. Two of them started working at age 13! As a former teacher I saw many kids in class who were also working...and too tired ..to pay attention in class or do homework. They were sleeping in class with their heads on their desks. Methods were not of much help there, with those sleepyheads of kids. See, that is why we are losing all those good jobs, in the coal mines and so on for the kids. They are selling ham burglars now, and pizzas. And spending money like it is outasight. That is also why we are falling behind in educational scores worldwide, and why more of such good jobs are being outsourced. At least that is what I heard. Oh, well. And, in any case, to get into university here in the U.S.A. they do expect that you have served your time doing good labor in this country, at the Pizza Hut, flipping pizzas.

[djinn]

I'm assuming the trolls who post here are well paid for what they do. And why not? The lobby of private health insurers is wealthy and highly motivated to protect the status quo.

Consider this a preview of what you will see during the coming debate, prior to and after 2008, about what to do with our broken health care system. The first or second poster in such threads will be someone who is VIRULENTLY against a publicly funded system because it "threatens the American way of life"....and yet polls show 70 to 80% of Americans would support such a system.

And we're supposed to believe that the 20 to 30%who do not are so highly motivated that they just rush from thread to thread, to get their ideas out first, high up on the thread so everyone can see it.

Oh, puh-leeze. Hope mormondude is at least getting what he's worth.

[johnebeegood]

That would be nothing.

[anotherplayaguy]

At what point did health care become a "right?"

No one I knew growing up had health insurance. No one needed it. That is possibly true today. I don't have it, don't want it. It's far cheaper to pay for doctor visits than to pay the premiums.

And what no once considers -- it's far cheaper to die than to spend months dying in a hospital.

[ihavenobias]

Well, let's see.

The preamble of the constitution states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Why do so many conservatives think the ONLY role of government is to provide for defense when it's only ONE of the 6 items mentioned in the preamble to the constitution?

Oh yeah, and I have to say, it's hard to have much of a life or to pursue happiness if you're sick.

Furthermore, it's hard to avoid being a "lazy deadbeat" who gets by on "entitlement programs" if you're not healthy enough to bust your ass to pay the bills.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer some of my tax money go toward ensuring everyone is healthy enough to pursue an honest living.

[CaseyBabes]

As an independent with libertarian leanings I believe the problem is with the liberal/"progressive"/ democrat/socialist party that goes past the Constitution in its interpretations of what the gvernment should provide. The absence of the word "shall" in the preamble doesn't seem to deter the dems from over reaching. So, yes, we should help those sick, within reason. The problem remains (because of dems) of where is the line to prevent over reaching?

[alguien]

how long has it been since you visited a doctor? my recent health issues had me in and out of doctors quite a bit in the last few months. my co-payments are $20 for my regular doctor, $30 for specialists. i received a bill for my co-payment recently and saw that my insurer covered $175 of the total cost of the visi-leaving me with my $20 co-payment.

that's $195 for a visit to my basic care provider. i don't know what universe you're dwelling in but $195 for a visit to the doctor is not what i consider cheap.

[SeriousBlack]

Geez, this post boggles the mind. Let's take the points one at a time: "No one I knew growing up had health insurance." Hmmmm. How many people in a typical community does any one single person actually know, much less know well enough to know whether or not they had health insurance??? Gosh, anotherplayaguy, did you spend every waking hour canvassing the town taking health insurance surveys or something? How many people we talking about? A few dozen? A few hundred people even, that YOU KNEW, AND KNEW that NONE OF THEM had health insurance? Even though I'm sure that's a question that you went around making sure that you asked anyone that you knew while you were growing up. And even if you did (which begs the imagination), and even if it WAS in the hundreds, that's hundreds out of how many in your whole community/town/city? Hundreds vs. tens/hundreds of thousands or even millions? Whatever--I'm tired of beating such an inane point to death anyway. Next point: "No one needed it." Much of the same analysis as the first point. Yeah, I'm sure you really knew this about ALL the people you knew growing up. I'm sure you were privy to the knowledge of any particular family a few blocks from your house whose family member had some serious accident or illness and was only able to be treated/made well because of their health insurance. Next: "That is possibly true today." (i.e., that NO ONE NEEDS HEALTH INSURANCE). Too obvious to waste time on. Next: "I don't have it, don't want it." Oh really. When you find out you have some type of illness that only a health insurance plan with prescription drug coverage makes you able to afford the treatment, you might change your tune.

[SeriousBlack]

Like Hepatitis C, for example, that lots of people discover they have and actually have no idea how they got it--the course of treatment costing $1,500/month for 6 months (covered by most health insurance plans). What's that, YOU have $9,000 available to pay for it if you had to? Well, good for you, lots of people working low end jobs DON'T have that kind of money and would therefore have to just crawl off somewhere and die according to people like you. Next: "It's far cheaper to pay for doctor visits than to pay the premiums." Covered somewhat in the previous point (i.e., not considering chronic/severe illnesses), but you're also apparently not considering more serious injuries as well that might cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to deal with. And finally: "And what no one considers -- it's far cheaper to die than to spend months dying in a hospital." I'm glad you think you can make the decision about when to die (i.e., SOONER, as opposed to trying to PREVENT it) not just for yourself, but for me and everyone else. NOT.

[mommamia526]

Now what would you be talking about? No one you knew had healthcare insurance and no one needed it. O.k. but there were doctors, and you could go to those doctors, if say, you broke your leg, right? It is indeed far cheaper to die than it is to spend months dying in a hospital Bingo. You got that right. So, go die already! However, if you have a chronic illness, from which you are NOT dying (any time soon) and you need a job to pay the doctor, or to buy food, or the housenote, and you apply for a job, and the employer has an agreement with a healthcare insurance company and you do not get that job, or any job, things might get even cheaper...for YOU... but not for society. You will be out of a job, on welfare, have Medicaid, and foodstamps,and we will all be paying for your permanent vacation! And have YOU considered THAT! It is happening sweet anotherplayaguy, all around you. It is also a good idea to consider how you would feel with a broken leg, not being able to pay for the doctor to set it, and then to have to hobble around with a deformed, and painful leg all your life. And, have you considered THAT?

[ihavenobias]

I really wish people would stop confusing a single payer system with "socialized medicine".

A single payer system might be called "socialized insurance", but that is NOT the same thing as "socialized medicine" whereby the government runs the hospitals, hires the doctors, etc.

For example

Medicare: Single Payer System

VA: "Socialized Medicine"

[anfractuous]

Does anyone even know what "socialized medicine" means anymore? The phrase itself has totally lost whatever ignorant sting it may once have had, and should merely provoke quizical looks from anyone under 35. Those who still use it are proclaiming that their brain has been in suspended animation since 1970. They're the same people who whisper "out of wedlock".

[pedant]

I was in the Navy. I found that "socialized" penicillin was just as effective as free market penicillin.

I am now a Senior and find that Single Payer medicine is just as effective as the free market variety.

Cannot understand the ideology of various types of health care. I wonder if there is socialized Thermodynamics vs Market Thermo?

[shishkabob]

Thank you pedant. This makes more sense that 99% of the other posts.

[bronceye]

The Dr. buys a Beamer and the patient sells his Ford. You buy or you die. As a working American, I have realized that if I can't contribute to the accumulation of wealth by a small minority of people, I have no rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Not even life, itself. Face it!

[esquire07]

The Bushs are well taken care of, why in hell would he care about poor kids ?

Bushs priority is corporate profit for the oil and arms industry. To hell with the children of America.

A disgusting President for a disgusting Nation.

[webmind]

A disgusting, once great nation. Pathetic.

[pedant]

Do children make campaign contrbutions?

Major goal of Bush healthcare: "No undeserving poor child shall receive healthcare".

Modern Hippocratic Oath: "Medical treatment shall continue until the patient is cured, dies, or is bankrupt".

[Sisyphuss]

SCHIP is becoming another entitlement program, whose growth is to be provided largely by unsustainable tobacco taxes, thereby imposing an additional financial burden on the beneficiaries themselves. We desperately need a comprehensive reform of our health care system. But I fear that the patchwork approach of our present course (e.g. SCHIP) will result in a mongrel system that is both unwieldy and unbalanced from state to state.

[larry278]

If Rudy & Hillary weren't already running to be POTUS & Mike, after changing parties, was in his mode of denying he was running for POTUS-one could think Gov Spitzer was using this issue to throw his hat into the ring too. Eliot, the steamroller, is acting like his bitch slap of lame duck W is for the kids.
While 2 men named Roosevelt went from Albany to DC & the White House & a man named Smith tried to become POTUS, there are other Gov's of NY who initiated reforms, etc which became federal law, policy or national issues but didn't sit in the White House. They often gained national influence in other ways. Gov Spitzer may have the issue of kids health as his main goal in this instance. The steamroller is going to keep at this till the USA has something like universal health care for children. Gov Spitzer is the epitome of the successful, energetic multi-tasker; he won't neglect his projects for NY state. Ambitious, able liberal politicians in NY may see fit to support Gov Spitzer on this issue for it's the prototype of the good fight, popular with voters & even playing second fiddle in the me too movement will boost their liberal cred. The issue is popular in fly over country too. Nancy & Harry will have hell to pay if they don't get this through the 110th Congress & over-ride W's veto. The lack-luster, timid leadership of the majority of the 110th Congress will have forfeited its place as leaders if they don't put the proposals Gov Spitzer favors into law; that's a given. It will be interesting to see if any parasitic trolls choose to submit comments to HP on this issue. To oppose Gov Spitzer on this one would tacitly admit that the late WC Fields, who said, "Anybody who hates dogs & children can't be all bad.", is their patron saint. It will also be interesting to observe the spin W & co will put on this.

[UNCLEJOE]

the best way to get to Bush is have sound bites on TV ,
1) 'Bush takes 7.5 million children off heath care'.
2) Bush spends a One Trillion for his Killing Machines, but can't Afford 1/1000 Th. of One Trillion for the health care of 7.5 million children'
3) 'Is Bush the modern Scrooge incarnate because he denies the Tiny Tims some new crutches?'

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Great article Mr Spitzer. For contrast, consider ReThug "thinking" captured as a typical ReThug soundbyte:
"How tragic it would be if everyone had "Socialized" health care insurance, especially if private corporations couldn't gouge millions of people on premiums, and then protect "their" profits by denying coverage for more expensive treatments" Oops strike the last half of that! (& there it is - a ReThug's idea of Anything for A Buck Demonocracy.)

[researcher]

The last thing that I want as an American is socialized medicine. I mean the idea of taking care of the health of all your citizens and then to top that off no huge profits for the insurance and drug companies from the sick. Un-American.

God this is America not a commie country like Cuba. Profits forever baby. Every time my insurance company figures out a way to deny a claim my stock rises in value. Love this system in America. Make money from the sick but only those can afford it and the rest well if you are that bad off go to the emergency room and hope for the best.

America best country in the world. Ask the Iraqis they have our democracy now and love us for it. I am asking everyone on here at huffpost to boycott the movie sicko. That Michael Moore nut actually wants everyone to have socialized medicine. The thought of having health care for all of your citizens and not making profits from the sick is just not American.

Just kidding SICKO was Michaels best to date. I laughed I cried and at the end most people clapped in appreciation of Michaels movie. Outstanding job Michael Moore. What a country this could be with more journalists like Michael Moore out their in our land.

Spitzer you got me my money back from an Internet scam and the state of az my state did nothing for me. Good job. I told someone then years ago you would be the next governor of New York. Hey I was right for once. Very effective office you ran.

[Mormondude]

How many new Cuban drugs hit the market last year? And no, I'm not talking about new formulations of weed, crack, or meth.

A well-known pharmaceutical company spent 1 BILLION dollars developing and putting a new drug through clinical trials. It increased mortality slightly in patients, so they just had to write the whole thing off. A cool billion down the tubes. What government on earth is going to lay out that kind of money for ONE new drug? NONE.

If you take out the ability to make a profit, you essentially end the development of new drugs. I know that's hard for some people to grasp, but that's how it is.

[ihavenobias]

I can just as easily make the argument that companies don't search for a *cure* because it's much more profitable in the long run to have people using medication year after year after year.

And I look at our idiot president's veto of federal funding of stem cell research and I think about a private company finding, say, the cure for diabetes rather than a government funded cure.

Would you care to guess how much the privately discovered treatment for diabetes would cost vs the government funded treatment? (HINT: a *LOT* more).

[WIpatriot]

Just wondering how much they're making off that "Restless Leg Syndrome" drug....

[totalliberal]

Hey mormondude. Now you're just making things up.

[johnebeegood]

Guess what? That billion dollars is a tax write off that you and I pay for.

[protagonia]

Lots of ways to be cured. Pharma-cide is only one path. They have killed as many as they've healed.

[mommamia526]

I saw Michael Moore's movie with a doctor I dragged with me. She is with the VA. It is an excellent movie, but that is not all there is to know. Go find out for yourself, in person. Also, the California nurses' association has been active on this for some time now, and has branched out into a national nurses organization, associated with AFL-CIO. I have written in comment, here and elsewhere about my own personal experiences. A few more numbers. I had major surgeries in 2002 and 2003. Being old I am insured through Medicare. Before the surgery I inquired about additiional insurance, how much it cost, what my deductibles would be, what the doctor would receive extra, etc. All I could find out was my premium, that my deductible for a hospital stay would be $ 5000.-- (in 2002) instead of $ 780.-- with additional coverage. Now, being stupid, I asked myself why would I pay extra insurance premiums, and then pay also $ 5000.-- in deductibles instead of $ 780.--? And that was for surgery and hospitalization alone. We were not even speaking of rehab, etc. which came on top of it. The MEDICINE, I have written this several times, is NOT SOCIALIZED. Healthcare Insurance is REGULATED and socialized in the sense that as a society we care for each other, and sometimes the other is self. It is Not FREE.ouOU PAY FOR IT, BUT YOU PAY A PRICE YOU CAN AFFORD AND EVERYONE PAYS. Such a novum. You pay for insurance and then when you need it, you are NOT cancelled, and you actually get the treatment you need. Your doctor also gets paid, and does not have to deal with a byzantine (a word of one doctor who wrote to me recently) *system*, or with not getting paid. You also will be able to WORK AND EARN A LIVING, pay taxes, pay that insurance premium and you will not have to live off the dole.

[Spoons]

We have the most anti-social, inefficient, ineffective healthcare system in the world. It kills innocent Americans, bankrupts innocent American families, pits providers against patients and employers against employees. It costs too much and delivers too little. Some things we have "socialized" include parks, libraries, fire protection, police and military protection, highways and roads, mail delivery, education, and (partially)healthcare for Americans over 65, among other things. Banding together for the Good of the Whole doesn't and won't make us "Commies". Now we're supporting the Welfare of the Few (in life-or-death matters no less) which only makes Capitalism look evil, bad, and nothing anyone else would want to emulate.

[dadw5boys]

Can't insure kids if your killin people.

[klmebane]

can't insure kids in this country when you're killing kids in another.

[mommamia526]

This is the best one yet! Now, not yet mentioned as far as I am reading is this. If you are degreed, experienced and qualified to work, and you can and want to work, you WILL NOT WORK if the employer has a contract with a health insurance provider if you have a chronic illness, or might in the future possibly have a chronic illness. So, no healthcare, no work gives what...a destitute person, possibly family too, and that gives ...what? All of the population pays for that person (and his/her family's) healthcare for life and then some. Need we state, other transfer payments, such as foodstamps, etc. This very smart businesslike person who wrote this, and can add and subtract, possibly, does not have the ability to see beyond the tip of his small nose, and look at negative multiplier effects. Also in time medical care keeps cost low. If a person has to become totally disabled before getting any healthcare, the costs are usually prohibitive. A cancer that is detected early enough can be treated with less cost than a cancer which has spread. Everyone, please remember, we are getting more and more clever, there is the genome project, the insurers KNOW whether or not you will be a future risk and they will not take you. That might be YOU. And you might never become ill. Bad luck. Insurers do not care. You will NOT WORK and you will not pay any taxes, you will just be a cost to society. By the way SCHIP may be tied to payments INSURERS receive from the government for additional insurance coverage for the Medicare insured (NOT MEDICAID). If the kiddies get the insurance the insurance do not get that other little bonus. So Medicare insured persons pay additional insurance premiums to private insurers who also get money from government funds, and Medicare patients may also be paying, in addition to the extra insurance premiums higher deductibles, a.o. when they go to the hospital. Who gets that extra money? NOT the doctor.

[spaceknife]

As a Canadian, we may be in what some call a "socialist country"
We may have to wait when we go to hospital emergency for a flu or a minor cut.
We might even have to wait for surgery when it is not life treatening.
But the last thing we ever think about when we or our loved ones get sick is how much it is going to cost because it is FREE.

Considering the still rising cost of your useless, criminal and dangerous adventure in Irak and the enormous military expenses that will be required to keep you safe from the ever growing number of people around the world who hate the united states, you could have financed health care for everyone for a very long time.

How sad to see such a once wonderfull country going down that way.

[Mormondude]

Health care is not, and cannot be free. Someone somewhere is paying for it. And the more people that are covered, the more health care is dispensed, the more it costs.

I honestly think that if we implement a national health insurance program, the cost of health care nationwide will go UP, not down, for that very reason.

[BigTuna]

You might want to research the concept of preventative care before floating that idea again.

[TS]

Dead wrong on the last count. Yes, it' strue someone pays for it. It's also true under our current system (and keep in mind we have huge numbers of uninsured), on a per capita basis we spend the most and get the least return on the money spent. So it appears that universal health coverage as practiced by every other indutrialized nation seem to prove your last point about costs going up to be completely wrong.

Your also a whiny cheap-ass.

[RS]

Oh really? That's what you think. I have a question for you Mormondude--do you own stock in a major pharmaceutical company, insurance company or HMO? Are you more interested in getting FILTHY STINKING RICH from our current healthcare system than in the welfare of your fellow Americans? Remember what the Bible says--YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS.

[AsaNisMasa]

you get testicular cancer and can't afford to pay your bills, your tune will change in a heartbeat. Only thinking about yourself, as usual for your ilk.

Or did Jesus not tell Joseph Smith to jot down that you are to care for all of his children?

[ManhattanMC]

"I honestly think that if we implement a national health insurance program, the cost of health care nationwide will go UP, not down, for that very reason."

You're out of your mind.

Every single hospital in the US has a staff of thirty or forty people who do nothing except process claims.

Single payer would-at the least-eliminate that expense.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Quick poll, how many adults today grew up in households without health insurance? Chances are, quite a few, because immediate care was in the medicine cabinet, or your local clinic, or worst case, the hospital. Now, with national and global healthscam and healthscare, and 815 billion dollar-a-week overmedication prescription bills, the whole enterprise has become criminal and gone runaway.

What's REALLY going on? A national healthscare tax, a third pipeline out of your paycheck prior to you ever recieving it. State, federal, local, and now healthscare. Don't ya just LOVE politicians? LOLOL

[CaseyBabes]

You are oh so correct. The healthcare business in the USA is incredibly profitable for the caregivers, and especially a mother lode for politicians and ribbon cutting ceremonies. Then you have the lawsuits feeding off of it, and the pharms making a killing.....uh, wracking it up (yes, wracking). Just wait until after the upcoming general election to see if there will be any serious debate on adopting a universal healthcare system. Then it'll be time for the true power to get involved, the MDs, and when they do it will be the end of a truly full coverage system under government control. It is a healthscam program now and it will remain a healthscam with politicians told to butt out.

[dshwa]

I won't argue that some people are making a killing off the health industry. First, the insurance companies are a parasite on the health system, and they know it. There was a study a few years back in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that Coverage for all Americans could be provided from a single payer source (i.e. the Gov't) for 1/3 what was being paid to cover th 43% of the nation covered at the time. There were a whole list of cost that dissapeared: consolidated beaurocracy, no billion dollar CEOS, and no advertising for starters. Insurance also indirectly increases the cost of your doctor visits, because of the need for ancillary staff to handle the billing requirements.
Second, the drug companies are also making out like bandits, but I will defend them a bit here. Yes, meds are wicked expensive, but developing a drug cost 200 million dollars per drug that makes it to market. Out of 100 drugs a company spends some portion of that 200 mill. to research, only 3 will ever pass all the testing required to get produced and sold. However, 8 of the 9 industrialized nations in the world have some form of price controls, so the costs are defered onto the one nation that doesn't have them ... guess who that is?
Health costs are beginning to crush American buisness. They are making it increasingly difficult to compete with countries who's costs are covered. Pension plans are defaulting from health costs. It's in the country's overall best interest to go to some form of single payer plan.
I think what would work best for us in a parallell system like Spain has. Everyone gets covered with a basic gov't plan, and if you want private coverage you can pay for it.

[Libsrule]

I met very few kids when I was growing up that could not afford medical care. Visits to the doctor were not extravagant priced things.

We were insured, and it was practically nothing in terms of insurance costs. Doctors didn't have to try and build themselves mansions and join investment groups to handle all the money they make. OR build their own hospitals and make sure patients were sent there.

YES a lot of doctors are very good people.

But quite a few are simply looking out for the bottom line. Far too many of them in fact.

BUT members of this administration know full and well that poor people tend to vote democratic so why give those "welfare queens" a damned thing for their kids? Just to make more democrats?

Nope.

Things were different back them.

Not anymore.

[splashy]

I did, and didn't go to the doctor hardly at all. I had to tough out things I shouldn't have had to tough out, and am paying for it with my health now.

People just shouldn't have to live that way in countries that have resources to take care of everyone. Especially since we are paying so much more than countries that have universal health care. It's ludicrous!

[dictatortot]

People making $50k shouldn't need public monies to provide health insurance to their kids. They can make more responsible decisions, like working more or having fewer children.

If the government rewards irresponsible behavior, more people will be irresponsible.

http://www.newsprism.com

[ihavenobias]

Exactly! The kids are to blame for having irresponsible parents.

Those little brats need to stand up for themselves and demand accountability from mom and dad on their financial decisions.

[BigTuna]

LOL

[DLB]

"Exactly! The kids are to blame for having irresponsible parents."

No, the parents are to blame. Make them provide for their kids!! I don't want to subsidize through taxpayer dollars irresponsible parents who want to waste their money instead of being responsible.

You'd rather let irresponsible parents off the hook at the expense of me and every other taxpayer who do the right thing and are responsible.

[LiberalLibertarian]

"People making $50k shouldn't need public monies to provide health insurance to their kids. They can make more responsible decisions, like working more or having fewer children."

Ah, that would be why the Right is against abortion and real sex ed in schools..... right? And student aid must be stamped out too, or those poor folks might actually be able to cross class lines and get jobs with insurance and a living wage.

$45,000 split between 4 kids in an urban environment is really hard to pull off. With raising cost of living but static income levels, working poor have no way to go but down. I do not have kids and I never will, but my house taxes pay for their education, and that is a good thing for society. Why are we so penny wise, pound foolish in this country? The feeling is, if it doesn't directly benefit me, then screw them all. Not seeing that 20 years down the road that we need a next generation of healthy young adults to take the reins. And that means good health care and good education for the little tykes now.

[DLB]

Why can't those on the left see the argument for people to be more responsible for their own actions? Does or should society ALWAYS bear the brunt of expense for people who do not want or are not educated enough to be responsible for their own actions? And we have public education subsidized by the government, so NOT being educated isn't a viable excuse.

There's an old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Are you responsible if the horse dies of thirst? According to those on the left, "yes." And that's what's the wrong.

[frozenskeeter]

What, so only the rich can afford to have kids then? My family of 4 is right at that 50,000. We pay $500 a month out in private health insurance (1 employer dropped health coverage, the other employers is too expensive). We live on the edge every month because of that insurance bill. That $500 could be used instead for my children's future college education, mine and my husbands retirement, or even paying down student loans. I am so tired of people saying parents are irresponsible just because they have kids. I love my kids, I don't think its anyones right to say if I should or shouldn't have them.

[DLB]

Seems to me that that $500 is being spent on the best thinng you can spend it on, your family's health. Just where do you think the money is going to come from if you can't afford your $500 payment now?

[Mormondude]

You know, it would sure be nice if I didn't have to send in a mortgage payment every month. Just think of what I could do with all that extra money! And we can all agree that having a place to live SHOULD be a civil right in a prosperous society like ours. So, I suppose that we should have universal government housing. And we can't have everyone living in those horrid projects. We should all be living in mansions like the President and US Senators do. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for all of us!

Liberals unite!

[woodchips]

While $50K per year sounds like a lot of money, it really isn't. I have insurance through my employer, and in a typical year, between dental, eye care, prescriptions, co-pays, deductables and insurance premiums, I pay almost $10,000...and that's without any major medical issues or elective procedures. The premiums keep going up and the deductables are now so high that almost nothing is paid by the insurance company.

I can't understand why all the righties think universal care would be such a bad thing. Aren't they the pro-business, free-market types. Why should businesses be responsible for providing insurance? Wouldn't US businesses be more competitive globally if they were rid of that expense...just like the French, British, Germans, Canadians, etc?

An does anyone honestly think that you'd be paying more for universal health care than we already do? Come on! We're already paying for a fair percentage of the most expensive healthcare consumers (seniors) via Medicare. Take out the insurance company profits, account for all the uncovered expenses we are paying now, and we'd probably all save money. Just do the math.

Frankly, I'd feel a lot better about paying my taxes if I felt like I was actually getting something for it.

[Spoons]

"People making $50k.." My friends' young daughter was diagnosed with a very curable form of leukemia. Their premiums (not counting co-pays and deuctibles) were singled out and rated up from $12,000k to $46,000k per year...or their daughter dies, they go bankrupt, lose their business or all of the above. They don't have a Cadillac plan but a Yugo one (i.e. "You get sick, You GO"). The fact that they have paid through the nose over 20 years for coverage they and their employees barely ever used doesn't count. What happens if one more person in their group gets sick, or when their daughter becomes an adult and has to find affordable, dependable insurance on her own in a coverage system driven only by profits and totally devoid of compassion? What world do you live in? (Are you from France?)