WingColors

For those of us who are ignorant, what is the SCHIP bill?

I'm glad it got veto'd.

If you're making $62k (proposed cap of the bill) a year, you can afford private insurance for a family even without your employer's assistance. It may not be the best, but will cover you for emergencies easily, and a lot of the basic every day things.

I know some people need a hand, but this bill just seemed really skewed towards helping people mismanage their money. I might be ok with it after some refinement, but I really am not one for the government acting as parents.

It's government nanny healthcare for certain children. Some in Congress thought "children" should mean people into their 20's as well as their parents, Bush rightly vetoed it because it would cost way too much.

Considering the NEW version of the bill considered you "POOR" if you made less than $82,000 a year and included a loophole the size of a Mack Truck for illegals I applaud the VETO.

What nonsense. What so incenses the Preznit is that it works and it's provided by the government and the Preznit doesn't want the government to be able to do anything well, a task he has managed to succeed at since he became the Preznit.

The adults covered by SCHIP are pregnant women, mothers or those in some way concerned with the care of a child. What the hell though, health care should be a free for all, price gouging money grab because thats always works out really well.

At the current cost the "war on terror" in Iraq would pay for the SCHIP increase for about 15 years, so money well spent.

What the hell though, health care should be a free for all

No, it shouldn't.

I'm sorry but I like making an appointment and being able to see my doctor sooner than every 3 months.

and the Preznit doesn't want the government to be able to do anything well

Seriously... Who is our "Preznit"? Might as well throw out the whole playbook on that one and call him "Bushitler" and call his supporters "Sheeple" and on and on and on....

On topic though... where does it state that the government must hand out money/goods/services/medicine/etc. free for all in the Constitution?

I oppose the SCHIP plan as proposed by the current DEMOCRAT controlled Congress because of the open loophole for illegals, and the flat out baseless lie that is the number of "poor", "uninsured" children in America. The numbers are insanely inflated for this reason alone... to inflate government control and ramp up spending.

A large number of these "poor uninsured" children that are ACTUAL citizens come from middle class families that can afford coverage but don't. There are numerous census reports out there that show these numbers are trumped up for political gain.

@Heliophage I don't know what that has to do with a bill to provide health care to poor families. Thresholds for qualification have to peak at some point and in this case it's $82,000.

For a family with no employer health plan they will be handing over thousands of dollars per year for insurance (rough average is $11,500 for a family plan according to the NCHC), if they can get coverage which they won't if there is even a hint of pre-existing conditions or chronic conditions.

Good piece from Factcheck

It's amazing how liberals like to classify someone making 100k a year as "rich", yet 82k a year qualifies as "poor".

Article19: I noticed a theme with you, you'll add something vaguely on topic, in this case "free healthcare" tripe, then when someone quotes you on it an questions it you go all "well what does that have to do with [topic]??" Can you tell us why you think what you say shouldn't ever be challenged, because that's the image you project.

Article19.... how in the hell is $82,000 a year POOR at ALL.

I think where we're getting lost in translation is that $82,000 a year in Bronx, NY isn't even CLOSE to $82,000 a year in Lincoln, NE. If you're going in that direction, wages tend to reflect cost of living and in MOST cases, jobs pay more in areas that have a high cost of living. (case in point I know people who WORK in Bronx, and live in New Jersey because it cost too damned much to live where they work.)

My family makes less than the $82,000 "Poor" mark and we all have medical/dental/vision coverage that is paid out of pocket and we're not "poor" at all.

Article19,

You can get a personal policy with plenty of pre-existing conditions. Most insurance companies will not cover those specific conditions until you've been with them a certain period of time. This can range from 6 months to 2 years depending on the company and coverage level.

I've had personal policy for my wife and myself with good coverage. I paid about $800/month. This included maternity coverage. My partner at the time paid $1000/month for better coverage for his family (wife and 3 pre-teen boys.)

We both made less than $50k a year, lived in south florida, and were by no means poor.

within 3 replies we have the problem.

I'm OK so why isn't everybody else? How stupid must everyone else be if they can't do what I do?

You also forget that $83,000 is the upper limit and by definition you are suggesting that all those receiving SCHIP support are making that amount of money.

Heliophage; there is no theme, you misunderstood what was written and quoted only part of it and that would be your problem.

You also forget that $83,000 is the upper limit and by definition you are suggesting that all those receiving SCHIP support are making that amount of money.

No I'm not... but to claim they set $82K as the max with the assumption that anyone applying is FAR below the max is equally as idiotic. Look, there is still no way someone making $45K, $55K, $65K, $75K etc is POOR. You can make $300,000 a year, spend it all like a drunken monkey and have to go live in a shoebox because you're a moron... doesn't make you "POOR".

Flip on the tube sometime... you're bound to hear the lovely "42 MILLION uninsured in America!" comment...

Too bad you only end up with somewhere around 18 million when you remove non-citizens and those earning near the ceiling of $80K a year from your inflatable list...

7% of 300 MILLION people... WOW, staggering.

Ironically the new 9Rules sytem pushed this thread to the front.

Within that thread you make it pretty clear that your motivations are toward yourself and your own family and that's fine.

Individuals don't get to decide what their particular tax money is spent on though and that's why we live in a society because the sum total of the contribution of many provides a greater resource than everybody keeping everything they have to themselves.

Society, your society, elected Congress, Congress passed the bill by a majority. Then the stupidest human being on earth, almost, says no way because the programme works and we can't have that.

With your way of thinking the war would be over because the majority would refuse to spend money on it, postage costs would be astronomical because the people who use the postal service the most would complain about all the freeloaders who send one letter a month, etc.

Good luck on your island.

At the current cost the "war on terror" in Iraq would pay for the SCHIP increase for about 15 years, so money well spent.

Yes, you can really tell how bad our government is at managing things from the way it has handled Iraq and continues to handle it.

And so you want them to handle your health care..why?

The way to better health care is a freer market, where competition can severely and fairly bring down prices. As it stands, we don't have that. The answer, however, is not to go to socialized medicine.

within 3 replies we have the problem.
I'm OK so why isn't everybody else? How stupid must everyone else be if they can't do what I do?

You chose to miss my point.

I did make an example of myself and how I was OK.

The thing is, my case was on the far outside of the bell curve. South Florida is one of the most expensive places to live in the country. San Francisco and NYC are higher. My friend and I were making far below their poverty level mark of $83,000. I didn't have two kids, but he had three. We both paid close to your quoted figure for yearly private insurance. We were in no way poor.

What's the situation where a family of four with an $83,000 yearly income is poor?

I didn't miss the point.

Your circumstances obviously meant you were able to afford health care insurance, which is fine. Let's say you have a family of 4 and their combined income is the magic number of $83,000.

Irrespective of that amount there is little way to generalise the payments they have to make out of their income. Mortgage rates, car payments, fuel costs, utilities are all variable dependent on location, Personal circumstances also dictate insurance costs and those costs can vary dramatically. The $11,500 tag is an average.

And what does this family do if they are denied insurance? What if there is a pre-existing condition, what if one of them has HIV? $83,000 doesn't make you poor but when it comes to expensive healthcare it will make you poor very quickly indeed.

Let's not forget that these guys are also paying taxes.

@leilathomas

Yes, the current US administration is incompetent, which is why you need a competent Government to run complex health care programmes. Socialised health care is not inherently bad, it needs to be run properly just like anything else.

Irrespective of that amount there is little way to generalise the payments they have to make out of their income. Mortgage rates, car payments, fuel costs, utilities are all variable dependent on location, Personal circumstances also dictate insurance costs and those costs can vary dramatically. The $11,500 tag is an average.

Sure there is. I took an extreme example, one of the most expensive places to live in the US, with far less money. Mortgage rates, car payments, fuel use, are all choices you make and priorities you have. If you can't make your mortgage payments, you sell the house and get a more affordable one. If you can't afford to live in the area you are in, you look for a better job or you move. It's simple money management and responsibility. If you can't make ends meet doing what you're doing, do something else so that you can.

I moved out of south florida partly because of the cost of living. I wasn't poor at all, but I realized I could live much more comfortably elsewhere with the same income.

I totally agree Ozone... I used to live in a city where a 2 bedroom apartment was out of my budget. We moved and have a 3 bedroom house for less than we paid per month for a 1 bedroom apartment before.

I hear sob stories on the news about how tough it is to be a "poor" person in America when they're standing in front of their 3 bedroom house, with 2 cars in the driveway, central heat/air, food on the table and a job. If you're POOR after all of that, you're doing something wrong.

Not to say there AREN'T really really destitute people out there that need help getting to a manageable level. There ARE... but it seems to me that what MOST "poor" Americans need more than a goodie bag from Congress every month, is a mandatory economics and budgeting class.

You have to drive through a pretty crappy part of town where I live to get to the Zoo, and when you drive through it you seem to notice things like a flashy 2007 Camero with $3200 worth of rims, or a shack fixed up with a $2500 plasma screen. A LOT of these people have their priorities in the wrong spot.

When we hit a rough patch a while back we canned our fancy cell phones, we canceled Cable TV and internet access so we could do what we needed to do. It's not about running to your big daddy to pay your bills.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "these people" but you make far too many assumptions to justify not having an expansion of SCHIP.

You make the assumption that if your mortgage payments are too high that you can easily sell your house and move into a different one without making things worse. You make the assumption that "most" americans who need help with health care are buying expensive tv's and "rims" whilst living in "shacks".

You also make the assumption that there will be a massive number of people who earn $83k, have no health care and kids and will need to take advantage of the programme.

Once again, these guys pay taxes too.

Quote from the Fact Check article referenced above:

"In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year. That's already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase. The Bush administration, in fact, just denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four, a move New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and members of Congress from the state have vigorously protested. And Bush would retain the authority to deny similar applications under the proposed legislation. An Aug. 17 letter to state health officials from the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services outlined new guidelines for states that would make it quite difficult for states to raise eligibility above 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($51,625 for a family of four). So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation "would" result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible. It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation.

In fact, the vast majority of the children who stand to gain coverage under the proposed legislation are in families making half of the figure Bush gave. A study just released by the Urban Institute estimates that 70 percent of children who are projected to benefit from either the Senate or House bills are in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $41,300 for a family of four). Our several calls to the White House press office to pinpoint exactly what the president meant by the $83k remark were not returned."

Well that's just it. People making $83k would never need to take advantage of the program.

So why would we want to make it possible for them to do so? Wouldn't each case be a blatant abuse of the system?

Of course it wouldn't force coverage... what kind of sense would that make? I fully expect people even at poverty level if they don't need coverage to not have it. But there's a lot of things people don't need that they take anyway.

So we're making far too many assumptions for a reason not to expand the program. What are your assumptions for the need to expand it? I can't see any justification for that level.

Why are we talking about poor people? SCHIP isn't for poor people. SCHIP is for familes that need a little bit of help who are above the federal poverty line but fall under the income limit.

The guideline for SCHIP qualification can differ from state to state but should be relatively similar (poverty < family < 200% poverty). Also the state should be able to refuse eligibility if you do have access to private health insurance for your child. Technically by income alone, I fall under 200% of the poverty level for a family of 6. Does that mean I'm going to run out and get some SCHIP goodness? No, because Ohio automatically denies if you already have health insurance for your child (which I do have fairly good group insurance through my employer).

Again, the income limits are based on your family size. Based on the above chart I've linked to, you'd have to have EIGHT children in order to qualify for SCHIP with an income of $83,000/year.

I gotta say I am a liberal, but I wonder if there isn't more to this one than 'Bush hates children'.

While I understand the arguments about income levels and such, nothing in that seems to explain why this one bill made him go against his own party...

While I understand the arguments about income levels and such, nothing in that seems to explain why this one bill made him go against his own party...

He's the leader of the party, they do what he says, not the other way around. It's obvious why he "went against his party", this craptastic bill is fiscally retarded and nothing but a step towards socialized healthcare.

hmmmm, I think you have a slight misunderstanding of the US Constitution and how the Congress works.

Bush is the leader of the Republican Party but they certainly do not "do what he says", that would be a borderline autocracy and I doubt even the Republicans see any advantage in that type of thing.

I don't mean literally you tool. I mean he sets the policy as leader, and they are supposed to follow it.

again, that's not how the US Government works and the President has no authority to tell Congress what to do even if it is his party and they are in the minority. It's a checks and balances thing, look it up.

You have no idea how things work. The president has policy ideas, generally they are in line with his party, he stresses to his party in Congress to act on his policies. If you think the president and his party in Congress are totally oblvious to what each other want they you're a moron. He's party leader, they are supposed to follow his policies.

Yes, I think we're done here, your elementary social studies class was obviously cancelled for some reason.

That's fine, I was growing tired of a smarmy asshole that doesn't even live in my country trying to tell me how my government works anyway.

Heliophage... I know it's a heated topic but could we keep the name calling at bay?

Article19 is actually right in that the President doesn't have the authority to dictate policy to Congress, but he DOES hold Veto power (albeit limited by congressional override).

Yes they don't live in the US but I know plenty of people who know the ins and outs of the US Government and its inner workings that aren't "from here".

One of my personal friends is a Canadian Immigrant who was a US Government professor in Canada before he moved here.

I never said he "dictated" policy, I said, in essence, that since they are in the same party, and he is the leader of that party, their policy goals should be in sync and they should generally follow and agree with his policies.

That's fine, I was growing tired of a smarmy asshole that doesn't even live in my country trying to tell me how my government works anyway.

This I will not tolerate around here. Getting heated is one thing, but blatant name calling can be taken to Digg or wherever other playground allows it. Sometimes you people need to agree to disagree and if you get heated to the point you wish to call someone a name online that you never met, just step away from the computer and enjoy your Friday.

I support the veto. As it stands SCHIP doesn't have the stipulations to provide for the people it's intended to provide for.

I'm sorry but I like making an appointment and being able to see my doctor sooner than every 3 months.

Yes, isn't the NHS great? Oh sorry, wrong country :p Tell you what though, I think I get far better healthcare from our socialized system than the (insured) Americans I know.

I think I get far better healthcare from our socialized system than the (insured) Americans I know.

I'm sorry, but your anecdotal evidence means nothing.