Leave this kid alone!

The BBQ Pit
141

[QUOTE=yanceylebeef]
From Roll Call’s Stuart Rothenberg (subscription required, so I’m quoting.)

“It’s just stunning to me,” one veteran Republican strategist told me this week, “that after seven years of Republicans complaining that the president won’t use his veto, [the White House and Republican Congressional leaders] choose their big showdown to be over children’s health care. Good Lord, it probably polls at 80 percent!”

Added the GOP insider: “If we had been talking about cutting spending and waste in government for years, we could oppose SCHIP. But now we are finally going to get religion on spending?”

So what advice would this Republican give his party’s Members of Congress? “If I were in a swing district, I’d vote to override. There’s no way I’d take a bullet on this.”

Ignorance fought.
[/QUOTE]

What ignorance? Apparently you are not aware that what Bush vetoed was a massive expansion of the SCHIP program. He has repeatedly said that he will sign a bill which maintains current SCHIP funding including inflationary increases. You aren’t fighting any ignorance, you’re parading yours for everyone to see.

142

[QUOTE=Renob]
There was evidence to support their conclusions. Yes, there were mitigating factors that weakened that evidence, but living in a nice neighborhood, having both kids in private school, and owning a few buildings and having two working parents certainly seems like the picture of someone who doesn’t need government health care. Yes, they did not know the full story and now that they do, I don’t hear this family being attacked.
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t like they waited five seconds to see if there was any more to the story. Whatever ‘scrutiny’ means, it doesn’t mean running with the first bit of favorable evidence you get.

And it wouldn’t have taken much of a pause. For instance, the house stuff. Maryland real estate is on a searchable electronic database, which shows the address, lot size, details about the improvements, when it last changed hands, and for how much.

They weren’t asking questions. They weren’t scrutinizing. They were trying to tear that story down.

143

[QUOTE=Renob]
There was evidence to support their conclusions. Yes, there were mitigating factors that weakened that evidence, but living in a nice neighborhood, having both kids in private school, and owning a few buildings and having two working parents certainly seems like the picture of someone who doesn’t need government health care. Yes, they did not know the full story and now that they do, I don’t hear this family being attacked.
[/QUOTE]
My emphasis added.

I agree, it seems like a picture of someone who shouldn’t need government health care. But apparently, given that the family’s income was actually below the cut-off for SCHIPS, maybe this story is a perfect illustration of how in this world there are many lower middle class families in the US who on the surface don’t appear to be lacking in resources but who are actually barely getting by. How many people don’t have large savings and don’t qualify for private insurance, and would have to sell their home and/or go bankrupt if they had large medical bills.

Thankfully I live in Canada and although I still have to pay for many medical expenses myself or get private insurance (e.g. dental care, prescription coverage, physiotherapy, etc…), at least if I’m in a car accident and am in a coma for weeks with severe brain damage I won’t have to worry about going bankrupt.

144

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
What ignorance? Apparently you are not aware that what Bush vetoed was a massive expansion of the SCHIP program.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m not aware of that. I suppose it’s ‘massive’ on a scale of my personal budget, but far from it on the scale of the Federal budget.

We’re talking an additional $7B a year, out of a $2.5T budget - an expansion of 0.3% of Federal spending. Or we could compare it to other domestic spending in the discretionary part of the budget (I’ll leave Iraq and entitlements both out of it), like last year’s energy bill, the farm bill, the most recent highway bill, whatever, if you like.

145

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
No, I’m not aware of that. I suppose it’s ‘massive’ on a scale of my personal budget, but far from it on the scale of the Federal budget.

We’re talking an additional $7B a year, out of a $2.5T budget - an expansion of 0.3% of Federal spending. Or we could compare it to other domestic spending in the discretionary part of the budget (I’ll leave Iraq and entitlements both out of it), like last year’s energy bill, the farm bill, the most recent highway bill, whatever, if you like.
[/QUOTE]

$7B added on top of a program that is already fully funded and meeting, even exceeding, it’s mandate is a massive increase. Sure you can come up with comparisons against with $7B is a drop in the bucket, but frankly that’s immaterial. It’s an additional $7B that does. not. need. to. be. spent. on. SCHIP (in order for SCHIP to provide the benefit it’s supposed to provide for low income families). Spend it on something else or, here’s a wild and crazy idea, don’t spend it at all and pay down the deficit by $7B (Which, at $9T, is another number that laughs at $7B). I know, that’s crazy talk.

146

[QUOTE=Renob]
As necessary as this comment directed to me: “You’ve let partisanship overpower your humanity.”
[/QUOTE]

Well, I read that as the last part of this:

if/then statement. Because of the punctuation, I can see that it’s a matter of interpretation. In any event, you’ve certainly maintained that you do see harassment and intimidation, so I don’t see why your nose need get out of joint. And I REALLY don’t see what MoveOn has to do with anything. Which is why I asked if your comment was really necessary.

147

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
$7B added on top of a program that is already fully funded and meeting, even exceeding, it’s mandate is a massive increase.
[/QUOTE]
That isn’t the question. The question is whether or not that mandate is meeting our needs as a society. If there are children going without health care, then it is not.

148

[QUOTE=Renob]
If a family is claiming poverty and then sending their kids to private school, that’s relevant.
[/QUOTE]
No, they’re claiming (lower) middle class. Poverty-stricken Americans already have gov’t healthcare. That’s what this whole fuckin’ debate is about.

149

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
That isn’t the question. The question is whether or not that mandate is meeting our needs as a society. If there are children going without health care, then it is not.
[/QUOTE]

Baloney. Health insurance is like housing or food. If one is poor, than the society has the duty to assist them (Section 8 housing, food stamps, etc..). Once one begins making a decent amount of money, we are expected to support ourselves. If there are children without health insurance whose parents make a good living and chose not to purchase it, then shame on them. You can wail “Won’t someone please think of the children!” all you want, I’m not buying it.

150

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Baloney. Health insurance is like housing or food. If one is poor, than the society has the duty to assist them (Section 8 housing, food stamps, etc..). Once one begins making a decent amount of money, we are expected to support ourselves. If there are children without health insurance whose parents make a good living and chose not to purchase it, then shame on them. You can wail “Won’t someone please think of the children!” all you want, I’m not buying it.
[/QUOTE]

Pre-existing conditions, Dave. The family were turned down by three different insurance companies because of the childrens’ injuries and the aftereffects. Where are they supposed to buy insurance if no one will sell it to them?

151

[QUOTE=jayjay]
Pre-existing conditions, Dave. The family were turned down by three different insurance companies because of the children’s’ injuries and the aftereffects. Where are they supposed to buy insurance if no one will sell it to them?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. My answer would be…MCHIP? I have never said that the Frosts should not have been on the MCHIP program, in fact I would have recommended it to them if I had been asked. I like MCHIP as it stands just fine, and I have helped dozens of families who qualify get coverage for their children using it. In Maryland, a family of four can get MCHIP free if their income is up tp $41K, and for a low cost($45 or $57/month) with an income up to $62K/year. A family of 8 still qualifies even if they make a 6 figure income. I’m against expanding the program to cover the children of families making more than that.

But wait, you say, suppose the Frosts made, oh, $1 million per year. Suppose they were perfectly willing to buy health insurance for their kids but kept getting turned down because of pre-existing conditions and they obviously didn’t qualify for MCHIP. What then?

Well, in some states that would be a problem, but here in Maryland we have MHIP available for just such a family. It is a state run health insurance plan that provides insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. It’s not free, they have to pay for it, but it is available. Not all states have an equivalent plan, but I believe all states should have such a plan.

QED

152

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
$7B added on top of a program that is already fully funded and meeting, even exceeding, it’s mandate is a massive increase.
[/quote]
Funny definition of “fully funded” and “exceeding its mandate” you’ve got there.

[quote]
New Congressional Budget Office estimates show that by 2012, a total of 3.8 million children who otherwise would be uninsured would have health care coverage under the bipartisan agreement reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) developed by House and Senate negotiators. The House is expected to consider the bipartisan agreement on the House floor today, with the Senate considering the agreement later this week.

The CBO estimates show that 2.5 million of these children are uninsured children who already would be eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid under the current eligibility rules that states have set for these programs.[1] Another 700,000 are SCHIP children who otherwise would lose their coverage in coming years and end up uninsured, because states would (under the “budget baseline” that CBO uses) receive insufficient federal SCHIP funding to sustain their existing programs.[2]

[ul][li]CBO consequently estimates that a total of about 3.2 million of these 3.8 million children — or 84 percent of them — are children who have incomes below the current eligibility limits that states have set. [/li][li]Only about 600,000 of the 3.8 million children who otherwise would be uninsured are children who would gain eligibility as a result of actions their states would take to broaden their SCHIP eligibility criteria. (All of these figures represent CBO’s estimates of the number of children who would be covered in an average month in 2012.)[/ul] [/li][/quote]

Oh.

153

There’s a crucial difference, Wierd. You can have reasonable expectations of how much food it takes to keep a 15 year old boy fed, figure roughly three times the carbo load of a platoon of Chinese soldiers. Not counting snacks. Or how much room to provide for them to sulk. These can be planned for, accounted for, and budgeted for.

Health care is a different kettle of piranha. Witness the present focus, a child severely injured and returned at great expense to reasonable good health, and another brain damaged and requiring the sort of ongoing support bills that cause insurance adjusters to clutch their chests and turn blue.

And add that nasty bit of irony to the equation. The very providers of health insurance, who appear to have your entire trust and admiration, are very, very different from other free market entities. The widget maker profits by supplying widgets, the more, the better. The health insurance provider profits by providing insurance, but can profit further by restricting payout, it is therefore in the rational economic self-interest of the insurer to grinch the kids.

Thus, the parent cannot make a rational decision, and budgeting is a crap game.

I realize there is a Gospel that Government Can’t Do Anything Right, Ever. Since they are made up of people, there simply has to be some truth to it. But what is the Free Market made up of, androids? Objectivist robots that can’t be screwed by the Kirk Paradox, so don’t even try?

The free market approach is not working and probably cannot work, given the inherent contradictions outlined sparingly above. You may cringe at the prosopect of a bloated government program, but there really isn’t an alternative. When it comes to fires, better a mediiocre bucket of water than the very best bucket of kerosene.

154

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. My answer would be…MCHIP? I have never said that the Frosts should not have been on the MCHIP program, in fact I would have recommended it to them if I had been asked. I like MCHIP as it stands just fine, and I have helped dozens of families who qualify get coverage for their children using it. In Maryland, a family of four can get MCHIP free if their income is up tp $41K, and for a low cost($45 or $57/month) with an income up to $62K/year. A family of 8 still qualifies even if they make a 6 figure income. I’m against expanding the program to cover the children of families making more than that.

But wait, you say, suppose the Frosts made, oh, $1 million per year. Suppose they were perfectly willing to buy health insurance for their kids but kept getting turned down because of pre-existing conditions and they obviously didn’t qualify for MCHIP. What then?

Well, in some states that would be a problem, but here in Maryland we have MHIP available for just such a family. It is a state run health insurance plan that provides insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. It’s not free, they have to pay for it, but it is available. Not all states have an equivalent plan, but I believe all states should have such a plan.

QED
[/QUOTE]

Can you explain how a state program that does the same thing as a federal program is better than the federal program? Isn’t it government-funded healthcare for middle-class families either way? I’m not understanding the nuances of your viewpoint.

155

[QUOTE=jayjay]
Can you explain how a state program that does the same thing as a federal program is better than the federal program? Isn’t it government-funded healthcare for middle-class families either way? I’m not understanding the nuances of your viewpoint.
[/QUOTE]

The federal program (SCHIP) provides the funds. Each state administers their own children’s health program with these funds (in Md., MCHIP). The Frosts were covered by MHIP. Does that answer your question? I think that’s what you asked, if not, please clarify.

156

That’s a lot of misinformation in one post Lucy. Lets look at it bit by bit.

[QUOTE=elucidator]

Health care is a different kettle of piranha. Witness the present focus, a child severely injured and returned at great expense to reasonable good health, and another brain damaged and requiring the sort of ongoing support bills that cause insurance adjusters to clutch their chests and turn blue.
[/quote]

Which is why it is illegal for an insurance company to drop anyone because of claims they make. If your hypothetical kids had Blue Cross before their accident, they would have Blue Cross after the accident. If people were allowed to form groups for the purpose of getting insurance (Something that can not be done now, except under some kinda odd situations, a law that badly needs to be changed) then your hypothetical kids couldn’t even be rated up (charged more) after the accident (although the group as a whole could be). That can happen now, and is one of the reasons I say that every state should have a program like MHIP available to take care of people in this situation.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
And add that nasty bit of irony to the equation. The very providers of health insurance, who appear to have your entire trust and admiration, are very, very different from other free market entities. The widget maker profits by supplying widgets, the more, the better. The health insurance provider profits by providing insurance, but can profit further by restricting payout, it is therefore in the rational economic self-interest of the insurer to grinch the kids.
[/quote]

Again, that is why it is illegal for them to do so. The whole “Oh insurance companies will refuse to pay claims if they are too big, screwing the insured” meme that keeps getting trotted out is a canard, a myth. Insurance policies are legal contracts which bind BOTH parties. If an insurance company refuses to pay for treatment that is covered by the policy, the insured has legal recourses, first to the insurance commissioner of their state and also through the courts. By the same token, however, if you neglect to reveal on your application that you’ve been having crushing chest pains for 6 months, don’t be surprised if the insurance company refuses to pay for the heart attack you have 3 days after your date of coverage, it goes both ways.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Thus, the parent cannot make a rational decision, and budgeting is a crap game.
[/quote]

Really? Strange that I have no trouble doing just that. i know what my policy covrs, how much it costs, and since I am in a group, i know that that cost won’t raise because of any claims my family makes.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
The free market approach is not working and probably cannot work, given the inherent contradictions outlined sparingly above. You may cringe at the prosopect of a bloated government program, but there really isn’t an alternative. When it comes to fires, better a mediiocre bucket of water than the very best bucket of kerosene.
[/QUOTE]

Your “inherent contradictions” are wrong, as I’ve just demonstrated, and thus your conclusion is wrong too. There is no reason at all the free market approach can’t solve the problems that we have in this country with health care, in fact it’s government interference in the free market that has caused many of the problems in the system today. That is not to say that government doesn’t have a role to play, it does, and I actually think that that role should be expanded to some degree, but turning the whole thing over to the government to run is madness. By 2015, the cost of health care in this country is going to top $4 trillion. The current budget is $2.5 trillion, for the entire government. Adding $4T to the $4T that the budget will probably have climbed to by then is not just another “bloated government program”, it’s an unprecedented government intrusion into our lives on a scale that makes what we have now seem like a libertarian’s wet dream.

157

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Funny definition of “fully funded” and “exceeding its mandate” you’ve got there.

Oh.
[/QUOTE]

I am baffled that you reject the NY Times as a viable cite, but think that linking to the website of a DC lobbying group whose raison d’être is getting more money out of government for expanded social entitlement programs somehow proves your point.

158

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
That’s a lot of misinformation in one post Lucy. Lets look at it bit by bit.

Which is why it is illegal for an insurance company to drop anyone because of claims they make. If your hypothetical kids had Blue Cross before their accident, they would have Blue Cross after the accident.
[/quote]

What happens if they don’t have Blue Cross before the incident? Do they simply deserve their fate? Let them die, so as to decrease the surplus population?

159

[QUOTE=Blalron]
What happens if they don’t have Blue Cross before the incident? Do they simply deserve their fate? Let them die, so as to decrease the surplus population?
[/QUOTE]

I think I already covered that.

160

Yes, you did. All of these stories of abuses by the insurance industry are all just lies made up by Soros and MoveOn. And they can’t be true because the law won’t let it be true, no matter how much money and lawyers they got. Might take ten years and a godzillion dollars. You might end up selling plasma to buy Hamburger Helper. But you’ve got justice and a Republican administration on your side, which is almost as good as just having justice on your side. All the other guys got is lawyers, guns and money.

Wait a sec! Can you buy a high-priced corporate lawyer type lawsuit with food stamps?