AlwaysBurning

I got these in my inbox this week, both are videos commenting on the healthcare funding that president Bush cut despite congress and the country being in favor of its continuance: This one is from Families USA and this one The Daily Show. Any more news on this? I'm not sure what to think, really, Bush is so inconsistent in his pretense at conservatism.

Bluesman

You have definitely misunderstood the story, as the media hoped you would. Bush did not cut healthcare funding.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

wkllaw

Bush didn't stop its continuance, he simply stopped the expansion of the program to include richer kids. While the kids aren't rich or upper middle class, they still aren't in poverty or in a desperate situation.

Its interesting to note that when I talk to my American friends, they seem to think of the issue the same way you do. Unfortunately, not many people do the research into these issues and just buy in to what the media says.

__________________
Those who can't change become extinct.

Julie

Here is a good chart for comparison of old bill and proposed bill:

http://www.ncsl.org/print/health/CHI...BIPARTBILL.pdf
another good link:

http://www.ncsl.org/print/health/forum/SCHIPFAQ.pdf

Past, present and future:

http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/991_Lamb...ent_future.pdf

gunnut

This document actually had definitions of what the bill would cover.

SCHIP's purpose is "to provide child health assistance to uninsured, low-income in an effective and efficient manner." (pg. 13)

That sounds very noble, until you read about the definition of what "low-income" and "child" is under the current law. "Low-income" is defined as a family of 4 earning less than 200% of federal poverty level (currently $40,000). A "child" is someone 19 years of age or younger.

Can a family of 4 making $40,000 really be classified as "low-income?"

Can someone who can join the army and vote really be classified as a "child?"

On page 17, the future of the law wants to include insurance for illegal children in this country. It also wants to expand coverage to children who already have insurance (WTF?). And the program wants to include children from higher income families as well.

Bush did not cut health care to children. Bush did not cut health care for low income children.

Bush vetoed a bill that wants to provide health care to high income families, adults, and illegals.

As they say, the devil is in the details.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Ironduke

I don't know about poor, but it's a working class income.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

gunnut

I guess that will depend on where the family is located. If they live at places like San Francisco or New York or Orange County, they are low income. Other places in the midwest can get by quite well on $40,000 a year.

But we have to agree on one thing, doesn't matter where, $80,000 is definitely not poor, not even low income except in a select few places like downtown Manhattan or Beverly Hills.

Bluesman

It was nothing more than a naked attempt to make yet another middle-class entitlement program, because the Democrats know that once you start it, it canNOT be killed. This was a way to maneuver Bush into starting what would eventually becoming the complete and total control of all healthcare by federal authority.

But they thought their win/win proposition would force Bush to choose between getting the Julies of the world pissed off and NEVER FORGIVING him for 'vetoing children's health care', or going along with this horrendous first step in a massive expansion of federal power.

He shot 'em down, and made 'em pay their own price, though. Good for HIM.

gunnut

There is nothing more permanant than a temperary government program.

Julie

I'm not believing you said that.

Bluesman

That's because you have no power of perception.

Check THIS out.

Bluesman

Still a proud Democrat?

Julie

Okay, that particular family could afford $1,200 per month health insurance for a family of 4, and put their children in public school as opposed to private school.

How many families of 4 making a legitimately gross $40,000 income, approx. $35,000 net, approx. $675.00/week, pay a mortgage, a car payment, car insurance, utilities, food, and clothing for four people, and still afford the above health insurance premium for 4 people, with their children being in public school?

Bluesman

And how many of them did the Democrats trot out to make their points against Bush's alternative?

Sigh. Once again, you missed the point. I wasn't saying there was nobody in America that wouldn't happliy use somebody else's money to pay their own bills; of course there is, so you pointing it out has absolutely no relevence. The point I was making, and am now taking great pains to explicity point out to you, was that the Democrats are LIARS. The 12-year old they sought out and used and exploited was upp-middle class, BUT, and this is all they ever cared about, not TRUTH...he was telegenic. He was a great salesman for their snake oil.

So, then...STILL a proud Democrat?

Bluesman

Holy CRAP, Julie, you may want to get the intellectual bandaids and bactine out for this one, because you're about to take a brutal whippin':