Comments on: Battle Over Kids' Health Bill Continues

Democratic Leaders Gathering Votes To Override Veto On SCHIP Funding

[skyk-2009]

Define "afford". By what measurement would they use. Do they measure what year car people drive or how big their TVs are. Do they anaylyze spending habits or mortgagte payment comparisons. Wouldn''''t it be in all of our best interest to not "afford" to pay for our own insurance and let the govt. provide it.


Posted by standlee5 at 01:54 AM : Oct 15, 2007
+ report abuse

If you have to ask that question you have NO knowledge of what people face out here every day. We can spend HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars in a stupid war in Iraq but can not afford to provide health care for kids? We all know what has happened to the Middle Class under the "trickle down" economics, that money didn''t "trickle" down to them at all. Now we find all their jobs shipped to other countries and they are forced to work jobs paying far less and providing no or little in the way of benefits. Time we faced those facts and helped out the working guy for a change. The fat cats have enjoyed so much so quickly that we now find the gap so wide it''s as bad as it was before the great depression.

[mcvet]

The Democrats are determined to begin the great government give-away even before Bush is out of office. She needs to have a sock stuffed in her mouth....she and Hillary both. Sickening examples of political representation.


Posted by likeitis5050 at 07:12 PM : Oct 14, 2007
+

The Reich just dumps the Kool Aid out and you freaks just lap it up don''t you??? You have NO idea what we are going through out here do you? To you it''s just you and your fuhrer against all those ugly "Liberal''s". You creeps haven''t had an orginal thought in your lives but you sure are good at trashing those who do. You spend all your time telling the rest of us what these people mean and what they are really saying... Why? Do you think we can''t hear and understand for ourselves? This program will help MILLIONS of American''s who can''t afford to pay the cost NOW heaped on them by employers or when employers are to greedy to provide coverage. That''s just the way it is!! SIEG HEIL BUSH!!

[mcvet]

Instead of coming up with a huge expansion of a program meant for the poor. Why don''''t we analyze why it is that middle class can''''t pay for their own stuff anymore. If we were making upwards of 80K, paying for a health insurance premium wouldn''''t be a big deal. The middle class income is contracting and that''''s what we need to address.

Posted by standlee5 at 01:59 AM : Oct 15, 2007
+ report abuse

The program was never meant for the POOR Sparky, those people are covered by Medicaid. The plan was to cover people working above the poverty line but not more that a certain percentage above that line BECAUSE greedy employers have, since the distruction of labor unions, taken those coverages away or have forced working folks who can hardly make ends meet to pay high prices for that coverage. IF you fascist have a cure for that lets hear it because YOU created the problem by trashing all the unions. Sieg Heil Bush!!

[barbaraf4]

If we fail to provide some form of healthcare for the children of the United States, then we will continue to subsidize their healthcare in the emergency rooms across the country. Emergency rooms have become 24/7 walk-in clinics for any family with a sick child.

The problem with taxing me, and other retirees like me, to pay anyone else''s healthcare, is that I have enough trouble paying for my own healthcare. When my husband retired from IBM, we were promised healthcare for life. Well, we still have IBM healthcare, except now we pay for it. Every year the premiums go up and the service goes down. IBM wants all the retirees to die off and then they won''t have to deal with them any more.

[drinuk]

George Strangelove Bush will press the button on this and his hidden agenda is support for Big Pharma and the insurance moguls. Oh! Boy, Ron Paul is going to have a real mess to clean up next year.

Lets hope we can get him out of the oval office before he presses the button on Iran or encourages his Jewish friends to do it.

[usayesterday]

If we were making upwards of 80K, paying for a health insurance premium wouldn''''t be a big deal. The middle class income is contracting and that''''s what we need to address.

Posted by standlee5 at 01:59 AM : Oct 15, 2007
..............

But health care premiums are a big deal, especially for a family. As you add people onto a health insurance policy, the premiums increase exponentially. And what SOOO MANY people do not realize is that an $80k annual salary ain''t diddly squat in larger, more expensive regions like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, New York City, Washington DC and so on.

I''ve seen too many arguments against the bi-partisan SCHIP bill, and it comes from people who have no empathy or understanding for other people''s situations whatsoever.

(Though I''m not aiming this directly at you standlee5). There is clearly some arrogance, selfishness, and ignorance that causes people to be against this program and its currently proposed expansion.

[standlee5]

Instead of coming up with a huge expansion of a program meant for the poor. Why don''t we analyze why it is that middle class can''t pay for their own stuff anymore. If we were making upwards of 80K, paying for a health insurance premium wouldn''t be a big deal. The middle class income is contracting and that''s what we need to address.

[standlee5]

"The program provides health insurance to children in families with incomes too great for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to afford private insurance."

Define "afford". By what measurement would they use. Do they measure what year car people drive or how big their TVs are. Do they anaylyze spending habits or mortgagte payment comparisons. Wouldn''t it be in all of our best interest to not "afford" to pay for our own insurance and let the govt. provide it.

[rowdytexan2]

MyIDonCBS ---

I know peopole that NEVER smoked that have lung cancer...I just had three friends have a lung taken out that don''t even live with anybody that smoked.

My friends mother died with emphysema that had NEVER smoked....

I said it has never been PROVEN that smoking will kill you, you idiot. And it hasn''t! Go read up!!!!!

I had an aunt who smoked from the time she was twelve until she died at the age of 98 in her sleep....

It has only been PROVEN that smoking CONTRIBUTES to bad health IF YOU SMOKE EXCESSIVELY!!!

And if you had READ my post, which you obviously didn''t...well, enuff said...RE-****....

[homespunlady]

Hmm... It''s interesting hearing all the EXAGGERATED EXCUSES justifying DISCRIMINATION in providing health-care for the kids of the WORKING POOR American peasants that cannot afford outrageous PROTECTION RACKET level insurance premiums that probably won''t pay for care anyway when it''s needed.

The wealthy have excellent health-care opportunities and the extremely poor garner the token sympathies and money of people that want to assuage their guilty feelings for being "privileged" but the "working poor" are fair game apparently so the wealthy can justify feeling superior, point fingers and pull out that old "work harder like I did" BS.

So many Businesses use the EXCUSE that providing such coverage is COST PROHIBITIVE and for some - they are RIGHT.
Since nearly EVERY OTHER non 3rd world country HAS some form of basic health-care FOR ALL their citizens it IS a bit unfair in INTERNATIONAL competition situations.

The question then is what are the REAL costs WITHOUT such a program.

What are the REAL costs of LITTLE TO NO health-care for not only those children but their parents as well?

What will the costs be if LACK of BASIC health-care contributes to PANDEMIC illnesses that spread historically among the working poor FIRST and then to ALL levels of society?

What POTENTIAL is lost? Will it result in Fewer leaders, loss of international competitiveness, less diversity or a loss in the gene pool that we humans cannot afford? Those costs are NOT being counted.