Legislating Towards Universal Health Care?

National Review Online: Democrats Pushing Near-Universal Health Care Coverage Incrementally

(National Review Online)  This column was written by David Freddoso.

---

Late last week, the Bush administration announced plans to curb the practice of states putting already-insured and non-needy children on the rolls of a federal program that subsidizes health insurance for uninsured and needy children.

Democrats were outraged.

“This is a political attempt by the administration to try to intimidate states,” Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.) told the Washington Post.

The Democratic Congress had just passed two versions of a bill to let states expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to children in families making three and even four times the federal poverty level ($60,000 to $80,000 for a family of four). With his new rules and his veto threats against their bill, President Bush is spoiling their plans.

But aside from the feigned outrage always involved in politics, why are Democrats so unhappy about dedicating federal money only to those who need it, and not to those who don’t? In most parts of the United States, a family of four making $60,000 is doing pretty well and doesn’t need a handout or even a “hand up.”

The answer is that Democrats in Congress do not just want the government to cover the needy and uninsured. They want to legislate incrementally until they have established universal or near-universal taxpayer-funded coverage, beginning with children.

This is not the paranoid idea of a few conservatives, but a plan outlined in an April 9, 1993, memo from Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. The memo, which became public later only thanks to lawsuits forcing sunshine rules on the task force, was previously mentioned in a Washington Times report ten years ago, when the SCHIP program was first created.

The memo describes three possible methods of implementing universal health coverage. The first two involve a state-by-state phase-in of plans that involve state and federal government funds and employer mandates for the working uninsured.

But “Option 3” would have implemented a similar program by population group, beginning with children and expanding from there. The proposed name for the program, Kids First, had deeper meaning than one might suspect: it was the front end of a plan that would later cover everyone.

[drivelphobe]

Health care is NOT a right, but a service provided by others who have spent many years and lots of moola to become qualified to do so. There can never be equal access to quality health care nor should there be. LIke any product, there are varying degrees of quality, and quality is directly related to cost. The more you can spend, the better the product, in this case, health care. It seems only those without sufficient income or assets are the ones complaining about their plight. Basic health care is available through various government providers such as medicaid. This should take care of the indigent. All others should get the care that their money can buy. Not every one should get the kind of care Donald Trump can get.

Universal health care already exists for the poor and the illegal aliens. The rest of us don''t need it or want it. We want the best our money can buy, and we don''t want to subsidize any more entitlements programs.

[mimi611]

I wish you neo''s would quit talking about religion and "family values"; since you have none. What a bunch of hipocrits.

[nexgen99]

Just what we need another government run failure costing trillion''s

[hwk_i67]

This is probably the one area I agree with Bush on. There is no reason why a family making 80k with the health plans that are out there be able to access this.

[andor3]

someone said: "Just what we need another government run failure costing trillions"

As opposed to the current private-run failure that costs hundreds of trillions and rewards waste, fraud and people who do as little as possible?

What we need is universal health coverage--everyone is covered, no insurance companies or pharmaceutical corporations making huge profits. Yeah it is probably best run by the government. The government track record is a lot better than the private sector in these things.

[wogerwabbit]

drivelphobe, what drivel! How naziesque! You''re sickening... I need a doctor after reading your despicable post. I pray you go broke... but not broke enough to go on medicaid... just lose your job and lose your health insurance... that should straighten out your idiotic thinking. Just pitiful!

[andor3]

drivelphobe said: "LIke any product, there are varying degrees of quality, and quality is directly related to cost. The more you can spend, the better the product,..."

Yes, this is the problem with U.S. health care. Insurance companies are in control and they must make money--the less they spend, the more profit for them. Incompetence, delays, are encouraged. And more to the point, the system is designed to spend less on care and quality while more goes into shareholders profits. This is the fundamental flaw.

If you get health care through insurance, you are putting your decisions in the hands of people who are sworn to spend as little as possible on your care. If you skip insurance, the system is set up to make care prohibitively expensive.

drivelphobe said: "Health care is NOT a right"
Access to basic health care is absolutely a right. Universal minimum coverage for everyone is affordable and desirable.

[drivelphobe]

WogerWabbit.......

It''s seems I struck a sore spot with you. You must be one of the indigent whiners who think they are entitled to more than they can afford. Thank you for your nice thoughts. I wish only the best for you inspite or your emotional outburst.

[mudrose-2009]

drivelphobe, what drivel! How naziesque! You''''re sickening... I need a doctor after reading your despicable post. I pray you go broke... but not broke enough to go on medicaid... just lose your job and lose your health insurance... that should straighten out your idiotic thinking. Just pitiful!
Posted by WogerWabbit

Sorry you don''t get a free ride. If you can afford it you pay for it. If you can''t you qualify. No socialized medicine. No expansions to those who already have coverage. And be careful what you wish on others, it could happen to you.

[mimi611]

Why would we spend any money on sick people (especially children who can''t vote) when we have to spend all our money killing people. So. War is a good thing. Helping children stay healthy is a bad thing? What a bunch of idiots. Also, I wish these people that think government is so bad would stop trying to get elected to office. Bush ruined our government; so he can say "see how bad government is". And you fools fall for it.

[nativewoman]

Posted by drivelphobe at 01:13 PM : Aug 22, 2007

So only the rich deserve quality health care?

Who will perform all your menial tasks once the poor have the good grace to die and get out of your way?

Some more of that "culture of life" stuff from the right.

[katg21]

So only the rich deserve quality health care?
Posted by NativeWoman at 04:23 PM : Aug 22, 2007

Never been rich, have always had good quality healthcare.

[katg21]

Universal health care already exists for the poor and the illegal aliens. The rest of us don''''t need it or want it. We want the best our money can buy, and we don''''t want to subsidize any more entitlements programs.
Posted by drivelphobe at 01:13 PM : Aug 22, 2007


Amen!!! Some of these fools would prefer a socialist government.

[rwassel]

"Basic health care is available through various government providers such as medicaid."

- Posted by drivelphobe at 01:13 PM : Aug 22, 2007

Oh, do you mean the Medicaid coverage that has been cut, and will continue to be cut, for years? (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5195533)

I have a question - what if you were too poor to afford even basic coverage for health insurance (which at the minimum runs almost $300 a month for a family, but found you didn''t qualify for Medicaid? What would you tell that person?

I''m sure Jesus would just love turning people away from receiving basic medial attention. I hope you do not consider yourself Pro-Life.

[rwassel]

"Just what we need another government run failure costing trillion''''s"

I''m sorry, this story was about health care, not the Iraq War.

[rwassel]

Amen!!! Some of these fools would prefer a socialist government.
Posted by katg21 at 05:05 PM : Aug 22, 2007

By using "Amen", I''m assuming you''re Christian. Thus, I assume you prescribe to our religion''s basic tenets of taking care of the poor, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and loving your neighbor as yourself? Oh, you only follow the tenets you want to follow? Ok, I see...

[marcodele]

What a filthy goal: health care for everyone.

It''s practically un-Christian!

[katg21]

I assume you prescribe to our religion''''s basic tenets of taking care of the poor, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and loving your neighbor as yourself?
Posted by rwassel at 05:13 PM : Aug 22, 2007

You would assume correctly. How does not supporting universal healthcare translate to I don''t care about the poor? You don''t know what I give or what I do to help the poor and less fortunate, so shove it.

[katg21]

What a filthy goal: health care for everyone.

It''''s practically un-Christian!
Posted by marcodele at 05:56 PM : Aug 22, 2007

It''s practically SOCIALISM. I have to laugh because anytime these liberal politicians throw out the "poor card" you guys jump right in. News flash, the poor already don''t pay taxes, they get medicaid and food stamps. On top of that, there are millions of very generous americans donating additional money and services to help such people. Hell, we even give our hard earned money to illegal aliens and pay for their healthcare. What, you want some handouts too?

[wogerwabbit]

not really, drivelphobe... you ignorent neocon robot... I have cancer and pay $657 per month for health insurance (and another $385 for my wife) that won''t cover my $700 per month chemo therapy treatments. I''m sure you think that''s fair and balanced and I just can''t afford to live, so I should go ahead and die. Your charity towareds your fellow man is underwhelming and I''m sure God will make you pay in the end. Have a nice day, a$$hole.

[rwassel]

"You would assume correctly. How does not supporting universal healthcare translate to I don''''t care about the poor? You don''''t know what I give or what I do to help the poor and less fortunate, so shove it."

Posted by katg21 at 06:09 PM : Aug 22, 2007

How very Christian of you, telling me to "shove it".

And as far as healthcare is concerned, the current system in place does not serve the needs of the poor. 40 million without health insurance, the majority of which live below the poverty line, and unaffordable healthcare in comparison to minimum wage (as it stands now, if someone working received minimum wage, they would pay an an entire quarter of their monthly earnings to just go towards healthcare (not to mention rent, food, utlities, etc.)

The current system is not serving the needs of the poor, and Universal Healthcare is another alternative (one of many). So if you think they current health system is just fine, then no, you do not have the needs of the poor in mind.

[olgreyghost]

If the government paying for everyone''s medical care is fair then why does the government prosecute people who rob? It can''t stand the competition?

If you think it''s okay for the government to rob for you then don''t complain when the government robs from you...

[standlee5]

whatever happened to self sufficiency and independence. I really believe that universal healthcare is the last stop before socialism. There''ll be know going back. It''ll be creadle to grave and govt. will know every intimate detail about every citizen. It''s shocking the Dems aren''t more concerned. Will they also determine our aptitude and career and education choicess.

[Syndicate]

Their aren''t any poor in America. I use the African standard. IF you have a roof and some food your rich. Never mind your big screen TV and Licoln Navigator.

[standlee5]

Poor people actually DO have healthcare.It''s the self insured and middleclass who are struggling with the notion of paying for health insurance because it''s a rather new concept. Iv''e done it for twenty years. It''s a priority and I''d never go without it. Very good policies out there to choose from.

[rwassel]

So, the people here who blogging against universal healthcare seem to be doing so because the government would be spending too much of their hard-earned tax dollars helping the poor.

Just curious, are you guys ok with the government spending your hard earned tax dollars (approaching 1 trillion) occupying Iraq? Wouldn''t you at least rather it be spent on the people here????????

[standlee5]

Since when do people earning $60-80K poor.

[standlee5]

It''s pretty simple if you want to have a long healthy life make health insurance a priority. Get a job that has it or pay for it yourself. For the poor and disabled we have that covered pretty well with medicaid.

[rwassel]

"For the poor and disabled we have that covered pretty well with medicaid."

Posted by standlee5 at 08:10 PM : Aug 22, 2007

You sure about that, Mr. Black and White? Funds for Medicaid have been slashed in previous years, and will continue to be slashed over the coming years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5195533

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/politics/29budget.html?ex=1272427200&en=84385168821c77a9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[burneb]

If any of these blog statements about the poor paying little or no taxes, the poor receiving free or cheap medical care, people who bother to work able to get affordable health care,
etc. were sufficiently true, our country would not be facing all the medical care problems that we obviously are (obvious to all but the oblivious).

My family has pretty good coverage, and we can pretty much afford whatever more we need %u2013 but I know all too many who work harder than my wife and I, and are in deep financial trouble from medical costs and lack of available coverage. Forty years ago I did not think we needed universal tax-supported coverage, and since then have digested a lifetime of arguments about socialized medicine, but now I reluctantly conclude things will only get worse without it. Nothing less will adequately pool the risks and contain the future national cost of medical care to less than 20% of the gross national income.

America pays enough already to have decent care for all, but we haven%u2019t been getting it.
We won%u2019t get it until we stop paying 20-30% of the money for insurance and paperwork overhead that contributes nothing to actual care. Medicare and Medicaid are hardly perfect, but if our whole national system were more like them, we would be paying far less overhead and getting more coverage for the money.

[wogerwabbit]

I have enough experience with the medical system to have a good take on what the problems are. As an example, I had a 10 minute CT scan two weeks ago that the hospital charged $3,800+ for, and left me with $780 in out of pocket expense.

I''ve paid tens of thousands of dollars in out of pocket medical expenses over the years and ended up going bankrupt 8 months after cancer surgery because I was laid off (3 months after the surgery) and have been treated as a pariah ever since.

After paying exorbitant COBRA costs for a year to maintain my insurance, Humana had the balls to convert my coverage to a $777 per month policy with a $25,000 life time benefit (yes, $25 thousand). When I quit those ******, my policy lapsed two days, so I was not covered at all for pre-existing conditions with my BCBS policy for a year and now get raped every month for premiums.

This can happen to any of you... even you Hummer driving needle d i c k Republicans... all you need to do is get sick... once.

To put this in perspective, my wife and I made over $120,000 between us before my layoff and are now back to about $80,000 after our $11,000 year immedialy following the disaster.

Further, my cancer can probably be directly attributed to Agent Orange, but because I''ve made too much money and the Bush administration idict in 2003 imposing limits on VA care because of my income being too high, they won''t even talk to me.

Great country this Republican America, heh?

[wogerwabbit]

oops... (sp) edict

[elz523]

"The answer is that Democrats in Congress do not just want the government to cover the needy and uninsured. They want to legislate incrementally until they have established universal or near-universal taxpayer-funded coverage, beginning with children."

Good! Way to go Democrats! That is exactly why we sent you to Washington! Keep up the good work!

[katg21]

How very Christian of you, telling me to "shove it".
Posted by rwassel at 07:28 PM : Aug 22, 2007

What the hell do you care, I thought you libs hated religeous types. Oh, I see, you use the argument as it suites you. If you and your kind really cared about my religion then you wouldn''t have fought so hard to have prayer removed from schools. Maybe there would be more kind hearted, generous people out there if you libs wouldn''t fight so hard to have the ten commandments removed from public display. Now as for the healthcare system going universal, it is not going to work for us. Why do you want to give so much more power and control to the government? Would you prefer socialism? You want to fix healthcare then tell our government to stop providing free medical treatment to illegal aliens, to end frivolous lawsuits and to do a better job distributing to those who really need it. No, as always, you would rather infringe on the rights of others.

[katg21]

Great country this Republican America, heh?
Posted by WogerWabbit at 09:40 PM : Aug 22, 2007

I am sorry for your experience and only wish you well. How much better do you think your specific situation would be if our healthcare goes universal though? I''ve got relatives in Canada and have spoken to people here on this site about their experience with it. All have said it''s great if you''re relatively healthy but for the elderly and people such as yourself, battling a serious illness, it doesn''t come so easy.(long lines, waiting months for treatment, etc..) I just feel that there has to be another solutiion. It angers me that people climb a wall into our country, go to the hospital and automatically receive treatment and people like you have such difficulties. I am a conservative, obviously, and I strongly believe in less government involvement in my life. I think most people feel that way. I would rather my tax dollars go to help people like you and others who really deserve it, not those who cheat our system.

[incog-nito]

Da*n right! Time to join the rank of civilized, developed nations.

[andor3]

The conservatives, by definition, are not comfortable with change, even in a system as badly broken as the U.S. health care system--they prefer something broken to any risk of change. So their opinion isn''t worth much consideration on this issue. They will sling meaningless labels like "social" "socialized" "socializm," but really it is just fear.

However single-payer health care isn''t risky: it is working in many places.

The question comes down to: in a rich country, is there any reason that everyone shouldn''t be covered automatically cradle-to-grave for basic health care and prescriptions?

Everyone seems to agree it is not just a good idea, it is a moral imperative. (the only ones who disagree are those who would like to use employer-sponsored health care as a motivation to keep employees docile and in line).

[imnho]

At the rate health costs are rising some sort of universal healthcare is inevieable. The ritch will always be able to afford it, but the middle class will be eventually made poor by the cost of health insurance.

The problem I see is that at some point the system health may suffer collapse due to high costs. The results would be very bad for the middle class.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men..."

To secure the right to a healthy life, Government should facilitate the means to affordable health care, whenever and wherever private companies reserve their services only for the rich. No one, including the well off, should have to go broke, or be reduced to poverty, because of high health care costs, so competition from the government, should be introduced to pressure the private firms to provide better quality care at lower prices.

[standlee5]

Health insurance is pretty affordable it''s not having it that''ll cause bankruptcy. My brother has a pretty decent policy for 650. a month for a family of four. Not too bad. Expensive but probably the most important insurance dollars we''ll ever spend.

[erasmus6]

drivelphobe

"Health care is NOT a right..."

"All others should get the care that their money can buy."

"Not everyone should get the kind of care Donald Trump can get."

Health care is EVERYONES right!

Everytime you post a comment, you just prove how truly stupid you are!

And why shouldn''t everyone get the same health care as Donald Trump?????

In Canada, people who make under $28,000 a year get healthcare free. If you make over $28,000 and your single (no matter how much MORE you make) you pay around $42 a month. If you are married you pay around $90 a month. And if you are a family, around $100+ a month.

Now, that is what EVERYONE pays. It doesn''t matter if you make big bucks. AND everyone gets the same quality care, the BEST CARE, whether it is Donald Trump or a person from skid row.

[rwassel]

"If you and your kind really cared about my religion then you wouldn''''t have fought so hard to have prayer removed from schools."

- Posted by katg21 at 11:11 PM : Aug 22, 2007

I didn''t realize that Christianity was only yours. Sorry to break the news to you, but I am a Christian as well. And I prescribe to the greatest commanment of all - to love your neighbor as yourself. Or did you forget that one, or high and mighty "Christian"''?

[dragonmouse-2009]

I''d like to know what IDIOT thinks that it''s a BREEZE to raise a family on $60K a year. I''d like to see these politicians try it sometime. There are NO breaks! It''s really insulting that they consider health insurance, free lunch, food stamps etc "hand outs" that we don''t deserve when those making the $60-80K are the ones paying the bulk of the taxes.

Handouts...BALONY...The ones getting "handouts" are the ones sitting on their fat keesters doing nothing to improve their situations. Believe it or not there was a time when if you didn''t have enough money...you didn''t ask the government for HELP to feed your family that you choose to bring into the world...you went out and got a second maybe even a THIRD job to make up the difference.

Today even if you have a job or two and you get health insurance through this job...regardless of whether you make 17K or 100K you''ve got to PAY for it. Then when you go to the doctor you end up PAYING again and then again for the pharmacy...Why do the Democrats keep thinking it''s the POOR that need help?

[jairod]

andor3: Let me add that universal health care will cut into insurance companies'' money making schemes. They will fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening. They enrich the coffers of politicains that are game for that kind opf greed. there are far too many of them in a position to influence the outcome of any legislation that will cut into the insurance scams perpetrated as legitimate through law enected by th scum of congress that pander to these gougers. Insurance in American is legalized theft, anyway. It''s time to do something about that. How many more multi-story buildings do we need, buildings erected in the name of greed? How many more multi-billionaires do we need, billionaires who deny claims and keep the money? What about the children who are pawns of the greedy? If we are a nation that was setteled by christians, where is the christian ethic that postulates the theme of the "Good Semeritan?" When Cain asked God: Am I my Brother''s keeper? Jesus answered that with the parable of the Good Semeritan. Yes. We are our brother''s keeper. that is the heritage our fore fathers left for us to bear. How are we doing, George?

[mypatch]

I''m so sick of hearing that the government should do or not do. WE ARE the government and if our politicians can''t handle medicare. How are they going to handle this?
all the posters must be very young. All they want is a handout.

[mypatch]

There is no such thing as universal health care in the US. Some states don''t cover even the homeless or the very poor retired people. Less anyone making under $6000. a year. Move to Florida and see if you can get any help!

[standlee5]

It is shocking how many people have come to believe the govt. must PAY for everything. Healthcare,daycare,eldercare,college,unemployment,all of our needs and whims. When does it end. Are we going to be a strong society if we start giving everybody everything. People have to be responsible for themselves or they turn into whimps. We have a wonderful social saftey net isn''t that enough.

[olgreyghost]

My goodness. The words of our Declaration of Independence, which are founding fathers used to break away from a tyrannical government, is now used for justification to impose a tyrannical government upon the people.

And no, I do not support my money being used to fight an unjust war either. I support my money, and everyone else''s for that matter, staying where it most appropriately belongs - in our pocketbooks. And to give your money away at the barrel of a gun is NOT Christian charity. It''s just complying with the wishes of a thug who is violating the commandment against stealing...

[drivelphobe]

erasmus6......

You are flat wrong about almost everything you post, however, you have a right to speak your piece. It''s not nice to call others stupid just because you disagree, but it provides a little insight into the
Canadian mentality.

You think healthcare is a right, and I think individuals should have to pay for it, unless they''re indigent. Healthcare for the indigent should be very basic, providing life saving services only. No maternity, vitamins, general check-ups or any other form of preventative measures.

As far as the wealthy getting better care, that is the way it should be. I understand many wealthy individuals have their own physician who cares only for them. I like it like that.

People like you seem to think the government should take care of every loser as though they were worthy of the finest society can provide. That system doesn''t work.

I enjoy your posts, but it seems uncharacteristic of someone with any brains to attack others so quickly with accusations and name calling. Is that the way it is in Canada?

[erasmus6]

drivelphobe

"...I think individuals should have to pay for it."

Did you read my post? I said that if you make under $28,000 it is free, everyone else IS paying something. It just isn''t costing an arm and a leg. The problem is your country is corrupt and they scam you on everything.

Everyone is paying so everyone is entitled to healthcare. All single people pay the same and all married people pay the same etc. So everyone is entitled to the same quality of healthcare.

I can''t even imagine what kind of a person you must be if you believe that someone with less money doesn''t deserve to have the same care as someone with more money.

This system works very well, everyone has healthcare. We don''t have people dying from lack of healthcare like you do.

"I understand many wealthy individuals have their own physician who cares only for them."

What do you mean? Are you saying that there are doctors who only have ONE patient? NO WAY. I am not sure what you meant. Here people pick a doctor as there family doctor and that is who they go to see. I have had the same doctor for years and years. I can go whenever I want and as many times as I want. Now if you are talking about a rich person having a doctor all to themselves, there just isn''t enough doctors for that and most doctors wouldn''t do that, at least not here. Now maybe in your corrupt country they would and considering how your country is so obsessed with the rich and famous.