Aug. 22, 2007
Legislating Towards Universal Health Care?
National Review Online: Democrats Pushing Near-Universal Health Care Coverage Incrementally
-
Photo
(CBS)
-
Interactive
HealthWatch
Explore health issues including AIDS, cancer and antibiotics.
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.
By David Freddoso
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.




- 1
- 2
- next
See all 60 CommentsUniversal 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted by NativeWoman at 04:23 PM : Aug 22, 2007
Never been rich, have always had good quality healthcare.
Posted by drivelphobe at 01:13 PM : Aug 22, 2007
Amen!!! Some of these fools would prefer a socialist government.
- 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.
I''m sorry, this story was about health care, not the Iraq War.
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...
It''s practically un-Christian!
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.
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?
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.
If you think it''s okay for the government to rob for you then don''t complain when the government robs from you...
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????????
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
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.
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?
Good! Way to go Democrats! That is exactly why we sent you to Washington! Keep up the good work!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
"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.
- 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"''?
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?
all the posters must be very young. All they want is a handout.
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...
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?
"...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.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 60 Comments