MINUTEMAN MEDIA
BORROWED OPINIONSOUR PRESIDENT VENERATES THE EMERGENCY ROOM – by Jim Hightower
"America's children must also have a healthy start in life," declared George W. Bush while running for president in 2004. He promised that he would "lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs."
Good Man, Sir! Way to go!
But wait - three years later, Mr. Bush is now promising to veto a bipartisan bill that would renew SCHIP - the State Children's Health Insurance Program that he was touting back then. Why? Because he says the bill would expand the program to 4 million children who are not now covered. Yes, President Bush is presently promising to veto what candidate George had promised to achieve. Logic and integrity are not prized attributes in Bushworld.
What Bushworld does prize is laissez-faire dogma, the triumph of right-wing ideology over reality, including the reality of children going without health care in the richest nation in the world. But Mr. Bush the dogmatist even disputes reality. In a July speech to the Cleveland chamber of commerce, he assured the audience that the lack of health coverage really isn't such a big deal: "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he informed them. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."
He's not the quickest bunny in the litter, is he?
He is quick, however, to toe the corporate line. He says he'll veto the SCHIP bill because it's "aiming at encouraging more people to get on government health care." Mustering all of the ideological bile within him, the president declared public health care to be "wrong," saying, "I'll resist Congress's attempt to federalize medicine."
So, Mr. Bush would simply ignore the needs of 4 million children who get no coverage under corporatized medicine, sacrificing them on the altar of corporate dogma.
Of course, they've always got emergency rooms
lindainks55 said:
Those who make up bush's 28% don't know what he said three years ago or even what he said yesterday. If they paid attention they couldn't remain loyal to this idiot. They're nothing more than REPUBLICANS. They don't need to know what that stands for (or doesn't), just that is the only way the truth and the light (so to speak).
The true Republicans aren't able to ignore the idiot who currently represents their party, but not their ideals. I think they are as anxious as others to see his term end.
Tiahrt voted against this bill -- the only one of Kansas' four reps to do so. He wrote (and of course had published) a "Letter to the Editor" which appears in today's Eagle. It will fool more than bush's 28%, but not those who are able to think and reason.
The true Republicans aren't able to ignore the idiot who currently represents their party, but not their ideals. I think they are as anxious as others to see his term end.
Tiahrt voted against this bill -- the only one of Kansas' four reps to do so. He wrote (and of course had published) a "Letter to the Editor" which appears in today's Eagle. It will fool more than bush's 28%, but not those who are able to think and reason.
Vaughn Tolle said:
While President Bush may not be the "quickest bunny in the litter", he is technically correct about access to health care through visits to the emergency room.
What the dispute is all about is the enrollment of certain uninsured children in SCHIP, whose parents' earnings are such that they can "afford" private insurance, no? That's how I read it; the expansion of eligibility for SCHIP for families whose income is up to 200% of the federal poverty rate to those earning up to 400% of the federal poverty rate, or a ceiling of a bit over $80,000/year.
What I find interesting is that SCHIP primarily depends upon purchasing these children insurance from (look out now) PRIVATE insurance companies. The difference is that there is a government subsidy, if one will, of the premium, allowing eligible parents to enroll their children in the program for a modest monthly premium that the parents pay. How this translates to "government health care" is beyond me.
True "government health care" would be, IMHO, health care totally paid for by the government, without the intervention of any insurance company, without any payment by the insured's family. Stated differently, there would be a direct payment of the cost by the government (much as Medicaid).
Not surprised that Mr. Tiahrt voted against the bill; he does what he's told, just like the good lower-level corporate employee he was before being elected to Congress.
What the dispute is all about is the enrollment of certain uninsured children in SCHIP, whose parents' earnings are such that they can "afford" private insurance, no? That's how I read it; the expansion of eligibility for SCHIP for families whose income is up to 200% of the federal poverty rate to those earning up to 400% of the federal poverty rate, or a ceiling of a bit over $80,000/year.
What I find interesting is that SCHIP primarily depends upon purchasing these children insurance from (look out now) PRIVATE insurance companies. The difference is that there is a government subsidy, if one will, of the premium, allowing eligible parents to enroll their children in the program for a modest monthly premium that the parents pay. How this translates to "government health care" is beyond me.
True "government health care" would be, IMHO, health care totally paid for by the government, without the intervention of any insurance company, without any payment by the insured's family. Stated differently, there would be a direct payment of the cost by the government (much as Medicaid).
Not surprised that Mr. Tiahrt voted against the bill; he does what he's told, just like the good lower-level corporate employee he was before being elected to Congress.
Wendy said:
Yep, they can go to the emergency room. But isn't a large portion of the purpose of health insurance (and therefore health CARE) preventative? You know, like immunizations and such that children who DON"T have insurance or medical cards don't get and therefore wind up in emergency rooms with Pertussis and measles and mumps and rubella and even chicken pox? And wouldn't that LOWER the cost of healthcare that the country winds up paying for becuase there wouldn't be the emergency room expense? Oh wait, right, there I go being LOGICAL again...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Yep, Wendy, you are making a big mistake by being LOGICAL. Never intended to imply that Mr. Bush was being logical, only that he was/is technically correct. The logical thing, of course, is to sign SCHIP as passed by the Congress and go on with other things at least equally as important to the country. Wondering if the reason behind the position is that the premiums under SCHIP don't yield as much "profit" to the insurance companies, thus hurting the dividend.....
Vaughn Tolle said:
And speaking of logic, it does make more sense to have these children insured. The "ceiling" affects eligibility for the program, to be sure, but also impacts the amount of the monthly premium paid by the family, a sliding scale as I understand it.
What I find interesting in this whole debate is a discussion I had many years ago with a very conservative (politically, socially, religiously) person, who has come to the determination that it is ridiculous for the health care system in this country to be run as it is, and now favors a single-payer system, ideally run by the government. I tell you, the receptionist almost had to call 911 for me after that revelation......
What I find interesting in this whole debate is a discussion I had many years ago with a very conservative (politically, socially, religiously) person, who has come to the determination that it is ridiculous for the health care system in this country to be run as it is, and now favors a single-payer system, ideally run by the government. I tell you, the receptionist almost had to call 911 for me after that revelation......
lindainks55 said:
Ive heard conflicting numbers on the percent above the poverty line. Not that I trust Tiahrt but his letter in today's paper sates "300 percent of the poverty line, which calculates to be $62,000."
I guess with presidential elections in just over a year it is politically correct to appear fiscally responsible. Wonder why bush waited this long to show his "conservative" side? HA! I suspect Vaughn is correct that the insurance haves and have mores don't get as much. Aren't those the important ones to look after?
I guess with presidential elections in just over a year it is politically correct to appear fiscally responsible. Wonder why bush waited this long to show his "conservative" side? HA! I suspect Vaughn is correct that the insurance haves and have mores don't get as much. Aren't those the important ones to look after?
Wendy said:
It's ironic really, but that is the system currently in place here in KS... of course, the income limit is much lower (I should know, I don't qualify for it, and I am in a low income bracket) But it is sliding scale (I checked into it when I had my son, because I had this thought that *gasp* I would be better able to afford that than the healthcare offered through my company...) based on your yearly income... It just seems to me that if we truly want to LOWER healthcare expense for this country, this program should be put in to effect... because these same children who are NOT covered NOW, will be the same ones with major medical problems later in life that probably won't be covered by insurance due to "preexisting conditions" that we will be eating the expense for anyways... But again, that whole "LOGIC" thing... and I didn't think you were in any way arguing for it, Vaughn, in fact quite the opposite, although I did realize that you were pointing out that "factually" what Bush said was correct... hypocritical and just flat out ridiculous, but still unfortunately factually correct...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, Mr. Tiahrt may be correct; my 400% figure was based upon a report several days ago before the conference committee report was out, so the committee may well have compromised on 300%.
We know that at first blush $62,000 (this would be approximately 300% of the poverty level for a family of four) seems like a lot to us here in Wichita. In other parts of the country, that doesn't buy a lot in terms of housing, etc.
I go back to the point that SCHIP works through purchasing insurance policies from the private companies, and that the parents will pay some premium, albeit modest, therefor. While we all agree that SCHIP is a valuable program, the point of divergence for many is that there is a feeling among many that no one making $62,000/year should have any assistance in acquisition of insurance for their children. In Wichita there may be something to that; not so in New York City, Boston, San Francisco, etc. It is a great political plum, though, for the president; he can veto on the basis stated, and then claim that the veto was needed for fiscal responsibility while crying the crocodile tears for those who were covered by SCHIP who will suffer a lapse in coverage, namely the "poor" children who become the pawns in this chess match.
The only way this doesn't work is, of course, for both houses of Congress to pass the bill with veto-proof majorities. Unfortunately, the House didn't.
We know that at first blush $62,000 (this would be approximately 300% of the poverty level for a family of four) seems like a lot to us here in Wichita. In other parts of the country, that doesn't buy a lot in terms of housing, etc.
I go back to the point that SCHIP works through purchasing insurance policies from the private companies, and that the parents will pay some premium, albeit modest, therefor. While we all agree that SCHIP is a valuable program, the point of divergence for many is that there is a feeling among many that no one making $62,000/year should have any assistance in acquisition of insurance for their children. In Wichita there may be something to that; not so in New York City, Boston, San Francisco, etc. It is a great political plum, though, for the president; he can veto on the basis stated, and then claim that the veto was needed for fiscal responsibility while crying the crocodile tears for those who were covered by SCHIP who will suffer a lapse in coverage, namely the "poor" children who become the pawns in this chess match.
The only way this doesn't work is, of course, for both houses of Congress to pass the bill with veto-proof majorities. Unfortunately, the House didn't.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Wendy, you make an important point; even though the bill allows for a ceiling "up to" the multiplier of the federal poverty line, as a jointly administered federal and state program, the states may, can, and do, set their own ceilings. Many, as Kansas, set a lower ceiling; there are a few (California, I've read, as well as New York and few others) have a higher ceiling. Thus, it varies across the country, maybe a good thing, maybe not. I do know this; in conversing with my elder and her husband, while the cost of living in the Twin Cities is higher than here in Wichita, there isn't too much, if any, difference in health care insurance premiums between the Twin Cities and Wichita. I'm sure the insurance companies can justify this on the basis of referrals to non-Kansas facilities for specialized care, etc., which, to me, also justifies a uniform ceiling for SCHIP eligibility.
Rox said:
VT, yes, it is done on a sliding scale, depending on the income of the parent(s).
From what I understand, not long ago, Healthwave changed insurance carriers. My guess is like yours. Insurance companies, like doctors, don't get as much money through the SCHIPS system, so they sure aren't interested in adding more insured into it.
From what I understand, not long ago, Healthwave changed insurance carriers. My guess is like yours. Insurance companies, like doctors, don't get as much money through the SCHIPS system, so they sure aren't interested in adding more insured into it.
Rox said:
Oops, you and Wendy already said it all. Sorry, I was feeding the baby and can't type one-handed quickly. :)
lindainks55 said:
Although $62,000 annually is a more comfortable income here in Kansas than other places, it is also a fact that ONE serious injury or illness could wipe out even a person of some means. The health-care industry is very broken! Insurance companies make decisions about our health care by denying claims. They've never seen us but can override our doctor's decisions with their financial clout. Too often people face the decision of following their doctor's advise and paying the bill out of pocket or accepting they can't buy that medicine or pay for that test the insurance denied coverage for.
Wayne and I have great insurance at low cost (Beech). It isn't as good as it was not very many years ago but still better than many have. And we are financially OK with our modest home paid for and no debt. We think we will live out our lives comfortably because we've planned and saved and prepared. But the fact is we could be made destitute with that one serious illness or accident. Isn't that a sad fact we all face and are unable to do anything to ensure it doesn't happen?
Wayne and I have great insurance at low cost (Beech). It isn't as good as it was not very many years ago but still better than many have. And we are financially OK with our modest home paid for and no debt. We think we will live out our lives comfortably because we've planned and saved and prepared. But the fact is we could be made destitute with that one serious illness or accident. Isn't that a sad fact we all face and are unable to do anything to ensure it doesn't happen?
Rox said:
A friend attempted suicide, then threatened family members and hospital personnel in the hospital after the attempt. The person was taken to a local "hospital", after signing committment papers. After 3 days, the person was released, because of no insurance.
Linda, it isn't just physical health we're dealing with, it's mental.
Face it, friends, our country is run by multi-billion $$ corporations, the insurance industry being only one of them.
Linda, it isn't just physical health we're dealing with, it's mental.
Face it, friends, our country is run by multi-billion $$ corporations, the insurance industry being only one of them.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda,
The situation you describe about being "wiped out" due to one serious injury or chronic illness seems very common in my professional world. As we are living longer (as a group), the probabilities that any one of us will face this increase.
It's not a pleasant thing to deal with a family whose parent's(s') assets have been expended on medical care in their declining years; it's not a pleasant thing to deal with ERU of SRS in trying to settle the claim for Medicaid expenditures on behalf of the decedent. And, yes, it's not a pleasant experience to deal with those who believe their right to inherit the maximum possible from the parent(s) trumps the individual's responsibility to pay for his/her necessary medical expenses before looking to Medicaid.
You and Wayne have done as you should, within limits. Now, I'm going to dispense some advice, which is worth what you're paying for it.
1) Look into long-term care insurance. Really.
2) Take care of things like advance directives while you are still able.
3) Have an emergency plan in place for those serious accidents/chronic illnesses. Include in that a determination of whether you may want to consider a "reverse mortgage".
4) Take a look at Medicare supplemental insurance policies.
5) Make VERY clear to your family members your individual decisions and positions on things like hospice care vs. long term care in a facility; the "living will" types of decisions (a bit duplicative of the advance directives consideration, but also a separate topic often); and other things of such a nature. Don't leave these things to chance.
6) At an appropriate time, consider making your own funeral arrangements.
There are more things to consider, but for those, well, I need to make a living, don't I? :-)
The situation you describe about being "wiped out" due to one serious injury or chronic illness seems very common in my professional world. As we are living longer (as a group), the probabilities that any one of us will face this increase.
It's not a pleasant thing to deal with a family whose parent's(s') assets have been expended on medical care in their declining years; it's not a pleasant thing to deal with ERU of SRS in trying to settle the claim for Medicaid expenditures on behalf of the decedent. And, yes, it's not a pleasant experience to deal with those who believe their right to inherit the maximum possible from the parent(s) trumps the individual's responsibility to pay for his/her necessary medical expenses before looking to Medicaid.
You and Wayne have done as you should, within limits. Now, I'm going to dispense some advice, which is worth what you're paying for it.
1) Look into long-term care insurance. Really.
2) Take care of things like advance directives while you are still able.
3) Have an emergency plan in place for those serious accidents/chronic illnesses. Include in that a determination of whether you may want to consider a "reverse mortgage".
4) Take a look at Medicare supplemental insurance policies.
5) Make VERY clear to your family members your individual decisions and positions on things like hospice care vs. long term care in a facility; the "living will" types of decisions (a bit duplicative of the advance directives consideration, but also a separate topic often); and other things of such a nature. Don't leave these things to chance.
6) At an appropriate time, consider making your own funeral arrangements.
There are more things to consider, but for those, well, I need to make a living, don't I? :-)
Vaughn Tolle said:
Rox, you raise a very important point. Mental health is often overlooked in the considerations we all give to growing older, etc. Your story doesn't surprise me at all.
As I seem to be posting with great regularity, a corporation owes its duties ONLY to its owners, namely the shareholders. Once that principle is understood, many other things become clear and understandable (not likable, not wonderful, not many things all good for us as a people). Remember also that many of the shareholders are the insurance companies and pension plans upon which we rely in some part for our futures. There comes a point where there is a conflict between what we perceive as good for us as a society, and what is best for our own personal interests. This conflict is, IMHO, unavoidable, and how it is to be dealt with is up to each one of us personally. Sure, pension plan trustees may determine to forgo some larger returns by investments in institutions which we feel are "socially responsible", but the results of the conscious decisions are fewer dollars to fund our retirement benefits (and, to be sure, potential litigation against the trustees).
As I seem to be posting with great regularity, a corporation owes its duties ONLY to its owners, namely the shareholders. Once that principle is understood, many other things become clear and understandable (not likable, not wonderful, not many things all good for us as a people). Remember also that many of the shareholders are the insurance companies and pension plans upon which we rely in some part for our futures. There comes a point where there is a conflict between what we perceive as good for us as a society, and what is best for our own personal interests. This conflict is, IMHO, unavoidable, and how it is to be dealt with is up to each one of us personally. Sure, pension plan trustees may determine to forgo some larger returns by investments in institutions which we feel are "socially responsible", but the results of the conscious decisions are fewer dollars to fund our retirement benefits (and, to be sure, potential litigation against the trustees).
lindainks55 said:
I will make that appointment one of these days; hopefully, before it's too late! I've been thinking about it for a long time. I am young and Wayne 5 years younger than young. It's difficult to face the reality of this need.
I don't think my kids expect to inherit anything but they probably do expect we've taken care of all that needs to be taken care of. We've always been responsible -- until now...
I don't think my kids expect to inherit anything but they probably do expect we've taken care of all that needs to be taken care of. We've always been responsible -- until now...
Vaughn Tolle said:
As I've told my mother; I'm not expecting anything other than a few $$ in her wallet with which to tip the grave digger on the way out....
Wendy said:
LOL... Sure hope my son doesn't expect to get anything because there likely won't be anything, the way they want to keep raising gas and food and everything else to where my what once was modest income is now close to poverty level - and I have a four year degree! Amazing, isn't it?
Danny said:
I have some thoughts about this program.
I think we should take into account the cost of living expenses at the state level, and come up with a poverty level that more reflects the state with which funds are going. The problem with doing this, it would seem the lower cost of living states(like Kansas) would still maybe not be able to cover all children, but those hovering around 300% of the Kansas poverty level I think would touch a significant number of Kansans who need coverage for their children.
I don't necessarily disagree with coverage passing 19 years of age, but I think at that point a more stringent review on a case by case basis for approving someone to use the program really needs to be implemented.
The downside of extending coverage to 300% of poverty, is the extra persons using the system and the extra tax burden now placed on society as a whole. I see a possibly spiraling trend here, I pay more taxes but wasn't at the poverty level, but now because of taxes I am, but don't qualify because I technically make more money(those close but not quite over it) to not be at poverty.
So perhaps instead of raising the percentage of poverty level to determine who qualifies, what needs to occur is raise where the poverty level is, and as stated do this on a state by state basis to better reflect the needs of the states in question. Of course this probably brings a whole other slew of issues to the front burner.
I think we should take into account the cost of living expenses at the state level, and come up with a poverty level that more reflects the state with which funds are going. The problem with doing this, it would seem the lower cost of living states(like Kansas) would still maybe not be able to cover all children, but those hovering around 300% of the Kansas poverty level I think would touch a significant number of Kansans who need coverage for their children.
I don't necessarily disagree with coverage passing 19 years of age, but I think at that point a more stringent review on a case by case basis for approving someone to use the program really needs to be implemented.
The downside of extending coverage to 300% of poverty, is the extra persons using the system and the extra tax burden now placed on society as a whole. I see a possibly spiraling trend here, I pay more taxes but wasn't at the poverty level, but now because of taxes I am, but don't qualify because I technically make more money(those close but not quite over it) to not be at poverty.
So perhaps instead of raising the percentage of poverty level to determine who qualifies, what needs to occur is raise where the poverty level is, and as stated do this on a state by state basis to better reflect the needs of the states in question. Of course this probably brings a whole other slew of issues to the front burner.
Danny said:
Curiosity has gotten the best of me. I went to read the Healthwave information, assuming I'm reading that correctly. Technically, I think I'd still qualify. My question is, when they say household size, is that number of people in the household: myself, spouse, and two children = 4 or is that number of children = 2? There is a fair bit of difference there actually.
No, I'm not going to take it as the insurance I have currently is quite nice. Anyway, just take this as question on understanding it. I didn't take it when I made substantially less, I'm not going to do so now, as I really do believe there are those who need this much more than myself. It is using my personal experience to guide how I think things "should be" and making decisions based on that.
No, I'm not going to take it as the insurance I have currently is quite nice. Anyway, just take this as question on understanding it. I didn't take it when I made substantially less, I'm not going to do so now, as I really do believe there are those who need this much more than myself. It is using my personal experience to guide how I think things "should be" and making decisions based on that.
Vaughn Tolle said:
A question I can answer! Danny, the number of people in the household in your situation is four.
Wendy said:
Danny,
I somewhat agree. The issue I have is that I fail to see how, if we don't start with these kids now, we save ourselves money in the long run... Many of these families would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for healthcare - they simply don't have that option. I mean, realistically, most families at or near poverty level are not working in jobs that offer benefits... and many that do have the option for benefits cannot afford to pay the close to $200 a month (based off of my own health insurance costs) that they would need to in order to have health insurance through their employer... and people who don't have insurance, while yes can still recieve emergency care, are typically so afraid because they know that they can't afford to pay the bill that will come that they avoid medical treatment, until the problem gets so bad that it winds up costing three times as much and then we ALL have to pay it because they can't!
I somewhat agree. The issue I have is that I fail to see how, if we don't start with these kids now, we save ourselves money in the long run... Many of these families would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for healthcare - they simply don't have that option. I mean, realistically, most families at or near poverty level are not working in jobs that offer benefits... and many that do have the option for benefits cannot afford to pay the close to $200 a month (based off of my own health insurance costs) that they would need to in order to have health insurance through their employer... and people who don't have insurance, while yes can still recieve emergency care, are typically so afraid because they know that they can't afford to pay the bill that will come that they avoid medical treatment, until the problem gets so bad that it winds up costing three times as much and then we ALL have to pay it because they can't!
Danny said:
Wendy,
I fully agree, all children should be covered some how, some way. The real issue I see, does the increased tax burden(as we all will likely see an increase there) does it hurt more people thus cause more children to not be covered by private insurance? Further, because of income level of those close to the poverty level(who prior to an increase in where children qualify) due to increased taxes do their children as a result become uncovered to make up a difference in lost income(to taxes), but can't be covered under Healthwave(in Kansas) due to just being technically above poverty?
I guess my question is, is the solution creating a problem as well as attempting to solve a problem?
I don't know that I stated my point too well or not as I think I easily confused myself up there. However, don't get me wrong, I really do want to find a way to get all children covered because I do agree that taking care of health problems earlier leads to less costly treatments in the long run and less emergency room visits as well. So perhaps in turn, medical costs could go down.
Maybe we could come up with a low cost alternative for those near/just above poverty level for their children. That isn't fully subsidized by taxes, but helps those close to poverty.
I fully agree, all children should be covered some how, some way. The real issue I see, does the increased tax burden(as we all will likely see an increase there) does it hurt more people thus cause more children to not be covered by private insurance? Further, because of income level of those close to the poverty level(who prior to an increase in where children qualify) due to increased taxes do their children as a result become uncovered to make up a difference in lost income(to taxes), but can't be covered under Healthwave(in Kansas) due to just being technically above poverty?
I guess my question is, is the solution creating a problem as well as attempting to solve a problem?
I don't know that I stated my point too well or not as I think I easily confused myself up there. However, don't get me wrong, I really do want to find a way to get all children covered because I do agree that taking care of health problems earlier leads to less costly treatments in the long run and less emergency room visits as well. So perhaps in turn, medical costs could go down.
Maybe we could come up with a low cost alternative for those near/just above poverty level for their children. That isn't fully subsidized by taxes, but helps those close to poverty.
Wendy said:
Danny,
I agree. But that is why I think that in the long run this method winds up being better. And why the government has such a high cutoff. For one, it is an OPTION. Nobody is saying that everyone that qualifies has to take it - and, as in the case of Healthwave, people like you elect not to. Not to mention that this is not "free" healthcare as many people think. There would be premiums that are income based that the families would pay (much like Healthwave again) beginning past a certain level (I would imagine the base poverty level would be the deciding factor). Perhaps my post was misleading above. I do qualify for Healthwave, however, the premium I would have to pay nearly equals the premium I currently pay for better coverage with more options, so I elected not to do it. But that is just for me and my son. If I had another dependent, I would not be able to afford healthcare through my company as it would nearly double... It merely gives people the option to afford coverage, thereby reducing risk and exposure... I have a feeling that in a short period of time, the savings would begin to outweigh the costs as we see healthier children and the burden would be minimal at most...
I agree. But that is why I think that in the long run this method winds up being better. And why the government has such a high cutoff. For one, it is an OPTION. Nobody is saying that everyone that qualifies has to take it - and, as in the case of Healthwave, people like you elect not to. Not to mention that this is not "free" healthcare as many people think. There would be premiums that are income based that the families would pay (much like Healthwave again) beginning past a certain level (I would imagine the base poverty level would be the deciding factor). Perhaps my post was misleading above. I do qualify for Healthwave, however, the premium I would have to pay nearly equals the premium I currently pay for better coverage with more options, so I elected not to do it. But that is just for me and my son. If I had another dependent, I would not be able to afford healthcare through my company as it would nearly double... It merely gives people the option to afford coverage, thereby reducing risk and exposure... I have a feeling that in a short period of time, the savings would begin to outweigh the costs as we see healthier children and the burden would be minimal at most...
Danny said:
Wendy,
Makes sense. I wouldn't mind seeing a modest increase in where they choose to include those who could qualify. 200% seems perhaps a little low, but it doesn't seem like this is too far off.
Makes sense. I wouldn't mind seeing a modest increase in where they choose to include those who could qualify. 200% seems perhaps a little low, but it doesn't seem like this is too far off.
Wendy said:
Did anyone else see that Congress pretty much just told the Pres to shove it and passed the bill anyways? *GASP* Even Pat Roberts not so subtly jabbed a finger at good old Bush over the matter...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Yes, Wendy, I saw the Senate passed the conference bill by a sufficient margin that if everyone votes the same way, the Senate can override the veto that has been promised. The House, however, didn't pass the bill by a sufficient majority that, if all vote the same way, that it can override. So, the next few weeks will be interesting.
Reading the reports on Senator Roberts' remarks made me smile.
Reading the reports on Senator Roberts' remarks made me smile.
Wendy said:
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it was Pat saying those things! Good for him for once...
lindainks55 said:
If you approve of his support for this bill try to drop him an email or in some way let him know you appreciate his vote. You can bet he will hear from many who don't. If you go to his website (google Senator Roberts and there you are!)and it's easy to send an email. I think this may be the first time he hasn't marched in lock step with bush. I sent sincere thanks!
Danny said:
Linda,
I didn't say it, but I sent one already. I also sent one via the "form" on Tiahrts page to when this is vetoed to have him vote for it then. Stating that while there are more who could take advantage of the program, I think that many wouldn't because private insurance they may already have is actually better. I used my own situation as an example. So I know full well not everybody who qualifies would take advantage of the program.
I didn't say it, but I sent one already. I also sent one via the "form" on Tiahrts page to when this is vetoed to have him vote for it then. Stating that while there are more who could take advantage of the program, I think that many wouldn't because private insurance they may already have is actually better. I used my own situation as an example. So I know full well not everybody who qualifies would take advantage of the program.
Loading....