Bush vetoes Child Health - "government-run healthcare"

[okisteve]

President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill expanding a popular children's health care program for the second time, angering Democrats who are locked in a fight with the administration over the budget and spending.

Pushed by the Democratic-led Congress but also supported by many Republicans, the bill was aimed at providing health insurance to about 10 million children in low- and moderate-income families. Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would have been increased to pay for the aid.

Bush vetoed a version of the bill in October but Congress quickly passed another one that included some changes but not enough to satisfy the White House.

"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation too," Bush wrote in a message to the House of Representatives.

The fight between Congress and the White House over the health bill is one in a series of clashes over spending that have arisen as Bush approaches the start of his final year in office.

Bush has said the funding level sought by the Democrats for the health program would have expanded it beyond its original intent of covering poor children and marked a step toward government-run health care.

Democrats say the additional money is needed to help families who cannot afford to buy private health insurance but who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid health care program for the poor.

IMHO, the great bugaboo of socialized medicine once more is being used as an excuse not to spend some money on the poor and needy. What is wrong with government-run health care? I am guessing that almost everyone using this Forum based in Okinawa is a beneficiary of "government-run" health care in one way or another. Active military are one of the largest groups receiving USG-funded healthcare, for starters. And many including myself are covered by Japanese social insurance.

So how bad is it, really? Bad enough to keep 40 million uninsured Americans in perpetual worry about how to get medical care when they need it?

[Asshat]

There is nothing wrong IMO with socialized medicine. But if the US did have that type of program, where would new medical technology come from? Is there any irony that the most expensive health care on the planet also spawns the most advancements?

Also, I don't want to pay for someone elses kids to have medical coverage. In this day in age, in the USA, couples have a choice whether or not to conceive. It should be a choice made with economic issues in mind. Why should I pay for their children? For my liberal mind, this is going too far.

If they are going to further increase my taxes, I would rather see the money go for abortions, condoms, or spermacidal jelly for these wankers.

I also do not want to subject my fellow Americans to the lower standards of health care a socialized system brings...such as that found in the military hospitals.

[atb35]

I agree 100% with uminchu. I have no desire or obligation to pay for someone else to have sex. IF and only IF those children were taken away, put in a more stable environment where they would actually be fed, clothed, educated and kept safe....then I would have no problem with contributing to them. As it is now, they will get their health care, and go home to a nasty, filthy home where food vouchers are being traded for alcohol/cigarettes....so what is the point?
Of course this is a generalization, not ALL poor people are like this, but the ones that are ruin it for all.

[Fonze]

Well put uminchu. Okisteve just cause we dependents get "free" healthcare doesn't mean it's top notch stuff. Remember the majority of those seeing us are medics in training.

There are also many americans that spend $40 a week or more on Alcohol, pot, cocaine, clothes, pay per view and other non essential shit that could've been used to pay for healthcare.

[Asshat]

There are also many americans that spend $40 a week or more on Alcohol, pot, cocaine, clothes, pay per view and other non essential shit that could've been used to pay for healthcare.

And homes they can't afford, a brand new Chevy Silvarado, and four credit cards to they can impulse buy.

I work my ass off to stay out of debt, buy with cash, do without and still save 20 percent of my pay.

The average American saves nothing, yet individually carries more debt than any other nation.

[Fonze]

So true and thats what angers me about people saying that the gov't should always bail people out. The gov't didn't tell you to buy all that stuff.

The gov't needs to stop spending like it's there money too.

[kombu_kid]

I get the feeling that, like here in CA, low-income people...citizens or illegal aliens who can't afford astronomical health care premiums, are simply using the emergency rooms as their "clinics". I believe the ERs can't turn someone away who can't pay......and now many ERs are closing as a result. Now, some are trying to propose some ideas to fix this broken system. I think whatever is done will be painful financially. On average, look what kind of physical condition people are in, young and old.

My gut feeling is that the Republicans are more than happy to allow the flood of illegal aliens into the states to keep a steady supply of cheap labor. Now that there are millions of ultra-low income people here and it's time to start taking care of them and their families, they act like Uncle Scrooge.

Boy, it sure is hard for Republicans to shake that "what's best for business" image. I used to consider myself a Republican......now I don't know what I am. I am freakin' DONE with that party.

[Go-Shay]

okisteve, uminchu, atb35, Fonze- I agree with your comments but I have to ask, since America spends billions of dollars on other countries that you all pay for via tax revenue why not spend some of the money on her own people?

[Asshat]

My gut feeling is that the Republicans are more than happy to allow the flood of illegal aliens into the states to keep a steady supply of cheap labor. Now that there are millions of ultra-low income people here and it's time to start taking care of them and their families, they act like Uncle Scrooge.

So under that premise, the US Government should provide cheap, substandard healthcare to illegal aliens. Hmm. I never reckoned the US Gov had a hand in illegal immigration. After all, the farm industry does have some lobbiests working for them.

And perhaps those aliens who are making five dollars per hour should also be taxed at the same rate as the citizens are? That means they'd pay about two dollars out of that five, plus if they smoked, they'd spend an hour's pay for each pack. (Gotta fund Hillary's healthcare plan don't we?)

[Fonze]

okisteve, uminchu, atb35, Fonze- I agree with your comments but I have to ask, since America spends billions of dollars on other countries that you all pay for via tax revenue why not spend some of the money on her own people?

Cause if we didn't spend that money i think the world would be in worse chaos than it already is. I believe the spending keeps our country afloat a bit.

Who say the U.S. doesn't spend any money on her own people. There are tons of orgs. that help needy and sick.

[Asshat]

okisteve, uminchu, atb35, Fonze- I agree with your comments but I have to ask, since America spends billions of dollars on other countries that you all pay for via tax revenue why not spend some of the money on her own people?

Simple economics. America needs those other countries and their alliances as trading partners. America gleans nothing from helping the freezing homeless on the streets other than a warm fuzzy feeling.

Countries as a buisness. Nothing new. We spend 51% on the Department of Defense by the way, and per GDP are at the bottom of the list of countries who give aide to other countries. Omit Iraq, and the USA falls to the bottom of the list.

[Fonze]

I also remember when this was news that somewhere between 10 to 15 million of these people qualified for medicare but did not apply for it.

Whats so important that they do not have time to get there families enrolled? Drugs, gambling or just hanging out bull shitting.

[kombu_kid]

Look, THEY'RE HERE! They and their kids get injured and sick. Are you saying "let them die in the street"? What are you proposing for the approx. 20 million that are here?

I never reckoned the US Gov had a hand in illegal immigration. After all, the farm industry does have some lobbiests working for them.

I'm not sure....are you kidding here or serious? Bush and the feds are just about busing them over here. Tell ya what....go and google "federal agents Ramos & Compean" I swear, you won't that's our gov't.

http://hecubus.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/ramos-and-compean-us-government-still-refuses-to-do-the-right-thing-happy-holidays/

[Asshat]

[QUOTE=kombu_kid;45897]Look, THEY'RE HERE! They and their kids get injured and sick. Are you saying "let them die in the street"? What are you proposing for the approx. 20 million that are here?[QUOTE]

I can't access your link because it is a blog site. And I also realize it is quite easy to find an internet reference to support any claim anyone cares to make.

If you wish to link mandatory health care programs such as the one vetoed to the issue of immigration, you are ignoring the health care program itself.

Do I want to fund health care for someone else? No. Do I want to be forced to have a certain brand of health care? No.

I don't care if a family is illegal, it is still that family’s responsibility to ensure they take care of their children, not the governments.

If I concede that the Government is "busing" them here, I will not concede they are being forced to come here, nor promised health care if they do.

[Go-Shay]

I also remember when this was news that somewhere between 10 to 15 million of these people qualified for medicare but did not apply for it

maybe applying and receiving Medicare will exempt them from other benefits, so it becomes a game of juggling what benefits are important/needed

[ja_Patriot]

Good points, Uminchu & Fonze

Let's help get the facts straight on this.

An existing joint federal-state program called "SCHIP" ALREADY currently provides benefits to roughly 6 million people, mostly children.

The proposed SCHIP expansion bill was vetoed because:
- it does not put poor children first
- it would move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage
- it allows adults into the program
- it would cover people in families with incomes above the U.S. median (people who owned homes or even 2nd homes, cars, credit cards, etc..)
- it would raises taxes
- Etc....

The bill Bush vetoed would have increased federal funding for SCHIP by $35 billion over five years, to add an estimated 4 million people to the program.

Congress can always veto the president or rehash the salient points of the bill, IMO. Or the American people can always vote for it by electing a president with a socialized medicine program for every man, woman and child, citizen, resident or visitor, - paid for by their own increased taxes.

[Asshat]

maybe applying and receiving Medicare will exempt them from other benefits, so it becomes a game of juggling what benefits are important/needed

Hard for an illegal alien to apply for government programs too. :)

[socalheart]

I worked in healthcare insurance for eight years and was appalled at the lack of ethics in hospitals and their doctors for the sake of money. I believe that all children (minors under 18 years old) have the right to basic healthcare as US citizens. From Bill Gates' to the part-timer at gas station, the children of these people deserve basic healthcare. I'm not just talking about emergency care. I include immunizations, medication and routine check ups.

I see nothing wrong with raising taxes on alchohol and tobacco to fund this healthcare. I also think private healthcare companies can remain as supplemental insurance. There is nothing wrong with privatized medicine, until it denies the basic human right to medical care. Not everyone can afford to pay for health insurance, even with a full time job. We can't know why it's not possible unless it happens to us.

I don't have a plan for it. I'm not a politician or lobbyist or remotely qualified to propose something, but I think something should be done on behalf of the children at least. I think they're being too stringent about the recently proposed bill by vetoing it, based on the reasons we're being told for the veto. They changed Medicare a while back. Yes, it was so confusing that many people missed the boat on it, but education on the changes was provided extensively. The thing is, changes are possible after the fact and are effective with proper education on the changes.

[okisteve]

Well, this thread got turned into a rant against illegal aliens and unwed mothers pretty fast. Uminchu, you can't believe there's nothing wrong with socialized medicine and at the same time say you don't want to pay for someone else's kids healthcare. But since you don't like warm fuzzy feelings either, maybe I understand you now.
Medicare is for people over 65 years. Medicaid is for the indigent. SCHIP is for kids falling through the cracks. It makes little difference which program pays - someone has to foot the bill.
Uminchu, maybe you can explain how medical innovations are incompatible with socialized medicine. I must have missed something since government-financed research has produced the most important medical advances in the US.

[atb35]

Look, THEY'RE HERE! They and their kids get injured and sick. Are you saying "let them die in the street"? What are you proposing for the approx. 20 million that are here?


Take them away from their parents. IF someone cant afford to care for a child, they dont deserve to have them. The US needs to be more proactive with teaching financial responsibility. You MIGHT get a class in junior or senior high school if that school requires it. That is BS. There should be mandatory classes for financial responsibility each year of high school. Credit cards should be illegal, and credit in general needs to be seriously regulated. I wish the government would put a 1% interest rate on ANY credit under $20k. (yes, the credit companies would go out of business...GOOD!!!) The only two things anyone should ever apply for credit for is a house and a car.
I know this will never happen, but damn, wouldnt that be great.

[atb35]

I see nothing wrong with raising taxes on alchohol and tobacco to fund this healthcare. I also think private healthcare companies can remain as supplemental insurance. There is nothing wrong with privatized medicine, until it denies the basic human right to medical care. Not everyone can afford to pay for health insurance, even with a full time job. We can't know why it's not possible unless it happens to us.

Health care is a basic human right? That is news to me. Im not trying to cut you down or anything, but I think that is the problem with our society today. We confuse privilages with rights, and then everyone gets pissed because their 'rights' arent being met by the government.
I busted my ass working since I was 14 earning a paycheck and paying my dues, I deserve the privalege of healthcare. Some lazy PoS that didnt do shit since they were born except live off their parents, then become a burden to society doesnt have the right, nor the privaledge of health care. Those people can die, they can die and go to hell!!

I have zero pity for those that dont at least try to contribute or help themselves.

[Fonze]

Yes that would be a grand plan atb35.

I also saw a while back that many illegals are going to their consulates to get check-ups and other non emergency related care.

[Fonze]

while i agree with you on the older kids im kinda with socal on this. I believe children all should be covered regardless of anything. After you hit 18 your on your own, and then at that there is always help.

[okisteve]

Take them away from their parents. IF someone cant afford to care for a child, they dont deserve to have them. The US needs to be more proactive with teaching financial responsibility. You MIGHT get a class in junior or senior high school if that school requires it. That is BS. There should be mandatory classes for financial responsibility each year of high school. Credit cards should be illegal, and credit in general needs to be seriously regulated. I wish the government would put a 1% interest rate on ANY credit under $20k. (yes, the credit companies would go out of business...GOOD!!!) The only two things anyone should ever apply for credit for is a house and a car.
I know this will never happen, but damn, wouldnt that be great.

Some lazy PoS that didnt do shit since they were born except live off their parents, then become a burden to society doesnt have the right, nor the privaledge of health care. Those people can die, they can die and go to hell!!

Veddy interesting philosophy! You are advocating for a whole lot of government interference in peoples' lives but at the same time don't believe that good health is a basic human right? I think that makes you a far right-wing communist.

[socalheart]

Even enemy combatants are given the right to basic human healthcare... at least according to commercials and (I think) the Geneva Convention thing. Our government goes around the world providing basic healthcare to people all over the world, most notably Africa. Heck, the government even gives veterinarian aid to the farm animals. US citizens pay for that too. I think it's nice of us to do all that, but not when my husband and I are working full time and still can't afford all the medical costs for our child, because the genetic roulette wheel decided to give him cerebral palsy, for example (yes, I know, I'm big on the extreme examples), I think there's something wrong with the system or lack thereof for children's healthcare specifically.

Health care is a basic human right? That is news to me. Im not trying to cut you down or anything, but I think that is the problem with our society today. We confuse privilages with rights, and then everyone gets pissed because their 'rights' arent being met by the government.

[atb35]

First off, I do believe ALL children should be given healthcare. I thought I stated that already, but I guess I had to reiterate. I didnt authorize our government to provide care to combatants or farm animals, so I cant justify that.....if you want my opinion...they can go the hell for all I care. Now enemy combatants are different though, if we are holding them prisoner, they have no means to seek medical care on their own, so It is our responsiblity to provide it.

I will make this simple...I have no problem with helping people that contribute to society. In my Utopia, people would be charged according to their tax status. If you are in a high tax bracket, your medical care will be more, if your in a lower one, you pay less. Those that dont work, dont get health care. Children of those that dont work get taken away and given a chance to be a productive member of society.

Im all for helping those that help themselves, for the lazy bastards that sit around or abuse our social security system, they can go **** themselves and die in the streets.

[Fonze]

They should jump of cliffs and drown in oceans because if they died in the street they would continue to burden the utopia. Hell they could even burn in incinerators to produce power that way they can contribute at least a little.

[socalheart]

I don't know about the other folks, but that clears what you said up for me a bit more. I'm not clicking on all six cylinders these days. I think that many people (not necessarily those here) would agree with the basics of your ideal, including myself. I would add one more thing though. Those people who were a "productive" member of society, and have retired due to advanced age, poor health or legitimate disability should also be included. Individual states may have similar systems in place, but I'm only familiar with CA.

I have no problem with helping people that contribute to society. In my Utopia, people would be charged according to their tax status. If you are in a high tax bracket, your medical care will be more, if your in a lower one, you pay less. Those that dont work, dont get health care. Children of those that dont work get taken away and given a chance to be a productive member of society.

[Asshat]

Uminchu, you can't believe there's nothing wrong with socialized medicine and at the same time say you don't want to pay for someone else's kids healthcare. But since you don't like warm fuzzy feelings either, maybe I understand you now.

Oki, I wont pretend I can sword play semantics with you, but I can do without your tone. Here it is again for you, and this time try to get past whatever it is that has angered you:

Socialized medicine for children "should" be available, and it should be funded by taxes. Income taxes though for people who have CHILDREN. Instead however, we give them tax credits, and more deductions, while those of us earning more are unable to deduct anything, pay for my own supplimental insurance, etc.

Also, have you, or anyone else in this thread taken the time to read the proposal? There were a few out there, but in the examples I saw, all of us would be required to "prove" we had medical coverage to an extent deemed adequate by the Government, or FORCED to participate in the program.

Uminchu, maybe you can explain how medical innovations are incompatible with socialized medicine. I must have missed something since government-financed research has produced the most important medical advances in the US.

Which Government financed research? NASA? Private industry aka the Military Industrial Complex working grants to produce products which it can sell to the Government later? The Department of Defense?

Or am I to assume our socialized programme will yield the same type of renumeration our current private system does? In that case, we'll need to tax more than tobacco.

[atb35]

The best solution would be if one would dig a hole, then jump in it and die, next one digs a bigger hole, covering the first person up and so on and so on. This way future generations would benefit from their bodies decomposing into oil.

[Asshat]

In my Utopia, people would be charged according to their tax status. If you are in a high tax bracket, your medical care will be more, if your in a lower one, you pay less. Those that dont work, dont get health care. Children of those that dont work get taken away and given a chance to be a productive member of society.

Flat Tax baby!

[socalheart]

I thought I was the only one who saw the inherent flaw in letting them die in the streets. It brings another Monty Python skit to memory: "Bring out your dead!" I'd be against the incinerators though, due to the smell and pollution. Aside from the cost to dump them in an ocean trench, that's the more plausible so far. Having them jump off cliffs to drown and then possibly wash up on shore could be a beach clean-up nightmare.
:D
They should jump of cliffs and drown in oceans because if they died in the street they would continue to burden the utopia. Hell they could even burn in incinerators to produce power that way they can contribute at least a little.

[Asshat]

I guess by my comments in this post, I am adopting the role of the conservative. That's how we do it in America right? Stick with the party line no matter what?

Well, here's the deal those of you on my ass. Knock off a few points from the 51 FRIKKEN percent we spend on the DOD, and apply those BILLIONS to frikken Health care!!!

As long as the comparison exists to countries with successful health programs, let's compare the amount they spend on DEFENSE!

[okisteve]

Oki, I wont pretend I can sword play semantics with you, but I can do without your tone. Here it is again for you, and this time try to get past whatever it is that has angered you:

Socialized medicine for children "should" be available, and it should be funded by taxes. Income taxes though for people who have CHILDREN. Instead however, we give them tax credits, and more deductions, while those of us earning more are unable to deduct anything, pay for my own supplimental insurance, etc.

Also, have you, or anyone else in this thread taken the time to read the proposal? There were a few out there, but in the examples I saw, all of us would be required to "prove" we had medical coverage to an extent deemed adequate by the Government, or FORCED to participate in the program.

Which Government financed research? NASA? Private industry aka the Military Industrial Complex working grants to produce products which it can sell to the Government later? The Department of Defense?

Or am I to assume our socialized programme will yield the same type of renumeration our current private system does? In that case, we'll need to tax more than tobacco.

Last point first - the NIH (National Institutes of Health) research budget is about $28 billion a year, not pocket change unless you compare it to defense/offense. And I would not be surprised either to learn that DoD money has also funded a lot of medical innovations used on civilians now. I guess I don't get your point about a socialized program not generating money: are you under the misconception that the profits made by insurance companies and hospital corporations fund much research? Now you might be thinking about pharmaceutical companies, and they certainly justify their huge profit margins on the cost of their research. But those same corporations operate profitably and do research in every country with socialized medicine - Sweden, Germany, UK, France, Japan, etc...

Next point up - you got me clean - I have not read the vetoed proposal thoroughly. Very likely it is not a perfect solution, but as Socal states, you need to start somewhere. And that leads me to the first point you made:

The whole idea of social security is that there is solidarity between classes, and nobody can opt out. Believe me, I did not like it when I was self-employed and paying 13% SS on top of federal and state tax, but it will come back eventually and I know it helped support my mother. So you can't say "let parents of those ____ kids pay higher taxes for their income bracket", or "I'm going to just do without health insurance and take my chances". Both of those approaches are exactly opposite to the social solidarity ideal.

Nearly every other civilized country has adopted a system of strong social solidarity based on those principles. It just is not questioned anymore, or not enough so it will ever be repealed. Even the Conservatives under Maggie Thatcher never dreamed of dismantling their National Health Service. Should I believe that Americans will never go along just because we have resisted it for so long? Actually, I am not very optimistic. And that's another reason I like living here. I'm not angry, well maybe frustrated that so many people just want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Asshat]

I guess I don't get your point about a socialized program not generating money: are you under the misconception that the profits made by insurance companies and hospital corporations fund much research?

Because a socialized system does not encourage innovation. That is a basic tenet of any socialized program. I could cite many examples of that, and really that is not the crux of my argument against taxation of tobacco for this service.

The whole idea of social security is that there is solidarity between classes, and nobody can opt out. Believe me, I did not like it when I was self-employed and paying 13% SS on top of federal and state tax, but it will come back eventually and I know it helped support my mother. So you can't say "let parents of those ____ kids pay higher taxes for their income bracket", or "I'm going to just do without health insurance and take my chances". Both of those approaches are exactly opposite to the social solidarity ideal.

The idea of SS is not solidarity between classes. I know of no one currently working who subscribes to the fact that SS is going to be their life-ring in the golden years. Sure, if it is still there in 15 years when I retire, it might make half of a house payment. Some elderly like your mother, certainly depend on it in to survive. I don't have a real problem with it, other than it is forced on me. I would rather make investments with the money, or even add it to the 20 percent I currently save.

Nearly every other civilized country has adopted a system of strong social solidarity based on those principles. It just is not questioned anymore, or not enough so it will ever be repealed.

This statement ignores many other countries out there whose denizens are not in favor of government programs for a variety of reasons. Singapore just raised their retirement age to 70. In Malaysia, ethnic Malays glean great advantages under the systems, while ethnic Chinese and Indians suffer under it, yet pay the higher burden.

Should I believe that Americans will never go along just because we have resisted it for so long? Actually, I am not very optimistic. And that's another reason I like living here. I'm not angry, well maybe frustrated that so many people just want to have their cake and eat it too.

I am a liberal libertarian. :) This subject is the only one in which I partially agree with traditional conservatives as they are now defined.

Children are the responsibility of the parents, and if the parents are not willing to adequately provide for them, then yes, it is the state who must take over. I chaff at the idea however that I must fund these families who refuse to accept responsibility for their children. Who decry contraception based on religious principles, yet expect the state to help them with the costs.

I want choices. Adopt the social medical programs, but tax those who use it. Don't tell me what type of insurance or service I need to have. I pay for my cake and I deserve to eat it. I never had the golden spoon, and I have eked out a life beyond what my born status in life dictated. I deserve to have the choices. My four kids are raised, they are gone, and I am done paying for children.

[okisteve]

Uminchu - I guess we'll just keep disagreeing on a lot of stuff, but that's cool. When I said The idea of SS is not solidarity between classes. I actually meant social insurance in general, not the US SS system where what you get back is proportional to what you put in. You are right, in that it does not protect people in old age who have not contributed. And I guess you would not want such a system either.

Didn't know they raised the retirement age in Singapore. It also seems like their acclaimed Medical Savings Account program isn't working all that well.

Well, I never did "get" the libertarian idea. To me it sounds like "I am opposed to government handouts, but since we have them I want to pick and choose among them."

Did you ever read Ken Kesey's "Sometimes a Great Notion", which is about an Oregon logging family, and conflicts that arise when the smartass younger brother comes back from college... I read it many years ago - great book and if I can find a copy I will read it again.

[Just VP]

Nearly every other civilized country has adopted a system of strong social solidarity based on those principles. It just is not questioned anymore, or not enough so it will ever be repealed. Even the Conservatives under Maggie Thatcher never dreamed of dismantling their National Health Service. Should I believe that Americans will never go along just because we have resisted it for so long? Actually, I am not very optimistic. And that's another reason I like living here. I'm not angry, well maybe frustrated that so many people just want to have their cake and eat it too.

This is true, but let me ask one question...Where do the people from these civilized countries (that can afford it) go for premium top notch health care? I would say they go to the states.

[okisteve]

This is true, but let me ask one question...Where do the people from these civilized countries (that can afford it) go for premium top notch health care? I would say they go to the states.

And that would be a very wrong guess. I suppose you are thinking about the stories that circulate every time there is a universal healthcare proposal in the US, about all the Canadians who can't get in for hip surgery because of their terrible socialized medicine (actually a very free single-payer system that really gets our insurance industry worried) and come to the US.

Have you ever heard of any Japanese going to the US for treatment? In fact I had major surgery in Chubu Hospital a few years ago. Friends were telling me I should go to the Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic. I opted to be covered by my Japanese insurance and was not sorry in any way.

[Just VP]

That's not the point I was making...those who don't have to rely on insurance or some sort of socialized health care typically pay for the best treatment that they can get. Be that in the states where there are more options to choose from or some other country that has hospitals that specialize. The point is those that can afford it don't stand in line at a socialized medical center...they go elsewhere.

[okisteve]

You are right in that there are market forces that determine people's behavior in seeking care. So, that's great for the small number of people who can fly first-class and go to the Mayo Clinic for liposuction.

If I didn't have Japanese insurance I would not have gone to the US but to Bunrungad (sp?) Hospital in Bangkok. First-world care, third-world prices and hot nurses!

[Just VP]

I'm with you there!!!

[okisteve]

Cool. Next time you're really sick and don't feel like going to the NH, let's get a chartered Learjet together. I'll have a facelift.;)

[Asshat]

Well, I never did "get" the libertarian idea. To me it sounds like "I am opposed to government handouts, but since we have them I want to pick and choose among them."

Not at all. It means "I am not opposed to Government programs, and if some people need them, they should pay the bulk of the cost of them."

The obvious retort to that is low income vs. high medical costs. So if the Government were to force these programs on us, do the costs go down? Are tort limits attached to reduce insurance premiums? If the answer is "no" then how will taxation ever come close to funding an expensive program at a nation-wide magnitude?

If the costs "are" reduced for these programs, then the poor can more readily afford it. There is the problem though. Medical service in a litiguous (sp) society has become available to the upper middle class. I don't want to be part of a conveyor belt medical system such as exists in every socialized program. I can afford better care than what the government will ever provide me. I don't feel I should be forced to give that up to someone who pops kids out right and left with their hands outstretched for the money I bust my ass for without some assurance that I will be paid back.

[Asshat]

Cool. Next time you're really sick and don't feel like going to the NH, let's get a chartered Learjet together. I'll have a facelift.;)

Many of my friends have had stuff done at Bumrungrad. Pretty good service, pretty inexpensive, and a great excuse for spending two weeks in Thailand for those who need one. ;)

The current USNH Commander gave a brief warning of the shoddy elective surgery performed at these places and spoke of the lack of training and sterile conditions.

I just shook my head. My body is broken from years of service to my country and young Navy doctors practicing on me.

[okisteve]

The obvious retort to that is low income vs. high medical costs. So if the Government were to force these programs on us, do the costs go down? Are tort limits attached to reduce insurance premiums? If the answer is "no" then how will taxation ever come close to funding an expensive program at a nation-wide magnitude?.

If other countries such as UK, France, Germany, etc. are any guide, yes, the costs would go down. I am not going to change your mind about this, but the fact is that their medical costs are lower than in the US, and their health outcomes for the whole population are better. Are the US insurance companies (the ones who try like mad not to pay for your health care) adding anything useful? Their paperwork adds about 25% to every bill.

The other point that you might be missing is that when people don't have insurance they wait until they are very sick before going to a charity hospital or emergency ward. That kicks up the costs to the government who pass it down to the taxpayers. I say its better to give people free or affordable primary care, even if it involves some degree of "assembly-line".



If the costs "are" reduced for these programs, then the poor can more readily afford it. There is the problem though. Medical service in a litiguous (sp) society has become available to the upper middle class. I don't want to be part of a conveyor belt medical system such as exists in every socialized program. I can afford better care than what the government will ever provide me. I don't feel I should be forced to give that up to someone who pops kids out right and left with their hands outstretched for the money I bust my ass for without some assurance that I will be paid back.

I don't understand what being a litigious society has to do with anything else we're discussing. You can afford better care than in the Japanese or USNH socialized systems? Great, but where do you get it in Okinawa? You must know that the private hospitals in Japan are as much a part of the socialized system here as the government hospitals, right?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Uminchu, have you seen Micheal Moore's latest - Sicko? It is a must-see for those into these issues.

[ja_Patriot]

I read this article the other day. Interesting point of view.

In America, '"...We now have the worst of both worlds: we are paying for universal health coverage, but not getting it. In fact, we pay more for health care in taxes than countries that provide universal coverage. Then we pay more than that amount again in private coverage. Additionally, what we have now in the U.S. is nowhere near a free market in health care. Defending the status quo is not defending a free market. And if socialized medicine is your fear, we already have it..."

Read the full article here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/a_conservative_case_for_univer.html).
(A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage by Randall Hoven)

[okisteve]

I read this article the other day. Interesting point of view.

In America, '

Read the full article here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/a_conservative_case_for_univer.html).
(A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage by Randall Hoven)

Great article, and thanks for the link. It confirms that the "sides" are getting closer and it is gonna happen sooner rather than later.

You saved me the trouble of making all those points, which I became aware of a few years back. While Uminchu was busting HIS ass making a living over here, I and a few dozen other citizen lobbyists busted ours to get a single-payer universal health plan proposal on the Oregon ballot in 2002, where it went down in flames thanks to millions of dollars spent by the health insurance and medical lobbies.

I don't really understand why the conservatives hate the single-payer idea. In effect Japan has one because every single separate insuring body marches in step with everyone else. But if we need to have some other scheme to get universal coverage, that's OK with me.

[ryukyuboi]

A strong defense in a democratic nation includes insuring that the general population is healthy and educated, especially the kids. It is in the interest of long term national security.

I don't recall the financial cost of legislation that Bush vetoed, but it is chump change to what the US is spending oversea in the interest of our national security.

I think we need to provide for our people when a need exists.

[Go-Shay]

In effect Japan has one because every single separate insuring body marches in step with everyone else. But if we need to have some other scheme to get universal coverage, that's OK with me.
having been on the Japanese side of the house for awhile IMO its a really good system

[Asshat]

While Uminchu was busting HIS ass making a living over here, I and a few dozen other citizen lobbyists busted ours to get a single-payer universal health plan proposal on the Oregon ballot in 2002, where it went down in flames thanks to millions of dollars spent by the health insurance and medical lobbies.

As I stated earlier, I am not a conservative. What I am telling you is that untill the medical costs are brought into a realistic realm, I have no desire to find a socialized system. What is so hard to understand about that? It is the cost of the system in a litigous society that is making it unaffordable, not wholly the buisness accumen of the HMO's.

You asked what I meant earlier, and for the life of me I can't understand how you can not factor in the cost of litigation or mal-practice insurance.

Oregon is already taxing the hell out of us. If end up back in the PNW, I wont own property there. (Any more property I should add.)

Steve, do you really wish to pay for lower to middle income families' health coverage in addition to what you already pay for?

I have long championed the benefits of socialized medicine- something you are not picking up from my posts- but untill the cost structure is fixed, adding government control will only drive the costs higher...unless it is regulated, and as you rightly point out, insurance and HMO concerns will never allow that to happen.

So start with tort limits and go from there....does that sound conservative too?

[okisteve]

Sorry, I must have missed your previous comments about malpractice, and I could not agree more completely with that. If I am not mistaken, a few states have passed reforms and have drastically lowered the awards, but I don't know how much malpractice costs contribute to overall US health costs. I do know that it's nearly impossible to find a practicing obstetrician in many smaller towns for that reason.

[ja_Patriot]

I think we discussed medical tort reform in another thread.

How much money is wasted in medical tort cases and attorneys' contingency fees should be a pretty significant sum even without out of court settlements which usually include non-disclosure agreements.

But I personally know doctors who have been sandaled with malpractice insurance premiums in excess of a quarter million to half a month dollars a year, including significant self-insured retentions (or what is commonly known as deductibles.)

And they reserve for themselves to right to refuse any patient. Even emergency rooms are loaded with consent forms, with emphasis in protecting the clinic or medical facility against financial jeopardy, instead of providing medical services and curing patients.

[Asshat]

Sorry, I must have missed your previous comments about malpractice, and I could not agree more completely with that. If I am not mistaken, a few states have passed reforms and have drastically lowered the awards, but I don't know how much malpractice costs contribute to overall US health costs. I do know that it's nearly impossible to find a practicing obstetrician in many smaller towns for that reason.

Again, I have always expressed my desire for socialized medicine. I just think the medical field is too corrupt now to simple give it to the Government. (At the risk of repeating myself) Sorry.

Show me the proposal in full. Then I will decide. The OP says Bush vetoed it without going into detail of what it entailed. It's fine to spout off on a subject towing the party line, but I have a problem with any thing Hillary does with this, because she is an elitist who only has votes in mind, not taking care of those unable to afford health care.

I applaud your work in Oregon by the way-not on the subject but because you excersized your rights as a citizen to effect change.

I grew up in Boring, Clackamus Co. by the way. :) Haven't been back there in many, many years. Might settle there though once I get tired of this current gig.

[okisteve]

Umin - did you read my post about Ken Kesey's novel Sometimes A Great Notion? The county it was set in was some fictional place but it could easily have been someplace like Clackamas or Clatsop.

[dhandaulat33]

Hi everyone, I have about 15 months experience in a large full service hotel and am seriously considering making the hotel business a career but believe that I should go for a B.S. in business management just in case the hospitality field doesn't work out. I am quite worried for this. What should I do now? Please let me know your suggestions?

[okisteve]

W . T . F . ????

Hotels, Motels, and Patels.

[Fonze]

Hi everyone, I have about 15 months experience in a large full service hotel and am seriously considering making the hotel business a career but believe that I should go for a B.S. in business management just in case the hospitality field doesn't work out. I am quite worried for this. What should I do now? Please let me know your suggestions?

Bush needs to Veto this shit.

[okisteve]

dk - you hear that? he just called you "Bush". Hammer.;)

I think someone's selling lists of boards that can be joined automatically, without having that secret code picture. (I just joined my HS alumni board and had to type in the 6 letters/digits. It might become a necessity here...