Bush vetoes bill on children's health care

[Zanchief]

"George W Bush will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents of all time"

this made me throw up in my mouth a little.

Wait here let me fix it

"George W Bush will go down in history as the Worst President of all time"

FIXT

Sad but true. It's telling what a persons opinion can be like if you read nothing but slanted news. I'll take the CBC over what over nutjobs he's reading about.

[Yamori]

Life expectancy doesn't necessarily have to be due to the healthcare system in place. US folk have pretty much the WORST diets and least amounts of exercise in the world.

[Tikker]

can always count on lyion to froth at the mouth when it's pointed out the US sucks

[Lyion]

I dub thee Harritikker. Provider of useless spam and shi'ite in normal good discussions. Worthless poster extraordinaire!

For an encore you can copy another Harrison tactic, perhaps.

That's just what the board needs. Good job!

[Tikker]

hey, you forgot to ninja edit some posts, you're slacking

next step is then to complain that someone's attacking you personally, despite the fact that you're usually the one who starts it

[Lyion]

Yes, I obviously attacked you personally in this thread, after you provided some good discussions here. That's how it always is..

Isn't it time for you to throw a tantrum like a little girl <or little Canadian, same thing> and storm out and go play with your Alanis Morissette and Celine Dion blowup dolls?

[Tikker]

hey, you forgot to ninja edit some posts, you're slacking

next step is then to complain that someone's attacking you personally, despite the fact that you're usually the one who starts it

check mark beside point number 2

quick, ninja edit something now

[Lyion]

Such hate, plus I can't recall editing your posts, regardless of the bad usage and troll behavior. I blame Canada's schools.

Honestly, you can get a green card to America and leave the third world behind, Tikker. It just takes time and dedication. Ask most of your good doctors and other professionals who left the frozen ice capades for greener <literally> pastures.

I know you envy our superpower status, easy fat chicks, uber fast food, plus you make your living mostly on our Internet and phone lines we allow your country to use, in exchange for making bad kid shows and good beer. Some day if you work hard you, too, can come to the land of the free and home of the brave.

Keep your chin up!

[Yamori]

Canadian folks, I'm genuinely curious.

What innovations has Canadian healthcare come up with? Do they invent anything noteworthy or do they get all of their new & improved machines and drugs from US scientists and pharmacy research?

[10sun]

Canadian folks, I'm genuinely curious.

What innovations has Canadian healthcare come up with? Do they invent anything noteworthy or do they get all of their new & improved machines and drugs from US scientists and pharmacy research?

Lasik?

[Tikker]

Canadian folks, I'm genuinely curious.

What innovations has Canadian healthcare come up with? Do they invent anything noteworthy or do they get all of their new & improved machines and drugs from US scientists and pharmacy research?

insulin comes to mind immediately

[Tikker]

Such hate, plus I can't recall editing your posts, regardless of the bad usage and troll behavior.

here's a quick reminder!
this little number led to you spazzing in IM's about ip banning, and yada yada yada

[Lueyen]

Bush was supportive of this bill pre-2005, the bill in it's current form was vetoed.... so what changed? First who would qualify for the program was changed, significantly increasing it's scope not to just helping the poor but to helping those who should be able to provide for themselves. Sure you can site extra ordinary situations that are a huge financial burden parents of the "middle class" however this bill encompasses much beyond that. If you are what most consider middle class, I'm sorry federal funds should not be paying for your child's doctors office visits. Core crux of the problem is that with varying cost of living, a wage that is extremely high in some areas is at the bottom rung of the middle class in others. When establishing a blanket federal qualification for aid the income level was raised to accommodate those that need help living in areas where the cost of living is very high, however this also means that people living in areas making the same wage with a significantly lower cost of living (people who don't really need the help) will qualify. This of course all arises due to the socialism aspects of this bill and yes Tikker I do have a problem with anything that starts to invade our capitalist representative government with socialist programs, I'll make absolutely no bones about it, I like a government with limited power subject to the people, not a government to take care of the people and in doing so making people dependent on it.

The second and I believe unsaid reason for Bush's veto was due to another change between the original bill and it's current form. It's a subtle change in definition with significant ramifications. Previously the bills definition of a child for coverage purposes was from conception to age 18. The intent of this was to provide pre-natal care as well. This was taken out and in it's place was placed "pregnancy services", which provides a way to not only provide health care but abortions with federal tax dollars. Think what you want on the abortion issue but at the point and time you are paying for them with federal tax dollars you are forcing me who believes it to be murder to pay for them as well. It's one thing to have laws that allow others to do things that I find morally reprehensible, it's an entirely different matter to use my tax dollars to pay for it.

[Arlos]

I find the war in Iraq and the slaughtering of innocent civilians, like what happened with Blackwater the other day, absolutely morally reprehensible, yet my tax dollars are going to pay for it. Why should you get a say against something you find morally reprehensible and I do not?

Anyway, I repeat again: This is not socialized medicine in any way. The government does not suddenly run health care clinics, etc. This merely provides money for poor to lower/mid-middle class families to purchase health insurance for their children. These are the same insurance policies that anyone else buys, from any health care provider you so choose. The only way the government is involved is to funnel cash to them. As such, in no way is this a "socialist" enterprise.

As for who it covers, it MUST cover all children that need it. If along the way some rural families who don't absolutely need the help because of different costs of living get some, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Oh no, some middle class people had their lives made easier by the government in some fashion. OH MY GODS WTF BBQ!!??!?!?! PANIC! PANIC! PANIC! HOW REPREHENSIBLE AND VILE AND AWFUL AND HORRIBLE... oh wait, it isn't. The middle class are getting squeezed from every other direction, I'm not going to cry about some minor redressing of the fact for working families who happen to live in BFE.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

I find the war in Iraq and the slaughtering of innocent civilians, like what happened with Blackwater the other day, absolutely morally reprehensible, yet my tax dollars are going to pay for it. Why should you get a say against something you find morally reprehensible and I do not?

you didn't vote republican

[Lyion]

Yes, I obviously attacked you personally in this thread, after you provided some good discussions here. That's how it always is..

Isn't it time for you to throw a tantrum like a little girl <or little Canadian, same thing> and storm out and go play with your Alanis Morissette and Celine Dion blowup dolls?

Check!

Maybe you'll go next. One can hope.

Canadian folks, I'm genuinely curious.

What innovations has Canadian healthcare come up with? Do they invent anything noteworthy or do they get all of their new & improved machines and drugs from US scientists and pharmacy research?

insulin comes to mind immediately

That would not solely be Canadian and the main funding and distribution breakthrough was from Eli Lily, an American company. One of those evil capitalist conglomerates you and your comrades hate. The original breakthrough was a series of scientists worldwide. Like most discoveries, it was incremental and the product of many small steps, until one finally made the last one.

However, the question is moreso about right now. Not 90 years ago when the world was vastly different. What does Canada do now?

Given their fall backs for stuff, I doubt the .005% of money they contribute to medical research compared to the US shouldn't be a surprise. Thankfully we'll be there for them. Like we are for the thousands who come across to save their lives from cancer, and give birth. Thus, keeping your .2 longer life span than us!

Provided by: Canadian Press
Written by: BILL GRAVELAND

GREAT FALLS, Mont. (CP) - The birth of identical quadruplet girls in Montana last month has ignited debate south of the border with editorial writers and bloggers attacking the Canadian health-care system.

A shortage of neonatal beds in Calgary meant that Karen Jepp and her husband, J.P., had to travel from their Calgary home to Great Falls, Mont., for the birth of Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia on Aug. 12.

The chances of giving birth to identical quadruplets is 1-in-13 million, so the event attracted widespread international attention and caused many Americans to focus on Canada's universal system of health care.

"We're sure we speak on behalf of the entire community of Great Falls as we send heartfelt congratulations to J.P. and Karen Jepp. What a thrill to be part of such a miraculous birth," read an editorial from the Great Falls Tribune.

"We've heard much talk about Canada's 'free' health-care system, glorified in Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko'. But the birth of the Jepp sisters are case in point that Canada's medical system is as flawed as ours, just on the other end," it said. "As our congressmen debate the future of our health-care system, we urge them to keep cases such as the Jepps' in mind."

"Sicko" takes a critical look at health care in the United States and includes comparisons with systems in other countries, including Canada.

"I'm sure Canadians like their health system. Just remember, though, that Canada's backup system is in Montana," writes Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail in West Virginia. "Great Falls has enough neonatal units to handle quadruple births and a 'universal health' nation doesn't."

The headline in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reads "Canadians love their health care - in Montana."

"Universal health care is a pretty edifice to cover the ugly reality of rationing treatment within a bureaucratic monstrosity," writes Patrick McIlheran. "Great testimony for single-payer health care: Can't handle a C-section, can't find any room at neonatal intensive care units, has to fly mothers in labor to a small town in the savage land of only half-governmentalized care just so they can bear children."

The birth of the quads has also been fodder for Internet blogs.

"More proof socialized healthcare doesn't work," reads one entry on the blog Powerline News.


"The precious gift of American citizenship comes to the Jepp quads because there were no hospital facilities anywhere in Canada able to handle four neonatal insensive care babies," writes Blue Zeus in another entry.

"Not in Calgary, a city over a million people, the wealthiest in Canada, or anywhere else in Canada. However, Great Falls, a city of well under 100,000 people apparently had no problem."

An official with the Calgary Health Region defends the move to send the Jepps to Great Falls.

"We did not have the capacity to take four new Level 3 babies, so the call goes to Edmonton and to Vancouver and across Western Canada to find out if there is bed space," explained Don Stewart. "We had found across Canada there were not four Level 3 beds available so that's when we looked to Montana, which is the closest facility to us with reasonable care and within a reasonable distance. That was only done after exhausting the options here at home.

"They (American critics) don't have all the facts and information, obviously," he added.

Stewart said there are 21 Level 3 incubators in Calgary, but a staffing shortage meant only 16 were in use when the Jepps were giving birth. Staffing levels will be increased by this fall, he added.

The birth of the quads exposes both the positives and negatives of the Canadian health-care system, according to Jack Goldberg, chairman of the health lobby group Friends of Medicare.

"It's clearly our view that the U.S. system is going to meet some demands better than ours, particularly for those who can pay the whole shot by themselves. But overall, the American system is far more expensive. And, of course, we all know it fails to insure some 50 million people," he noted.

"I think we need to appreciate that it's because of our publicly insured system that this couple was able to get access to a hugely expensive service in the United States that may very well be denied to tens of millions of Americans. So even what happened there is a point in favour of our system - that these people were able to get there," said Goldberg.

He said the negative side is that it's obvious the Canadian health-care system is "vastly under-resourced" and lacks facilities and health-care professionals because of past government cutbacks.

A spokesman for federal Health Minister Tony Clement declined to comment directly on the Jepp's case because health care is a provincial responsibility. But Erik Waddell said it's a concern if Canadian patients must go to the United States for treatment.

"I know it has happened more than once, more than just this one case. We see these things happening and it's one of the reasons we're taking an active role in trying to make our health-care system better across the country," said Waddell.

"There are, in a sense, 13 health-care systems - one for each province and territory."

[Zanchief]

Yea I wish poor people wouldn't clog up my waiting list queues. Bastards need to just die already.

[Lueyen]

I find the war in Iraq and the slaughtering of innocent civilians, like what happened with Blackwater the other day, absolutely morally reprehensible, yet my tax dollars are going to pay for it. Why should you get a say against something you find morally reprehensible and I do not?

Only in the mind of a liberal does that analogy work. We are not there to kill innocent civilians, there are strict rules of engagement to prevent this sort of thing when those rules are violated our government doesn't condone it. In other words what you find morally reprehensible is not a direct and intentional consequence, in fact it is something that our government tries to avoid. Contrast this to what I find moral reprehensible, where the direct intent is to do exactly what I detest. Your analogy might work if the abortions were accidental, or an unintended consequence for which efforts were made to avoid.

Anyway, I repeat again: This is not socialized medicine in any way. The government does not suddenly run health care clinics, etc. This merely provides money for poor to lower/mid-middle class families to purchase health insurance for their children. These are the same insurance policies that anyone else buys, from any health care provider you so choose. The only way the government is involved is to funnel cash to them. As such, in no way is this a "socialist" enterprise.

Taking money from one group and redistributing it to another group to equalize economic and social conditions is a socialist ideal, typically the vessel used to achieve this is community or state control of the production as you mentioned but the ideology is still there even if not achieved in the most popular way that you mentioned. If the goal was in fact to help those in our society who truly need it that would be a different matter and understandable, but it goes beyond that. In fact if you consider that tax dollars are a produced resource, and that control of those is being taken over by a community entity then it fits exactly your scenario of socialism. Instead of government taking partial control of an industry it is taking partial control of your wallet, not to just to help the less fortunate of our society, but going beyond that to redistribute to those that are capable of providing for themselves. Bottom line it is socialism, not necessarily in previous implementations, but in ideology.

As for who it covers, it MUST cover all children that need it. If along the way some rural families who don't absolutely need the help because of different costs of living get some, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Oh no, some middle class people had their lives made easier by the government in some fashion. OH MY GODS WTF BBQ!!??!?!?! PANIC! PANIC! PANIC! HOW REPREHENSIBLE AND VILE AND AWFUL AND HORRIBLE... oh wait, it isn't. The middle class are getting squeezed from every other direction, I'm not going to cry about some minor redressing of the fact for working families who happen to live in BFE.

-Arlos

Ah yes, dismiss fiscal irresponsibility for your own pet projects and agendas, but rant and rave if money is wasted on something you don't care for. Like I alluded to previously this type of program should be state based and not federal based, both because of the holes created by irregularities in localized economies under a blanket federal program, and because something of this nature is the domain of the states not the federal government.

In Oregon we have something very similar being debated in our state legislature, but it's going even further here. The effort is to write it into the state constitution, making it not a government gift, but an absolute right. My problem with the bill proposed is that the method of funding is to tax tobacco, which is bad for two reasons. First it puts the economic burden for funding the program on only a segment of the population, politicians have figured out it's easy to gain support for tax increases that affect only a portion of the public, they do the same with liquor, hunting licenses ect. Supporters would probably take more pause if it was going to be a gasoline tax or something that put the burden on everyone. It's easy to vilify individual segments of the population, and gain widespread support for unjust burden or hardship exerted on a small segment of the people. If you want to have society support something to better society then place the burden on all of society, and if it truly something that all of society sees as needed and right then you won't have support issues.... taxing certain products that only affect a portion of the population and using those tax dollars to support a program open to the whole population is unfair. The real kicker is though that by writing it into the state constitution, it sets up for an expense that MUST be met.... and when a pack of cigarettes goes up to eight or nine dollars a pack, cigarette sales will drop, and in the end all of Oregon, not just a small group will end up with the tax burden anyway, but people don't have enough foresight to see it.

Something I haven't thought about and I'll have to check into it is if either the Oregon bill or the Federal bill limits the program to citizens of this country, my guess is that it doesn't and the US tax payer will also be footing the bill for the health care of the children of other countries.

[Ouchyfish]

Simple bill, every child gets free ride health care (AND RX!!!) until 18th birthday and after 65th birthday regardless of rich, poor, etc. Absofuckinglutely no cosmetic etc unless medically necessary, etc, ie kid needs a new ear, pay for it, 16 year old wants bigger tits, NO. They could pepper little rules in to hopefully keep it from getting abused (although like every other fuckin social program the minorities will find ways to fucking abuse it) and make it happen.

Tax cigarettes and alcohol as much as necessary to pay for it. If enough cannot be raised on "sin" taxes, then fuck it, my pipe dream dies.

[Arlos]

Ouchy, I find the fact we are in Iraq at ALL to be morally reprehensible. Period. Regardless of whether or not civilian casualties are an "unintended consequence". They are still an absolute and unavoidable consequence. Even apart from civilian deaths, I find non-just wars of imperialistic resource grabbing to be immoral, and that's what this war is, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Again, the goal of the bill IS to help all of those that need it and cannot afford to do it. Since you cannot fairly scale it based on the cost of living of an area, as that cost is too fluid and lines where you would cut off changes are too arbitrary, you must set the minimum value to one that will be sufficient to help every person that needs it. If that means that some people from the cheapest regions get help without absolutely needing it, I have no problem with that, because they are obviously highly close to the margin anyway. Considering the entire thing is being paid for via a tax on a completely non-essential product that no one in any way is forced to purchase, I doubly have no issue with it.

Furthermore, assisting the middle class against being squeezed out by the ultra rich is an AMERICAN ideal. Why do you think the anti-monopoly acts were put in in the early part of this century? Such populist reforms were a big part of Teddy Roosevelt's agenda, if I am remembering my history correctly. Right now, the middle class is shrinking dramatically. The gap between the poor and the rich is getting vastly wider. So, no, in the absence of a modern Teddy Roosevelt, I am far from going to object to a bill that has, as a side product, the assistance in some small way in the prosperity of the middle class.

-Arlos

[10sun]

Simple bill, every child gets free ride health care (AND RX!!!) until 18th birthday and after 65th birthday regardless of rich, poor, etc. Absofuckinglutely no cosmetic etc unless medically necessary, etc, ie kid needs a new ear, pay for it, 16 year old wants bigger tits, NO. They could pepper little rules in to hopefully keep it from getting abused (although like every other fuckin social program the minorities will find ways to fucking abuse it) and make it happen.

Tax cigarettes and alcohol as much as necessary to pay for it. If enough cannot be raised on "sin" taxes, then fuck it, my pipe dream dies.

I would put a stipulation in there not about the 18th birthday, but graduation/dropout from high school. If they graduate they get everything mentioned above until their 18th birthday or healthcare continues until they do graduate if they turn 18 in the middle of the year.

-Adam

[Ouchyfish]

Amazing how they'll bitch and scream over 3-4k soldiers dying while doing what soldiers want to do and civilians dying, but say nothing about the million unborn babies that are slain every year.

I don't want to hear shit about the war being morally reprehensible while you support a different kind of war.

[Evermore]

Amazing how they'll bitch and scream over 3-4k soldiers dying while doing what soldiers want to do and civilians dying, but say nothing about the million unborn babies that are slain every year.

I don't want to hear shit about the war being morally reprehensible while you support a different kind of war.

this "war" you speak of is one of upbringing and responsibility. not government interference. kinda different area.

[Diekan]

Amazing how they'll bitch and scream over 3-4k soldiers dying while doing what soldiers want to do and civilians dying, but say nothing about the million unborn babies that are slain every year.

I don't want to hear shit about the war being morally reprehensible while you support a different kind of war.

Amazingly enough... more people die in THIS country each and every year to murder than have died in the entirety of the second Gulf War/Occupation - Americans that is.

So where's the outrage? I agree the war in Iraq was a mistake and I don't particularly care of the things Bush has done - you all know my position on him and his politics... but why are we so up in arms about the casualties in Iraq when exponentially more Americans are killed in crimes each year?

[Arlos]

First of all, I don't consider abortion of early-mid term fetuses murder in any way, so I hardly agree that it's an issue that something needs to be done about. Well, other than I think we should be teaching real lessons about birth control in high schools, and making condoms and the morning after pill freely and readily available to all teenagers. Those steps would dramatically cut down on the number of abortions occurring. Unfortunately, the anti-abortion crowd is ALSO so disconnected from reality as to think that telling high schoolers "Sex is bad, do abstinence!" will work in any way, shape or form, and they cry bloody murder if you try and teach them anything else. Thus more people get pregnant, and more abortions happen. Bloody retarded stance, if you ask me.

In any case, as for crime: You cannot end crime, period. Yes, murders are bad. Yes, those committing them should be caught and punished. However, crime grows at least partially out of extreme socio-economic conditions between different segments of the population, and we've already seen in this thread the typical right winger's vast resistance to DOING anything about it. Even without those factors, crime is inevitable. Period. There are still petty criminals and homicides (not by the government) even in places with utterly repressive and draconian regimes, just like there are in peaceful and quiet countries like Switzerland or Sweden, etc.

The war, on the other hand, was a completely voluntary operation, we by no means were forced to go to Iraq in any way, shape or form. We went at the behest and direction of the Neocons in power, who misled people and used every potential excuse possible to convince others that we should go. It is, as I said, a nakedly imperialistic grab for power and resources, like countries used to do back in the 1800s, with only the thinnest veneer of legality to it, that most/all countries see through in a heartbeat. So, yes, due to the REAL reasons we went, and it's completely voluntary nature, I have no problem finding the war morally reprehensible and raising a stink about it, and not about day to day crime and violence which, while certainly morally reprehensible as well, is, as I said, at some levels anyway, unavoidable.

-Arlos