Bush vetoes bill on children's health care

[Tikker]

I love that lyion didn't even finish reading the article he quoted and highlighted from

"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

oh shit, our hospitals are in full use becuase we provide health care to everyone that needs it, not just those that can afford to pay for it


THE FUCKING HORROR

[Arlos]

Jon Stewart on this issue:

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/14997-dai ... -headlines


-Arlos

[Lyion]

The DNC chose a 12 year old who NEEDED free health care to rebut W's desire to veto the SCHIP Shi'ite. Except... Oops..

These people QUALIFY for S-CHIP now, and will continue to qualify.. So, in addition to living in a 400,000+ dollar house, paying 40k/year for their kids to go to private school, they also qualify for free health care..

The fucked-up ness of our current system in a nutshell.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts
The "Not So Poor" 12 Year Old Who Rebutted Bush on SCHIP Veto
Multiple, Baltimore Sun ^ | 10-07-07 | self


Graeme Frost, who gave the democrat rebuttal to George Bush’s reasons for vetoing the SCHIP Bill, is a middle school student at the exclusive $20,000 per year Park School in Baltimore, MD.

Graeme was in a severe car accident three years ago, and received care paid for by the government program known as SCHIP-(State Children's Health Insurance Program)

"I was in a coma for a week and couldn't eat or stand up or even talk. My sister was even worse," Graeme wrote. "My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but we can't afford private health insurance."

His sister Gemma, also severely injured in the accident, attended the same school prior to the accident meaning the family was able to come up with nearly $40,000 per year for tuition for these 2 grade schoolers. Confirmation both attended Park found here using edit-"find on this page"-Gemma. It will take you to an article in the schools newspaper about a fundraiser for Gemma class of 16, and Graeme class of 13.


In a Baltimore Sun article the family claims to be raising their four children on combined income of about $45,000 a year. "Bonnie Frost works for a medical publishing firm; her husband, Halsey, is a woodworker. They are raising their four children on combined income of about $45,000 a year. Neither gets health insurance through work."

What the article does not mention is that Halsey Frost has owned his own company "Frostworks",since this marriage announcement in the NY Times in 1992 so he chooses to not give himself insurance. He also employed his wife as "bookkeeper and operations management" prior to her recent 2007 hire at the "medical publishing firm". As her employer, he apparently denied her health insurance as well.

His company, Frostworks, is located at 3701 E BALTIMORE ST. A building that was purchased for $160,000 in 1999. The buildings owner is listed as DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIAL DESIGN CENTER, LLC whose mailing address is listed as 104 S Collington Ave which is the Frost's home. The commercial property he owns is also listed as the business address for another company called Reillys Designs which leads to the question of whether rental income is included in the above mentioned salary total

The current market value of their improved 3,040 SF home at 104 S Collington Ave is unknown but 113 S COLLINGTON AVE, also an end unit, sold for $485,000 this past March and it was only 2,060 SF. A photo taken in the family's kitchen shows what appears to be a recent remodeling job with granite counter tops and glass front cabinets

One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business... maybe money can be found for other things...maybe Dad should drop his woodworking hobby and get a real job that offers health insurance rather than making people like me (also with 4 kids in a 600sf smaller house and tuition $16,000 less per kid and no commercial property ownership) pay for it in my taxes.

[Arlos]

The blogger that posted that was full of shit, and got most of his facts wrong.

From Time Magazine:

It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.

As the article says, that blog post (and the ones who based themselves upon it) is nothing more than another baseless, factless swift-boating of someone with a message the far right didn't like.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

tee hee?

[Lueyen]

The blogger that posted that was full of shit, and got most of his facts wrong.

From Time Magazine:

It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.

As the article says, that blog post (and the ones who based themselves upon it) is nothing more than another baseless, factless swift-boating of someone with a message the far right didn't like.

-Arlos

Five minutes on the internet I looked up their zip code: 21231
Picked a random insurance quotes site: https://www.ehealthinsurance.com
Granted it only gave an option for 5 children, however I'm sure one more isn't going to double the cost of the insurance. Of course we don't have specific info, but this was just to get a general idea.
There was not a single plan close to 1200 dollars. The average was probably around 400. There was a plan through Kaiser Permanente with prescription benefits 0$ deductible and $20 office visits for $590 a month.

Of course there are a lot of people in a lot of different situations, and there may be factors involved that we are unaware of... we can speculate all day. The fact remains though that this family being held up as an example is disingenuous. Six children isn't exactly the average family, and I suspect the average family isn't self employed. The cost she sited was double or more then what I found in a few moments via Google.

[Arlos]

Yeah, but you have no idea what other factors are involved. Bet you there's a big premium increase because the father's a wood-worker and thus stands a fairly high chance of getting injured in the course of his work, unlike say, an Accountant. Maybe there's a family history of heart disease or diabetes or something, which even though no one CURRENTLY has them will increase premiums. What you're finding on the web with google is best-case for ideal applicants who are in 100% perfect health with no negative factors whatsoever. I've tried to apply for such a kaiser plan as you mention myself, and its price turns out to be irrelevant, because they won't let me GET the policy, because of family medical history, my bad knee, and the fact I have minor asthma. Similarly, despite Kaiser offering similar pricing here, my parents, just the two of them, pay over 2000 a month for their insurance, due to their medical histories and situations. So, the price could be 1 dollar a month, but if I or anyone else who applies are denied to purchase the policy, the value is pointless, is it not? Sometimes you HAVE to pay several times more than the "listed" value to get them to insure you at ALL. So, your "research" on health insurance prices is useless and of null value, since you have no concepts of what other factors are involved, any of which can drastically alter the price or even the availability of said insurance.

45k a year IS a decent middle value for low-mid middle class, and a rapidly growing number of employers of that level either are dropping coverages they used to have, or never offer them to begin with. So, self-employment becomes somewhat irrelevant.

Now, I WILL agree that 6 kids is more than the average, but that just exacerbates the problem, and makes them MORE likely to be in need of S-CHIP, yes?

Ultimately, as I said in my last post, the blog post slamming this family as a bad example of a family needing S-CHIP because they were too wealthy is utterly inaccurate, and a blatant smear attempt. Nothing you have said disputes that fact in any way whatsoever.

-Arlos

[Eziekial]

Survival of the fittest. The free market is just a modern and better mechanism for evolution.

[Tossica]

It's not my survival I am worried about. I don't mind some of my tax dollars going to help people that can't afford health insurance.

[Eziekial]

Then why not donate to a non-profit organization that does just that, Toss? Far more effective then sending your money to D.C.

[Tossica]

Then why not donate to a non-profit organization that does just that, Toss? Far more effective then sending your money to D.C.

There is no such thing as a non profit insurance company.

[Tossica]

Then why not donate to a non-profit organization that does just that, Toss? Far more effective then sending your money to D.C.

Also, since I am ALREADY paying the taxes, I would appreciate they be spent on something like health care.

[Ouchyfish]

Yeah, I'm with Toss on this. Not so long ago I was a knee-jerk "survival of the fittest" guy but I can no longer play that hand while we throw so much money at the war machine and so little at humanity.

[Lueyen]

Yeah, I'm with Toss on this. Not so long ago I was a knee-jerk "survival of the fittest" guy but I can no longer play that hand while we throw so much money at the war machine and so little at humanity.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents ... With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

"Throwing money at the war machine" is one of the powers and or duties of our federal government specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. Public charity is not.

[Ouchyfish]

Come on, Lue, times have changed and you know it. It was a different time and there wasn't a UN then either. Have a strong defense, yes, but come on...cut the defense budget in half, become more isolationist again, build this country into the superpower it once was, kick China in the fucking balls (economically), and make me proud to be an American again.

[Eziekial]

You think it's the government that makes one proud to be an American?

[Tikker]

"Throwing money at the war machine" is one of the powers and or duties of our federal government specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. Public charity is not.

aka
We'd rather kill other people, than save our own

[Lueyen]

Come on, Lue, times have changed and you know it. It was a different time and there wasn't a UN then either. Have a strong defense, yes, but come on...cut the defense budget in half, become more isolationist again, build this country into the superpower it once was, kick China in the fucking balls (economically), and make me proud to be an American again.

Yes the world has changed, we need only look at the lesson of WWII to know that the danger of isolationism is that in modern day when geography is no longer the factor that it once was, we can not afford to sacrifice our friends and allies with the expectation we will be left alone. We dealt with the axis powers late in the game, and it cost us dearly, however post war it was revealed that we would have been in conflict at some point, the difference was how strong we were letting the enemy get, and how many allies we would have when we did face it. The danger of isolationism is that in some cases it puts off inevitable conflict merely buying time, time which is payed for by sacrificing those who would stand with us in confronting a dangerous enemy. Modern technology has eliminated the geographical barriers that once made isolationism feasible as a general course of action (or more aptly inaction).

I find it ironic that you mention the UN, which for the most part has no real teeth anyway. In fact in most cases the majority of the UN's capability to enforce it's decrees is proportionate to how much military force the US is willing to commit to it. Look at Rwanda as a perfect example of how effective the UN is when the US doesn't get involved. In light of this any stock you place in the UN as a basis for isolationism is is a circle jerk of contradiction.

We've already seen it come to pass that the largest and most powerful communist government in the world collapsed, in no small part due to our efforts abroad be they economic, diplomatic or militaristic. The Chinese threat, like the Soviet threat will be reduced by action, not by sticking our heads under a blanket.

And I'm still proud to be an American that has never changed.

"Throwing money at the war machine" is one of the powers and or duties of our federal government specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. Public charity is not.

aka
We'd rather kill other people, than save our own

Your statement insinuates the two are tied together on some sort of balancing scale, they are not. Comparison of what our federal government spends on our military and what it spends on social programs is at it's base faulty for the reason I mentioned. It would be somewhat akin to looking at the total your company pays it's employees and comparing that to the total amount your company donates to charity organizations and saying you should take a pay cut because the difference between total wages paid and total charitable contributions was lop sided. Also your premise is that we can only do one or the other, that they are both on separate sides of a scale that must be balanced. In the overall picture of society as a whole, this comparison is valid to a degree, but also not entirely if you are going by strict dollar value, as the price tag dictated by need on both sides of the equation would be different.

What it really comes down to is that social programs are more the domain of the state then the federal government and if indeed your perceived notion that a balancing is needed is true, then the proper course of action is not to dictate that our federal government take on more duty and power, but that it be relegated to the states, and the method by which you accomplish that would be to reduce the amount of tax dollars going to the federal government and increase that which goes to the states, NOT by first passing through the federal government as is the case now and with the expanded plan, but by going directly to individual states. I would submit to you that allowing the federal government to have so much say in the matter is allowing the federal government to much power, something our founding fathers wanted to avoid, and that by virtue of the fact that no one is suggesting a reduction in federal funding diverted directly to the states indicates that federal government has indeed already been given to much power, and it wants more.

[Arlos]

Lueyen, you are in large part ignoring the fundamental changes wrought in this nation by the Civil War. Yes, perhaps the original vision was a loosely collected set of fundamentally independent states tied together with a small federal government. But we learned, to our cost, that there are serious problems with such a system in the lead up to the civil war. Basically, the more autonomy the states are given, the more regionalistic things get, along with a corresponding rise in NIMBYism. As a historian nonce noted, before the civil war, the way you referred to this country was "The United States Are ...." and afterwards, it became "The United States Is ...." A simple change on the surface, to be sure, but think about the fundamental evolution in the nature of the country necessary for that change to happen.

In any case, no, I am not saying we do away with state's rights, not in the least. But to deny that the country shifted away from that early vision, and did so conclusively 140 years ago is to live with one's head in the sand. There must be a reasonably strong federal government, in order to smooth things over between states where competing interests are involved, for example. Likewise, in the case of something like this program, it is quite likely that individual states do not have the income base to be able to support such a thing locally, where other states would be able to do so and still have plenty left over. By enabling the program through the auspices of the federal government, such localized state income imbalances are neutralized, and the upshot is that all children get health care, which is the goal in the first place.

Fundamentally, this is an exceedingly poor choice for an attempt to draw a line in the sand. First, an overwhelming preponderance of the American people are for its passage, in the state it is in now. Second, on a purely political level, how bad does it hurt the chances for election for GOP candidates if they can, with some degree of accuracy, be portrayed as being against sick children? There are any other number of over-bloated federal expenditures that they could be drawing a line in the sand on, it maks little tactical political sense to do so with THIS one.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

In any case, no, I am not saying we do away with state's rights, not in the least. But to deny that the country shifted away from that early vision, and did so conclusively 140 years ago is to live with one's head in the sand. There must be a reasonably strong federal government, in order to smooth things over between states where competing interests are involved, for example. Likewise, in the case of something like this program, it is quite likely that individual states do not have the income base to be able to support such a thing locally, where other states would be able to do so and still have plenty left over. By enabling the program through the auspices of the federal government, such localized state income imbalances are neutralized, and the upshot is that all children get health care, which is the goal in the first place.

I would be more receptive to that argument if the plan distinguished between regional cost of living in it's qualifiers, however as I previously stated that is part of the problem. A blanket fix of going overboard is the problem, not a justification of this as a solution. Again it's not that people in general are opposed to the idea of the S-Chip program it is that they are opposed to the expansion of it that cover those who could reasonably provide for themselves. I refuse to accept the general notion that we either implement the currently proposed changes and in doing so go beyond what is needed, or do nothing and in doing so have people left out in the cold, apparently the President agrees with me on this as I just saw on the news today that he's sent several white house aids to work with congress to reform the plan into something that he can sign off on.

My arguments regarding state vs federal were in regards to the notion that if we couldn't fund the proposed program adequately we should reduce military spending to compensate. It is one thing for the federal government to go beyond it's specific responsibilities when it does justifiably make sense, it's far different when in doing so you put forth a plan that will by virtue of poor design create a gap that then must be filled by reducing the federal governments capability to fulfill it's one of it's core charges.

[Arlos]

Yes, but what if you believe that the government CAN fulfill it's core charge even WITH a reduction in spending? For example, read the recent Time magazine article on the Osprey. The thing is a boondoggle. How many billions would have been saved if the thing had been axed years ago? (like Cheney actually tried to do, one of the few things upon which he and I agree). How much other utterly wasteful or wasted spending is there in the defense department? Even if we're past the days of the $5000 toilet seat, I would be willing to bet large sums that there's still PLENTY of graft and waste there we could cut out. Not to mention all the graft and waste going on to the various contractors in Iraq. How many gazillions in fraud have been uncovered already in just the preliminary investigations? How much of those "reconstruction" dollars are still sitting around unspent? (last I recall, it was > 100 billion). Need I go on?

As for the S-CHIP levels, as I said before, you cannot fairly allow for regional cost of living differences in a program like that, because there is no way whatsoever to make them fair or equitable, as the granularity required to do that would require such immense levels of overhead that it just wouldn't work. As such, I (and apparently most of America) is willing to see some few people who don't ABSOLUTELY require the assistance get it than see some children go uncovered, just because they happen to live in an area with a higher cost of living. (And no, telling people to move is not an option. The government should never have a say in where people live)

-Arlos

[Ouchyfish]

You think it's the government that makes one proud to be an American?

Yes. My government has officially decided to bend over, lube ourselves up, and let China become what we once were. My government would rather blow money in the middle east and feed and treat Africans rather than help my fellow citizens. My government has turned this country into some ugly twisted monster that is no longer envied, but now rather mocked and hated.

Yes, my government could make me proud to be an American, but instead they are inventing new ways to make me ashamed of it.

[Lueyen]

Yes, but what if you believe that the government CAN fulfill it's core charge even WITH a reduction in spending? For example, read the recent Time magazine article on the Osprey. The thing is a boondoggle. How many billions would have been saved if the thing had been axed years ago? (like Cheney actually tried to do, one of the few things upon which he and I agree). How much other utterly wasteful or wasted spending is there in the defense department? Even if we're past the days of the $5000 toilet seat, I would be willing to bet large sums that there's still PLENTY of graft and waste there we could cut out. Not to mention all the graft and waste going on to the various contractors in Iraq. How many gazillions in fraud have been uncovered already in just the preliminary investigations? How much of those "reconstruction" dollars are still sitting around unspent? (last I recall, it was > 100 billion). Need I go on?

As for the S-CHIP levels, as I said before, you cannot fairly allow for regional cost of living differences in a program like that, because there is no way whatsoever to make them fair or equitable, as the granularity required to do that would require such immense levels of overhead that it just wouldn't work. As such, I (and apparently most of America) is willing to see some few people who don't ABSOLUTELY require the assistance get it than see some children go uncovered, just because they happen to live in an area with a higher cost of living. (And no, telling people to move is not an option. The government should never have a say in where people live)

-Arlos

So your basic premise is we should work on cutting out spending waste in one area so we can fund spending waste in another area.

[Arlos]

Except the "waste" in S-CHIP goes to people who are, at best, low/mid-middle class. I have no problem with something that directly benefits the pocketbooks of the middle class, no.

-Arlos