So, ya'll have lost faith in government, and don't feel that we, the people, can reshape government to serve our needs better, so we should opt for a fully privatized system.

You're playing right into the hands of the corruption you so despise.

This constant strawman argument that everyone who can't afford their own health insurance are lazy bums is ridiculous.

Profits in the medical industry continue to rise at rates far greater than wages, and full privatization will only ensure that big pharma, is guaranteed total control. You think their lobby is strong now, just wait, their power over our government will continue to grow under privatization.

__________________
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

-Thomas Jefferson

I won't presume to speak for everyone else, but I know I certainly haven't made that argument.

The lazy people are those who can't afford it, but feel little compulsion to try to change their own situation. Someone who's content to sit back, do nothing, and expect the government to provide for their needs is deserving of nothing...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

This is the most assinine thing Bush has done since Iraq. 17 Republicans in the senate breaking with him on this one.

Who in the world is content living in squaller?

Homeless people must just be free spirits, who love the great outdoors...

__________________
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

-Thomas Jefferson

Well that may be, it has turned into a political football that, as usual has Bush thrashing about regards making a clear coherent argument for or against.........I have no issue with schip, but like too many entitlement prgms. it has, in 10 short years become corrupted re; its original mandate....they should write in a mandate that zero funds will be used for anyone over the age of 18, and the states receiving schip funds must first, seek to cover those in greatest need.... and here’s a prime example of what isn’t being advertised...



Garden Statism
September 24, 2007; Page A18
(See Corrections & Amplifications items below.)

If Jon Corzine is the new Henry David Thoreau, then civil disobedience has been defined down. The New Jersey Governor is winning accolades for his defiance of the Bush Administration's rules for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. How fitting that Mr. Corzine should be the one to resort to lawbreaking, given that his state exemplifies everything that's gone haywire with Schip.

Schip was created in 1997 to help insure children from low-income families, but it has since become a stealth vehicle to expand government control of health care. Schip expires next week, and House and Senate negotiators are hashing out a "compromise" that would expand the program by about $35 billion over the next five years (plus a budget gimmick concealing at least $30 billion).

President Bush reiterated his veto threat last week, not least because the $5 billion expansion he supports would pick up the remaining 689,000 uninsured kids that Schip was intended to serve. By contrast, Democrats want to expand Schip well beyond the original boundaries -- households at or below 200% of the federal poverty line, or $41,300 for a family of four -- and make it a middle-class entitlement. Many states like New Jersey have been taking advantage of Schip's "flexibility" and covering more affluent children, their parents, and even childless adults.

In a tardy response to this trend, the federal Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that before states could further expand their Schip programs beyond 250% of poverty, they would have to enroll 95% of children below 200% of poverty. This limit moves the most disadvantaged children to the head of the line, before subsidizing those who need it less. In practice, it also checks Schip's mission creep. Such directives are a legitimate tool that all Administrations use to shape policy.

The usual liberal precincts claim to be enraged. Governor Corzine declared that New Jersey would unilaterally disregard the HHS rules and "vigorously continue" to enroll at 350% of poverty -- the highest ceiling in the country. And he'd do so even though about 119,000 New Jersey children under 200% of the poverty line remain uninsured -- and although the state spends 43% of its yearly Schip grant insuring adults.

For several years the number of uninsured New Jersey children under 200% has held steady, while New Jersey's Schip rolls have grown by about 10% a year. One major reason is that the state continues to enroll families with incomes up to $72,275. What's more, this public coverage is mostly substituting for the private variety. A recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates the crowd-out for Schip at 60%, meaning that in order to cover four new kids the government is paying for six more who already had private insurance. This effect is even more pronounced at higher income levels: Nationally, 89% of children between 300% and 400% already have private coverage.

Governor Corzine could always tax his own residents to pay for this largesse. Then again, New Jersey already has one of the worst tax burdens in the country, and Trenton has raised taxes five times in the last six years. For the Governor, the political beauty of Schip is that it allows New Jersey to finance its spendthrift ways on the backs of more responsible states.

Federal Schip funds are allocated in block grants, which the states are supposed to match. If a state doesn't spend all of it, the leftovers are redistributed to states that overspend. Then Congress makes things worse by regularly topping off states that have made promises beyond even their redistributions. New Jersey has been bailed out in this manner for the last three years.

Mr. Corzine defends his uncivil disobedience by arguing that the new HHS limits "deny" coverage to New Jersey children. But he knows this is false, because kids and adults are grandfathered in and will not be retroactively removed from the rolls. Only his expansion plans have been impeded. That's entitlement logic for you.

And soon enough, every state may become New Jersey. As Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus recently noted, "I think the Children's Health Insurance Program is another step to move toward universal coverage." Republican Senator Judd Gregg said, "Everyone realizes that the goal of this legislation moves us a giant step further down the road to nationalizing healthcare." At least Mr. Baucus isn't disguising his socialist goal, unlike Mr. Corzine.

With his veto pledge, Mr. Bush is trying to hold Schip to something close to its original intent. We hope enough Republicans appreciate the policy stakes to sustain it.

Free Article - WSJ.com

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

The homeless and disadvantaged we assist in volunteer work say living in the woods is fine during the summer if the meth freaks don't find them but wet, cold and lonely at all other times. The little children never seem to complain about their harsh lifes unless one cries in front of them.

I don't believe that anyone is beyond helping themself. I just don't buy it.

My point, though, is pretty clear: If you're going to sit on your ass and do nothing to improve a poor situation in which you find yourself, you shouldn't expect anyone to come along and help you out...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Bush is in the title of the thread. I would say he is at least partly relevant.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

...Seriously.. there are no federally mandated rules on what "children" are, in a program like that?

That's going a bit too far, isn't it? It would be nice if Bush argued that clearly, though. And for instance clearly said he will veto the bill unless it's clear it will not be funding those the program was not intended for.

Instead, what appears to be the message here, is that systemic faults with the implementation of the program in some (or many?) states is set in contrast to the efficient and painless road privatisation would be.

And if that's the message - shouldn't Bush at least try to front a real push for a responsible framework on how privatisation should be handled? If not he's just promoting the insurance- companies from the president's position, (presumably) free of charge.

That depends on your situation, no?

What part did you not comprehend?

No. It doesn't depend on your situation. I believe anyone can do someting to improve their situation...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

No, I agree with that. But if you end up being sick, and have to work in order to become well again - then you're out of luck. It's just not a good position to work with. So - borrow money? An idea if it's a bone you broke, perhaps, that has some sort of set timeframe. If you're in more serious problems - ask the family (your family, I mean) to support you? Many can do that, if it's serious. But in the end, you're screwed if you don't have some sort of backing, or a way to cheat the system.

I mean, I know some of what various million- grants are given to in the US - and the concept that occurs to me is "ideologically based welfare". And I don't think suggesting that this sort of thing encourages actual work is a very good argument. I would think of it as waste, that is impossible to defend in any way, since it also does not as a rule benefit those in need - in the way they need in order to get their heads above water again.

So while I agree with you - it really depends on the situation. And it's just not a nice sight, to be perfectly honest, when people in need are exploited in a process of supporting million dollar businesses - whether it is insurance companies or charities.

Unless someone is dead, they can try to change their situation.

But the conversation seems to be hovering around those who don't have insurance but want it, but are willing to do nothing to get it. To that end, if someone has a shitty job with no health insurance, and they get sick, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for that. Yes, it sucks that they're sick, but don't expect the government to ante up and pay your medical bills. That, to me, is ludicrous.

Also, don't be duped by the suggestion that everyone having health care coverage will result in everyone not being sick. It's just going to pay for the care when you get sick. People are still going to get fatal diseases and die from them...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

True. You pay for it with reduced quality services and consumer goods for the same price, instead.
I don't see anyone suggesting that either. The biggest impact from a serious health- care system is that the general cost of disease treatment lowers. To calculate that, it's necessary to see "costs" as following the consumer, of course, though. In the same sentence as "living standard" and so on. You know.. socialism.

Huh?

The services I receive are not of a "reduced quality", so I don't know where you're going with that...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":