Bush Administration Opposes Health Care For Children

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:51:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

NYTimes:

The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.
Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.
After learning of the new policy, some state officials said today that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children by imposing standards that could not be met.

< Former Federal Terror Prosecutor Argues to Keep Cases in Federal Courts | Cheney Says He Has NSA Warrantless Spying Docs, Won't Turn Them over >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush Administration Opposes Health Care For Children | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If only our children mattered as much (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:49:54 AM EST

as our failing markets.

Bush may not care... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by desertswine on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:55:10 AM EST

about kid's health, but he does care about money.

...to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage, the Times said.

He's protecting his insurance company cronies (as if they need protecting).
What good are sick kids if you can't make a killing off of it.

: now now (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Jen M on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:42:20 AM EST

everyone knows profits are more important than children. Family values you know.

Competition is healthy (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Al on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:42:08 PM EST

Children should choose their parents more carefully.

Do something (1.00 / 1) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:20:18 PM EST

If you are going to gave federally funded hedalth insurance, it follows that all should be equal.

Why not quit yapping about what the mean ole bush has done and start presenting plans for what we need.

National Health Care.

You know, Demos. Lead for once in your lives.

Part of the story (1.00 / 1) (#66)
by Slado on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:29:40 PM EST

As usual NYT slants it's basic coverage.

See response from administration in following link.

Apparently they want to make sure that people that need the help most get it and not anyone who can fill out a government form.

Of course liberals never worry about the cost. If the government spends more money then we'll all be OK.

: Ummm... (none / 0) (#67)
by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:48:28 PM EST

Of course liberals never worry about the cost. If the government spends more money then we'll all be OK.
This your first time here? You're just commenting under Slado's name?

: If the government spends more money.... (none / 0) (#70)
by desertswine on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:18:55 PM EST

...then we'll all be OK.
Yeah, the liberals...
The US budget for Iraq in FY 2006 came to $3,749/Iraqi. This is more than double their per person GDP. It's like spending $91,000 per person in the US.
For that kind of money they could've ___ (fill in the blank).
Of course, liberals never worry about the cost.
Somebody check the basement for pods.

One more item (none / 0) (#4)
by koshembos on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:45:45 PM EST

It's a great topic to raise against the Republicans in the coming elections.

Us Califonia middle-income families (none / 0) (#5)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:05:23 PM EST

Children's Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.

neither need nor want your gvt handouts, thank you very much.

If only the insurance industry..... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:23:15 PM EST

had that attitude. And the arms industry, for that matter.

As long as no child is refused care in a hospital in America...I couldn't care less what games the govt. and insurance industry play. As long as the kids get care regardless of their ability to pay.


Middle income kdog (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:36:18 PM EST

As long as no child is refused care in a hospital in America...I couldn't care less what games the govt. and insurance industry play. As long as the kids get care regardless of their ability to pay.

we own homes and cars and $200 cell phones. We can buy our own health care/health insurance, we don't need more of our incomes taken from us by our gvt. to be used to infantalize us all the more.


Fair enough.... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:49:27 PM EST

I don't want to infantilized either. But the government ain't getting any smaller with D's and R's in charge bro, they are taking our cash regardless of where they spend it, I'd rather my end go to the local hospital to treat kids than the local arms manufacturer.

If you wanna cut 'em both off and abolish the income tax, I'm with ya brother. With the extra cash in hand, I'm confident local communities can solve any health care problems locally.


It's not an either/or, (none / 0) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:16:18 PM EST

they are taking our cash regardless of where they spend it, I'd rather my end go to the local hospital to treat kids than the local arms manufacturer.

this plan, like every other, will have them take more.


I think it is.... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:32:55 PM EST

an either/or. Are you expecting a bigger return when they cut some kids off the state insurance rolls? I just don't see it happening.

For all the talk of Bush's tax cuts, I haven't noticed any difference on my take home or my return...but that might just be because I'm on the low/middle end.


No (none / 0) (#24)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:40:16 PM EST

I'm expecting, in due time, taxes to be raised to pay for expanded gvt. funded health insurance programs expenses.

The "camel's nose in the tent" sort of thing like that's been gong on almost uninterrupted since taxes were invented.


Don't worry.... (none / 0) (#34)
by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:57:21 PM EST

they'll also be raised in good time for the next new weapons system we absolutely positively must have lest we be wiped off the map.

I see the govt. as a self-fulfilling prophecy of expansion than can't be stopped...and if that's the case, I'd rather see the expansion in health care as opposed to military hardware.

I've given up on the f*cker ever shrinking with these two parties holding all the cards...I'll take insured kids as a booby prize.


As long as you're convinced that (none / 0) (#35)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:59:46 PM EST

gvt funded health care will be better for everyone than what we have now, I guess your position is logical.


Something I've long wondered (none / 0) (#44)
by glanton on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:29:26 PM EST

Why do most opponents of health care reform in their comments show such fidelity to an imagined black and white dichotomy: the way it is now in America (conrete jungle), or a system completely controlled by the federal government?

My ideal scenario would be to install a safety valve insurance company, tax funded. Those who would rather have private insurance, by all means keep buying it.

;-)


Taking that one more step, if I choose to (none / 0) (#48)
by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:42:45 PM EST

keep my amployer-provided, contributory health care coverage, will I be obliged to help pay for coverage of others? According to a piece on NPR a few years back, many people choose to take a pass on health care coverage and spend the money on non-necessities such as car loans for expensive cars.


I assumed my inclusuion (none / 0) (#49)
by glanton on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:48:10 PM EST

Of the words "tax funded" were sufficient indication that this safety valve ought, in my opinion, to be tax funded.

So now let the outrage begin from economic libertarians who loathe the idea of "tax-based handouts." But please, (if you are one hf those engaging in it) drop the utterly faux demogoguery outrage schtick over "doctor choice" and "waiting periods," and the like.

In short, Opponents of health care reform aren't worried about the state of health care.


Talk about black and white (none / 0) (#51)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:50:48 PM EST

dichotomy.

In short, Opponents of health care reform aren't worried about the state of health care.

Sarcasmo (none / 0) (#53)
by glanton on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:54:40 PM EST

Opponents of Health Care reform whose objection inheres in "paying other people's way" should just say that, instead of using all these scare tactics about waiting periods, etc.


Perhaps the issue is more complex (none / 0) (#54)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:01:54 PM EST

for some people than you apparently choose to accept? Perhaps some - most even - people have multiple, sometimes perhaps even conflicting, reasons for their positions?

Or is it truly the black and white scenario you present?

It's really not a big point, to me anyway. It just seemed surprising that you'd make such a B&W dichotomous comment mere moments after accusing others of doing it...

In retrospect I probably should have added a ;-)


: Okay (none / 0) (