home

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! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    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.

    Parent
    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?

    Parent

    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.


    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.  

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.  

    ;-)
         

    Parent

    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.  

    Parent
    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.  

    Parent

    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.


    Parent
    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.  


    Parent
    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 ;-)

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#56)
    by glanton on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:09:42 PM EST
    If the dooms day, Canada-caricature scenarios are precluded by a given proposed reform, and you (I of course mean the proverbial you, not you, the great sarcasmo) continue to oppose it, then how can you in good faith continue to cite the dooms day scenarios as part of your reasoning?

    Parent
    If by "precluded" you mean an bona fide (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:27:44 PM EST
    actual, real guarantee that such a doomsday scenario would not occur, I, speaking only behalf of the great sarcasmo, don't think I would continue to cite such a scenario.

    As long as you accept that what may be a bona fide, actual and real preclusion in your belief, can reasonably be determined not to be bona fide, actual and real in another's.

    btw, as you know, you gave inadvertently, I think) me my nom de keyboard way, way, back in the day, and due to your post above I'm honestly thinking of going and changing it to "the great sarcasmo."

    It has a ring to it...

    Parent

    "the great sarcasmo" (none / 0) (#58)
    by glanton on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    does have a nice ring.  But then perhaps I'd be a little sad because everyone would start calling you that, and then where would I be?  

    BTW: I do indeed fee strongly that what I describe would make the doomsday, Canada-caricature scenarios no more likely to come to pass than they are under the current system.  Now, if someone were to set about showing my why I am wrong in this suggestion, or even might be wrong, I'd love it.  Who knows?  It could be the start of an interesting debate.....

    More importantly, I am 100% confident that there are a number of ways to provide health insurance for American citizens without devolving into doomsday.  None of this, however, takes into account the "no free rides!" and "not on my dime!" sorts of arguments.  Those battles need to be waged, too, but on entirely different grounds.

    Parent

    All good, g-man, all good. (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:52:37 PM EST
    fwiw, if and when the tipping point is reached - despite my present disbelief that any plan would be better than the admittedly lacking system we have in place today - I plan to quickly switch sides and fight the good fight for the best gvt. health insurance plan possible.

    Perhaps your plan will be that best one.

    Parent

    I don't have anything to say, really (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Al on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:34:44 PM EST
    I just want to see how thin this thread can be made.

    Parent
    U (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    F
    u
    n
    n
    y

    Parent
    Isn't that what some states.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    do with car insurance?  You can get a top of the line car insurance plan privately, or buy a bare bones liablilty only insurance plan administered by the state at low cost.  If memory serves, Florida has a program like that.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    Something close to that. Except in the case of Health Care it shouldn't be a "low cost" alternative, it should be completely tax funded and the policy should cover at least as much as the HMO's do.

    Parent
    I'd gladly.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    allocate a significant portion of my share of federal income taxes to such a program.  

    All we need now is big money for an army of lobbyists:)

    Parent

    The Governor's proposed health insurance (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:57:51 PM EST
    plan for California was similar.  Those who can't or won't get private insurance are required to contribute to a pool which provides for coverage to those not covered by MediCal or Medicare.  Plan hasn't gotten anywhere in the Legislature yet.

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    Nope, don't think so...

    I think you are referring to "assigned risk" which is neither top of the line nor cheap.

    Parent

    When were (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    you elected spokesperson for California middle-income families (no matter what their afflictions), su? Congratulations.

    Parent
    Well said, kdog (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:27:30 PM EST


    Parent
    When BTD started being willfully deceitful (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    in his headlines.

    Parent
    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:08:57 PM EST
    Deceitful how?

    Parent
    "Children [in middle income families]" (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:12:39 PM EST
    but--as we all know, one must click the link for the full story.  

    Parent
    Almost, but not quite. (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    The admin also does not oppose Health Care for any child.

    Apparently they do, though, oppose expanding a gvt. funded health insurance program to kids of middle income families.

    Parent

    The discrepancy (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    with my title is?

    Parent
    His headline does not refer to middle income (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:37:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Exactly the point. (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    Please try to keep up.

    Parent
    Middle income children are not children? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    Bush does not oppose insuring those children?

    You seem to be the deceitful one here.

    Parent

    Your headline says "Health Care" (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:53:49 PM EST
    not "Gvt. Funded Health Insurance."

    Bush does not oppose insuring those children?

    You know very well the difference, hence your deceit.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:07:07 PM EST
    Is Bush going to pay for health care out of his own pocket?

    Parent
    My last comment, not for you (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:15:41 PM EST
    because you very well know the difference despite your disingenuous comments.

    For anyone else who really might not understand the point:

    "Health Care" is most certainly not the same as "gvt. funded health insurance."

    The terms are not synonymous.

    The admin does not oppose health care for children, however it does, apparently, oppose expanding a gvt. funded health insurance program to kids of middle income families.

    Parent

    It is synonymous for most of the world (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:41:28 PM EST
    You really gave away the game on that one.

    Parent
    Oh, and you also know the difference (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:04:25 PM EST
    between "children" and a specific group of "those children" or "some children."

    It entertaining though to see your tortured rationalization.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:06:39 PM EST
    Did I hide the quote or somethng?

    Do you have ni idea what title does?

    Defend the VBush policy as you wishm, but my title is perfectly accurate and my story a quote.

    You doth protest too much.

    Parent

    This particular discussion reminds me of the (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    ones I skip at DK if possible.  Subject of post is irrelevant once the comments start flying.  

    Parent
    Sarc. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:44:47 PM EST
    His headline is not misleading to anyone who reads the post.

    If you feel it is, explain. But drop the snark. From me, you'll get what you give. You know that.

    Parent

    Right back atcha. You started the snark party (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    here: Post #13.

    Parent
    You are wrong. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:52:48 PM EST
    I gave you back the snark that was in your first comment in this thread, sarc.

    Parent
    My first commewnt, #5, (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    was a snark to you, Edger?

    If you say so.

    Parent

    Christ Sarc, jesus... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:22:18 PM EST
    I did not say it was. And you know it.

    Look... BTD's headline was simple standard journalistic hyperbole to get attention and elicit a WTF!?!?! reaction to entice people to read the post.

    Ease up up fer gawds sakes. That's all it was.

    It's the same kind of hyberbole used in headlines and articles and book titles all over the world every day.

    It's even used in advertising. It's no different than a car company running a magazine ad for a hot sports car, with a hot tanned babe in a bikini and bedroom eyes stretched across the hood to entice the testosterone addled teenage boys to want to read the ad and buy the car... or a cosmetic company running ads that try give young women the idea that they'll look like the gorgeous supermodel in the picture if they buy the makeup.

    Come on, sarc! Jeeze.

    Parent

    National Enquirer anyone?? (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    Look... BTD's headline was simple standard journalistic hyperbole to get attention and elicit a WTF!?!?! reaction to entice people to read the post.


    Parent
    MYOFB, ok? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:36:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Can't stand the heat, eh?? (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:14:03 PM EST
    You comment it.

    You live with it.

    Parent

    Hahahaha. Ha. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:32:57 PM EST
    Hahahahahahaha.

    Parent
    Isn't the purpose of a headline to alert the (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    reader to the subject of the post, causing the reader to decide to read it or not?  

    Look at headline above this one.  Looks like McNerney's stance on pulling out of Iraq is the subject, but, to get there, the reader must wade through Kagro X, and I do mean wade.

    Completely OT:  I'd rather read BDT's opinion on whether Obama correctly read the Miami ex pat community when he stated he favors relaxing the retrictions on ex pats visiting family members in Cuba and how much money each can send.

    Parent

    He allows it to be spun negatively (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:08:36 PM EST
    as his central point would surely be popular - more family visits.

    His postion is really not about the emargo at all.

    Personally, I favor totally lifting the embargo.

    Parent

    Thanks. I agree. searched last (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    night for the restrictions the Castro regime imposed on U.S. visits in response to Bush's restriction of frequency of family visits, definition of family, and limit on amount of money to Cuban family members.  Couldn't locate.  

    Parent
    I'm getting ready to read (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    this next:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/books/27book.html?ex=1187841600&en=0aa4be2732e780a4&ei=507 0

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:11:33 PM EST


    Parent
    And what of low income/poverty stricken (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    California families?

    It's their own fault? F*ck 'em? Survival of the fittest?

    Or maybe help them out in the interest of maybe middle and upper incomers having less crime to deal with? Or is that a bad idea since it might mean tax levels that middle incomers would rather not pay? Easier to look the other way?

    Just asking, you know? Curious...

    Parent

    Try to keep up. (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:12:58 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.


    Parent
    Like I said. Just asking. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    Try to keep up.

    Parent
    Maybe.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    if they had to buy insurance for their kids on their own in the private sector they wouldn't be in the middle income bracket anymore.  When you're not tied in to an employer based plan, that sh*t is stupid expensive, and if your kid has health problems you may as well forget about it.

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

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment