Admin

Admin

 

Verse of the Day

The Newsroom

Powered By
widgetmate.com 		Sponsored By
Digital Camera


Site Design By: SC Themes

Proud to be Americans



Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Newspaper Rack

Categories

A Battle Over Expansion of Children’s Insurance.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same people that are outraged at the treatment of the fetus don’t seem to care about the children who have been born and are in need of health-care. I think we could at least give all children the same medical coverage that we give convicts in prison.
I guess the real care stops once a child is born and it ceases to be a political talking point or issue to raise money.
If you think that giving children health-care is going to mean rationing and price controls, please explain.

The fight over a popular health insurance program for children is intensifying, with President Bush now leading efforts to block a major expansion of the program, which is a top priority for Congressional Democrats.
The seemingly uncontroversial goal of insuring more children has become the focus of an ideological battle between the White House and Congress. The fight epitomizes fundamental disagreements over the future of the nation’s health care system and the role of government.

Democrats have proposed a major expansion of the program, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, to cover more youngsters with a substantial increase in federal spending.

Administration officials have denounced the Democratic proposal as a step toward government-run health care for all. They said it would speed the erosion of private insurance coverage. And they oppose two of the main ideas contemplated by Democrats to finance expanded coverage for children: an increase in the federal tobacco tax and cuts in Medicare payments to private insurance companies caring for the elderly.

White House objections to the Democratic plan are “philosophical and ideological,” said Allan B. Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy. In an interview, he said the Democrats’ proposal would move the nation toward “a single-payer health care system with rationing and price controls.”

Story

Written by Guss

11 Responses to “A Battle Over Expansion of Children’s Insurance.”

  1. Big Mo Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
    Visit Big Mo

    “It never ceases to amaze me how the same people that are outraged at the treatment of the fetus don’t seem to care about the children who have been born and are in need of health-care.”

    It never ceases to amaze me how you libs can twist something like that.

    First off, the BABY, not “fetus,” stands totally helpless before the whims of the mother whether he or she lives or dies.

    Second, after birth, NO CHILD is denied critical care in America’s medical systems. No one is turned away at the emergency room. (Yes, I know, you’ll probably find a few handful of examples to shove in my face.) But you know what, Guss, if you start off a post with an asinine assertion that people who fight to save the unborn don’t give a whit about kids after they’re born, you’re going to get a big shove back.

    It’s a POLICY DIFFERENCE. But you turn it into Republicans not giving a rip whether born kids live or die. And sorry, Guss, but that twisting really sucks, stinks and is highly offensive.

    (I’m not mad at you or trying to be a jerk. I just want you to know that your assertion is utterly offensive.)

  2. Guss Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
    Visit Guss

    I’m not going to argue over this. I stated my opinion and that’s all I’m going to do.:)

  3. Guss Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
    Visit Guss

    You shouldn’t take it so personal. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans of neglecting the needs of children.

  4. Big Mo Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
    Visit Big Mo

    That’s just it - I do take such things personally, because I am one of those people who cares immensely about unborn children.

    Just a little tip - if you want to start a discussion, don’t start off with such blanket statements that are like red flags before a bull. It dilutes whatever you’re saying and angers people you could otherwise have a discussion with.

  5. Sue Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
    Visit Sue

    Guss:

    Just re-word and reverse the statement a bit.

    It amazes me that those who have so little regard for the baby before it is born then are so concerned with the ones who make it into this world. See, it works both ways.

    We have a state program here in PA under which all children are guaranteed health coverage. I would think other states would have something similiar and if they do not they certainly should.

    When dealing with the special needs child, we fall short in this country and the trials for both parent and child can be long and laborius. I had a few of these children in my care and if there is any area which should be addressed both at the federal and state level, this might be the place to start.

    It is best not to cast stones when it come to an issue like this as “most” people do have compassion when it comes to children. We may have differences as to when they are considered a “child” but beyond that I have worked with very poor families who have always been able to secure care for their children. The others who had health care coverage through their employers etc, never once said they did not have access to care for their children.

    All these health care programs sound good on their face. but they move us one step closer to socialized medicine and if that happens then we can debate the “care” not only children but everyone receives.

  6. ~J~ Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
    Visit ~J~

    I’m bothered by this statement: And they oppose two of the main ideas contemplated by Democrats to finance expanded coverage for children: an increase in the federal tobacco tax and cuts in Medicare payments to private insurance companies caring for the elderly

    If you cut medicare payments to insurance companies for the care of the elderly, then what happens to their medical care?

    If we care about human life we should care for it from conception to grave. It’s a matter of which policy is better.

    I know I don’t want socialized medicine and if they are moving in that direction, I think using children as the guinea pigs is a bit scary.

    I know we give free vaccines to children in our state and I have seen mothers on Medicaid with their children in the pediatrician’s office for well-visits as well as sick visits.

    How widespread the problem of medical care is for children I can’t tell you from what I’ve observed because I’ve seen these children receive the same care other children will receive.

  7. Guss Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
    Visit Guss

    Big Mo,

    if you want to start a discussion, don’t start off with such blanket statements that are like red flags before a bull. It dilutes whatever you’re saying and angers people you could otherwise have a discussion with
    That’s very good advice. I’m serious. Thank you.
    Now that I read it, it does sound like I’m throwing accusations.

  8. Guss Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
    Visit Guss

    Got a virus and have to redo my computer. See you tomorrow:)

  9. Ayschlay Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
    Visit Ayschlay

    Go to Childstats.gov for info on healthcare access and provision for children: http://www.childstats.gov/amchildren05/eco5.asp

  10. Ayschlay Says:

    July 9th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
    Visit Ayschlay

    I sympathize with your feelings, Guss, and I see how they overlap, but maybe we should keep the matter of abortion separate from the issue of inadequate healthcare for children.

    It’s awful enough that our country treats children with no access to healthcare as “externalities.” Thanks for putting us onto this story.

  11. Guss Says:

    July 11th, 2007 at 7:58 am
    Visit Guss

    Ayschlay,

    You’re absolutely right, the two have nothing to do with each other. It’s a mistake that won’t be made again.