posted September 21, 2007 12:05 AM              

* Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
* Print
* Reprints
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Newsvine
o Permalink

Article Tools Sponsored By
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: September 21, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — President Bush, bracing for a series of battles with Congress over spending, threatened on Thursday to veto a bill expanding a popular children’s health insurance program, calling it “a step toward federalization of health care.”

The program expires Sept. 30, and Congress is on the verge of renewing it by providing coverage to an additional 4 million children over the 6.6 million already enrolled — at an additional cost of $35 billion over five years. Mr. Bush says the bill would expand a program aimed at helping the poor beyond its original intent.

The veto threat is just one of nearly a dozen the White House has issued recently aimed at a variety of bills including measures on education spending and financing for medical research. With the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats are headed for a showdown over spending similar to the one that preceded the government shutdown of 1995.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have yet to complete action on any of their 12 major spending bills. But even if they do, Mr. Bush will not sign them; he has issued veto threats on 10 of the 11 appropriations measures passed so far by the House.

At his news conference on Thursday, Mr. Bush sought to get out ahead of the Democrats by painting them as big spenders and himself as a responsible steward of taxpayers’ money. He urged Democrats to pass a temporary extension of the health insurance program, and accused them of playing politics with children’s health care by waiting until the program was about to lapse to send him legislation they know he will veto.

“In other words,” Mr. Bush said, “members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to force Mr. Bush into the uncomfortable position of vetoing a bill covering 10 million children before any spending bills reach his desk. They are casting the president as the compassionate conservative who forgot his compassion.

“They thought they were going to get a fight on spending appropriations, and what they’re getting is 10 million children’s health care,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat who is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “Sept. 30 is the deadline on kids’ health care. We’re going to meet that deadline and he’s going to get a chance to side with 10 million kids or not.”

If Mr. Bush’s emphasis on fiscal restraint is angering Democrats, it is pleasing conservatives in Mr. Bush’s own party, who have long accused the president of allowing government spending to run amok. That criticism is percolating again in Washington this week from an unlikely source: Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, who in a new book has accused Mr. Bush of putting Republican politics ahead of fiscal responsibility.

On Thursday, Mr. Bush defended himself. “I respectfully disagree with Alan Greenspan when it comes to saying that this administration didn’t handle the fiscal — the fiscal issues we faced in good fashion,” he said. “As a matter of fact, we did.”

In calling for Congress to pass a “clean, temporary extension” of the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Mr. Bush argued that the Democratic bill would raise taxes and allow children whose families earn up to $83,000 a year to enroll. The Democrats propose paying for the measure by raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes.

But the chief Republican sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said Mr. Bush “is getting bad information.” He said Mr. Bush’s reference to the $83,000 limit was drawn from a proposal put forth by New York State to receive an exemption from the program’s restrictions, which the administration recently denied.

Mr. Grassley said he appealed to the president directly Thursday morning, telling him that a long-term extension of the current law would leave children uncovered, and that the $5 billion increase in the program the president has proposed is not enough to cover more children.

“Drawing lines in the sand at this stage isn’t constructive,” Mr. Grassley said, adding, “I wish he’d engage Congress in a bill that he could sign instead of threatening a veto, and I hope he’ll still do that.”

Democrats were more pointed. Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, accused Mr. Bush of a “stubborn and uncompassionate stance,” while Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is the longest-serving member of the House, called Mr. Bush’s stance “shameful.”

The House and the Senate have approved the legislation in different forms, and for the last month they have been trying to reconcile their differences. Though they have not announced the fine points of their final bill, they have agreed on its major provisions and are expected to approve it next week, in time for the Sept. 30 deadline.

But it is unlikely that the approval will come with a veto-proof margin. The bill Mr. Grassley backed in the Senate passed 68 to 31, with one vote more than the 67 necessary to override a presidential veto if all 100 senators are voting. The House version passed 225 to 204, well short of the two-thirds majority necessary for an override.

That means Democrats and the White House will almost certainly have to work together on some kind of extension if Mr. Bush issues his veto, because neither side wants to take the blame for letting the children’s health program lapse.

Robert Pear contributed reporting.

The poor children are not gonna loose anything. He talks so much crap. He has some nerve.

It's no problem for this monkey to spend gazillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Insurance is not cheap at all for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/washington/21bush.html?hp

Medicare Audits Show Problems in Private Plans

* Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
* Print
* Single Page
* Reprints
* Share
o Del.icio.us
o Digg
o Facebook
o Newsvine
o Permalink

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 — Tens of thousands of Medicare recipients have been victims of deceptive sales tactics and had claims improperly denied by private insurers that run the system’s huge new drug benefit program and offer other private insurance options encouraged by the Bush administration, a review of scores of federal audits has found.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Paul Vernon/Associated Press

Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, says the Medicare drug benefit is saving people money.

The problems, described in 91 audit reports reviewed by The New York Times, include the improper termination of coverage for people with H.I.V. and AIDS, huge backlogs of claims and complaints, and a failure to answer telephone calls from consumers, doctors and drugstores.

Medicare officials have required insurance companies of all sizes to fix the violations by adopting “corrective action plans.” Since March, Medicare has imposed fines of more than $770,000 on 11 companies for marketing violations and failure to provide timely notice to beneficiaries about changes in costs and benefits.

The companies include three of the largest participants in the Medicare market, UnitedHealth, Humana and WellPoint.

The audits document widespread violations of patients’ rights and consumer protection standards. Some violations could directly affect the health of patients — for example, by delaying access to urgently needed medications.

In July, Medicare terminated its contract with a private plan in Florida after finding that it posed an “imminent and serious threat” to its 11,000 members.

In other cases, where auditors criticized a company’s “policies and procedures,” the effects on patients were not clear.

The audits show the growing pains that Medicare has experienced as it introduced the popular new drug benefit and shifted more responsibility to private health plans.

For years, Democrats have complained about efforts to “privatize Medicare,” and they are likely to cite the findings as evidence that private insurers cannot be trusted to care for the sickest, most vulnerable Medicare recipients.

But federal officials point with pride to their efforts to police the Medicare market, and they say that competition among private plans has been a boon to beneficiaries, offering more choices at lower cost than anyone expected.

“The Medicare drug benefit is saving seniors an average of $1,200 a year,” said Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services.

Medicare officials said the audits also showed that insurers would be held accountable.

“The start-up period is over,” said Kerry N. Weems, the new acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “I am simply not going to tolerate marketing abuses.”

The same insurance companies that offer stand-alone drug plans also sell Medicare Advantage plans, which provide a full range of benefits including coverage of doctor’s visits and hospital care. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans has grown rapidly, to more than 8 million, from 4.7 million in 2003. Federal auditors found the same types of violations in both parts of the program.

Of the audits conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, 39 focused on drug benefits, 44 focused on managed care plans and 8 examined other types of private plans.

Medicare officials said that compliance problems occurred most often in two areas: marketing, and the handling of appeals and grievances related to the quality of care.

Many of the marketing abuses occurred in sales of the fastest-growing type of Medicare Advantage product, known as private fee-for-service plans. In June, the government announced that seven of the leading companies in this market, including UnitedHealth, Humana and Coventry, had agreed to suspend marketing of these plans. Medicare recently allowed them to resume marketing after they took steps to monitor their sales agents more closely.

Each Medicare plan has a list of preferred drugs, known as a formulary. Under federal law, patients can request coverage of other drugs that may be medically necessary. But many insurers do not have procedures to handle such requests, auditors said.

John H. Wells, the compliance officer at Bravo Health, defended the company’s record, but he said: “The appeals and grievance process is very complex. It is very difficult for any plan to be fully compliant. In many cases, the government’s guidance is unclear, so it’s impossible for a business to know what to do.”

These findings were typical of the deficiencies described in Medicare audit reports:

* 1
* 2

Next Page »
More Articles in National »
All the news that's fit to entertain.

[URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07medicare.html?_r=1&ei=5118&en=7a643c8880ab22df&ex=1349496000&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssaol&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1191759292-nkKTNeKffT0D xC3vO]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07medicare.html?_r=1&ei=5118&en=7a643c8880ab22df&ex=1349496000&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssaol&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1191759292-nkKTNeKffT0 DxC3vO[/URL] zCKAA

How Bush Lost Sight of the Children
Wednesday, Oct. 03, 2007 By JIM WALLIS
President Geroge W. Bush speaks about the budget in Lancaster, Pa., Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007.
President Geroge W. Bush speaks about the budget in Lancaster, Pa., Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP
Article Tools
Print
Email
Sphere
AddThis
RSS
Sponsored by
Advertisement

When I first heard that President Bush was vowing to veto a bipartisan bill to expand child health care, my immediate thought was more personal than political. What has happened to him, I wondered. Now that he has followed through on his threat, I can't help but think about the first time we met and the conversation we had about children.
Related Articles
Making Hay Over the Health Care Veto

Democrats smell opportunity in Bush's veto of the children's health care bill, and G.O.P. Congressmen may bear the brunt
A Bush Budget Showdown Brewing

Over the past two weeks, Bush and Congressional Republicans alike have hammered Democrats on excessi...
Why a Christian in the White House Felt Betrayed

For Republicans who fear that the Foley scandal might keep Evangelicals away from the polls in Novem...
Punchlines

"The White House says that President Bush is getting so many requests to campaign with other Republi...
Bush: A Born-Again Conservative?

Bush: A Born-Again Conservative? Thursday, Sep. 27, 2007 By JAY NEWTON-SMALL/WASHINGTON ...

Just one day after Bush secured his election in December 2000, I received a phone call inviting me to Austin to meet with him and a small group of religious leaders. The President-elect wanted to discuss his oft-stated passion for really tackling the persistent problem of poverty and to tell us about his vision for "faith-based initiatives." I had not voted for George W. Bush, and that fact was no secret to him or his staff. But he reached out to me, and to others in the faith community across the political spectrum, because we shared a common concern. I was impressed by that, and by the topic of gathering down in Austin.

Those of us who had been summoned to Texas filed into a little Sunday School classroom at First Baptist, Austin, where we would meet with Bush. I had preached at the church before and knew the pastor, who told me how puzzled he was that his quite "progressive" church was chosen for the meeting. Inside the classroom, 25 of us were seated in chairs, chatting and not knowing what to expect, when Bush walked in without any great introduction. He took a seat and told us that he just wanted to listen to our concerns, to hear what we thought the solutions were for dealing with poverty in America.

And he really did listen, more than Presidents often do. He also asked questions. One sounded lofty, yet it resonated with those of us seated around the room: "How do I speak to the soul of America?" My answer to that was simple: Focus on the children. Their plight is our shame, I told him, and their promise is our future. Reach them and you reach our soul. Bush nodded in agreement. The conversation was rich and deep for more than an hour and a half.

When the discussion officially ended, Bush moved around the room, talking with us individually or in small groups for another hour. I could see that his staff was anxious to whisk him away (Cabinet appointments were being made that week and there were key departments yet to fill). Yet he lingered and continued to ask questions. At one point, he turned to me and said, with what I could only read as complete sincerity, "Jim, I don't understand poor people. I've never lived with poor people or been around poor people much. I don't understand what they think and feel about a lot of things. I'm just a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?"

I still recall the intense and earnest look on his face as he stared right into my eyes and asked his question. It was a moment of humility and candor that, frankly, we don't often see with Presidents.

My response to President-elect Bush was born of my own experience. He should, I suggested, listen to poor people themselves, and pay attention to those who live and work with the poor. Again, he nodded his head; again, he seemed to agree. When I returned home, I told my wife Joy, also a clergyperson, about our conversation. Weeks later, we listened together to President Bush's first inaugural address. When he said, "America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise. And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault... Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do," my wife poked me in the ribs and smiled.

Bush talked more about poverty in that inaugural address than any President had for a long time. When I said so in a newspaper column soon after, my Democratic friends were not pleased. Nor did they like the fact that I started attending meetings at the White House with the President and members of his staff about how to best construct a "faith-based initiative." Other friends of mine, however, were appointed to lead and staff the new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, the first the White House had ever seen. We brought many delegations of religious leaders — conservative, liberal, and everything in between — to meet with the men and women who ran that office. Many of us dared hope that something new might be in the air.

But that was a long time ago. We don't hear much about that office or initiative anymore. Most of my friends have long left. I don't hear about meetings now. The phrase "compassionate conservatism" rarely passes the lips of anyone at the White House these days.

And now, the President has vetoed a bipartisan measure to expand health insurance for low-income children. Most of his expressed objections to the bill have been vigorously refuted by Republican Senators who helped craft the legislation. Members of his own party have vowed to lobby their colleagues in an effort to override the veto. During his first presidential campaign, Bush chided conservative House Republicans for spending cuts accomplished on the backs of the poor. Now congressional Republicans are chiding him.

What happened to this President? The money needed for expanding health care to poor children in America is far less than the money that has been lost and wasted on corruption in Iraq. How have the priorities strayed so far from those children, whom he once agreed were so central to the soul of the nation? What do they need to do to get the President's attention again?

The faithful — of all creeds and political affiliations — barraged the White House last week, imploring the President to reconsider his veto threat. Our efforts did not bear fruit. But I wonder if, before he put his veto stamp on that legislation, the President thought back to that little meeting in a Baptist Sunday school classroom, not far from where he grew up. I wonder if he remembered that day, what we talked about, what was in his heart, and how much hope there was in the room. If he knows his Bible, the President should remember that Jesus said to suffer the little children. This, however, isn't exactly what he meant.

Jim Wallis is the founder of Sojourners and the author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1668016,00.html

posted September 21, 2007 02:38 AM            

On one hand, it really isn't anybody else's responsibility to pay for your children's needs. If you can't afford even basic necessities like healthcare for children, why did you choose to have them? It's nearly always a choice (unless you're raped and somehow forced to birth the child) as, unless you're abstinent, there is always a chance, however small, that pregnancy can occur. Getting pregnant is the biggest deal there is, imo.

That isn't to say that people shouldn't be charitable or philanthropic towards needy people. I'm all for that. Please choose to help those in need with whatever you can reasonably spare, time or money or whatever. But the government forcing one group of people to pay for other people's childrens' needs is not either of those.

On the other hand, innocent children shouldn't have to suffer a lack of decent healthcare because of their parents' ... unfortunate ... circumstances. Let's not be cruel, either.

Obviously the plans we've created so far haven't helped decrease need. I don't think what Congress is trying to push through is going to help in the long run, either. What to do?

posted September 28, 2007 08:55 AM              

quote:

---

On one hand, it really isn't anybody else's responsibility to pay for your children's needs.

---

Are you on drugs lady? Health care prices suck. The government is put into power by the people. We expect some help to some extent. At least lower the damn prices. If they can't do it then why the hell be a government in the first place?

I bet you 70 billion dollars that you are rich? Or I bet your husband's job pays for everything?

Crap. Fidel might be a dictator but at least health care is free over there.

I'll go to Mexico if I have to and get my a$$ over there if I'm sick. 3 hours away in plane.

posted September 28, 2007 09:00 AM              

Imagine she had 3 children? 120 bucks for one visit.

posted September 28, 2007 09:05 AM              

Live chat is also available at our website at www.ehealthinsurance.com 24x7.

Your Quote Summary and Quote Number:
Coverage for: Applicant (F/25)
State / Zip Code: NY / 11372
County: QUEENS
Coverage Start Date: 10/15/2007

Quotes generated on 9/28/2007

Select
by:
10 plans

Select

Recommend Plan for You
Select

Narrow Your Search
Select
Sort by:


(Check up to 4 plans)

Full Coverage HMO with RX (For Self-Employed Only)

This is best seller image
Atlantis Health Plan AM Best Rating: B++ Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
HMO $0 0% $20

$306.28
Monthly Cost

Prescription Drug Covered Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee Electronic Signature Not Eligible for Health Savings Account (HSA)

Find Doctor
Plan Details






Full Coverage POS with Rx (For Self-Employed Only)

This is best seller image
Atlantis Health Plan AM Best Rating: B++ Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
POS $0 0% $20

$332.29
Monthly Cost

Prescription Drug Covered Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee Electronic Signature Not Eligible for Health Savings Account (HSA)

Find Doctor
Plan Details






GHI Alliance Value Plan

This is best seller image
Group Health Incorporated AM Best Rating: B- Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
PPO $0 0% Not Covered

$415.62
Monthly Cost

Prescription Drug Covered Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee Electronic Signature Not Eligible for Health Savings Account (HSA)

Find Doctor
Plan Details






Full Coverage HMO with no Rx (For Self-Employed Only)


Atlantis Health Plan AM Best Rating: B++ Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
HMO $0 0% $20

$267.24
Monthly Cost

No Prescription Drug Coverage Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee Electronic Signature Not Eligible for Health Savings Account (HSA)

Find Doctor
Plan Details






Full Coverage HMO with Prescriptions


Atlantis Health Plan AM Best Rating: B++ Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
HMO $0 0% $15

$667.81
Monthly Cost

Prescription Drug Covered Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee Electronic Signature Not Eligible for Health Savings Account (HSA)

Find Doctor
Plan Details






Freedom HSA Direct (For Self-Employed Only)


Oxford Health Plans, Inc. AM Best Rating: A- Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
PPO $2,850 10% You pay 10% after deductible

$283.91
Monthly Cost

Prescription Drug Covered Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee No Electronic Signature HSA Eligible
HSA Options

Find Doctor
Plan Details






Liberty Plan Direct (For Self-Employed Only)


Oxford Health Plans, Inc. AM Best Rating: A- Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
PPO $2,000 20% $30

$342.54
Monthly Cost

Prescription Drug Covered Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee No Electronic Signature Not Eligible for Health Savings Account (HSA)

Find Doctor
Plan Details






Freedom HSA Exclusive (For Self-Employed Only)


Oxford Health Plans, Inc. AM Best Rating: A- Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
HMO $2,000 0% You pay nothing after deductible

$311.71
Monthly Cost

Prescription Drug Covered Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee No Electronic Signature HSA Eligible
HSA Options

Find Doctor
Plan Details






Liberty Exclusive Plan Metro (For Self-Employed Only)


Oxford Health Plans, Inc. AM Best Rating: A- Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
HMO $2,000 10% $25

$317.68
Monthly Cost

Prescription Drug Covered Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee No Electronic Signature Not Eligible for Health Savings Account (HSA)

Find Doctor
Plan Details






Full Coverage POS with no Rx (For Self-Employed Only)


Atlantis Health Plan AM Best Rating: B++ Plan Type Deductible Coinsurance Office Visit
POS $0 0% $20

$293.25
Monthly Cost

No Prescription Drug Coverage Maternity Coverage Available No Application Fee Electronic Signature Not Eligible for Health Savings Account (HSA)

Find Doctor
Plan Details





(Check up to 4 plans)

Back to Top
The #1 service to compare and buy health insurance
Largest Selection
Compare leading health insurance companies

Help & Guidance
Unbiased advice from licensed professionals
Best Prices Available
Choose quality plans at affordable prices

Fast Process
Apply online, eSign and save time

IMPORTANT NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS

* DO NOT CANCEL ANY HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE YOU CURRENTLY HAVE OR DECLINE COBRA BENEFITS UNTIL YOU RECEIVE AN APPROVAL LETTER AND INSURANCE POLICY, (ALSO KNOWN AS AN INSURANCE CONTRACT OR CERTIFICATE), FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY YOU SELECTED. MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY. PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE, PREMIUM AMOUNT, WAITING PERIOD, BENEFITS, LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS, AND RIDERS.
* The feature icons displayed are a summary for informational purposes only. Review the evidence of coverage and insurance policy (plan contract) for a detailed description of coverage benefits, limitations, and exclusions.
* *eHealth's Picks sorts the insurance plans first by carrier Sponsored Plans, followed by the Best Seller Plans.
* The quotes or rates shown above are estimates only. Your premium is subject to change based on your medical history, the underwriting practices of the insurance company, the optional benefits you selected, if any, and other relevant factors, such as changes in rates which take effect before your requested effective date. The insurance company always determines your actual premium. Insurance companies reserve the right to change the terms of a policy upon proper notification.
* The quotes or rates shown above are for your requested effective date ONLY. If the actual effective date of your policy is different from the requested effective date, the actual premium of your policy may differ from the quote or rate above. The change in amount may be due to premium increases or policy changes from the insurance company and/or one or more family members having a birthday. (Rates are highly dependent on age.) The carrier you selected may not guarantee their rates for any period of time.
* Carriers cannot guarantee the availability of a provider (or providers), and may add, delete or change a participating provider (or providers) at any time without prior notice to you. Please contact your chosen carrier for updated information before using the services of any provider.
* The Copayment, Deductible, and Coinsurance amounts are your share of the costs for covered benefits. These amounts are subject to change.
* Some insurance companies may require dependent children to apply separately when they reach a specific age. Age limits for dependents vary by insurance company and state mandates. Some companies may not extend the age limit for dependents even if they are full-time students at an accredited college or university.
* Each insurance carrier may have unique Notices, Disclaimers, and Fees. Please check below for information regarding the plans and carriers you selected.

CARRIER SPECIFIC NOTICES, DISCLAIMERS, AND FEES

* If husband/wife last names don't match, Atlantis will request a marriage certificate. If child's last name does not match either of the parents', a birth certificate will be requested.
* If a dependent is disabled, proof of disability will be requested upon application. Dependents over the age of 19 will be asked to submit proof of full-time status at an accredited school at time of application.

Live Assistance
1-800-977-8860
M-F 6am-9pm PT
Sat 7am-Noon PT
Need Advice?
Get Online Help
Chat Available!

Your Quote Summary
Coverage for:
Applicant (F/25)
State / Zip Code:
NY / 11372
County:
QUEENS
Coverage Start Date:
10/15/2007
Change your info

Common Questions
View Tutorial
on Insurance

What's the best health insurance plan for me?

How does a PPO plan work?

How can I get an HSA?

More>>

Privacy Policy
Click to Verify - This site has chosen a VeriSign SSL Certificate to improve Web site security
HomeAbout UsAffiliate ProgramLicensing & LegalPrivacy Policy
Toll-free 800-977-8860, Mon - Fri, 6AM-9PM PT. Copyright © 2007 eHealthInsurance Services, Inc.

posted September 28, 2007 09:06 AM              

WTF

posted September 29, 2007 02:08 PM            

How many threads do you intend to start on the very same subject?

Or, is it that you didn't like the responses to the other thread you started...on the very same subject?

Pelosi 'praying' Bush doesn't veto children's health insurance bill
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/003612.html

posted October 01, 2007 01:20 AM            

quote:

---

People who cannot afford to raise children and provide for their own children's welfare...should not have children.

---

LMAO Jwhop...i will lie if I say that I didn't have the same thought but then found it unethical to post...yea im 50/50 on this one...on the one hand health insurance is rediculous. BUT kids under 18 do get relatively good health insurance if parents make under 35K a year...trust me...in fact they get free health insurance...when they hit 18 thats when its iffy and the co-payments start to sky rocket...on the other hand if you cannot afford to feed one child, why have 5? Its called condoms...its just unethical to have that many kids if you cannot raise them, and therefore no one should be paying for their health insurance.

posted October 01, 2007 08:48 AM            

But the price of healthcare is a totally different issue. Somebody slap some reality into those insurance companies. And I'd rather see a liveable wage as opposed to a minimum wage, myself.

posted October 02, 2007 11:53 AM            

But, yes, I do think insurance companies, in general, are a real hassle and not very well managed. I've never look at car insurance company "profits" versus how much they actually pay out but if it's anything like it is with healthcare it's just another disappointment.

Health insurance companies definitely need an overhaul but I can't really believe that making the government somehow responsible for all healthcare needs (even just for children) is going to make things better for everyone in the long run, either.

And again, I do think it would be reasonable to have some kind of emergency aid (outside of charity organizations) available to children whose parents/guardians seriously cannot afford healthcare for them but, imo, it shouldn't be a forever thing. Maybe some kind of program that could help the children in need now that will eventually taper off to the kind of emergency aid I'm thinking would be reasonable for future children ... a program that won't encourage people living below the poverty line to have 5 kids because, you know, healthcare is free at least. And, yes, I've known plenty of people on welfare who have that attitude ... the government pays for their kids' schooling (public), healthcare (medicaid), food (food stamps) etc so of course they can "afford" to have as many kids as they want.

I still think it's the parents responsibility to plan, in advance, as well as possible for their childrens' needs, including healthcare. And I think it's sad that children are being used as political pawns. Few want to say that parents should be responsible and yet nobody wants children to go without healthcare just because their parents can't afford it.

The whole thing is a mess.

posted October 02, 2007 12:21 PM            

quote:

---

But the chief Republican sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said Mr. Bush “is getting bad information.” He said Mr. Bush’s reference to the $83,000 limit was drawn from a proposal put forth by New York State to receive an exemption from the program’s restrictions, which the administration recently denied.

---

posted October 02, 2007 01:05 PM            

There are also cases where need is, imo, more justified than others. For example, a mother of four who, say, was a SAHM in her marriage gets divorced because, say, her husband was fooling around ... and her ex-husband refuses to pay child support. Obviously, this is a person who really would need some help in getting back on her feet. The getting back on her feet is the operative part. No, it's definitely not going to be easy. And, realistically, she's probably not going to live her "dream" life and instead have to make many more sacrifices than the average mother for her children to have their needs met.

But the way the current system works, she'd be better off not getting an education/training and a good job because her children's needs would be more affordable as a poor person what with free healthcare, education, food, etc. seeing as there's no limit on how long she can apply for aid.

I think any transition period is bound to be ugly, too. And yes, I think people should be encouraged to be reasonably employed instead of depending on government "benefits". Obviously giving people free benefits is not working as welfare hasn't magically done away with poverty ... as many hoped it would. Aside from helping those in need now, I'm also very concerned with creating a society where poverty isn't as widespread and damaging as it is now and I think programs like welfare, in the long run, don't help with that at all.

What will? How do we make people responsible for themselves and their children? We aren't living in a third world country where, no matter how hard you try, some needed things are out of your reach. Maybe somehow making it so that having children isn't seen as free, easy, and accidental, etc. would, over time, make people less willing to have kids they can't afford. That way, people whose lives did take a turn for the worse can get the help they need without the system being exploited.

I'm brought to mind of all the drama Oprah received for opening that school in Africa. Help those at home, they said. Well, she said she did go to inner city schools and meet the kids, etc. Here, the kids were more interested in the latest $$$ shoes and what free stuff they were getting. Over there, the kids were so much more grateful and desirious of a chance at an education and a better life.

Like I said before, though, I do think healthcare (insurance really) is overpriced and needs a thorough overhaul. And minimum wage needs one, too. Until that happens, maybe we should all be more judicious about having children? And find a way to help currently needy children without encouraging more children to be born whose needs can't be reasonably met?

posted October 02, 2007 01:20 PM              

when the government is in league with corporate fascism, and is instrumental in creating a large underclass in tandem with its measures to institute a statist form of social control, and eradicate the constitution, then yes, it bears the responsibility for the unacceptable living conditions of a large percentage of children living in artificially, government-created poverty.

posted October 02, 2007 01:45 PM              

Homeopathic medicine and practitioners were run out of this country last century by the AMA precisely because it has the capacity for healing in a much more inexpensive, successful and holistic fashion than allopathic medicine. the AMA has tried to do the same to other alternative forms of medicine, such as chiropractic and naturopathy.

homeopathy also promotes real "health," not an addiction of a toxic system to more toxic substances, that do nothing to heal, but rather to suppress disease, thus making the body more sick than it was before.

this system generates a population of people addicted to toxic "medicine" and drugs, diminishing their physical, mental and spiritual health. which ultimately is the desired goal...a perpetually unhealthy citizenship is more easliy manipulated and controlled than truly healthy people who have the capacity to think for themselves.

posted October 02, 2007 01:47 PM            

I don't know what to do about it, either. Wages up, free benefits down. Healthcare quality up, health insurance costs down. Better education by overhauling our public system and somehow getting private education down to more affordable levels? Though I don't see how this can all be done/should be done through the government or through the government alone anyway.

posted October 02, 2007 02:40 PM            

I had a friend in the Navy from Ireland. He told me that in their education system it was socially unacceptable (amongst the students) to fall behind or cop out on homework and so forth. You'd sooner be ridiculed for falling behind, than you would for studying.

posted October 02, 2007 02:45 PM              

hospitals are places of such negativity...i much prefer the health food store, the book store...places that allow me to take responsibility for my own health in all its facets -- body, mind and soul.
i am grateful for the sometimes life-saving elements available in allopathic medicine, no doubt.

but the reason i question universal health care, esp mandatory health care, is that often it keeps people slaves to a toxicity that they are told simply to cover up with more toxic chemicals. the expensive treatments, the naturopaths, the holistic practitioners, gentler alternative care, that can lead one on a path of healing self-discovery, these are not avaible in "taditional healthcare" (disease-care).

for true healing to begin, one must move beyond the limited framework of allopathic medicine. forcing people to remain yoked to this limited system is a form of social control. as it is, people are forced into lifestyles they may not otherwise choose because of fear....fear from the powerful AMA and pharmaceutical companies, that program us to believe that our survival is dependent on their chemicals. it isn't. and addiction to these chemicals keeps people yoked to the same lifestyles that ulitmately contribute to their deteriorating health!

and all the while they control us through fear. though as i said, i do respect the positive benefits of allopathic medicine. esp in emergencies -- they can be lifesaving.

it's complicated.

posted October 02, 2007 02:49 PM              

Health And Healing

posted October 03, 2007 01:05 PM              

the other healing practices available must struggle to survive, and if they become too successful, esp if they are low-cost, they are blasted out of existence by the AMA.