An interesting issue that I hope creates some debate.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/09/14/get_childrens_health_bill_passed/
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709270353
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I think that vetoing the SCHIP is a bad idea more than a good one. It's understandable that passing it would mean that many people who can afford private insurance would leave their private insurance companies for a low-cost, government-provided health care, which isn't a great thing, but wouldn't be the end of the world. I thought the quote about the president's priorities was really powerful, and I find it sort of strange that the health care of Americans comes second to war. In relation to the money spent on Iraq-related events, health care for some extra people doesn't seem like such a heinous thing. Passing the bill seems like it would be beneficial, and I think that it's better if a compromised is reached so that the bill can be passed instead of bickering with no results.
I think the "moral hazard" thing is really stupid. Just because people are insured does not mean they are going to go out and ignore safety precautions. If I wasn't insured and then I suddenly had insurance, I wouldn't decide to not wear my seatbelt or stop taking my Sunday morning runs. I really don't think people consciously contemplate these things in the course of their day.
I think there has to be a negotiation in the SCHIP bill for it to pass. The SCHIP is an excellent plan to help children living in poverty, but raising the poverty guidelines is really not necessary to help the "working poor." If the purpose is to aid the uninsured families that truly cannot afford private insurance, then raising poverty guidelines to include those who earn up to $80,000 a year just targets the wrong group of people. However some of the arguments made against the plan are unreasonable. A falling poverty rate does not render the SCHIP program pointless, for there are still many people that do not have the means to pay for adequate health services. As for the idea of a "moral hazard," it is ridiculous to assume that by denying people health care, they will take better care of themselves. A lack of health insurance is not going to make them any healthier.
bush says he is worried about a government takover of healthcare. this is understandable, but this fear does not justify refusing to listen to any proposed bill having to do with schip. we need to adress the healthcare problems in our country. our government can not stay entirely out of this issue. we also can not say that because somebody's income is too high for medicaide, they don't deserve government funds for healthcare. you can not judge someone's situation by a number, especially when you've lived with wealth your entire life, cough, bush.
I think the tax on cigarettes is entirely appropriate, and more than a little ironic. we need money for healthcare, so we will tax an incredibly unhealthy habit to generate it.
i'm just gonna reiterate how ridiculous the idea that providing healthcare to people will make them take worse care of themselves is. healthcare raises awareness about how to stay healthy. that's the point.
I definitely hope that Congress can override Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill. I think it that it is the government's moral and ethical obligation to help families who are in need of government subsidized health care for their children. Everyone deserves the ability to provide health care for their children. Although, to be perfectly honest, I think it is unnecessary that the bill extends federal subsidy for health care for children even in families whose annual income is considerably higher and in a range where they can actually afford health care already. This extended version of SCHIP will provide heal care for families who don't need it. If the bill is overridden, there will be a tax put on cigarettes to raise revenue to pay for the 35 billion dollar plan. I think this is great because it will make a disincentive to smokers by making cigarettes more expensive. Overall I like the bill and think it would be beneficial, but I do think that it should be limited to families who are working poor and cannot already provide health care for their children.
This seems like a very complex issue (I haven't commented on the blog until now because I wasn't even able to understand the concept), but after reading the 3 articles closely I have come to my own conclusion.
Providing healthcare for children of low-income families is a great idea and it is our moral responsibility to do so. However, it does not seem either fair or economically-strategic to extend eligibility to so many families who could afford healthcare on their own.
Illinois representative Rahm Emanuel made a very moving statement when he said that President Bush's priorities are clear: He does not seem to care enough about the welfare of our nation's poor young children. SCHIP would be available to people whose income is too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford private insurance. The people in this category are worthy of a good healthcare program, and we must not leave them in the dust simply because they are stuck in the middle in terms of their income bracket. It also seems logical that SCHIP would be finances by an increased cigarette tax. Smokers endanger their own health and the health of others, so it seems only fair to place the burden on them. Also, the idea of "moral hazard" is completely ridiculous and should not even be a factor of the debate.
On the other hand, the entire purpose of the plan is to provide healthcare for those children who need it most: "the working poor." The example that was given about New York was very persuasive of the fact that too many families would be eligible for the SCHIP program. People who are financially able to pay for their own health coverage should not be supported.
I think that the government should work towards the larger goal of covering healthcare for children of low-income families by gradually taking smaller steps. This would create a more efficient program.
First of all can I just say that the guy who is a teacher of economics, Bill Dickens, really really really irritated me. His last line in his article was so condescending and rude it just made me disregard everything he had said previously. So although I can't really comment on his article, and I'm not sure that I fully understand the whole SCHIP policy, I do still instinctively think that it sounds like a good idea. I'm sure there are so many families who fill that specific requirement and really need that security that SCHIP would provide. My old babysitter (who was like my second mother) definately fit that economic profile, but she had 5 kids. Her expenses were HUGE, and she was working 3 jobs which is why she had to quit. Her family would benefit so much from SCHIP. It pains me to feel such animosity towards the leader of my country but good lord he is such a hypocrite. It disgusts me to read his quotes claiming that he wants to put poor children first. I think this is just another example of the President taking his own interests to heart instead of those of the country as a whole. But I also think this is a great opportunity for the House and the Senate to overturn his veto and prove a point to our nation: if you want change, you have to act. And if you act, change will probably come.
I don't understand why President Bush would veto a bill because it provides cheap health care to too many people. It seems like the opposite of what the people want. It makes more sense to me to not veto the bill and provide the healthcare for everyone included in the bill. I suppose it's because it costs too much money, but wouldn't the increase on cigarettes mentioned in the first article have a two-pronged effect? It would either discourage people to buy cigarettes, which would be good, or bring in a very large amount of income to be spent on this healthcare bill. Passing this bill, to me, would have been the smarter choice for the American people. The compromise talked about in the first article seemed to me to be very good, but why did President Bush veto such a beneficial bill? Hopefully the Democrats in the House can get enough votes to override the veto, but we'll have to see. And as it said in the second article, this bill is already in Florida, and seems to be very benificial to the "working poor," but why wouldn't it work for the country? I suppose Bush is also afraid of the government taking over the healthcare, but aren't all the candidates running for the nomination proposing universal healthcare not run by the government? I think that a combination of these measures would be best for the country as well as for the American people.
I totally agree with Jacqueline and Caroline in that the idea of "moral hazard" is so stupid and ridiculous. I also agree with Allie in that the government should take smaller steps in modifying SCHIP in order to create a more efficient program that limits health care to families of "working poor" who need it the most. I am so shocked that President Bush is putting the war as his number one priority. He wants to raise money for a war that is killing people every day instead of spending money that will help save lives by providing health care for the "working poor." His priorities are absolutely absurd.
I completely agree with Allie and Nisha that Bush's priorities are way off, proven by his veto. It seems that Republicans are searching for reasons for rejecting the bill by claiming there's a "moral hazard" for providing adequate health care for the working poor. The whole point is to help children, not create some moral conspiracy. Our president is really neglecting the needs of the people in our country, and it truly shows in his defense of the veto.
i think allie's idea about taking smaller steps would be very effective. when a bill with so many different parts is proposed, it runs a much lower chance of being passed.
also, charlie brought up a good point in that we should think back to candidates' proposed healthplans. a plan like hillary's deffenitly poses a greater risk of government takeover than schip. that doesn't make her plan a bad idea.
alot of people mentioned that bush's priorities are in the wrong place. i think this is the underlying issue here. our president's mind is one-track. his focus is on defense, although currently its more like offense, and he will not see that there are serious problems that need adressing in our own country.
I can see why Bush would veto this bill and at the same time i can see that this bill NEEDS to be put into effect. Bush believes that families earining a fairly good income will leave their private insurance comapanies and join the governments in which i have to agree wtih Bush, is not a good idea but at thte same time, health care for over 3billion children sounds a whole lot better and bush needs to take this into consideration. So many more people would be happy and can afford healthcare but i think we're looking at it from our perspective and not bush's. In his eyes, he believes that the private health care systems will plunge, true, and that will lead to a demise in our economy, also, true. So getting angry at Bush's veto isnt really the best thing because he is looking at it from a differet perspective.
I agree with jacueline in that people who can afford private health insurance but switiching to the goverment one wouldnt be the end of the world and we're taking it too seriously although i do have to comment on your moral hazard issue. I really dont think its stupid and you can say that now, you arent going to avoid precautions if you were insure but it pains me to say but the reality is that people do go out and avoid these precautions. I dont want to believe it but its just the true nature of how our health care system works.
First of all, I would like to apologize for posting so late. I completely forgot about the blog.
This post was especially interesting because we got to read it from 3 different points of view (liberal, conservative, and unbiased-ish). I think that the SCHIP is a great program and that's why it has such high approval throughout the US. However, after reading the second two articles, I can see why President Bush vetoed the bill. The real aim of SCHIP is to get insurance to the children of the "working poor." Apparently, the expansion of the program would target families making up to $80,000 a year who can afford their own insurance. It sounds like at the present time Congress will not be able to override the veto. So, I think there with need to be some negotiation and/or compromise between those that support the bill and those that disapprove of it.
In response to Jackie's post on "moral hazard": I think "moral hazard" is definitely a real. I know someone who is on Lipitor (cholesterol lowering medication). And since he is on it, he will tend to eat more high-cholesterol foods because the Lipitor is there managing it for him. These kind of things happen all the time. People realize that they have something to fall back on and therefore, won't do all the work that is required or suggested. I agree with Caroline when she says that the falling poverty line doesn't make SCHIP pointless. And raising the poverty line will not solve anything either. I agree with Sal and also think that the cigarette tax is ironic and makes sense.
I completely agree with basically everybody in saying that the idea of moral hazard is absolutely ridiculous. There is a "moral hazard" if people have healthcare? I think they underestimate the American people--most people don't think, "Oh, I have healthcare now, I can do whatever I want and I'll be alright." That's absolutely absurd. I agree with Caroline's analysis of the situation and how the main focus is to help children, and they need to focus on that. I also agree that Allie's idea of taking smaller steps is the right way to go, and Congress needs to realize that a bill with such extensive measures has a less likely chance to be passed, but if they broke this bill up into smaller parts they could pass the individual parts.
I agree with Sal's assessment of the tax on cigarettes. It sounds to me like a good way to kill 2 birds with one stone (sort of). I also think Charlie makes a really good point by saying that HELLO why is it a BAD thing to provide cheaper health care options for more people? Economic strain is obviously a factor but the cig tax should cover that...and how about we stop spending so much on the war? Shawn I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Bush's job and sole purpose is to represent the American people. He's SUPPOSED to be viewing this from our perspective, not his own.
I sort of wonder about the cigarette tax thing. As Charlie said, it would be really great if everyone quit smoking as a result of the tax, but probably the cigarette companies would object to that. I agree with Sal in that Bush needs to stop focusing his attentions externally and look at some of the issues in our country.
As Jacqueline said, the fact that President Bush is placing his war efforts ahead of anything concerning internal issues is upsetting. But I do think that Shawn has a point: the president does have a different point of view as us. Nora is right that his point of view should be that of Americans, but he does have to take into account many other factors that we don't when we write on the blog. Also, I agree with Nora that the professor's article was irritating, but it is definitely important to recognize every aspect of an issue. Although I don't agree with much of what he said, he provided some interesting insight that I think we can learn from. Overall, I still stick with my original opinion that the bill should be passed in the form of various smaller bills.
I'm kind of stuck in the middle...I do agree that vetoing the SCHIP was a bad decision by President Bush, but at the same time I don't think families who can afford private health care insurance should be allowed to be covered under the government. But ultimately, the well-being of children throughout the nation is what's important, and I think that, as said by the Fox article, Bush's priorities are deficient and flawed. I agree that lobbying for an increase in the poverty line is unreasonable, since people who can afford to pay for their own health care shouldn't get away with using the government's money to get a reduction, but that is no reason to not give children whose family cannot afford to pay for health insurance the lack of protection that they deserve. It is unfair, since children cannot determine their family's income. Children are prone to get sick, especially if they are living in poverty stricken areas where the sanitation probably isn't as unsubstancial than that of higher class cities.
Addtionally, I like the idea of adding a 61-cent tax on packs on cigarettes. Smoking is harmful to our environment, and is ultimately one of the causes of illnesses that sends people to the hospital. Maybe the increase will make smokers think twice about purchasing products that are harmful to our environment.
One last thought: the idea of moral hazard is so bizarre. Purposely putting oneself in danger because they know they are covered under health insurance? Who wants to be in pain or have a serious illness? No one I know of.
I agree with Allie that smaller steps will help this idea flourish. Since we all agree its necessary to provide healthcare to everyone in our nation, we must start by supplying it to the ones who cannot afford it. Then from there, we can determine whether to extend the program to include families with higher annual income and calculate how much strain it would cause the government system.
I agree with Allie that smaller steps will help this idea flourish. Since we all agree its necessary to provide healthcare to everyone in our nation, we must start by supplying it to the ones who cannot afford it. Then from there, we can determine whether to extend the program to include families with higher annual income and calculate how much strain it would cause the government system.
I really think that its a very bad idea on Bush's part if he decides to veto the SCHIP bill. This bill is a very good idea because it gives healthcare to the 3 million children whos families cannot afford healthcare for them at all. It is a low cost bill that proves to help anyone in need which is why it should be passed. I also think it is a good idea to finance it with a 61 cent tax increase on cigarettes because it migt cut down on the number of smokers. The only downfall of the finacing though is that it seems like it might be very short term and that it will have to have a new source of money to support it (since it might cut down on the number of smokers with a higher tax, it might bring a lot more money at first but after a while, not as many people will buy cigarettes because of the price). Also I think it is foolish that he threatens to veto the bill because it might be an opportunity for the government to take over the healthcare system.
I agree with Billy and Shawn that in Bush's point of view this is not a very good idea at all. The aim of the program is to target families of the "working poor". And I know that the limit on which you would decide if someone was poor or not is well under $80,000. Families who earn nearly this much do not need assistance at all but can pay for their own health care. As Shawn said, Bush probably thinks that the private healthcare programs will plunge giving the government an opportunity to take them over therefore leading to a demise in our economy.
Post a Comment