An interesting topic that I hope creates some good debate.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/09/14/get_childrens_health_bill_passed/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709270353
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I'm a bit confused by the three articles, I think only one has come close to an entirely unbiased explanation of the vetoed SCHIP bill. The second article says "SCHIP is available to people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but are not able to afford private insurance.", yet the others state that the bill would offer coverage to people too far above the poverty line, to people that CAN afford private insurance. The first says that the bill would raise the poverty line when poverty rates are dropping, and then there's the discussion of the moral hazard. In my opinion the possibility of "moral hazard" should not affect whether or not a bill is passed. I agree that the the democrat's bill was too ambitious, and should have focused entirely on the children's health care initiative rather than delving into the prevention of physician reimbursement cuts. I do think increasing the tax on cigarettes would be a great way to fund this bill, if it were revised. The Florida article makes it seem as if most people who are uninsured are only uninsured by choice or by being "in between jobs", I disagree I think lack of income does contribute to a lack of health insurance, and the majority of uninsured people are not uninsured just because they "don't want income tied up in paying for health insurance".
I believe that the bill should be passed. even though its not aimed and only children, which would make it more favorable, it still is focused on the healthcare of children. the one thing that stood out among the articles was how in the 3rd article from Tallahassee said how the people who are 400% above the poverty line would start acting more dangerous if given the new healthcare plan. I completely agree that the plan should be aimed at the poorer first and then take care of people with more money after, but saying that people with this plan would act more dangerously is ridiculous. People don’t act safe because it would be expensive if something happened, and if they have enough money to take care of themselves already then there would be no change of their behaviors when they got the new medical plan. bush shouldn't have vetoed this bill. And another good point about the bill that i liked was that it would get its money from an increased tax on cigarettes. Making people who potentially cause sickness pay for a health care program is a good idea.
like sarah said im pretttyy confused too. After reading the first two articles the argument supporting the veto did not seem strong at all and it seemed clear to me that SCHIP should be passed. It sounds nice and we should help people in need. However I don't understand/i want to know how this bill affects us. Also what is a stalking horse?
-Brittany
The third article is very confusing, what exactly is the poverty line? after reading charlies comment things become a little cleare. I completely agree the assumption that less poorer people would act moe dangerously if given this healthcare plan is outrageous. Yes we should concentrate on poorest people and ten work our way up but from this argument it seems like they are just pulling things out of nowhere in order to back up bush.
-brittany
ps why have only two other people commented?
Like everyone else said these articles were really difficult and I'm not positive that I got all the points from the articles. I believe that the bill should have focused more on children but either way I believe it should be passed because it does help the healthcare in general. If the article was a little more aimed and focused I believe that this bill could be so much more effective than it already is.
-Sayumi
I agree with Charlie when he said that Bush shouldn't veto this bill becuase its better to have it than not to have it and, I also agree that it is a ridiculous idea that if people have this healthcare then they will act more dangerously because they can.
sorry the one above was from Sayumi
It seems like the author of the third article makes an interesting argument for Bush's veto. Nevertheless, my intuitive sense and basic ideals believe that such a bill should have passed through the president, having already been approved by Congress. Every big project calls for small steps, which collectively build up to a single great cause; the vetoed bill seemed befitting to a step toward solving health care and poverty issues across the nation.
These articles were difficult to understand, it seemed, without at least some background knowledge of U.S. economics and health issues among the poor. So taking a step aside from the more governmental aspect, this bill may have been an oppurtunity for Bush and the Republican party to work well with the Democrats and invest a comparatively modest budget into SCHIP. With Bush's term coming to a close and Republicans losing numerical power in Congress, as well as health care being one of the most discussed issues for the 2008 candidates, the vetoed bill could have been a sign of cooperation and compromise between the two parties simply from a sort of social standpoint.
Anyway, I see that the bill could have been an important step in embarking a set direction for health care.
The articles keep saying that the health insurance should be focused on the poorest children and not those who can afford private health insurance on their own. However, the reason why the S-CHIP is focusing on them is because they are still not getting it because they don't want to be putting so much of their salary into insurance. Kids not having insurance causes another problem which is that they don't have regular checkups but bombard the hospitals with life or death situations which are more costly for everyone in the long run. So I think the S-CHIP is beneficial becuase it will fix health problems before they become emergency situtations.
On the other hand, adding 61 cents on cigarette taxes could lead to a black market. Also, even with the S-CHIP, the number of uninsured children is still rising especially in families that are not qualified. So, if the poorer people are the bigger problem, then they should be attended too but they won't even be able to afford the federal insurance instituted by the S-CHIP so it might not even be helpful.
Paulina
I agree with everyone that said that the articles are a little confusing and are saying things just to support or hate on Bush. I agree with Charlie that people take care of themselves because of themselves and not because the costs of the hospital.
On the other hand, we are doing constuction on our house and last tuesday, a heavy appliance fell from the second floor on a construction man's head. He later went to the hospital after much commotion because no one spoke both Spanish and English, but thats besides the point. He got stitches on his head because it was cut open and I heard he was only going to take a three day break.
The point is that he probably can't afford many checkups so just hoping everything will be fine can cause problems in the future. Also, since he needs to work to make a living obviosly, he can't take off for so long even though it would be ideal if he rested. If the S-CHIP was implimented and someone else was paying 61 more cents for their cigarettes, he could have insurace and hopefully prevent further complications with his health. Then again, I don't know the other affects that the S-CHIP would cause.
Paulina
i agree most with the second article. it's true that our country has spent so much money and energy on the war in Iraq. it's interesting to see that something as generous as children's health care is neglected. we should be making more of an effort to help less privileged people. it silly to see that health care will lead to more danger. how would that happen? (btw's docroc the third article didn't open for me)
-- rebecca
i agree that bush should not have veto'd this bill. i think that eventually when the next presidential elections take their course, people will have to be more open to plans and bills like this. the war in iraq has gone on for way to long and hopefully their can be some sort of peace some day in the near future. bush should be more open to helping other people instead of american dominance.
-- rebecca
After much consideration, I realized that I couldn't chose a side between supporting or being completely against Bush's decision to veto the bill because I see both good and bad arguments on each side. While expanding healthcare insurance to millions of less fortunate kids would be amazing, I agree with Sarah, the bill was a little too ambitious. By stating that families earning up to $80,000 a year would recieve healthcare benefits, the poverty line is being increased. This meaning that families who aren't considered "poor" would recieve lower healthcare. This is definitely a flaw in the bill because many of those familes would switch over from private insurance in order to recieve the benefits. I agree with Bush that it would certainly develop a takeover of healthcare by the government. However, I do find it ironic that Bush is spending $700 billion soley on the war in Iraq, while this bill would raise money for a good cause. I have no problem with the extra tax on cigarettes since it is one of the biggest industries and would therefore raise a lot of money for the poor children. While most of my points are against Bush, I don't completely disagree with his decision to veto the bill as there are few flaws in its structure. Maybe instead of spending all their energy on passing the bill, the Democrats should concentrate on coming up with a compromise that would benefit everyone.
I just read Charlie's comment and the last sentence was definitely the best. I love how ironic it is that the people would potentially cause sickness (cigarette companies) would be contributing a lot to the healthcare bill. Although the Democrats probably did not look at it from the point of view, it is definitely a great idea to add an extra tax on cigarettes. Also, I agree that Bush shouldn't have completely shut down the bill but rather offer some of his ideas. I know that both Republicans and Democrats would love expanding healthcare, so this definitely would have been a great opportunity to work as a whole instead of two teams against eachother.
Charlie has a good point in that it is a little overboard to think that people would use coverage as an excuse to be dangerous. It's very true that a care plan would give a greater sense of security and protection, but it's also very true that people would not damage themselves or anyone else on the basis of some medical coverage. By implementing this bill, the government would be encouraging a safer community as opposed to one of greater danger; if this were to be a fact who would have passed such a counter-intuitive bill?
I agree with Andrea in that she can't chose a side -- the bill has some great benefits, but also some disadvantages. The tax on cigarettes would prove to be successful in contributing lots of money towards the healthcare, but i think that 700 BILLION on a war is a bit much. I think Andrea made an excellent point when she stated that it would be better to invest more money in the health care department because it actually benefits the people. I think that having a health care plan like this to rely on is ideal for people who can't afford it, but the people who can afford it may be opposed to the idea.
When reading the first to articles, I truly thought this bill should be passed 100%; however, after reading the last article it made me think a little. If the last article is true, the democrats should go over the bill and revise it a little, especially when they are having troubles getting republicans to vote for the bill. They should first focus on the most needy children and getting them insurance. That will be a bill that would be passed with much more ease. If the outcome of this bill is positive, they may be able to extend the bill to more children. The SCHIP bill trying to be passed right now may be a bit much considering we dont know what the economic flaws may be.
I completely agree with Rebecca. I almost forgot about the 2nd article where they stated how much they were spending on war in Iraq etc. I think we should focus more on the children in need in our country rather than focusing on war. It doesn't make much sense to me that our government at this time is more concentrated on war rather than trying to save lives of the helpless children in the US. Quite ridiculous in my opinion.
After reading all the articles, I definetly think that the bill should be passed, however, I can also understand why Bush vetoed it. I feel that healthcare for "poor" children should be a higher priority than funding the war in Iraq, but the bill should be limited to covering those who cannot afford insurance. The government should first provide insurance for people who cannot pay for it themselves, and then take small steps to possibly insuring everyone. there are definite flaws in the bill, but overall, the government needs to address important issues such as healthcare.
-Candace
I also agree with Andrea and Neha on the issue of having an extra tax on cigarettes. Not only will the tax provide more money for the healthcare system, but it will also decrease the number of people who need healthcare. If the price of cigarettes increases, less people will want/be able to buy them, which will decrease their possibility of getting sicknesses and diseases such as lung cancer.
-Candace
The 3rd Tallahassee article was definitely the most informative. I believe that uninsured families do not always have the lowest incomes. The idea of ‘moral hazard’ causes us to makes generalizations like the S-CHIP bill, which in my opinion, is a big mess. The idea of helping out poor children is a nice idea, but it is not carried out in the right way. There is a chance that families will leave their private insurance – in this case the bill be a pointless disaster. More research needs to be done to make sure this extra money goes to the people who need it. Otherwise this plan can completely back fire. There’s nothing promising about this vague health care bill. We’re stepping out of our way to help out a unknown percentage of children that’s not even asking it.
There really is no need for an S-CHIP bill right now. It’s not helping anyone’s problems. The 61 cent tax on cigarettes is a creative idea, but the extra money really is not going to benefiting any of us. We can reduce smokers and save all the poor children in America, right? This plan is a big mess…but at least it makes us seem like we’re doing a good thing.
I agree with the article that repeatedly brought up the cost of the Iraq War: it seems ridiculous that Bush is willing to finance this war for billions of dollars when so many Americans are now against it, and not support the S-CHIP bill that would help families get health insurance for their children. The articles debate whether families that make between 60,000 and 80,000 dollars are "poor," and Bush states that if families have this much income, they can certainly afford health insurance. But if you think about it, 60,000 dollars to pay for food, a home, electricity, and water, clothes for a family of even four could easily cost over that amount of money. That's 5,000 dollars a month. How is health insurance even a possibility? I'm not exactly sure how much health insurance cost, but I know a man who is self-employed and is expecting a son, who said it would cost 2,000 dollars a month just to cover himself...he can't afford it. His newborn son will be uninsured. I am totally for a bill like S-CHIP, all kids need health insurance. Bush was too harsh in completely vetoing this bill. I wish he and the others in the House were willing to make compromises.
i have to agree with rebecca. more attention and time should be paid to the less fortunate here in the us and we should spend more doing what we can do to fix our internal issues before we go and spend money on a war.
A lot of people have mentioned the extra tax on cigarettes as a good way to help pay for this bill. I agree! But it would also be interesting to see what other inessential goods could be taxed for the same purpose. If you can afford cigarettes, you can afford to pay a little more for them and contribute to saving kids with supplying them with health insurance. If you can't afford the tax, quit smoking and live a longer life, and don't end up in the hospital where you'll need health insurance! I think the same could be said about alcohol or chocolates. I would be happy to pay a little extra if I knew it would help kids get health insurance, who otherwise couldn't have it.
I thought the three articles were kind of hard to understand/follow. From what I understand, I believe that the bill should be passed for the sake of improving healthcare, but that there should have been a greater focus on children's health care. The articles were kind of contradictory, which, I'm sure they were supposed to be, using exaggerations to argue their point. I find that's kind of pathetically political though.
The Florida article was a bit ridiculous. "Moral hazard"? I thought that was completely irrelevant considering there was no factual background to it. It sounded like something made up to argue their point. Knowing I have health insurance does not make me any more likely to jump off a bridge.
I'm a little upset that Bush planned to veto CHIP only because it would have been nice to have a stronger focus on child healthcare.
I agree that more concentration should be put on the poorer people, and then we should work our way up. Also that the articles kind of danced around solid evidence and were almost just written to defend or attack the decisions made.
I agree with Rebecca regarding fixing our internal problems before we spend so much more on external problems.
I agree with Charlie about the cigarette tax for a couple of reasons. The first is that it actually might promote quitting cigarettes more than those ads you see on TV (just because they're pissed, perhaps?). The second being that it would be effective! In 1999, the approximate cost for health care and productivity from smoking was $100 billion dollars. The average smoker (a pack a day at $2.50 a pack) spends about $912.50 a day. Adding a tax to that, times PLENTY of people who smoke, and applying that to helping with healthcare would be GREAT.
Post a Comment