Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Healthcare in America Is Officially Screwed!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Healthcare in America Is Officially Screwed!



    February 5, 2009
    Obama Signs Children’s Health Insurance Bill
    By ROBERT PEAR
    WASHINGTON — The House gave final approval on Wednesday to a bill extending health insurance to millions of low-income children, and President Obama signed it this afternoon, in the first of what he hopes will be many steps to guarantee coverage for all Americans.

    Smiling broadly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the tally, 290 to 135. Forty Republicans voted for the bill, and 2 Democrats voted against it.

    The roll call ended a two-year odyssey for the child health legislation, which President George W. Bush adamantly opposed on the ground it would lead to “government-run health care for every American.”

    The Obama White House, battered by a debacle over Tom Daschle’s nomination to be secretary of health and human services, exulted in the passage of the bill, saying it showed how much difference an election could make. Mr. Bush vetoed two similar bills, and the House failed to overturn those vetoes.

    Democrats were so sure of victory on Wednesday that the White House scheduled a signing ceremony before the House even passed the bill.

    Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said, “While this bill is short of our ultimate goal of health reform, it is a down payment, and is an essential start.”

    Ms. Pelosi said that passage of the legislation showed that elections had results.

    “This is the beginning of the change that the American people voted for in the last election, and that we will achieve with President Barack Obama,” Ms. Pelosi said.

    But Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, denounced the bill as “a foundation stone for socialized medicine.”

    Another Republican, Representative Tom McClintock of California, said the children’s health program was “slowly replacing employer health plans with government-paid health plans, with spiraling costs to taxpayers.”

    Since August 2007, the House has voted at least seven times for legislation to expand the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Prior efforts were thwarted by the Bush White House, which pressed wavering House Republicans to stand firm against the legislation.

    The program, created with bipartisan support in 1997, is intended for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private health insurance.

    The new bill originated in the House. On Wednesday, the House accepted minor changes made by the Senate, where the bill was approved last week by a vote of 66 to 32, with support from 9 of the 41 Republicans.

    The Congressional Budget Office says the bill will enable states to cover more than four million uninsured children by 2013, while continuing coverage for seven million youngsters. The bill will increase tobacco taxes to offset the increase in spending, estimated at more than $32 billion over four and a half years.

    In a major change, the bill allows states to cover certain legal immigrants — namely, children under 21 and pregnant women — as well as citizens.

    Until now, legal immigrants have generally been barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States. States will now be able to cover those immigrants without the five-year delay.

    The bill requires states to verify that people covered by the children’s health program are United States citizens or legal residents. But states are given a new option. Instead of requiring people to produce documents showing citizenship, states can try to verify eligibility by matching a person’s name and Social Security number against federal records.

    The bill requires states to cover dental care under the children’s health program, and allows states to provide dental coverage as a supplement to private insurance.

    In addition, the bill generally requires states to provide equal coverage of mental and physical illnesses — -- “mental health parity” — -- under the children’s health program.

    Democrats like Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin rejoiced to see the program being expanded.

    “Achieving health care for all is the reason I got into politics,” Ms. Baldwin said. “It is my goal, my passion, my motivation. I see real promise that the Obama administration and this Congress will work together to achieve that goal.”

    Republicans said the bill did not focus narrowly enough on low-income children. People with private health insurance “will drop it so they can get on the government dole,” said Representative Phil Gingrey, Republican of Georgia.
    It's all over. There's no hope now. This was the bill that Bush said would kill it. I'm moving to Canada while I still can!
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

  • #2
    Piss off. We don't want you, or any other welfare case.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

    Comment


    • #3
      There won't be much impact right now, but come October when employers start having their employee benefits open enrollment periods, there will be a mass switch from family plans to employee plus spouse/employee only coverage. Employers will push this as many companies self-fund their healthcare plans and pay for administration, less children covered will mean less claims to process meaning a savings to them.
      "The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved - loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."--Victor Hugo

      Comment


      • #4
        DaShi want to go to Canada to avoid socialized medicine. And according to Swissy, the sky is falling.
        No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
        "I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author

        Comment


        • #5
          Do you not get sarcasm? And I read Swissy as saying it was a good thing for business.
          One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

          Comment


          • #6
            What exactly did Bush say this would kill? Uninsured children?

            Also, Swissy has a lovely dog.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Blaupanzer View Post
              DaShi want to go to Canada to avoid socialized medicine. And according to Swissy, the sky is falling.
              USA = shortest average lifespan in any industrialized country.
              USA = highest infant mortality rate in any industrialized country.
              USA = highest per-capita healthcare costs in any nation.

              The underfunded programs of Canada and the UK look good by comparison.

              Germany, etc. leave us in the dust.

              Comment


              • #8
                USA = shortest average lifespan in any industrialized country.
                USA = highest infant mortality rate in any industrialized country.
                The two have an 80 percent correlation.

                The only reason you folks have a lower overall lifespan is because you have a higher infant mortality rate. You have a higher infant mortality rate, because you have a 50 percent higher fertility rate then Canada.

                This is bad news for the US, as like Swissy said, employers will cut back on their 'family coverage plans'. Less children means the less they have to pay, and the more likely they are to hire you. I can definitely see them firing folks who have kids and hiring single people.

                I don't know why people think this is a good bill, it's going to worsen the situation in the US.
                Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Don't you have lies to wriggle out of, Ben?
                  “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                  "Capitalism ho!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
                    I can definitely see them firing folks who have kids and hiring single people.
                    Which would more than likely be illegal, and in the current financial situation, they can't afford the legal bills if they were to fire those with children and hire single people instead, given that they would have no defence in court.

                    Besides, are you suggesting that Canada has a higher average age because they use more contraceptives?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Which would more than likely be illegal, and in the current financial situation, they can't afford the legal bills if they were to fire those with children and hire single people instead, given that they would have no defence in court.
                      For starters they would be more likely to hire people who are single, so simple attrition would bring it about. Given the tight conditions, they could impose furloughs and cut back on hours for their most expensive workers. SCHIP is a bad bill at a bad time.

                      Besides, are you suggesting that Canada has a higher average age because they use more contraceptives?
                      That's not necessarily true. Their birth rate is 2.1, while Canada's is 1.5. All else being equal you would expect to see higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy.

                      I think there is more then just that going on. There are other factors that depress birthrates.
                      Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                      "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                      2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Zkribbler View Post
                        USA = shortest average lifespan in any industrialized country.
                        USA = highest infant mortality rate in any industrialized country.
                        USA = highest per-capita healthcare costs in any nation.

                        The underfunded programs of Canada and the UK look good by comparison.

                        Germany, etc. leave us in the dust.
                        We also pay the highest percentage of GDP on health care and cover the smallest percentage of the total population. The American health care system sucks.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
                          For starters they would be more likely to hire people who are single, so simple attrition would bring it about. Given the tight conditions, they could impose furloughs and cut back on hours for their most expensive workers. SCHIP is a bad bill at a bad time.
                          But the problem with single people is that they won't remain so forever, so they'll soon have families the company will have to support. If the company was to hire older people whose offspring no longer required insurance then they would have to hire new workers eventually, and they'd find that they'd never get people who'd stay with the company and advance its "company philosophy". Recruitment costs are already exorbitant, so it would make sense for the company to foster a spirit in its current workforce and ensure that they hold on to them. In the UK, it is illegal for companies to ask woman if they plan to have children at interview, and I'd imagine it applies to both men, and the US.

                          Or are you advocating that every US company hire MrFun?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I didn't say employers would cut coverage. They will simply show their employees the savings the employee gets from getting their children on the government coverage. As it is now, employers don't really pay for the coverage of children, which is why their is a substansial difference betweem the employee cost for coverage of family members and just themselves.

                            My main problem with the law is the inadequate funding source. Your taxing smokers, whoes numbers are on the decline.
                            "The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved - loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."--Victor Hugo

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Liquor taxes.

                              And while we're at it lets add some junkfood taxes.
                              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X