Continuing Improvements. Tell Us How We’re Driving! Send us Feedback

White House Acts to Limit Health Plan for Children »

Posted By Beau7890 1 year, 1 month ago in News

9.8

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 57

Propped: 150

Comments: 383

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children's Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.

Read Full Story at nytimes.com »

383 Comments Report

Submitted By:

Beau7890

I used to have a quote here from Andre Breton, author of several surrealist works.

I now think that if you're here on Propeller ...

Also submitted:

Why not submit a story?

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 383

0%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago

Is this an addendum to "No Child Left Behind"?
SCHIP is a program to help those who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but still can't afford private healthcare insurance.
How did Bush get his priorities so turned around?
Reply
66 Replies
- 0%
  jordan111 year, 1 month ago
  
  I can't get that little boy who died from abscessed teeth out of my mind. How he must have suffered, and how there was no place for his mom to turn. She worked, so couldn't get help. But she didn't have the money to fix his mouth, and no insurance. I don't recognize my country any more.
  Reply
  61 Replies
  - 0%
    Candida1 year, 1 month ago
    
    As I read the article, I kept wondering whose interests is he protecting, the kids' or the insurance companies'?
    Reply
    33 Replies
    - 0%
      Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Let's see,Candida...
      Do kids contribute $$$$$ to Republicans???
      Reply
      9 Replies
      - 0%
        UnusualSuspect1 year, 1 month ago
        
        No Child Left Behind...I guess that applies to education only, and not healthcare...
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        jaern1 year, 1 month ago
        
        It doesn't apply to education either, only testing.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
        
        And it's lacking enough funds to leave plenty of children behind.
        Reply
      - 0%
        zaphod1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Shadowolf,
        You're an idiot! Kids don't contribute to the republicans but the insurance companies do! The less they pay out the more money they make. You've been hanging around Carl Rove too long. Trying to spin the story off into some ridicules direction.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
        
        That is exactly what shadow was saying..
        He's saying since insurance compnies contributr they get
        favorable legislation..
        Kids have no money and get no help!
        Sounds like shadow has it on the money!
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        zaphod1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Sorry. You are right. I misread the intent of the
        post. My bad.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        And my apologies for snapping at you,Zaphod
        Reply
        
        0%
        white-pawn1 year, 1 month ago
        
        You might want to re-read his post.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Zaphod...
        And YOU are a humorless NeoConArtist drone who don't have brains enough to make sure you get the context right before blowing your A$$... you are the Rovian deciple anyway!!!
        (Don't attribute your evil to me!!!)
        Reply
    - 0%
      jordan111 year, 1 month ago
      
      kept wondering whose interests is he protecting, the kids' or the insurance companies'?>>>>
      I don't know. I stopped trying to figure out the valueless mindset of CONS a long time ago.
      Reply
    - 0%
      Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
      
      From the article:
      "Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children's Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage."
      _____
      "to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage." The program helps those family the states deem needy cover their kids' healthcare. I think this answers the question of whose interests Bush is protecting.
      The White House has been very active when Congress is in recess.
      Reply
      9 Replies
      - 0%
        Teaselle1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Interesting. My daughter couldn't get health care coverage Healthy Families here in California for her daughter because she made too much and insurance through her company costs too much. She had to get it through county assistance when then opened up a case against the dad for child support, who was unemployed because he had been shot by a guy who thought he was flirting with a woman the shooter liked. If Bush Administration is so concerned with family values, why doesn't he give family the values that they need to survive? Children need health care coverage. Why is this nation so backwards in their thinking? Other countries devise plans for health care, family leave, etc., but we cannot come up with such plans here. We will never please everyone but why doesn't everything have to be so freaking political. This Administration sucks and has done less to improve the lives of its people here and abroad. No wonder others hate us so.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        lestparker1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Why is it the govt's job to give anyone values??? This is really convoluted thinking. Children do need health care coverage, but having the govt supply it is an absolute recipe for disaster. When did you ever see the feds not screw up a program?
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >>Why is it the govt's job to give anyone values???
        Ask Bush. He campaigned on "values" in 2000 & has been spreading his "family values" bs to mobilize opposition to gay marriage for years.
        >>but having the govt supply it is an absolute recipe for disaster. When did you ever see the feds not screw up a program?
        But the private insurance network we have now is a fiasco. Their sole reason for existence is to make as much profit as possible for their stockholders - at the expense of their "clients" by denying them coverage.
        Why do you think a For-Profit company can supply care better than the gov't, whose sole purpose SHOULD be to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" for its citizens.
        Note that "promote the general welfare" line.
        Reply
        
        0%
        ballbuster21 year, 1 month ago
        
        lestparker, you are absolutely right, everything the government(politician's) touch turns to crap and always has. it's so sad to watch those buzard's pick the bone's of the american citizen's before they are even dead.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Boyardee! When you is right, you is right!!
        Goverment caint possibly be as good as private business!!
        No WAy!
        Course, goverment turned out to be better than ENRON,
        Health/South,
        LIncoln Savings,
        Sub-Prime Mortgage Companies,
        TYCO, WorldCom,
        Clobal Crossing, Adelphia,
        Waste Management,
        Quest,
        Home State Savins,
        BP,
        All of which screweed up sumpthin aweful!! And when they screwed up, billions of dollors wuz gone!! And mmillions of poeple got screwed!
        Now, I dint mention all them hospitals that pay CEOs multimillion dollor bonuses and caint find enough nurses to do even an inadequate job. =...
        But I liek they way you avoided this truth - which is an inconvenient truth to us Christian Conservatives.
        Cause, even though we say we is Christian - we hates alignin our politics with our Christianity - you know, helpin the sick - helpin kids.
        We turned our back on anythin that has to do with Jesus in faver of politics!! Right Wing politics!
        Jerry Falwell politics!
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
        
        lestparker:
        It's not the government's job to give anyone values. It's the government's job to promote the health and well-being of its citizens. Healthier citizens make a more productive nation.
        The government's job, as the Preamble to the Constitution states, is partly to "promote the general Welfare" and to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
        http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble
        Read it. It's the government's job description. And it's just over 50 words.
        Reply
        
        0%
        MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
        
        There are a few thoudsand people in need..Think of them
        for one minute..
        What does the government do, if not to at least help those who cannot help themselves?
        Or do you want them to put the elderly, mentally retarded and those srricken with cerebral palsy and severe handi caps pout on the street corner too??
        Even Republicans have some compassion..I use to be one, there were a few in there that were concerned about not having to watch others suffer while they counted their money.
        I always told people the difference between Democrats and Republicans in Massachusetts is that if a Republican
        was driving along and saw a dead body in the street they would drive right over it and pretend that they never saw it
        and a Democrat would try to solicit or pay someone to give it mouth to mouth rececitation..
        I don't know which is worse, being selfish or foolish??
        A 10 year old kid would just dial 911, or call an ambulance.
        neither have the sense of a 6th grader.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Lurch1 year, 1 month ago
        
        < but having the govt supply it is an absolute recipe for disaster.
        Why? You prefer overpaying 25~40% for your health care so that some CEO can send his child to school everyday on the company jet? You prefer having some for-profit bean counter tell your doctor how he/she can or cannot treat you?
        Reply
        
        0%
        MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Bush only supports those who pay him to support them..
        Period.
        Reply
    - 0%
      djrevelky1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Candida,
      Insurance companies have NOTHING to do with S-CHIP. Do you even know what S-CHIP is? It's Medicaid.
      Reply
      9 Replies
      - 0%
        BuffaloJ1 year, 1 month ago
        
        The CONS are trying to make sure the insurance companies don't have their enrollment drop. Which would bring the insurance companies less money. The insurance companies pay lots of money to the government via lobbists.
        I think I see a connection...
        
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        djrevelky1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Hmm...I didn't know children had jobs and enrolled in private insurance companies coverage?
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        jordan111 year, 1 month ago
        
        You do see the flaw in your comment, right?
        Reply
        
        0%
        disraeli1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Mr. Smith (the Bush administration's point man on this issue) is quite explicit. The Bush administration does not want an expanded publicly funded health insurance plan for children to replace private health insurance plans.
        From the article Mr. Smith said: "The program was always meant for children in lower-income families. As states move higher up the income scale, it's more likely to substitute for private coverage."
        Why would that be an issue for Mr Smith and the Bush administration?
        Too costly perhaps? Well stop invading other countries, that will free up a lot of extra cash.
        Support for insurance companies so they don't lose customers? Possible.
        Concern for non-insured and under-insured children of low income parents, including those above a rather arbitrary and unrealistic poverty line? Hardly, that's the last thing on the Bush administrations agenda.
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
        
        They don't. But their parents can be made to - for what parent will voluntarily deny healthcare to their own child?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        MiraJane1 year, 1 month ago
        
        StarLord,
        are you saying their parents can be made to enroll in private health care to provide coverage for their children?
        I'm sure that every single parent that does not have coverage and wants coverage CANNOT AFFORD IT.
        Can you understand that concept? The price of health insurance is out of the reach of many people. Yes, working people. People that used to have coverage. Employers don't offer it any more. Some employers that do offer it, don't offer it for family members any more (I worked for two employers like that).
        Some people CANNOT AFFORD it anymore. Some employers used to offer it, then withdrew coverage. Or people lose their jobs. And when they get a new one, that new job doesn't have ins. coverage. It's a fact of life now. It can easily cost $1,000 a month for health coverage. And these are people who aren't taking expensive vacations every year or blowing money elsewhere.
        They CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE.
        Reply
      - 0%
        Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
        
        djrevelky:
        You're mistaken. SCHIP is technically NOT Medicaid--it's a separate publicly funded program, as I explained in an earlier comment below.
        And regardless of what you call it, the government does not provide care under SCHIP or Medicaid. It sets guidelines and regulations for providers--to protect the quality of care--who wish to be paid by government funds. But it uses private insurers and third-party administrators to manage claims and oversee providers.
        In other words, it has EVERYTHING to do with private insurance, except the private insurance companies and intermediaries don't make as much profit--as opposed to the new Medicare Advantage programs and Prescription Drug Plans, passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by Bush.
        These private insurers and intermediaries have to make some concessions under publicly funded programs by following state and federal guidelines to get guaranteed government funding.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
        
        (continued)
        Go to the website of the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. You'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about publicly funded healthcare programs.
        http://www.cms.hhs.gov
        Reply
      - 0%
        MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Right..so he's saving us taxpayers!
        Reply
    - 0%
      PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
      
      >>As I read the article, I kept wondering whose interests is he protecting, the kids' or the insurance companies'?
      FTA: "As states move higher up the income scale, it's more likely to substitute for private coverage."
      Does that answer your question?
      Reply
    - 0%
      jdhatl1 year, 1 month ago
      
      The insurance companies ONLY. These people are criminals and are responsible for more deaths than any american politician in recent memory
      Reply
  - 0%
    spkguy1 year, 1 month ago
    
    jordan11, I was thinking about that too. If it did one good thing, it sparked some debate on this issue.
    Hearing on Md. Child's Death Explores Dearth of Dental Care
    The case of Deamonte Driver, the 12-year-old Maryland boy who died because of a dental infection, sparked a wide-ranging hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday as lawmakers delved into the difficulties the poor face in getting access to dental treatment.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
    Reply
    21 Replies
    - 0%
      walden31 year, 1 month ago
      
      dental coverage for poor people is a personal issue for harry reid. he got a job at a gas station so he could buy his mum a false set of teeth. he knows firsthand the effect that bad teeth can have on someone - low self-esteem, employers won't hire you, leads to more serious problems.
      Reply
      16 Replies
      - 0%
        mamasan1 year, 1 month ago
        
        yep walden the tooth thing is the worst.
        I see these folks on the street and most have no teeth.
        face the facts!
        If you dont have teeth
        you wont get a job
        Reply
        15 Replies
        
        0%
        BronxBomber1 year, 1 month ago
        
        & that's the whole tooth.
        Reply
        14 Replies
        
        0%
        jaern1 year, 1 month ago
        
        *GROAN*!!!!!
        Reply
        
        0%
        Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago
        
        Your getting long in the tooth for jokes like that aren't you?
        Reply
        11 Replies
        
        0%
        Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        We got the point!!!
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago
        
        Just when I had some humor I could really sink my teeth into, oh well.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        walden31 year, 1 month ago
        
        woof.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        THIS really bites!!!
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago
        
        Stuff like this really gnaws at you doesn't it!
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        I got the chews...
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago
        
        Bicuspid this has to stop!
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Just one molar???
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago
        
        It won't put a dent in mine if it doesn't put a dentures!!!;)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        By Gum that's enough!!!
        I know you are enameled of these quips...
        Reply
        
        0%
        StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Good heavens - I don't have a bone to pick with you, but if you persist with your gummy use of the English language, I'm going to have to bite you.
        Reply
        
        0%
        MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Be true to your teethg or they'll be false to you!
        That reminds me, I have a dentist appointment tomorrow at
        tooth thirthy!
        Reply
    - 0%
      jordan111 year, 1 month ago
      
      Thanks for the link. It sickened me to hear the comments trying to justify allowing kids to fall through the cracks. Not a thought to the boy who died.
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - 0%
        spkguy1 year, 1 month ago
        
        jordan11
        Your welcome...
        Good comments walden3...
        Reply
      - 0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >>It sickened me to hear the comments trying to justify allowing kids to fall through the cracks
        Isn't that what they called "Compassionate Conservatism"?
        There's another point everyone's missing. Since when are alleged Conservatives supporting the federal gov't's right to dictate laws to the states? Or is it that they only believe in states' rights when the FEDERAL gov't tries to EXPAND personal freedoms?
        States' Rights when Feds try to:
        - Abolish slavery
        - Integrate society
        - Promote civil rights
        - Enact workplace safety laws
        - etc.....
        Fed's Rights to:
        - BAN Flag burning
        - BAN Gay marriage
        - BAN public protests
        - LIMIT child health care
        - Etc.....
        -
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Amen!!
        100 % 0n the money!
        That comment ought to be sent to the DNC for a GREAT talking point!
        Reply
  - 0%
    DCysco1 year, 1 month ago
    
    If there would be a way for companies like Halliburton and The Carlyle Group To make money from children the Bush admin. would jump all over it. but the children are left behind anyway. Children do not start wars.
    Reply
  - 0%
    simonsez1 year, 1 month ago
    
    I didn't see this ... where did you read this?
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      jdhatl1 year, 1 month ago
      
      front page new york times this morning
      Reply
  - 0%
    questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
    
    I can't get that little boy who died from abscessed teeth out of my mind. How he must have suffered, and how there was no place for his mom to turn. She worked, so couldn't get help. But she didn't have the money to fix his mouth, and no insurance. I don't recognize my country any more.
    i couldnt access the times today so i couldnt read article but what happened to the days when a dentist or doc would treat a person first and worry about payment later?
    thank goodness i live in an area whr there r some old time docs/dentists that look at their profession as a calling of sorts rather than just a way to accumulate wealth
    Reply
  - 0%
    m-simon1 year, 1 month ago
    
    This is BS. You don't need money.
    Just a promise to pay.
    Reply
- 0%
  Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
  
  Beau...
  Did you think he would do this when the REAL progressives would shout it from the rooftops???
  Reply
- 0%
  Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
  
  Beau:Is this an addendum to "No Child Left Behind"?
  Actually,Beau, It's the front for the core Republican program "No Child Left Unscrewed"...
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    crzydawg351 year, 1 month ago
    
    "no child left unscrewed" ...
    lol... I like that one..
    Unfortunately there is only more of this kind of thing to come in the remaining term. Somehow I have to believe the dollar $$ motive is behind this.
    Reply
- 0%
  Lurch1 year, 1 month ago
  
  >How did Bush get his priorities so turned around?
  I blame Barbara.
  And, who would Jesus deny insurance to?
  Reply
0%
jovial1 year, 1 month ago

What kind of person would deny kids healthcare?
Reply
58 Replies
- 0%
  jordan111 year, 1 month ago
  
  An evil son of a b**ch.
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    BronxBomber1 year, 1 month ago
    
    ...& not just one, some who think likewise... What?? Kids don't matter?? But a war does???They are our future for crying out loud!
    They should be our primary investment, and should take precedence especially where they're health is concerned.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago
      
      One more and VERY COMPELLING REASON to take the trash out in Nov. '08
      Reply
- 0%
  nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
  
  Apparently the states who are using this program for ADULTS then complaining they can't cover all of the eligible children!
  Reply
  13 Replies
  - 0%
    questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
    
    bla bla bla...states r covering adults because they know keeping the adults healthy enough to be productive is in their best interest
    Reply
    12 Replies
    - 0%
      nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Then let the states start a program to cover adults. This program was intended for children.
      Now the same states that cover adults are complaining that they don't have enough money to cover all the eligible children
      All i want is for them to cover the children the program was intended for in the first place
      
      Reply
      11 Replies
      - 0%
        Ciera-Marie1 year, 1 month ago
        
        nostalgia:
        Why won't you also cover the parents of the children?
        The homeless, unemployed need health care too. If they don't have teeth thy will get even a job application.
        Added to the picture more and more dentists do not accept the dental coverage that the states offer. Try finding an orthodontist that is affordable and that will still take the state's health insurance plan. The states only pay up to a certain point.
        Most of the lower middle class can not afford the health insurance premiums through their workplace. Even before taxes it is sometimes not an option.
        Nothing this President and Vice President does anymore shocks me. I don't find it surprising that he waited until Congress was in recess to do this.
        When will people wake up and stop supporting this administration? What more will it take? Will it take the middle to upper middle class (six figures) losing their homes to foreclosures because they couldn't afford the basics and medical expenses?
        
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Don't you think that it is the children that should be covered first when the program was designed for children?
        Do you support the states that covered adults then left qualified children without healthcare?
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
        
        I don't think any states are making the argument that they don't have enough money left to cover children. The argument is that they should be allowed to set maximum income levels that they consider necessary to ensure that children whose families can't afford coverage get healthcare.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Of the 6.1 million people signed up for S-CHIP, there are 639,000 adults enrolled in the 15 states that permit it. Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan all have MORE adults in S-CHIP than children. Yet all of these states have eligible children who are not enrolled because they have run out of money
        CHILDREN SHOULD COME FIRST!
        Carl Levin D-Michigan on the floor of the Senate:
        "Although CHIP has been successful, it still fails to address the problem fully. Too many children qualify for the program but are unable to receive insurance because of inadequate funding."
        "In Michigan, while 55,000 children are covered under CHIP, 90,000 Michigan children are currently eligible for Medicaid or MIChild, Michigan's CHIP program, but are not receiving services"
        Yet in some states like Michigan, ~75% on enrollees are adults. Levin forgot to mention that
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
        
        Again. Why not ALSO cover adults? Why limit funding for children, just because adults who ALSO couldn't afford coverage are taking advantage of the system?
        Reply
        
        0%
        Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago
        
        cm,
        Very well put,indeed!
        This badministration (That is the word I coined for the Bush administration ! It fits like a glove, doesn't it?) has done so much harm to the children, that they will forever remember it. When they grow up, if they see the name Bush anywhere, there is no telling what they would do!
        The only sensible way for healthcare is Universal Healthcare for every citizen of this country - man, woman and child!
        Let us call it "No One Left Behind"!
        Reply
      - 0%
        jdhatl1 year, 1 month ago
        
        don't ever try to tell any one you are "pro-life", this act is a death sentence for thousands
        Reply
      - 0%
        jordan111 year, 1 month ago
        
        all i want is for them to cover the children the program was intended for in the first place>>>>
        Medicaid is for both adults and children. Do you have any idea how many adults in your state are housed in nursing homes, or Long Term Care facilities? A nursing home charges approx. $5,000 per month for long term care under medicaid. If you're there for a short time, & have medicare, they charge even more.
        When elderly or younger people suffering from diseases like Multiple Sclerosis are put in nursing homes to live out their lives, they have to sell everything. Only allowed $2000 in assets. They are forced into complete poverty and no hope, after a lifetime of work. They receive $60.00 a month for their personal needs. Clothing, toiletries, a movie if the nursing home takes them anywhere, shoes, a sweet from time to time....$60.00 a month.
        It's degrading, it's disgusting, & it's not their fault. So please, don't complain about adults receiving aid.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        nostalgia1 year, 1 month ago
        
        I'm complaining about CHILDREN left out of the program because some states have covered adults BEFORE covering eligible children
        I simply want children to be covered FIRST. Once children in the states are covered I would also open the program to pregnant women who meet eligibility requirements
        Other adults would be LAST
        Would you rather cover adults BEFORE children?
        You don't have to tell me about nursing homes. My mother is currently in a nursing home.
        $5000/month is not bad. How much do you spend on a hotel room to sleep - no food included, no personal care, no laundry etc?
        
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        jordan111 year, 1 month ago
        
        My point about the cost of a nursing home, is that states spend many millions every year just on that. So you're asking me to choose between a child and an 82 year old man who is curled up with contractures and can't move, can't feed himself, can't toilet himself, can't turn himself? Or a 45 year old man in a wheel chair who can't move his arms or hands, can't walk, because his body is ravaged by Multiple Sclerosis? Where would you suggest they go? In the street? We could watch them starve to death as we drive by to work each morning? Maybe we could just take em out and shoot em? That would work, eh? Your reasoning is so flawed, on so many levels. We have to take care of ALL of them! The children, the elderly, the MS patients. ALL of them!
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago
        
        jordan,
        I don't think it is an "either, or" proposition at all!
        We must demand Universal Healthcare - no more, no less!
        These jerks are creating this issue when there need not be one! It will be a lot more cost-efficient to have everyone on board.
        Reply
- 0%
  toph19731 year, 1 month ago
  
  Apparently there are some even on here. Look, these imbiciles even gave you negative votes. Bush Sheeple mindlessley bleating along, unquestioning, unthinking, unintelligent.
  Reply
- 0%
  lestparker1 year, 1 month ago
  
  Why am I supposed to pay for someone elses kids health coverage? typical socialist.
  Reply
  9 Replies
  - 0%
    cleare1 year, 1 month ago
    
    first, you are already paying. emergency services instead of preventative care.
    second, because you will benefit when the kids covered by your taxes grow up healthy and contributing members of society, instead of sick burdens.
    third, because it is the moral thing to do. and not just kids should be covered, everybody needs to have access to health care. can't be productive citizens if they're sick and suffering.
    fourth, because those kids may have contagious diseases that affect public health including you and your children.
    there's a few reasons, i'm sure i could come up with more.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
      
      Great points, cleare.
      Reply
  - 0%
    GingerSnaps1 year, 1 month ago
    
    lestparker and mja2025....
    typical victims of Anti-social Personality Disorder.
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      jdhatl1 year, 1 month ago
      
      all neo-cons are sociopaths
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Possibly psychopaths???
        Reply
    - 0%
      StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Watch the pre-judgements - I've found quite a few right-wingers capable of stringing a logical argument together - LibsRFunny being an example.
      Reply
  - 0%

Hello!

White House Acts to Limit Health Plan for Children »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Read Full Story at nytimes.com »

Submitted By:

Related Articles:

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 383

Beau78901 year, 1 month ago

jordan111 year, 1 month ago

Candida1 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

UnusualSuspect1 year, 1 month ago

jaern1 year, 1 month ago

Beau78901 year, 1 month ago

zaphod1 year, 1 month ago

MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago

zaphod1 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

white-pawn1 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

jordan111 year, 1 month ago

Beau78901 year, 1 month ago

Teaselle1 year, 1 month ago

lestparker1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

ballbuster21 year, 1 month ago

Goppy1 year, 1 month ago

Beau78901 year, 1 month ago

MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago

Lurch1 year, 1 month ago

MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago

djrevelky1 year, 1 month ago

BuffaloJ1 year, 1 month ago

djrevelky1 year, 1 month ago

jordan111 year, 1 month ago

disraeli1 year, 1 month ago

StarLord1 year, 1 month ago

MiraJane1 year, 1 month ago

Beau78901 year, 1 month ago

Beau78901 year, 1 month ago

MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

jdhatl1 year, 1 month ago

spkguy1 year, 1 month ago

walden31 year, 1 month ago

mamasan1 year, 1 month ago

BronxBomber1 year, 1 month ago

jaern1 year, 1 month ago

Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago

walden31 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

Jaydee401 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

StarLord1 year, 1 month ago

MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago

jordan111 year, 1 month ago

spkguy1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 1 month ago

DCysco1 year, 1 month ago

simonsez1 year, 1 month ago

jdhatl1 year, 1 month ago

questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago

m-simon1 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago

crzydawg351 year, 1 month ago

Lurch1 year, 1 month ago

jovial1 year, 1 month ago

jordan111 year, 1 month ago

BronxBomber1 year, 1 month ago

Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago