Remember Bush’s Medicare prescription plan? It was passed with largely Republican support, even though it expanded government by creating an entirely new entitlement that we couldn’t afford.

Do you advocate termination of this entitlement?

(I realize the point you were making is that Bush has been a big spender and program-expander in the past.)

DLS is all in a tizzy because some people that can theoretically afford health insurance will get it from the government. What a horrible disaster that would be.

So often, time after time, my critics are wrong. Prove your statement.

It may or may not become a horrible disaster but the more that get it, the more costs the rest of us will face and there will be problems. I have no doubt we’re going eventually to Medicare or the equivalent for everybody within 10-20 years, probably on the sooner side, but you are naive, to say the least, if you think it will magically solve all our current health care problems.

People dorp private coverage for governemtn coverage, because the cost of private coverage is bankrupting them.

“Crowd-out” is where people who are paying for insurance currently (i.e., they can afford it) choose the subsidized insurance instead because it costs them less out of pocket.

DLS, do you ever give up on distorting the facts?

Like your claim that a percentage in the thirties of crowd-out is trivial or negligeable? I’ve never begun to do that.

Please notice the Republican Senator stating that the compromise took adults out of the program.
Yet over and over and over again you claim that the bill that Bush vetoed deserved it because of the inclusion of adults.

The Bush administration had earlier granted waivers to the states to let adults benefit from the program and there is no reason to disbelieve that this would happen again in the future, not to mention that it would be sought by the Democrats in the fuure. More important is that despite new rules to fight crowd-out (described in your quote with the words “At the same time it rewards states for covering more of the lower income kids. It puts the lowest income children first in line”), the rules have been opposed and they could be changed in the future. More important still is that the rules are not bulletproof, states will still be able to permit families to qualify at well above poverty level (New York is seeking 400%), and at those levels crowd-out will become more serious.

Remember Bush’s Medicare prescription plan? It was passed with largely Republican support, even though it expanded government by creating an entirely new entitlement that we couldn’t afford. Why? Because Bush needed to pander to Seniors in 2000 to win the state of Florida. So some Conservatives in our government only have “principles” when a Democratic Congress is in the majority.

Oh wait….

Turns out Steve, the US ranks 37th in the world ranking of healtcare systems. Funny that. And you might rightfully ask, why do so many people go to the US for care? Because the US does, in fact, have some of the best clinics and hospitals in the world…for the rich. The healthcare ranking is a global measurement that takes into account just how covered the population of a country is. You see, lots and lots of people don’t think that having a few thousand getting the best care in the world evens out several million not getting any care at all.

This brings me to my next point. I have yet to come across a European (I live in Spain, 7th on the list, if you’re curious) who doesn’t shudder at the thought of having the US system installed in their country. Oh we complain, and yes some things are problems (though the mythical bureaucrat deciding on your care is non-existent and laughable, my doctor decides what’s best for me), however we really do take the view that just because the patient (the system, in this case) isn’t in pristine health, that doesn’t mean you kill him. To EU citizens, the thought of dying from cancer simply because you’re too poor to afford treatment is totally alien, as much so as it would be for an American to not learn to read because he couldn’t afford school (somehow public free education is deemed a right, but basic healthcare isn’t, mind boggling). And don’t forget, private practice still exists in all EU nations, the market hasn’t been eliminated. If you wish and can afford it, you can access private doctors and private hospitals, but if you can’t afford it, you won’t be left to die.

The US remains the last bastion in the developed world that doesn’t consider healthcare to be a side by side with education and having your streets policed or cleaned. That is changing though, I expect that in my lifetime public healthcare will become a reality and the current situation will become what it already is in the rest of the civilized world, just another footnote in history.

From an NPR story on the passage of the compromise bill comes this

Republicans who helped negotiate the bill are frustrated with the president as well. Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said he has already bargained Democrats down to $35 billion from the $50 billion expansion they originally wanted. He also said the compromise includes several changes to the SCHIP program that the president said he wanted.

“It gets adults out of the program. It discourages states from covering higher income kids. At the same time it rewards states for covering more of the lower income kids. It puts the lowest income children first in line,” he said.

Please notice the Republican Senator stating that the compromise took adults out of the program. Yet over and over and over again you claim that the bill that Bush vetoed deserved it because of the inclusion of adults. You write that if only people really knew of the scope of the program they’d hate it as much as you do. Well, guess who really knew the scope of the program? Not you.

The gov’t takes care of a host of things that the private sector does poorly. Military, courts, roads, banking, basically providing the infrastructure that so many people take for granted yet is so crucial to our day to day lives. Without it the fertile ground from which our economy grows would be a barren wasteland like some third world nation that can’t even feed its people.

And yes, because our national healthcare is so screwed up right now I think this rather small part of the already hugely mismanaged budget is a wise expenditure. Also I’d really like to see some of those stats about foreigners coming to the US for treatment. I’ve known quite a few and not one of them was here for medical treatment or knew anyone who did so. Personally I think its total crap made up my people that somehow defend a medical system that is bankrupting our gov’t, our businesses, and anyone else who tries to use it without insurance.

And here you go again, throwing out the canard that we somehow have it worse off than other countries… to which I will respond with the conservative stock answer, ‘and what is the ratio of Americans going overseas for medical care compared to foreigners coming here?’. How long do people have to wait for appointments in America compared to in Canada or the UK? And you really think you’re worse off having your employer (you are employed, right, and not just a total leech on society, right?) deciding what is covered under your health care than having a government bureaucrat do so? Why are the drugs that save millions of lives a year mostly developed by American pharmaceutical companies? Why is most of the best research being done here in the US?

As for Sam, your liberal teachers must be proud of you, for only someone so indoctrinated in that line of thinking could think that not taking 100% of one’s income ought to be considered a tax break. By that definition, the 75% of your paycheck that doesn’t go to income tax is a tax break, right? So, as I asked of Chris, why not step up and send that ill-founded gain of yours to the US treasury to help pay the nation’s obligations? What, you want that money because you earned it and you have a right to spend it on what you want? It’s only a tax break when it’s someone else getting to keep some of what they earn, right?

And in any event, as I said, it’s not a question of whether there’s money available for this, it’s a question of whether it’s a good idea. And it’s not.

Let me ask a not entirely tongue in cheek question of the group here: given how little America thinks of Congress (and Bush for that matter), why should we think that anything they do is a good idea? Why shouldn’t we think that every proposal – whether from Democrat or Republican – is put forth with only the intent of paying off one’s contributors and increasing their power over more of American society?

We already did Steve, they are called taxes. And I’m more than willing to let mine fund this program. Instead its being spent in Iraq, being imbezzled by KBR, and offering up tax breaks to Exxon.

As for government run health insurance being worse, there is very little evidence that this is the case. Despite being the richest country on the planet, and spending more per person on healthcare than anywhere else, we have some pretty poor outcomes and are consistently outclassed by our socialized friends in Europe.

The statistics are not on your side, just fantasies about waiting lists.

Chris, to throw back at you the type of argument used by your side in arguing about Iraq, if you think giving poor kids free health care is so important, why aren’t you doing so already? Take some bucks out of your wallet and help underwrite the insurance for some kids? And if you don’t make enough, go out and take a second job and send the proceeds to some middle class family so they can have free health care for their kids. Until you do, stop whining about how uncaring Republicans are.

As for Shaun’s point, if I were Bush and I really cared about sustaining the veto, I certainly would not have vetoed it hiding out in the White House, where doing so cedes the stage to the Democrats. I would have done it in a public ceremony where I could make my arguments directly to the public that matters… the roughly 20 or so GOP Congressmen who I need to sustain the veto.

And I wouldn’t have bothered with making the silly ‘it’s too expensive’ argument, a non-starter in these days of trillion dollar budgets. And I wouldn’t have offered a ‘insure the poor kids first’ defense, as middle class voters could care less if poor kids are getting insured; what matters to them is the thought that they’d be getting something for free that they now have to pay for.

And that is where I would attack the program. We argue that this is a facade, that middle class voters would get ‘free insurance’ for their kids only in name only: the coverage would suck, there’d be limited choice as to doctors, waiting times would be longer, deductibles and co-pays would be higher, and…. the premiums for their own insurance would go up. The end result is that they – yes, they – would end up paying more and getting less (the opposite of the Wal Mart theme).

The only way ‘America’ would turn against this – or any other socialized giveaway – is if they can be convinced they’d be better off without it, that it isn’t the free ride the Democrats pretend it is. And doing so requires effort, not hiding out and sending out his pretty, but ineffective, Press Secretary to argue for him.

Oh well,

Isn’t it funny how giving normal people a break is the worst thing our government can do, but giving rich people a break is good economic policy?

All I know is this, I’d rather my government use my money to give health insurance to people than use it to kill Iraqis and line the pockets of Blackwater/Halliburton/Exxon.

People dorp private coverage for governemtn coverage, because the cost of private coverage is bankrupting them. In addition, the kind of private coverage that is affordable is often bare bones coverage involving very high out of pocket costs, which they can’t pay. Guess who pays the cost of not covered medical expenses that he consumer can’t pay?- You.

If you’re going to present arguments, it woudl help if they were related to the actual exprience of actual people