I’ve done my own research. Thanks, anyway.

The thing about research is that you have to b able to understand what you’re reading and to interpret it correctly. And you can’t interpret it properly by doing selective reading. By concentrating on only selected aspects, you are missing the big picture.
The forest and the trees, you know.

All your arguments (and research results) miss two important points:
1. The alternative of no such bill is far worse
2. One has to calculate implications for the fuutre.
No investment in the future=deterioration in the future.

There are good reasons why our country is in such poor health (we’re #37 or 38 on the WHO list) and the primary reason is that we’ve waited too long already to tackle ou rhealth problems while bickering and some insisting on the perfect solution before a finger is lifted to do anything at all.

The life expectancy for our children is estimatied to be shorter than the current generation.

We can either preach about federalism, personal responsiblity, and all the rest of the formulaic mantras that get you you zilch, or we can start doing something about it to ensure that we will have a healthy next generation to take over.

Let me just remind you, that every adult and child without adequate health insurance or health care us costing YOU now, and the cost is high. Every adult not working because of poor health is hurting our economy (and therefore, YOU)

I’d like to save some of my money by applying it to a very sound investment: the future of this country via a healthy citinzenry. I’d like my children and grandchildren to liive at least as long as I.

SCHIP is only a small piece of what is needed.
It’s only a start. It’s also possible it will eventually become obsolete when we finally (if ever) get our health care house in order. To balk at taiking even a small first step is short-sighted to the point of being dangerous to everyone’s health and future, IMO.

your own job to do your own homework

Here’s a jump start. Go here. You’re welcome.

(Other readers will find the material of interest.)

Okay, How many? Innuendos aren’t facts, you know.

I owe you no quantification — it’s your own job to do your own homework. But if you’re curious, here are some proportions for doctors as patients. They can get care easily, and many don’t:

The study results showed that 39 percent of internists reported having no primary-care physician; surgeons followed close behind at 34 percent. Pediatricians (78 percent) and psychiatrists (79 percent) were the most likely to have a primary-care physician.

In many instances, such situations arise due to lifestyle and working conditions, which likely may affect laypeople as well (unable to take time off for doctor visits, for example). Here:

In aggregate, 116 (37%) reported having no primary care physician, and 36 (12%) reported that they are their own primary care physician.

And of course, improvement in preventive care and personal habits (to reduce employer health costs) is the basis for the wellness programs we encounter at work. If there were no need for improvement, these programs would not exist.

The problem is substantial enough that incentive programs have been tried (and we’re likely to see more in the future). Financial incentive programs have been tried for doctors as well as for patients, because

Immunizations and other cost-effective preventive services remain underused by many children, especially those living in poverty.

Incentives to providers and consumers

The enthusiasm for consumer incentives may be driven by some of the same concerns. Pressures to improve preventive performance may motivate some health care organizations to induce their enrollees to become more active in their own care and health promotion activities. In some cases, it may be possible to simultaneously incent both consumers and providers towards synergistic ends. Consumers seem to be more susceptible to incentives, even modest ones. At least some patients may appreciate the attention that incentive programs represent. However, there is always a temptation to pick the low hanging fruit. The recalcitrant consumers may not be as easily swayed by incentives. The energy required to reach and persuade non-adherent patients may still be high.

* * *

Again, a sweeping statement wihout substance.

In your case, yes (you commonly do that when you disagree with something, along with “simply moving on”); anybody alive and awake will be aware that it’s commonplace for people to look first or even only to Washington rather than properly to state and local governments when they desire governmental action of various kinds, and they scoff or make ridiculous statements (“pagan god”) when referring to legitimate criticism directed at those who look to Washington.

Okay, How many? Innuendos aren’t facts, you know.

The whole line of argumentation based on how people will take advantage of this or any other government program is senseless hot ari.

Will capitalists not take advantage of workers if it means more profit? Let’s do away with capitalism.

Do politicians not take advantage of theri power for theri own benefit? Let’s do away with governemtn.

Instead of innuendo and ominous warnings, reasonable people will look for control and oversight.
=============

In re: ‘contempt for federalism”
Again, a sweeping statement wihout substance.

Between contempt and idolatry, reasonably people will seek ways to accomodate both federalism and federal government.

For many, federalism has become the pagan god that will provide answers to all problems in all circumstances. It makes as much sense to rely on a simplistic interpretation of what federalism means in real life as it does to wear a gaalic wreath to ward off the devil.

Simplistic answers to complex problems satisfy only the likes of cult members.
The rest of us have to sort out substantive problems in realistic terms.

Now things are named by using antomyms to what they really are.
Sort of like the arguments against facing up to the health care crisis in the country and every attempt at a remedty, no matter how partial.

Don’t be surprised if SCHIP is renamed to be ‘child killer’.

Remember, the Democratic Party opposed the government cracking down of wasteful welfare spending.

Several states are suing the Bush administration to get a court to overturn changes to eligibility rules in S-CHIP. (Congressional Democrats’ first action is likely to be to attempt to override the veto of the expansion bill.)

Under the new standards — announced on Aug. 17 in a letter from Dennis Smith, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations — states must demonstrate that they have enrolled at least 95% of children in the state below 200% of the federal poverty level who are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP before expanding eligibility to children in families with incomes greater than 250% of the poverty level. States seeking to expand SCHIP eligibility also must establish a minimum of a one-year period of uninsurance for individuals in families with incomes greater than 250% of the poverty level to prevent them from switching from a private insurance plan to a public program.

In addition, states that insure children in families with annual incomes greater than 250% of the poverty level must prove that the number of children in the target population insured through private employers has not decreased by more than two percentage points over the prior five-year period. States also will need to adopt policies to prevent employers from changing dependent-coverage policies that would favor a shift to public coverage (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 8/22).

You are completely ignoring the benefits of preventative healthcare. [and chronic illness care, or "chronic care"]

Be careful not to oversell them in response, K. How many people now, who already have preventive care, choose not to take advantage of it? Preventive and chronic care are logical and cost-effective in theory and in fact (which is why employers now are pursuing “wellness” programs and paying special attention to chronic diseases*, as is at least one Democratic candidate for the Presidency). But personal lifestyle decisions that are injurious continue to be made and people continue to neglect preventive care even if it is available to them, just as people will continue to neglect to be tested regularly or screened for chronic illness, or comply with therapy (blood sugar control for diabetics, medication and exercise for hypertensives, for example). This is personal responsibility and this may be at risk of being additionally reduced, not only for one’s self but also for one’s children, when people are, as S.D. said, led to “think that the government is responsible for your children’s health.”

* Just beware at work. Yes, it stands to reason that the practice of “cherry-picking” by insurers could also one day be extended to hiring and layoff decision-making, given the personal medical data the wellness programs are known to be analyzing.

You are completely ignoring the benefits of preventative healthcare. People who have insurance bring their kids in for immunizations, TB testing, developmental checks etc. Many problems if detected early in childhood can be treated. All kids should get hearing and vision screens regularly because those exams directly affect how well they do in school. Many need speech therapy or they won’t be able to communicate normally.

Also, When kids are forced to wait until a condition like an infection gets so bad that the parents take them too an emergency room- it can be much more complicated to treat. It also adds to the long waits that we’ve all experienced.

Iraq is definitely related to this issue and many others. It helps illustrate the priorities of our government.

It better illustrates the propriety of government, what its role is, what it should do and shouldn’t do. The burden of proof falls wholly on proponents and supporters, not opponents and critics, of entitlement and welfare programs, especially by the federal government.

yes, many people saw the financial aid as free money

When I was in school, many people got it and invested it.

* * *

Perfect timing:

I have an idea that under a SD presidency, our country would take a giant step backward to a Dickensian landscape- with poor living in workhouses and dying regularly of consumption and dysentery.

“A safety net, not a hammock!“

Is there corruption in Washington? Yes

What is the lesson here?
Should we shut down our governement and let the poor die in the streets?
Or should we work on ideas like improve,and streamline?

Making people think that the government is responsible for your children’s health and that the government will pay for it is probably not a good solution.

And you base that assertion on what? According to the WHO it certainly seems like it’s working out for a large number of the 36 countries ranked ahead of us.

Having the government pay for more clinic visits will have almost no affect on the overall health of children and thus no affect of the economic productivity as adults. Your statements are a great example of the overselling of S-CHIP just like stem cells have been oversold. The biggest negative impacts to children health come from the actions of their parents. subsidizing the lifestyle of the parents will have little positive affect on the children and could have a negative effect. Increase in seat belt use and bicycle helmets along with decreases in parental smoking will do much more for children’s health than clinic visits.

Making people think that the government is responsible for your children’s health and that the government will pay for it is probably not a good solution.

1). SD: Your comment about talking points would suggest you think Iraq exists in a vacuum. Get used to it being connected to lots of issues for a long time, and brought up over and over – as well it should be. The accountability thing works much better when people aren’t in a hurry to forget stuff.

2.) krit: I think feudalism would be more like it. Been there, done that. I think it worked out pretty well – if you were among the small handful of folks who lived in the castle on the hill.

You seem to begrudge them any type of pleasure at all as long as they are getting any help from the government.

Look at it as an investment in our future- healthy children turning into healthy adults who can then join the workforce and spend their earnings, leading to an economic boom.