# S-Chip



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Hey Bob, Work got in the way of my relaxing day of surfing the net yesterday:******:

How about a little reading to begin? Both are long so I will just post the links. The second one is a looooong read (use the download entire article button)

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1614867

I await your counter


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sur ... 91675.html

The future of our healthcare system in this country can currently be examined in Australia. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons is accusing the Australia's national health service of using "maintenance" as an excuse to not schedule patients for surgery.

They says that "maintenance" (in non-government speak) means cutting costs by reducing allotted operating time and reducing the number of intensive care beds needed for elective surgery.

Surgeons are leaving the government system left and right (good for them!) because they are so fed up with government budget constraints.

ARE YOU LISTENING ?

Here is another case where health care is being *rationed *because it has been nationalized!

What in the wide, wide world of sports makes you think that this isn't going to happen here?

At the Westmead Hospital, surgeons were told by the administration not to book any patients ... despite an extensive waiting list for elective surgery. And every week surgeons are told to cut the number of patients on their list and are finished by 10am. The surgeons say that they are still "working," and still being paid but sitting around doing nothing.

Almost every week surgery teams got phone calls from government administrators telling them to only book two patients on surgery day. They were told to do this because it "relieves pressure on bed availability" and "keeps cancellation figures down." Huh. *So the government is so concerned about its cancellation figures, that they are actually booking less people to have less chance of cancellation. That makes perfect sense.* :lol:

The college spokeswoman says that this budget-cutting "exercise" was happening because operating rooms are expensive to run. There is not a problem with "maintenance."

The spokeswoman recounts the following:

"We're hearing more and more cases of where hospitals don't have the right surgery teams, they don't have the expert staff to do the operating, sometimes they don't have the correct equipment to do the operation ...Some [patients] are even being wheeled down to the operating room and then told to go home. We hear stories like this all the time."

I still believe that socialized medicine, nationalized medicine, single-payer health care, ... whatever label you want to apply ... is inevitable in this country :eyeroll: . We have managed to produce a population that overwhelmingly believes that they are not responsible for their own health care. 

This isn't going to be fun. Try to stay healthy.

or we could look at this

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly ... 39,00.html

We're hearing more and more of these stories ... expectant mothers in Canada are being forced to come to the United States to deliver their babies. 
BECAUSE THE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE SYSTEM FAILS THEM IN CANADA

next we could look at this example of capitalism at work

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printp ... s_for.html

Gee isn't that amazing how a profit motive makes things really work well for customers I dont care if its health care or any product, pit people against one another for profit and eveyone wins a better product at lowest REAL COST.

NAME ONE COUNTRY THAT HAS SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE and delivers better health care to their citizens than our pirvate system does, just one.

The SCHIP is nothing but an attempt to socialize welfare, reduce service and strengthen politicians influence ( and their personal power) on us.

How many North Dakotans think they should have to pay for health care for someones kids when the parent of those kids make 80 grand a year?

When Govt is out of health care ( probably will never happen in our country full of entilement dumbasses) the cost will go down and the service will go up.

Socialism has failed every where in the world its been tried but what the hell lets try it here also so we can learn the lesson the hard way also uke:


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

> How many North Dakotans think they should have to pay for health care for someones kids when the parent of those kids make 80 grand a year?


The current threshhold is $28910 and would rise to $30975 if the new Schip bill was passed. That number is derived by multiplying $20650 (federal povery level) by whatever pecentage the state has set the limit at. North Dakota currently has set the limit at 140% and would rise to 150%. So, dont worry Bob, nobady making 80 grand a year is going to get any help in North Dakota.



> Gee isn't that amazing how a profit motive makes things really work well for customers I dont care if its health care or any product, pit people against one another for profit and eveyone wins a better product at lowest REAL COST


Cmon Bob your article talks about Lasik surgeons and Walmart clinics. They even try to give credit to the lasik guy for developing better lasers. Pleeeeeaaaase, Im guessing some student at MIT had more to do with that.



> They're figuring how to do something faster, better, cheaper


Does anybody really believe that Walmart healthcare is actually *Better?*.



> How many North Dakotans think they should have to pay for health care for someones kids when the parent of those kids make 80 grand a year?


Yes! I would much rather my tax dollars go to get some kid in to see the doctor, than go as part of some corporate welfare package (why not let the free market work?) Lets get real, the government is never going to give us any real tax relief. So I would much rather it go to someone who needs it to possiblly catch an illness before it kills a kid or for immunizations. Not to finance a million dollar bonus for the CEO of a bankrupt company or to help one of those needy billionaires buy a nicer yacht.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader ... Nader.html

BTW its not something thats new so stop portraying it as such, the bill was merely to increase the funding. Your socialized health system arguement is just a republican talking point intended to create a knee jerk reaction.

Do you republicans dislike Schip because it would mean more healthy kids, and healthy little boys run faster. Thats not a good thing for some members of your religious right base (Catholic Priests) or for some senators it would seem. :wink:

TTFN, pesky work interupting again.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The current threshhold is $28910 and would rise to $30975 if the new Schip bill was passed. That number is derived by multiplying $20650 (federal povery level) by whatever pecentage the state has set the limit at. North Dakota currently has set the limit at 140% and would rise to 150%. So, dont worry Bob, nobady making 80 grand a year is going to get any help in North Dakota.


That is not accurate when you look at the picture as a whole. The bill vetoed had a mark of 300% of poverty. That means that all ND had to do if the bill became law was say hey, we want that 300% level which then turns into $61,950. Not to mention there were add ons in the bill that include coverage for some adults. New York was trying to ram through a 400% level which is where the $80,000 came into play.

So at 300% the cut off is households with $61,950 or less. The median household income in ND $34,604. That tells me the majority of residents in ND would opt for the government plan and not have to pay anything. They would be fools not to and that is exactly what some are counting on. Sounds like socialized medicine to me.

The President has already said he would sign a bill at the 200% level. Even at that the average North Dakotan along with most all states would be able to get free health care for the kids. This is nothing more than a back door attempt to socialize medicine, raise taxes, and create a political issue for the Democrats wanting total control and a few Republicans that up for re-election. Their interest is not the children but only themselves and they know the gullible will swallow as usual.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

> That is not accurate when you look at the picture as a whole. The bill vetoed had a mark of 300% of poverty. That means that all ND had to do if the bill became law was say hey, we want that 300% level which then turns into $61,950. Not to mention there were add ons in the bill that include coverage for some adults. New York was trying to ram through a 400% level which is where the $80,000 came into play.


Tell the whole story. There are currently many states that are over 200% and several that are at 300%

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compare ... d=204&st=3



> Their interest is not the children but only themselves and they know the gullible will swallow as usual


The exact same thing applies to the other side of the aisle as well.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

jdpete75 said:


> > That is not accurate when you look at the picture as a whole. The bill vetoed had a mark of 300% of poverty. That means that all ND had to do if the bill became law was say hey, we want that 300% level which then turns into $61,950. Not to mention there were add ons in the bill that include coverage for some adults. New York was trying to ram through a 400% level which is where the $80,000 came into play.
> 
> 
> Tell the whole story. There are currently many states that are over 200% and several that are at 300%
> ...


JD pete, first you lie about then when caught in the lie by CWOPARSON you equivocate, the favorite liberal BS of "they're doing something wrong so I should be able to".

And I've already told you twice I dont want corporate welfare

( another irrevalent attempt to equivocate) and most other types either and I am not a republican.

I dont believe you can be honest about it you obviously must have some agenda so I'm done discussing this with you.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

What you dont like hard facts bob?

What did I lie about?

Do you have any proof of the "socialized medicine" or is that just typical republican no fact rhetoric. Never really figured you would turn tail this fast, probably cause there isnt much to support your platform when it comes to protecting our children from something other than those dirty terrorists.



> you obviously must have some agenda


Nice comeback, I have a different Point of View, so obviously I must have an _agenda_


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Tell the whole story. There are currently many states that are over 200% and several that are at 300%


Those are state levels, not federal. Anything over and beyond the federal level is paid for by the state. You will note from your own cite it is termed Enhanced SCHIP. A major problem is a lot of stated have tacked on so much extra benefits to the program that the Federal baseline for SCHIP is no longer supporting the program. Seems to me a person needs to look at their own state for any shortfalls that may being occurring.



> The exact same thing applies to the other side of the aisle as well.


I already said that. What is it about "This is nothing more than a back door attempt to socialize medicine, raise taxes, and create a political issue for the Democrats wanting total control and a few Republicans that are up for re-election" that didn't come through.

Least we not forget that all children, even those of illegal aliens are covered for emergencies the same as all adults. No child in this country is actually in danger or at least shouldn't be of dieing if struck by sickness but when little johnny is a little to hyper for mom and pops social life and they want to put him on Ridilin then I think they can pay for that themselves. The Presidents proposal of a 5 billion dollar increase for SCHIP sure doesn't sound like chump change to me, but 35 billion as congress wants is approaching insanity. If they really want that then why not cut spending or heaven forbid pork barrel projects. Stop building bridges to no where. We don't need grants to study the sex life of mayflies or why dogs bite when kicked. Senator Byrd didn't need that billion dollar atomic clock built in his state years ago. We had one already and it worked just fine. A little common sense would go a long ways.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

> If they really want that then why not cut spending or heaven forbid pork barrel projects. Stop building bridges to no where. We don't need grants to study the sex life of mayflies or why dogs bite when kicked. Senator Byrd didn't need that billion dollar atomic clock built in his state years ago. We had one already and it worked just fine. A little common sense would go a long ways.


CW, we are on the same paragraph of the same page. I believe the money is there to help. Our elected official are just pissing it away on rediculous programs like you mentioned.

Side note just to be clear: I am not for universal health coverage. My wife works for blue cross and with Government healthcare out goes the need for insurance companies.

By my both sides of the aisle comment I meant that one would be hard pressed to find anyone in washington that has the citizens best interest at heart. Career politicians have killed that. IMO 2 terms and they should be out, with no lucrative retirement plan other than maybe some 401k that they can opt to roll over or cash.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

JD you are the perfect example of what will ****** healthcare in the US. You come across as an entitilist that believes everyone is entitled to what the next person has. And your wife works for one of the most corrupt, self serving industries in the world. Talk about corporate welfare. Blue cross, and any of the other healthcare insurance companies steal from their customers and work very hard not to give what their paid to give. The problem with alot of unisured folks is a new car or a $400,000 house is higher priority than health insurance. If we had a law that says every living person would be forced to pay for health insurance in a generation or two nobody would blink an eye about it. We do that with car insurance, if you own a car you must be insured. Its not to protect you its to protect everyone else. To end my rant I will say that the "health insurance crisis" could be fixed with insurance reform. It comes down to the billions of dollars in profits made by blue cross could be reduced to make healthcare more affordable.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Do you republicans dislike Schip because it would mean more healthy kids, and healthy little boys run faster. Thats not a good thing for some members of your religious right base (Catholic Priests) or for some senators it would seem.


jdpete, you need to know who your talking to. Do some background, look at some old posts. Neither of us (Bob or I) are fond of either party. When I started on this site a couple years ago I considered myself republican. Now I disown them also. Bob explained that to you, but you ignored it. Is it that you need to portray him as partisan to help push welfare healthcare?
I would guess many people are sick of both parties and consider themselves conservative or liberal, and even more are somewhere in between. 
I am often confused by the thinking of liberals. Why is it that liberals often think they are entitled to things they have not in the least earned? Also, why is it that liberals equate Christian with child molesters, and at the same time appear more tolerant of radical Islam?


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

OK swifty, Ill bite, explain to me how blue cross is a perfect example of corporate welfare. Do you have ANY facts to back that up, or are you just blowing out your azz. I suspect the latter.

Do some research, especially the part about how much extra we pay for health care to make up for the ones that dont pay, it is more. Also learn what Schip *is*.

You come across as typically ignorant. example:


> The problem with alot of unisured folks is a new car or a $400,000 house is higher priority than health insurance.


might be just me but Im guessing that most people in 400k houses have insurance through work. Think before you type, or at least spend 5 minutes to check the statistics for income, home ownership and health insurance. 
you can start here. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm



> JD you are the perfect example of what will stupid healthcare in the US.


WTF, are you smoking crack? For one, the statement doesnt make any sense and for second what will what? But, ok, what in your extensive research would lead you to believe that I am a perfect example?



> It comes down to the billions of dollars in profits made by blue cross could be reduced to make healthcare more affordable


This little piece of BS tidbit just makes me giggle, once again your sheer disregard for any semblance of fact just shines like a beacon. Blue cross is a Non-Profit organization. Which Im sure you could have found out yourself if you would have bothered to look up the profits before you just spouted off. Oh yea, I almost forgot, healthcare is so expensive because of things like malpractice insurance and bills not getting paid by people that cant afford them or in the case of illegal immigrants just chose not to pay. Do you really think the hospitals and clinics just eat those losses? Oh nevermind, you probably do.

Thanks for the laugh

Plainsman,

please refer to this thread:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... cbe8e3d59d

Bob expessed his dislike for a program that I think is pretty good. Towards the bottom I invited him to join me on a new thread to discuss in a civil point-counterpoint discussion. I used to regard Bob as a pretty smart guy and good to converse with on the site. Whats wrong with that? Bob got crabby and decided he would rather sling insults rather than try to counter my points and so forth and so on. I wish bob had stuck around, but I think I will have more fun with swift.[/u]


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> please refer to this thread:


Ya, we perhaps agree more than we disagree. If I had to list you and I as liberal being 1 and conservative being 10 I would perhaps be a 7 and you a 6. I just think socialized medicine is a huge mistake.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Do people realize if medical care became socialized and free that everyone who is under the plan would go to the doctor with any mild case of the sniffles. That would take up the doctors time away from more serious issues.

I am sorry I live near a great medical facility known as the Mayo Clinic. People who work for mayo get great benifits and health care. They have had to revamp the plans they give their employees because of what I mentioned. Hypocondriacts (Sp?) would have a field day! Look at Canada and their program.

Again I am not saying that we should not help. But if a socialized form of health care would cripple our medical facilities and force better doctors over seas or out of our hospitals and clinics.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Jd What line of work are you in? I work in healthcare, I see the Big farmers with no insurance or HIGH deductible insurance that want us to file different ways to save them money. And yes they do have half million dollar houses and million dollar farms. I have to fill out the preauthorizations that your beloved Blue Cross sends so the patients can get the medication I prescribed to them. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Jd you have all the answers so maybe you should take the tax commissioners open position. Schip is not needed in my opinion because it is covered in Medicaid already. If they want to expand medicaid for kids go ahead but the folks popping out all those kids should have to trade their cigarettes for prescriptions. You make it sound like people have to choose food or healthcare in reality that population is a very small percentage. You say to me to state facts but I haven't heard any from you yet. Look at the three glaring examples of socialized medicine closest to us the first 1. Canadian system look into and figure out why there are so many MD's from Canada in the US. 2. Medicare, it costs me 60% of the bill everytime I see a Medicare patient and 3. The VA system We should all be ashamed of the healthcare we give to the veterans of this country. And by the way all the illegal aliens that don't pay their bills would be in the 5th percentile of all the legal residents that don't pay their bills in healthcare. You my friend should get a grip.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> SCHIP was meant for children in families earning less than twice the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that would be an annual income of $41,300 or less.
> 
> Today, 37 percent of American children fall into that category, but 45 percent of American children are enrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP. A program intended for low-income children has been extended to more and more middle-income children and adults.
> 
> ...


*Today there is approximately 600,000 childless adults receiving free medical using SCHIP funds. Once again another well meaning government program hijacked and turned into a money sucking machine to support corrupt vote sucking politicians. When are you going to say enough is enough?*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Cwoparson, your absolutely right. Many of these programs are not to help people so much as they are to buy votes with our money from people who will take anything they can get for free. I feel sorry for the truly needy, and I think we have them covered. Any further coverage will go to the freeloaders for votes. They are determined to get Hillary care. Remember -- womb to da tomb, womb to da tomb ---------


----------

