advertisement

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

President's Veto of Health Funding Bill

Discussion in 'Legislative Issues' started by Ellen, Nov 13, 2007.

  1. Ellen

    Ellen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,240
    APHA Dismayed at President's Veto of Health Funding Bill



    Statement from Georges C. Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP (E) Executive Director, American Public Health Association WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "The American PublicHealth Association (APHA) is dismayed by today's presidential veto of theLabor-HHS-Education spending bill. "Along with funding to expand educational opportunities and invest injob training, the bipartisan bill passed by Congress would provide supportfor core public health programs such as preventing obesity and combatinginfectious disease, as well as training public health and medicalprofessionals. "As did his veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program last month,today's veto demonstrates the president's severely misguided spendingpriorities. While refusing to provide basic support for health andwellness, the president did not hesitate in signing a defense spending billmore than three times larger. "APHA, supported by its thousands of members and professional allies,urges members of Congress to overturn the president's veto. It is essentialthat we provide the infrastructure and support necessary to protect ournation's health."SOURCE American Public Health Association
     
  2. jdr

    jdr Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    498
    I'm not surprised by the veto.Par for the course with this guy,not surprised at all. Very sad
     
  3. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    The president did not veto CHIP because he doesn't want kids to get health care, he did it because it would create incentives for parents to take their kids out of private insurance and put them on the government plan.
     
  4. Nancy in VA

    Nancy in VA Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,308
    Brensdad - thanks for the perspective. I really dislike "alarmist" headlines and stories that don't really address the complete situation.
     
    Brensdad likes this.
  5. jdr

    jdr Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    498
    The results are the same,no matter the reasons he gives.
     
  6. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    What sense would it make to take thousands of kids that are already covered by private insurance plans and put them on taxpayer-funded plans?

    This was little more than an election-year stunt and part of a bigger plan to socialize health care. I have made my opinion very clear that I do believe government can play a bigger role in bringing down prices (allowing protocols for testing generic insulins, etc).
     
  7. jdr

    jdr Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    498
    I would be suprised to see a whole lot of people who have good coverage now drop it for a government plan that would probably not be as good as what they have.
     
  8. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    They would if it were "free" or heavily subsidized instead of paying premiums and co-pays.
     
  9. Nancy in VA

    Nancy in VA Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,308
    I agree - our society has turned into an entitlement society and people will take anything that is given to them without having to do anything.

    Don't get me wrong, the insurance/health care situation in this country needs fixing, but the SCHIP wasn't the solution, and the other department funding bill had earmarks in it and things that the president had said he would veto - they were added just to provoke the veto so that the congress could get a headline. Welcome to politics.
     
  10. jdr

    jdr Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    498
    Would you change from great coverage to a plan that does not have near the coverage just because it's free. not me because when it's comes down to it, it would not be free after all.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2008
  11. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    But the problem is that not all people think logically like that. Some people are content to live a certain lifestyle, even if it's a "lower" lifestyle, if it's going to be provided for them. There are too many parents out there (not just parents of D kids) that would happily give up good private insurance if they could get lesser care for free from the government.
     
  12. Tabithas_storm

    Tabithas_storm Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    Ok, what about those of us out there that can not get private insurance, and the company we work for does not offer insurance, or adaquate insurance. The company I work for wants me to pay $1000 a month, for 8 months, before teh insurance is effective, then another 6 months before it will cover my diabetic child. All private companies have denied her, and when I went to the SSA they said I made too much money. When I went to the state they told me the same thing. So I pay all costs out of pocket. The last hospital visit was a 2 day ICU stay, and a great deal of money later.... I just spent the spring working 12 hour days, 6 days a week to pay it off. I think if they are going to come up with some sort of reform for insurance or medical care, they should put a cap on what doctors and pharacuitical companies can charge for the drugs and medical care. Especially for those of us that do not have insurance, and have to deal witht he frustration of fighting to try to get insurance.

    I work in the nuclear industry in the spring and fall and also as a nurse during the summer and winter months, and I have taken care of many patients that are in the hospital because they do not have insurance and are unable to pay for the insulin and test strips. They come in with sugars ranging between 600-1500. That to me is completely unacceptable. When are we, as a country, going to realize the detrimental effects that the high costs are having on the care of our children and elderly. I know several people that have to chose between buying medications and eating or having electricity.

    I am lucky that I do have a job that I do make enough to pay for my daughter's care, but what about those who don't? Or how much different would the lives of everyone in my household be if I did have insurance? I would definately be home more!
     
  13. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    I really don't want this to sound harsh, because I am, without question, sympathetic to your situation. My answer to you would be for you to take charge or your health care and get another job that offers the benefits you need.
     
  14. Tabithas_storm

    Tabithas_storm Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11
    I am currently trying to do just that. But to make about the same as I do now, with or without benefits, takes a little while to find. I was laid off from the nuclear plant in May and I found out that while I collect unemployment, my daughter is eligible for Coverkids, TN reduced rate insurance. So, I am taking the summer off to get the insurance started. Once I go back to work, I have to pay $450 a month to cover both of my children. So, I have managed to get a little bit of a break. $450 is still a lot better than $600 a month just for medicine. Then add Dr bills in with that.... You know the routine.
    I still think it is wrong that an insurance company can deny a child or an enderly person because they have diabetes. I know it is an expensive disease, but the tax dollars going to pay their hospital bills when they go to a community hospital and are unable to pay a so much higher!
     
  15. Lakeman

    Lakeman Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    956
    I don't want to make waves and as a parent who understands the heartbreak of having a child with diabetes I do want to speak out.

    If we are going to live in a country that runs in an orderly way and upholds the rights of all then we must follow our laws and constitution. Anything else will result in a loss of rights and a degree of chaos.

    Yes we need health care reform.

    We first need to remember the distinction between health care and insurance. Health care is what medical professionals provide to us for a fee. Health insurance is a hedge against unforeseen events provided to us by a company for a fee.

    A pre-existing condition just means that a person does not have an unforeseen event because, having already happened, it is perfectly seeable. Insurance cannot pay for pre-existing conditions because that is not the purpose of insurance. A health care system can pay for pre-existing conditions but insurance should not.

    But nothing is free. If the government provides health care for people we will still be paying for it. But a very important difference is that when we pay for things through government the population is coerced into paying for them under threat of law. Anyone who refused to pay their taxes will be penalized, fined, and perhaps jailed. This represents a loss of rights. A loss of the right to be free and a loss of the right to direct ones own property. We must only decide that the government should take some action or pay for some service if the benefit is important enough to warrant jailing people who disagree and if it is an allowed activity according the the enumerated list in the constitution.

    Since we as a society will be paying for all the health care that occurs in it I prefer that we do so without restricting peoples rights.
     

Share This Page

advertisement