http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920548/

Bush hates children and this is proof. He'd rather send our tax dollars to Iraq than to help our own. Pitiful!!

>>>"Bush hates children and this is proof."

What a shallow and incorrect statement. Obviously trolling for some reaction.

Bush's answer about not wanting to expand government healthcare by helping kids is pure BS. In 2003, when he was worried about re-election, he had no problem signing a bill expanding Medicare prescription for seniors. Even his own administration's estimates at the time had the program costing over $50 Billion a year - although that estimate was soon discovered to be highly optimistic; some estimates put it at over $1 Trillion over 10 years.

Seniors who vote and can, presumably, still work in many cases? Give 'em a nice little perk before an election year, even if it expands government-run health care. Kids who have no say in whether their parents can afford healthcare and can't work? Screw 'em! But, that doesn't mean Bush hates kids, uh UH...

Andrew

Maybe I should correct myself. Bush doesn't CARE about kids.

This is just another case of asinine decision making. Sometimes I wonder if he goes out of his way to be such an ass.

It's a simple thing. We are not getting anything from this administration, unless it serves to enrich somebody "entitled", or further solidify their power.

It's obvious the above posters have no clue what Bush's position on this is and the reason he is vetoing it.

Lack of knowledge is a common trait of the liberal.

This is obviously an attemapt by hte demos to establish a national health care system, and use tax money to provide health care to illegal's.

Its more of the demos attempts to remove responsibility for children from their parents.

"Lack of knowledge is a common trait of the liberal."

Thanks Jaques Cousteau. Actually, he's French. You are more of a Marlin Perkins sort of guy.

Deane_johnson wrote:

Lack of knowledge is a common trait of the liberal.

Uh, considering some of the simple folk you have on your side of the political spectrum, I wouldn't talk. I think what really gets me is in seven years of doing absoutely nothing for anyone except big business, you still have the nerve to defend Bush. He vetoed this because he refuses to do ANYTHING for the little guy. THAT'S why the middle class is getting squeezed so hard. If big business wanted this, it would FLY through.

Deane writes:
It's obvious the above posters have no clue what Bush's position on this is and the reason he is vetoing it.

No, someone obviously wasn't reading carefully. I made it quite clear that I know why Bush is vetoing the bill: because he doesn't (in his view) want to expand the government's role in providing health care. As I also pointed out, he had no problem doing that in 2003 with the Medicare prescription drug thing that cost way more than this SCHIP thing will. And we already have the government "providing health care" with the existing SCHIP program. All this bill does is expand it to cover more kids.

Lack of knowledge is a common trait of the liberal.

I'd say then that you qualified to be a liberal a long time ago, Deane!

Andrew

Bush doesn't care about black children. There. Now it's clear for you.

So more black children are in the higher economic groups, thats the reason the demos want to raise the cap?

Yes.

Raising the income level to qualify for government health care to $90,000 in some cases is nothing more than a major step towards a nationalized health system. Bush's position is that if the country wants to do that, it should be discussed on that basis, not sneaked through buried in a bill like this.

Most all of us agree what something needs to be done with health care, but these little pieces being implemented with no overall plan is not the way to do it.

I am not in favor of either the Republican or Democrat thinking. The Republican's medical savings accounts are ridiculous, and the Democrats desire to turn it into socialized medicine is unacceptable in the other direction.

Until both parties get off their extreme positions and start trying to come up with solutions, we aren't going to get anywhere.

Bottom line is I don't support the Republican viewpoint and I don't support the Liberal viewpoint.

Deane writes:
Raising the income level to qualify for government health care to $90,000 in some cases is nothing more than a major step towards a nationalized health system. Bush's position is that if the country wants to do that, it should be discussed on that basis, not sneaked through buried in a bill like this.

And do you know WHERE that $90K number comes from? Since you are oh-so-well informed (unlike those clueless Liberals) I'll bet you could tell me. Right?

Andrew

So, what's your viewpoint Deane?

Either we distribute it (national plan), regulate it, outsource it, or ignore it.

Any ideas?

Personally, I prefer to "ignore" DJ's "viewpont".
That's just me, though.

>>>"And do you know WHERE that $90K number comes from?"

I believe Bush used it during his press conference.


>>>"Either we distribute it (national plan)"

You mean I pay for yours, right.


>>>"Personally, I prefer to "ignore" DJ's "viewpont". "

You could also word this "I prefer to ignore reality".

Deane writes:
I believe Bush used it during his press conference.

Right Deane. Do you know what the $90K number refers to? Hint: it's not the income limit for people living in rural Texas.

Andrew

90,000 cheeseburgers and enough for left over for fries and soda?

That is a great health plan for the kiddies.

Ketchup IS a vegetable, right?

Herb

Ignore reality? Nope, just you.

BTW, have you ever needed, or used, ANY kind of goverment assistance for your children, be it financial, educational or medical?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RQCKO00&show_article=1

I thought you said this blackheart was dead?

Herb

IT'S A MIRACLE! HE HAS RISEN!

He was never dead.

Herb

You just think you know everything, don't you?

>>>"BTW, have you ever needed, or used, ANY kind of goverment assistance for your children, be it financial, educational or medical?"


Yup, and I'm soon going to use a lot more in the form of an intestinal transplant for my son. Probably about $400,000 more.

Just so you know, I'm very much in favor of some sort of national health insurance so that every single person can be covered and have access to good health care. It's just that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have a workable approach.

The Republicans want medical savings plans, which aren't really worth much, and the Democrats, such as Hillary back when Bill was first elected, want a card good for unlimited free health care, which won't work either. The abuse of anything that's "free" will clog the system beyond belief.

>>>"And do you know WHERE that $90K number comes from?"

I believe the bill raised the qualification to 4 times the official poverty level. Back in 2006, the poverty level was about $20,000 for a family of four. That alone would make it $80,000.

I realize liberals would like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend this was not the case. That somehow it was directed at poor little children living in mud huts with open ditch sewers. That's not where the bill was headed. Thank god for George Bush's wisdom in this matter.

"You just think you know everything, don't you?"

Wait a minute. It's not about me-It's about your saying Castro was dead. I simply asked how you knew. Now it's clear you didn't.

Here's a novel idea: How about actually taking responsibility that you didn't know?

Naw, then you couldn't blame everything on conservatives.

WHY you either blatantly lied or passed along your misinformation is for someone else to ask.

Mislead on.

Herb

It was a joke, you moron. He has not been seen in public, or by the public for over a year.

No, wait, I have proof that he was dead, but you're convinced otherwise, so it's pointless to provide facts. "It's just a waste of time".

Twist on!

Mrs. Blatant Liar

"It was a joke, you moron."

Ok.

Dodge on.

Herb

Deane, I think the bill is directed at KIDS WHO DON'T HAVE INSURANCE. And Bush, like the jackass he is, is ruled by his stupid ideology rather than doing what's right.

Bush doesn't care about kids. And I hope that all the families without insurance remember this when it comes time to vote for the next president, because the Republican health care solution is to not get sick.

Deane writes:
I believe the bill raised the qualification to 4 times the official poverty level. Back in 2006, the poverty level was about $20,000 for a family of four. That alone would make it $80,000.

Well, Mr. "I'm so much better informed than Liberals," you may not have learned this on "Fox and Friends," but that $80K limit is an EXCEPTION asked for by the State of New York (SCHIP is administered by the states). You may have noticed that the cost of living in NYC is slightly higher than out there in Nebraska. $80K may go a long way for a family of four in Omaha but not so much in NYC.

The goal of SCHIP to help families that can't afford health insurance for their kids. It doesn't make sense to have one income limit across the board for the entire country when the cost of living obviously varies greatly throughout the nation.

Andrew

Deane just got smoked.

Parents, especially single parents without insurance have time to vote? I would think they're too busy working their crappy 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs to have time to load the kids onto the bus and go vote before 8PM...and just hope none of their kids are sick on election day, or sitting in the ER, because they couldn't afford the much cheaper doctor visit or the prevention!

Yep. Got cooked huge.

I'm still waiting on his perspective. Says something should be done, but both parties have the wrong idea...

Seems to me, for one to make that comment, one must either be ignorant of what the plans really are, be less than honest about "something needs to be done", or have some alternative right?

So what is it Deane?

I'm just curious as to what that alternative might look like, and am assuming the first cases are not true. Being so well informed and all, that's a valid assumption right?

@Mrs M - Vote By Mail helps huge here. Coupla week voting window, having a stable address is a problem, but not as big of one as having to vote on one particular day is.

I'd love to hear Deane's alternative! I'm sure it's a well-thought-out meet-in-the-middle kind of plan!


@MK - Thank Gourd for VBM! I love it, even though I still deliver my ballot by hand on election day. Poor DJ, he probably has no idea how great it is!

No, I don't have a plan.

I know it's too complicated for some of you libs to understand, but watch my lips one more time.

The Republicans Medical Savings Accounts help out some those with plenty of money, but not those without money.

The Democrats socialized medicine approach is totally unacceptable to the majority of Americans.

Mitt Romney had considerable success in Massachusetts with his program, there may be some things to learn there.

I think it's wrong to have a system where people with good jobs have good health care, and those without good jobs have none. It's shouldn't be based on having a good job.

Your first, "from your lips to our screens" statement is solid.

The second has a burden, not yet met.

We've got some good success here in Oregon with OHP too. There are also some things to learn, by way of supporting example for the other side.

Your last statement is solid as well. IMHO, most would agree with this.

So, given we decouple coverage from employment, what then?

Sounds like you might be up for some regulation. Maybe force some competition, bring prices down for more people maybe?

"Sounds like you might be up for some regulation. Maybe force some competition, bring prices down for more people maybe?"

BINGO!

Don't make it single-payer. If anything, make it so it is actual competition with the interests of the PATIENT, the one paying the premiums and the like, first ... not the insurance companies!

>>>"Sounds like you might be up for some regulation."

Yes, I think it will take the federal government to have the plan and to implement it. It still needs to be based on competition, and it needs to be done by private enterprise. Our Medicare supplements are all private enterprise. And, we can go to any doctor or medical institution of our choice, providing they accept Medicare, which most all do.

Prices come down, when the amount of resource increases in relation to demand. You are talkng about increasing demand while keeping resources constant, which increases price!

DJ said>>>
Lack of knowledge is a common trait of the liberal.

And that of EXTREME RIGHT wingers.

What a lot of libs really want, is an English type of socialised health care, where all the doctors work for the govt or a govt ran operation. Where health care workers salaries are managed and medicine is distributed equally to the public. Not taking into account, this type of system reduces the overall amount of health care in both quantity and quality.

Nwokie: the English are moving away from that system as doctors are refusing to participate.

I don't think that's what people want at all.

The most common things I hear are:

-health care not tied to job

-health care affordable

-elimination of lots of silly rules, pre-existing, job change, etc... (Too many outs to avoid payment.)

-freedom of choice

-lower overhead / cost issues in general

-focus more on prevention.

None of these add up to some government run program. There are lots of options on the table that do not require our medical professionals be working for the government.

Regulation is an option, as is competition including extending Medicare / Medicaid to more people. A single pay system would be aimed at reducing overhead and or eliminating insurance companies, or making them optional for those wanting above the minimum coverage.

I've heard absolutely nobody say they prefer the English system. In fact, most people prefer a system where there is robust competition. I'm willing to bet, at this moment, regulation is the best overall fit.

Nwokie writes:
What a lot of libs really want, is an English type of socialised health care, where all the doctors work for the govt or a govt ran operation.

I haven't heard of a single "lib" who wants that, actually. Most people want a single payer or multi payer system where doctors and hospitals are not owned by the government - not the British socialized medicine style.

Andrew

Most health costs are fixed, they aren't going to drop, IE a MRI costs over a million dollars, has a lif of about 5 years, needs extensive preventive maintenance once a month, needs hig paid/skilled operators, but it can only be used on about 4 patients per hour, extrapolate that over a 12 hour day 6 day week, and it Plus going to cost the patient a lot. A doctor pays either hisself or through a group for an office, administrator nurse nurses assistant. thats a lot of cost. Throw in cost of other equipment there just isnt much room to reduce prices.

Eliminate the beauracracy!!

I rarely go to the doctor, but a few months ago I had a mole removed from my back and another thingy removed from my face, both of which had to be tested to see if they were cancerous. Luckily and expectedly, both were benign.

However, for the next several months, I received bills from several different outfits in the mail. I had to call each of them to give them my insurance information, they had to check with it, and get back to me. This is a waste of time and money. It costs money to generate and send bills in the mail and it costs money to pay someone to answer the phone when I have a billing question that shouldn't have required any need for me to call. Then they have to spend more time updating my stuff, billing the insurance company, and on and on and on. I can't even imagine what it would be like for someone who has regular health issues.

MISSING WROTE:

The most common things I hear are:

-health care not tied to job

AGREED.

-health care affordable

WILL NEVER BE. IT'S GOING TO KEEP GOING UP AS MORE AND MORE IS POSSIBLE.

-elimination of lots of silly rules, pre-existing, job change, etc... (Too many outs to avoid payment.)

AGREED, BUT PRE-EXISTING TAKES GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT OF SOME SORT TO FORCE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DO SO ON A FAIR BASIS FOR THEM AND THE CONSUMER.

-freedom of choice

AGREED

-lower overhead / cost issues in general

WON'T HAPPEN. IT WILL GO HIGHER SOMEONE HAS TO PAY. EITHER YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT MEANS TAXES. TAXES MEANS THOSE OF US WITH INCOME PAY FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WORK.

-focus more on prevention.

WON'T HAPPEN. AMERICANS ARE GETTING FATTER AND SLOPPIER EVERY DAY.

In the back of my mind, I keep thinking of some sort of national insurance, paid by individuals or companies, or whatever, but available without conditions to all. If companies want to provide insurance for their workers fine, but it's all the same national policy. Individual insurance companies could have as many of the policies as they wanted, but had to take anyone who applied or was in the pool, regardless of health. Individuals below a certain level of income could get proportional government help with the premiums. Everyone would be required to have the insurance. Smokers would pay more. Perhaps fat people would pay more unless fat was caused by a medical condition. Big Mac attacks would not be considered a medical condition.

I would not consider this nationalized health care, but rather nationalized insurance, carried by individual insurance companies under government regulation. Medical establishments would compete in order to keep costs down (perhaps a dream).

Vitalogy, your last post is right on. It's ridiculous and costly.

I have to go to the dermatologist every six months since I had a small patch of skin cancer removed several years ago. It's always covered by Medicare and I only need to show my card and never anything else. I never get any bills, phone calls, questions, or anything. So, it is possible for it to be done with simplicity.

Supply and demand, that controls cost. Everyone is talking about increasing demand. That increases costs.

I say increase supply, IE more govt sponsored medical schools, more use of physician assistants, more use of computer aided diagnostics by trained lay people. Give doctors (and other health care workers) more incentive to treat people without adequate insurance.

The nurse practitioners seem to be a worthwhile addition. There are many medical needs that don't require a full fledged doctor. Is that what you're also calling a physician assistant?

The other thing I have observed is the massive amount of time that is spent on CYA. There must be a solution for the legal issues, though I have to admit, the extra caution saves lives.

Not only time, but other costs, IE extra tests of all types.

We make life/cost decisions all the time. IE we live with 60 mph speed limits, even though 30,000 people die from auto accidents.

A doctor should be immune from suits, if he takes reasonably care. If he shows up drunk or otherwise inpared he should pay out the max. If he makes a simple mistake, he should be protected. That alone would reduce health costs by over 10%.

Nwokie said>>>
What a lot of libs really want, is an English type of socialised health care.

Care to show us the proof??

As someone that has excellent health coverage I wouldn't want a socialized medicine policy except for the FACT that if we don't have something all of us who have insurance will have to pay more in the long run to pay for the individuals that don't have health care right now. It's completely outrageous!
For those of us FORTUNATE ones we don't need it but if the EVER GROWING number of Americans WITHOUT health insurance grows we are all going to get screwed.
I don't know how many of you out there get your health insurance totally 100% free through your place of work but I know an ever growing number of people having to pay every pay period to have/keep their health insurance.
If we don't figure something out soon for the vast amounts of people that don't have it we will all suffer in the long run.

Well, the Decider decided that low income children are not worthy of any funding AS he requests an additional $150 billion for his wars.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto." "Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America. "

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups planned more than 200 events throughout the nation to highlight the issue.

Typical liberal position. Hide the details, flame the headlines. Believe me, the devil was in the details of this project and the devil wasn't good.

Get the crap out of the bill and I predict it will sail through without slowing down.

Low income, $80,000 per year is low income?

This was a bi-partisan bill, Deane, that has been denied soley due to a failed ideology, and as a result of that ideology, American children will suffer. But, Bush doesn't care, he's more concerned about his ideology than actually doing something good for America.

>>>"Low income, $80,000 per year is low income?"

Don't forget all of the illegals that were to be covered also. Nice touch, but you and I get to pay for them. How about Mexico paying their premiums, then we can all feel good.

There are lots of programs that cover low income children already. theres WIC, AFDC, SSI etc.

Deane, since I don't smoke tobacco, I won't be paying for anything. Secondly, the illegals being covered was a scare tactic that is simply not true, but the weakminded among us fall for crap like that. Thirdly, do your research, the income limit was set at $61,332 for a family of four. Turn off the Rush Limbaugh and you may actually become smarter.

So all the smirking " Name one thing the Democrats have presented as an idea " and " A Democrat controlled congress can't get anything done " is kind of a moot point. The Decider does what he wants. As it's always been.

Now that we are here, with an 11% approval rating, with this bill being chosen as the time to draw a line in the sand fiscally by Rupublicans, it ALL implies that Democrats, by Herb and Deane's logic - Nwokie has something else. But not logic sometimes - that the voters will reverse their mandate from 2006 and start voting out Democrats and replacing them with Republicans. Because, you know, a Democrat controlled congress has 11%.

Right.

Uhhh, no. That 11% figure is spin against Democrats for Herb. I see it as a chance to take responsibility and fix it. It's things like THIS that will get MORE Democrats in charge next election. It's my opinion that republicans are finished for a while. But hey, you guys had a good run - great chances - and look at where we are.

Thanks.

Start the backpedaling now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html

It, in some cases would have covered families with incomes up to 83,000.

And it didnot exclude illegal immigrants.

Big deal. I would have been just fine with those some cases. It has to be perfect for you to support it? This would have been a minor concession to see a much greater good.

DJ said>>>
Obviously trolling for some reaction.

And you've NEVER done this???

Some cases, the illegal immigrants alone would account for a significant amount of it. This is a blantant backdoor attempt to institute socialised medicine.

Why can't the democrats come out and say, we want to tax everyone, so we can pay for health care for illegal immigrants. Their about the only group that now, doesnt have access to the various government health plans, like WIC and SSI.

DJ also said>>>
Lack of knowledge is a common trait of the liberal.

And a trolling EXTREME RIGHT Bible thumpin' Midwesterner like yourself....

Herb said>>>
Ketchup IS a vegetable, right?

If DUHbya and Co. say it is then it is..... Just like fast food is for poor people...

Vit said>>>
Turn off the Rush Limbaugh and you may actually become smarter.

Really.... Don't think that's going to help her at all....

Last time I checked, WIC and SSI don't provide health insurance coverage for children. And since this bill is about insurance coverage for children WHO CURRENTLY ARE NOT INSURED, I don't see how SSI or WIC has anything to do with the discussion.

There is no proof that illegals would account for any of it. And further, even if they did, should children, legal or illegal, be made to suffer?

I don't know, man. If Socialized Medicine is supposed to be what I am pushing for, it would probably help for someone to tell me how, EXACTLY, this would be a bad thing for me. I make a pretty decent living. I would be willing to see my taxes go towards that.

Someone convince me that I am wrong to think that way. I'm really willing to listen.

If you are drawing SSI, or WIC, your are eligible for govt health coverage. Those are 2 of the qualifiers.

And how is socialised medicine bad? It reduces the overall quality of health care.

"If you are drawing SSI, or WIC, your are eligible for govt health coverage. Those are 2 of the qualifiers."

Really? I'd like to see proof of that. And I'd like to see how many uninsured children get insurance coverage as a result of your claim (which I think is pure BS). I'll be awaiting your proof.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) SSI is a cash benefit for disabled children whose families have low income. The Social Security Administration (SSA) determines SSI eligibility. The beneficiaries are automatically eligible for Medicaid and they receive the comprehensive package of health benefits including vision, dental, and mental health services. Most beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicaid health plan. Medicaid may continue even if SSI stops.



Special Disabled Children Medicaid is available to children who received SSI benefits on August 22, 1996, provided the child meets current SSI income and resource standards and the definition of childhood disability in effect before the 1996 revised disability definition. The comprehensive health care package of Medicaid benefits is available. Contact the local MDHS office in your county to apply for this program.

Again, your claim is BS. This only covers DISABLED CHILDREN.

Next!

What did my first post say, SSI and WIC.

"And how is socialised medicine bad? It reduces the overall quality of health care."

That's only if you don't count the people who can't afford it when you figure "overall quality".

I currently have one of the best healthcare plans available (outside of certain cush union or government jobs), and it is still a giant pain in the ass and hugely inefficient.

People talk about how socialized medicine will mean long waits to see a doctor... well the FACT is that nearly all Canadians got to see a doc within 48 HOURS OF MAKING AN APPOINTMENT, while I am currently waiting TWO MONTHS to see a dermatologist.

Face it folks, our healthcare system is COMPLETELY BROKEN. If socialized medicine is what it takes to fix it, I'm all for it... if we can keep the interest groups and big business lobbys from stealing too much, it will certainly be cheaper.

"Supplemental Security Income (SSI) SSI is a cash benefit for disabled children whose families have low income."

DISABLED being the key word here. SSI won't cover the average person who has children and can't afford health coverage.

"And how is socialised medicine bad? It reduces the overall quality of health care."

Measured against what? How? Wrong diagnosis'? Instruments left in a body? What? Be specific.

It's pretty hard to rate the quality of health coverage WHEN YOU HAVE NONE! Remember, something is always better than nothing.

But the implication is that it will be bad for EVERYONE. How so?

I think Republicans are so against anything with the word Socialist in it. I think it's all in the name for them.

It's scary sounding. But it's really nothing to worry about.

Hey, I've got a top dollar plan right now. (took nearly losing it all to get it, but hey --better than nothing right?)

Guess what?

Critical procedure, level 9 pain, zero quality of life, could be life threatening, the whole deal. (Not me, my wife, in case you were wondering!)

The wait?

Two fucking months.

I got a letter in my e-mail box that I thought I ought to share. Like him or not, he is absolutely right:

Dear David,

President Bush and I have one thing in common.

When either of us wants to see a doctor, American taxpayers cover 72% of our health care premiums. And when it comes time to pick a medical facility, either of us can go to a government-run hospital like the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

President Bush just vetoed a bill extending and reforming the State Children's Health Insurance Program. So I want to know:

If government-run health care is good enough for me, and is good enough for President Bush, why isn't it good enough for America's children?

Earlier this week, I stood outside the White House with working families to ask that very question -- and we've got it on video. Watch it, and join our effort:

http://www.democraticmajority.org/schip

President Bush says that SCHIP will cost too much.

But for the price of one day in Iraq, we could cover 256,000 children. One week would cover 1.8 million children. And just over one month of the Iraq war would cover the full cost of the bill, insuring more than 10 million children for a whole year.

This is a question of priorities -- and President Bush's priorities obviously don't include the needs of America's children.

There has to be a better way. Health insurance shouldn't be a luxury for the privileged few. It should be a right for all Americans -- especially our children.

As part of Monday's rally, a group of children pulling little red wagons was at the gates of the White House to urge the President to sign the bill.

When my son lost his leg to cancer as a child, my family didn't have to worry about getting him the best possible care. But in the hospital waiting rooms, we saw family after family -- middle class families -- driven into poverty because of their children's medical bills.

So I ask President Bush and the Members of Congress who support his veto:

Would you deny your own family what you'll be denying millions of other families if this bill is vetoed?

If you don't believe the federal government should support children's health care, how can you in good conscience accept it for your own families?

We can be a voice for the nation's children -- a voice that every member of Congress needs to hear. If government-supported health care is good enough for Congress, it's good enough for America's children.

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

Now scroll back up, read Missing's post and ask yourself if you are scared of a label, a concept, or the actual reality of a healthy America.

Doug, my thoughts are with you and your family.

Appreciated!

Sorry all. It's hard for me to just make that point, without also communicating some of the emotion that comes with it. However, I do think it needs to be made. I meet a lot of "it won't happen to me", or "I'm covered and don't want things to get worse" people that are having an impact on this discussion that's negative and not well supported by reality.

That war spending stat is just a killer.

I have a lot of anger over this boondoggle of a war. The costs are really high. Why is it, just when we reach a point where we might actually make some solid progress, we have to conjure up some enemy to keep everybody on edge?

I remain convinced this is the only reason the GOP really exists. The Democrats and Independents don't do this. Why?

I donated blood for the Red Cross yesterday and asked what the cost of my big full red bag was up to these days...after paying the Red Cross people and all the testing it goes through, a unit costs $1000.

I'm not sure if that was the cost to hospital or to the patient. The nice vampira lady who drained me said, "Can you imagine the cost if we had to pay people to donate?". Wow.

So, if the demo's dont want the health plan to expire, simply rewrite it slightly more moderate costs, thats what happened when Clinton vetoed bills passed by the Republicans.

Cap it at say 59,000 family income for 4, write in it that it does not cover illegal immigrants or non citizens.

Good.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/06/radio.addresses.ap/index.html