BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH



Yesterday Bush, as promised, vetoed the State Child Health Insurance Program bill.

Bush, in only the fourth veto of his presidency, said he rejected the bipartisan bill because it would "move healthcare in this country in the wrong direction" and would mean that "government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children."
....
Rep. Elton Gallegly, a Simi Valley Republican who voted against the bill, said the Democrats' decision to delay the override attempt shows their goal is to score political points, not to provide health insurance to children.

"This is a classic case of the ugliest part of our government process, which is taking something as critical as the healthcare of children and turning it into political spin," Gallegly said.



Ugly, ugly, ugly. Denying health insurance to children because providing it is "the wrong direction" is the "political spin" here. SCHIP wouldn't "displace private insurance" for fucking anyone; it would *provide* insurance for kids who don't have it.

Here's what will happen in California, Gallegly's state:

Unless Congress overrides the veto, California will not only be prohibited from expanding the program, but the state will also have to drop as many as 250,000 children who are currently insured under the program, Wright said.



More facts:

In 2005, there were 8.3 *million* uninsured children in the U.S. In 2006, there were 8.7 million.

Between 1998, the year the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was implemented, and 2004, the number of uninsured children fell every year. But since 2004, as the availability of funding for SCHIP expansion has tightened and as a restrictive Medicaid policy enacted in early 2006 has taken effect, progress in enrolling uninsured children in SCHIP and Medicaid has stalled.


These are children with asthma, with disabilities, with chronic ear infections, with toothaches, with eczema, with allergies; kids in foster care, kids with depression or ADHD. The idea that most people are basically healthy and that if you get sick without health insurance you can always go to the ER applies to "most people" because "most people" have had decent health care as children and haven't developed long-term or chronic problems because they lacked it. Untreated colds, head lice when you can't afford the medicine that kills them, eczema that drives you crazy--that kind of minor ongoing problem undermines kids' ability to attend school, undermines their ability to focus when they are in school, undermines their long-term health and the health of their entire families. ER visits for head lice or asthma are a fuck of a lot more expensive to the almighty taxpayer than providing kids with inhalers and topical medications.

And it's fucking pathetic that we have to resort to that kind of "it costs more not to treat them" argument for convincing the wealthiest country in the world to make sure kids can see a doctor once or twice a year.

The good news is that the Senate has enough votes for SCHIP to override Bush's asshole veto.

The bad news is that the House doesn't. We need 25 more Representatives to act like decent human beings and switch their votes.

So. Do the decent thing. Go here and find out who your representative is.

Then scroll down the list below to see if his or her name is on it. These are the folks who voted against SCHIP.

Write them (you can do so via the first link, or you can google their name and find a real honest-to-god mailing address) and tell them to change their vote. That's all you have to do.

If you want to do more, google the name of your state + "uninsured children numbers" and find out what percentage of kids in your state are uninsured. Mention that in your letter. If your representative was one of the good guys, write to the people on the list below who are from your state, admit that you're not in their district, but tell them you write as a resident of your state, and point out that their vote affects everyone.

If you want to do even more, talk to your friends and make sure they know about this. Tell them who their representative is. Urge them to write or call. Give them your representative's contact information. (A list of people who are *most* likely to change their votes is here, but even the dyed-in-the-wool assholes should hear how unpopular their stubbornness on this issue is with their constituents.)

If you want to do even more than that, print out a few flyers that say "Your Representative in Congress voted AGAINST providing health insurance to uninsured children," put your Representative's name, face, and contact information on it, and post them around town.

If you want to do even more than all of that, think of what else you can do and post it in the comments below.

Alabama

AL-1 Bonner, Jo (R)
AL-2 Everett, Terry (R)
AL-3 Rogers, Michael (R)
AL-4 Aderholt, Robert (R)
AL-6 Bachus, Spencer (R)

Arizona

AZ-2 Franks, Trent (R)
AZ-3 Shadegg, John (R)
AZ-6 Flake, Jeff (R)

Arkansas

AR-3 Boozman, John (R)

California

CA-2 Herger, Walter (R) -- did not vote
CA-3 Lungren, Daniel (R)
CA-4 Doolittle, John (R)
CA-19 Radanovich, George (R)
CA-21 Nunes, Devin (R)
CA-22 McCarthy, Kevin (R)
CA-24 Gallegly, Elton (R)
CA-25 McKeon, Howard (R)
CA-26 Dreier, David (R)
CA-33 Watson, Diane (D) -- voted "present" but did not vote aye or nay on the bill
CA-40 Royce, Edward (R)
CA-41 Lewis, Jerry (R)
CA-42 Miller, Gary (R)
CA-44 Calvert, Ken (R)
CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana (R)
CA-48 Campbell, John (R)
CA-49 Issa, Darrell (R)
CA-50 Bilbray, Brian (R)
CA-52 Hunter, Duncan (R)

Colorado

CO-4 Musgrave, Marilyn (R)
CO-5 Lamborn, Doug (R)
CO-6 Tancredo, Thomas (R)

Florida

FL-1 Miller, Jeff (R)
FL-4 Crenshaw, Ander (R)
FL-5 Brown-Waite, Virginia (R)
FL-6 Stearns, Clifford (R)
FL-7 Mica, John (R)
FL-8 Keller, Ric (R)
FL-9 Bilirakis, Gus (R)
FL-11 Castor, Kathy (D)
FL-12 Putnam, Adam (R)
FL-14 Mack, Connie (R)
FL-15 Weldon, David (R)
FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R)
FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (R)
FL-24 Feeney, Tom (R)
FL-25 Diaz-Balart, Mario (R)

Georgia

GA-1 Kingston, Jack (R)
GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn (R)
GA-6 Price, Tom (R)
GA-7 Linder, John (R)
GA-8 Marshall, James (D)
GA-9 Deal, Nathan (R)
GA-10 Broun, Paul (R)
GA-11 Gingrey, John (R)

Idaho

ID-1 Sali, Bill (R)

Illinois

IL-6 Roskam, Peter (R)
IL-11 Weller, Gerald (R)
IL-13 Biggert, Judy (R)
IL-14 Hastert, J. (R)
IL-15 Johnson, Timothy (R)
IL-16 Manzullo, Donald (R)
IL-19 Shimkus, John (R)

Indiana

IN-3 Souder, Mark (R)
IN-4 Buyer, Stephen (R)
IN-5 Burton, Dan (R)
IN-6 Pence, Mike (R)
IN-7 Carson, Julia (D) -- did not vote
IN-9 Hill, Baron (D)

Iowa

IA-5 King, Steve (R)

Kansas

KS-4 Tiahrt, Todd (R)

Kentucky

KY-1 Whitfield, Edward (R)
KY-2 Lewis, Ron (R)
KY-4 Davis, Geoff (R)
KY-5 Rogers, Harold (R)

Louisiana

LA-1 Jindal, Bobby (R) -- did not vote
LA-4 McCrery, James (R)
LA-5 Alexander, Rodney (R)
LA-6 Baker, Richard (R)
LA-7 Boustany, Charles (R)

Maryland

MD-6 Bartlett, Roscoe (R)

Massachusetts

MA-10 Delahunt, William (D) -- did not vote

Michigan

MI-2 Hoekstra, Peter (R)
MI-4 Camp, David (R)
MI-7 Walberg, Timothy (R)
MI-8 Rogers, Michael (R)
MI-9 Knollenberg, Joseph (R)
MI-11 McCotter, Thaddeus (R)

Minnesota

MN-2 Kline, John (R)
MN-6 Bachmann, Michele (R)

Mississippi

MS-1 Wicker, Roger (R)
MS-3 Pickering, Charles (R)
MS-4 Taylor, Gene (D)

Missouri

MO-2 Akin, W. (R)
MO-6 Graves, Samuel (R)
MO-7 Blunt, Roy (R)
MO-9 Hulshof, Kenny (R)

Nebraska

NE-1 Fortenberry, Jeffrey (R)
NE-2 Terry, Lee (R)
NE-3 Smith, Adrian (R)

Nevada

NV-2 Heller, Dean (R)

New Jersey

NJ-3 Saxton, H. (R)
NJ-5 Garrett, E. (R)
NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R)

New Mexico

NM-2 Pearce, Steven (R)

New York

NY-26 Reynolds, Thomas (R)
NY-29 Kuhl, John (R)

North Carolina

NC-2 Etheridge, Bob (D)
NC-3 Jones, Walter (R)
NC-5 Foxx, Virginia (R)
NC-6 Coble, Howard (R)
NC-7 McIntyre, Mike (D)
NC-8 Hayes, Robin (R)
NC-9 Myrick, Sue (R)
NC-10 Mchenry, Patrick (R)

Ohio

OH-1 Chabot, Steven (R)
OH-2 Schmidt, Jean (R)
OH-4 Jordan, Jim (R)
OH-8 Boehner, John (R)
OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis (D) -- WTF?

Oklahoma

OK-1 Sullivan, John (R)
OK-2 Boren, Dan (D)
OK-3 Lucas, Frank (R)
OK-4 Cole, Tom (R)
OK-5 Fallin, Mary (R)

Oregon

OR-2 Walden, Greg (R)

Pennsylvania

PA-5 Peterson, John (R)
PA-9 Shuster, William (R)
PA-16 Pitts, Joseph (R)

South Carolina

SC-1 Brown, Henry (R)
SC-2 Wilson, Addison (R)
SC-3 Barrett, James (R)
SC-4 Inglis, Bob (R)

Tennessee

TN-1 Davis, David (R)
TN-2 Duncan, John (R)
TN-3 Wamp, Zach (R)
TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha (R)

Texas

TX-1 Gohmert, Louis (R)
TX-2 Poe, Ted (R) -- did not vote
TX-3 Johnson, Samuel (R)
TX-4 Hall, Ralph (R)
TX-5 Hensarling, Jeb (R)
TX-6 Barton, Joe (R)
TX-7 Culberson, John (R)
TX-8 Brady, Kevin (R)
TX-10 McCaul, Michael (R)
TX-11 Conaway, K. (R)
TX-12 Granger, Kay (R)
TX-13 Thornberry, William (R)
TX-14 Paul, Ronald (R)
TX-19 Neugebauer, Randy (R)
TX-21 Smith, Lamar (R)
TX-24 Marchant, Kenny (R)
TX-26 Burgess, Michael (R)
TX-30 Johnson, Eddie (D) -- did not vote
TX-31 Carter, John (R)
TX-32 Sessions, Peter (R)

Utah

UT-1 Bishop, Rob (R)
UT-3 Cannon, Christopher (R)

Virginia

VA-1 Davis, Jo Ann (R)
VA-2 Drake, Thelma (R)
VA-4 Forbes, James (R)
VA-5 Goode, Virgil (R)
VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert (R)
VA-7 Cantor, Eric (R)

Washington

WA-4 Hastings, Doc (R)

Wisconsin

WI-1 Ryan, Paul (R)
WI-5 Sensenbrenner, F. (R)

Wyoming

WY-0 Cubin, Barbara (R) -- did not vote

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Next

attn_Hussein_ho

attn_Hussein_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 07, 2007 09:59 AM

Heathen_Dave said:

attn_ho said:

stinkyfj60 said:
Our govt is not here to provide health care.



or roads. but yknow, we do.
or police. but we do.
or fire fighters. but we do.
whatever



There are some things the government does that would simply be out of the scope of private business. The interstate system is one of those things, NASA would be another, for example. Police and Fire Fighters are a government institution because it's the government's job to protect its citizens.

You could make the argument that health care should be government run because it's "protecting" the citizens, but whether or not it's really viable in America, I can't say.


its only not viable in america because corporate interests dont want it to be. but somehow, other countries have made it thier governments responsibility to protect the citizenry from harm.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

OCT 07, 2007 10:01 AM

attn_ho said:

stinkyfj60 said:
Our govt is not here to provide health care.



or roads. but yknow, we do.
or police. but we do.
or fire fighters. but we do.
whatever



Not to mention the health care that the government already provides.

attn_Hussein_ho

attn_Hussein_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 07, 2007 10:05 AM

Heathen_Dave said:
There are some things the government does that would simply be out of the scope of private business. .



i didnt notice this at first. i point out that to republicans, any government program that they think they can get away with privatizing they will. it doesnt matter if the private company does a poorer job or does it for more money.

social security anyone?

and once privatized, the money for those services can go to the upper class in the form of tax cuts.

Heathen_Dave

Heathen_Dave

Birmingham, AL
July 2005

OCT 07, 2007 10:20 AM

attn_ho said:

Heathen_Dave said:
There are some things the government does that would simply be out of the scope of private business. .



i didnt notice this at first. i point out that to republicans, any government program that they think they can get away with privatizing they will. it doesnt matter if the private company does a poorer job or does it for more money.

social security anyone?

and once privatized, the money for those services can go to the upper class in the form of tax cuts.



Okay, there's a lot of talk in this thread about how we need to realize that what affects other people affects us as well. In that case, I want to point out that I've never built a sam's club, or a home depot, or a restaurant, or a 500 acre residential area. Somebody obviously has though. So you can't say that helping out the poorest members of society is going to help everyone while at the same time completely discrediting supply-side economics.

Ahhhh I give up.

Margot_Dent

Margot_Dent

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

OCT 07, 2007 12:00 PM

attn_ho said:

stinkyfj60 said:
Our govt is not here to provide health care.



or roads. but yknow, we do.
or police. but we do.
or fire fighters. but we do.
whatever



why should MY tax dollars be responsible for putting out OTHER peoples' fires? it's highway robbery!

Zarth

Zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

OCT 07, 2007 12:11 PM

Margot_Dent said:

attn_ho said:

stinkyfj60 said:
Our govt is not here to provide health care.


or roads. but yknow, we do.
or police. but we do.
or fire fighters. but we do.
whatever


why should MY tax dollars be responsible for putting out OTHER peoples' fires? it's highway robbery!


First, it's "free" health care. Next, it's jack-booted thugs confiscating my hard-earned Beemer!

attn_Hussein_ho

attn_Hussein_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 07, 2007 01:14 PM

Zarth said:

Margot_Dent said:

attn_ho said:

stinkyfj60 said:
Our govt is not here to provide health care.


or roads. but yknow, we do.
or police. but we do.
or fire fighters. but we do.
whatever


why should MY tax dollars be responsible for putting out OTHER peoples' fires? it's highway robbery!


First, it's "free" health care. Next, it's jack-booted thugs confiscating my hard-earned Beemer!


I dont see why we need to have free roads in Washington State if youre going arond driving a beemer on it. cant you do with private contributions? its not like WA is a real state; practically canada.

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

OCT 07, 2007 01:25 PM

Margot_Dent said:

attn_ho said:

stinkyfj60 said:
Our govt is not here to provide health care.



or roads. but yknow, we do.
or police. but we do.
or fire fighters. but we do.
whatever



why should MY tax dollars be responsible for putting out OTHER peoples' fires? it's highway robbery!



It's pretty easy to build more roads, hire more police, or hire more firefighters and buy firefighting equipment. The problem with healthcare is that it is a very limited supply, due in part to our demand for top level care, the huge barriers to entry (and washout rates), and barriers to foreigners being allowed to practice here.

Britain fixed the limited supply problem by allowing foreigners (mainly from India) to practice and fill NHS ranks, yet are still having trouble keeping up with demand, and running a deficit. Canada fixed the shortage of supply by rationing care, and mandating that core surgeons (heart, brain, etc) work for the government and not be allowed to work privately (a command economy for medical care).

This problem is only going to be exacerbated by the aging of America. Baby boomers haven't saved much money as a rule, and from 65 on is when something like 80% of healthcare spending happens. So if we don't have social healthcare, we are going to have a lot of families/old people bankrupted by medical costs, or they will have rationed care. If we do have social healthcare, costs are going to balloon, even with extensive rationing. Additionally, nobody is going to want to be told they just have to wait and watch a loved one die because the government/insurance/family decides that it's just too much money. Also, it looks like the bathtub curve is going to catch up with everyone at once, so there will be a globally high demand for healthcare, meaning we might not be able to attract immigrant doctors, and may lose our own.

attn_Hussein_ho

attn_Hussein_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 07, 2007 02:18 PM

freshprncebelair said:

Margot_Dent said:

attn_ho said:

stinkyfj60 said:
Our govt is not here to provide health care.



or roads. but yknow, we do.
or police. but we do.
or fire fighters. but we do.
whatever



why should MY tax dollars be responsible for putting out OTHER peoples' fires? it's highway robbery!



It's pretty easy to build more roads, hire more police, or hire more firefighters and buy firefighting equipment. The problem with healthcare is that it is a very limited supply, due in part to our demand for top level care, the huge barriers to entry (and washout rates), and barriers to foreigners being allowed to practice here.

Britain fixed the limited supply problem by allowing foreigners (mainly from India) to practice and fill NHS ranks, yet are still having trouble keeping up with demand, and running a deficit. Canada fixed the shortage of supply by rationing care, and mandating that core surgeons (heart, brain, etc) work for the government and not be allowed to work privately (a command economy for medical care).

This problem is only going to be exacerbated by the aging of America. Baby boomers haven't saved much money as a rule, and from 65 on is when something like 80% of healthcare spending happens. So if we don't have social healthcare, we are going to have a lot of families/old people bankrupted by medical costs, or they will have rationed care. If we do have social healthcare, costs are going to balloon, even with extensive rationing. Additionally, nobody is going to want to be told they just have to wait and watch a loved one die because the government/insurance/family decides that it's just too much money. Also, it looks like the bathtub curve is going to catch up with everyone at once, so there will be a globally high demand for healthcare, meaning we might not be able to attract immigrant doctors, and may lose our own.


right. co-incedentally, those same aging baby boomers will become an even more massive voting superblock, and im sure we'll be seeing a lot more healthcare proposals in the legislature. we'll be seeing government healthcare in our life time IF the seniors of america can defuse or circumnavigate the insurance agencies.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

OCT 07, 2007 04:23 PM

Heathen_Dave said:

attn_ho said:

stinkyfj60 said:
Our govt is not here to provide health care.



or roads. but yknow, we do.
or police. but we do.
or fire fighters. but we do.
whatever



There are some things the government does that would simply be out of the scope of private business. The interstate system is one of those things, NASA would be another, for example. Police and Fire Fighters are a government institution because it's the government's job to protect its citizens.

You could make the argument that health care should be government run because it's "protecting" the citizens, but whether or not it's really viable in America, I can't say.



Okay, how about this: It is the government's job to ensure the presence of a viable and healthy labor force.

Our economy depends on it. Don't think so? Wait till the next pan-virus hits and see what happens to all your stock options.

attn_Hussein_ho

attn_Hussein_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 07, 2007 05:03 PM

NickFaust said:

Okay, how about this: It is the government's job to ensure the presence of a viable and healthy labor force.

Our economy depends on it. Don't think so? Wait till the next pan-virus hits and see what happens to all your stock options.



no. your puny economy depends on it. my multibillion dollar company is outsourcing all its production to third world countries, our info tech and support to second world countries, and we only sell product to first world countries. in addition, we have a currency manager that predicts and funnels our assets through currencies daily in order to make gains upon the currency to currency inequities. why, in the age of globalization, to care about your fellow man is outdated, if not counter-active to my own welfare.

no excuse me peon, i have to re-read atlas shrugged.

JunkyardAngel

JunkyardAngel

San Gabriel, CA
February 2006

OCT 07, 2007 05:08 PM

dreamergirl said:
If you need medical emergency, plan on dying in the waiting room waiting 12 hours until your name is called.



Same with insurance on that one.

JunkyardAngel

JunkyardAngel

San Gabriel, CA
February 2006

OCT 07, 2007 05:15 PM

Subrosa said:

kaosmaker666 said:
Hooray for the veto!!! This was a piece of crap legislation anyway!!! Since when are 25 year olds considered kids? Also in some states if you make up to $80,000 a year you could still qualify.


Yeah, both of those statements are utter lies propagated by Bush and his ilk to justify his veto. Neither are the case. In fact, this legislation shores up the loophole that would have allowed the $80k situation. So shove it, idiot.




You know, maybe he did not know that. Maybe he thought the legislation WAS crap, and you just told him something he didn't know?

Why are you always such a piranha?

Why not just take your meds?

Ugh. It's a really interesting topic---and really important---and people need to know the facts.

Your constant vitriloic vomit is not particularly conducive to a thoughtful discussion or debate.

JunkyardAngel

JunkyardAngel

San Gabriel, CA
February 2006

OCT 07, 2007 05:16 PM

attn_ho said:

Subrosa said:

kaosmaker666 said:
Hooray for the veto!!! This was a piece of crap legislation anyway!!! Since when are 25 year olds considered kids? Also in some states if you make up to $80,000 a year you could still qualify.


Yeah, both of those statements are utter lies propagated by Bush and his ilk to justify his veto. Neither are the case. In fact, this legislation shores up the loophole that would have allowed the $80k situation. So shove [edit] your four dollars a month into a donation for a family without health care. [/edit]





fixed!



attn_ho for president!

JunkyardAngel

JunkyardAngel

San Gabriel, CA
February 2006

OCT 07, 2007 05:22 PM

Clidna said:
I think it's really sad that Americans can't have the kind of health coverage that everyone, rich or poor, deserves. I know a huge number of Canadians complain about our health care system, but regardless of wait times, etc., if we need it, it's there..




"Regardless of wait times" and "if we need it, it;s there." are too often very contradictory statements.

If you have cancer or heart surgery needs, or.......? You cannot really afford to wait. And by the time it's "your turn" it can either be too late (you're already dead), or too late and the expenesive medical care is pointless ebcause you are going to die anyway...

Not really a great deal, from what I hear tell.


Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 4 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 5 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 20 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Bootsy Collins
SuicideGirls Interview: Mister Cartoon:  Tattoo Entrepreneur
SuicideGirls Interview: Lily Tomlin