NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't know if any of you guys care, but if you are from the U.S. and do care...

John Kerry wants to introduce a Bill before Congress to provide healthcare to children. He wants people to support the initiative before he introduces it, i.e. as "co-sponsers"--you can read the spiel and see the video at

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/everychild.php

if you agree sign it, if not well... oh well.

What, medicare isn't enough?

Maybe this is something best left to the states.

Is there a text with more detail on this proposal? It sounds good in the spiel, but I'd like to make sure it's not just dumping money into the hands of Kaiser, Sutter, etc. before I put my name behind it.

Ok wow. First let me answer that Bozzy.

Medicare is for people aged 65 and older.
Some states have programs which cover kids, but depending on the state not everyone is coverd and/or not everyone parent knows abouth the process of obtaining this healthcare (this is especially true of those who need it the most). However, children do not really have the option to get healthcare if their parents choose not to get it from them--if a parent is negligent, broke, etc. for whatever reason should the child suffer as a result?
Kerry's plan seeks to automatically cover those who need it. States that already provide coverage will get additional federal funding to lower the cost of the state taxes.

I am a big fan of states rights' and all, but something this important should be left up to the whim of state politicians.

Yes it is expensive, but in the long run it should save money. Instead of waiting until a health problem is overblown children will be able to get health care at the first sign of a problem. Not forcing the parents to choose between meals, etc. and healthcare will also ensure that kids stay healthier.



Ok, Ostrich Womb. Well I don't know if I can give you an adequate answer, but I sure will try.

As far as I know the legislation hasn't been written, as with all bills it stands a chance at being corrupted, however I believe that for John Kerry this is an important bill--one which he will not allow to be corrupted like Bush's Prescription Drug Coverage Bill. He wants to use support from people like us as leverage to get such an uncorrupted Bill through congress--part of the reason he didn't look for a co-sponser in the senate and house, first. He wants us to be the co-sponsers, not corrupt politicians and drug companies.

The text is on the website, and the video has a slightly different speech than the text. Other than that I don't have any more information for now. The critical part of the text is below....


:)

""Our plan starts by providing health insurance for every child in America. Under the Kerry plan, the federal government will pay the full costs for the 20 million children in the Medicaid program. In return, we will ask states to expand coverage to children in families with higher incomes than are currently eligible, as well as low-income adults. This plan will expand coverage to millions of people and provide much needed relief for states that are struggling under persistent growing budgetary pressures.

The plan will also simplify the health care system so we can prevent children from falling through the cracks. Right now, there are millions of kids who are eligible for federal/state health insurance programs but are not signed up.

There are lots of reasons — sometimes the enrollment forms require the skills of an accountant to figure out. Some states make parents sign up every six months in person, making it virtually impossible for a parent who cannot get time off or afford to lose a whole day of work. Some parents do not even know these programs are available.

Under our plan, kids will be signed up automatically at hospitals, community health centers, and schools. And $5 billion in enrollment bonuses will be available to states as an incentive to find uninsured children and keep them covered. Children do not choose their parents. They do not choose whether to have health insurance. Children deserve a good start—with both high quality education and health care. Under our plan, every child in America will have health insurance, and every parent will have a little more peace of mind.""

Oh, and another thing. As I've been looking around these forums it seems that there is a lot of Bush bashing. Fair or unfair I think most would agree it would be far better to put their efforts into constructive actions. That is what this is.

At the very least it is an attempt. And it will only take a few seconds of your time. You just need your name, zipcode and email.

Don't know if any of you guys care, but if you are from the U.S. and do care...

John Kerry wants to introduce a Bill before Congress to provide healthcare to children. He wants people to support the initiative before he introduces it, i.e. as "co-sponsers"--you can read the spiel and see the video at

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/everychild.php

if you agree sign it, if not well... oh well.

Is this a joke. He has never introduced a bill that passed, except for the STOP (and take a cold shower) SIGN IN HIS BEDROOM. I think he came out on top on that one.

Ok wow. First let me answer that Bozzy.

Medicare is for people aged 65 and older..""

no, it's not (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/schip/)







I am a big fan of states rights' and all, but something this important should be left up to the whim of state politicians..""

Why? If your state politicians are so inept why not elect better ones, unless you are just trying to go over their heads.


Yes it is expensive, but in the long run it should save money. ""

Didn't Bush say something like that about Iraq?

Wow. Just wow.

Bozzy, I'm not trying to be mean, but you're making it so easy.
Did you even read the link you gave me or what I said

Medicare is for people aged 65 and older, the link you sent me is for Medicaid, not Medicare, Medicaid (there is a difference). The frontpage of what you sent me has the following statement (which supports what I said).


"Although Medicaid has made great strides in enrolling low-income children, significant numbers of children remain uninsured. From 1988 to 1998, the proportion of children insured through Medicaid increased from 15.6% to 19.8%. At the same time, however, the percentage of children without health insurance increased from 13.1% to 15.4%. The increase in uninsured children is mostly the result of fewer children being covered by employer-sponsored health insurance."



Ok Bozzy, I have a question about States Rights vs. Federal power. What should the Federal Government be able to do then, nothing? If not providing for its most innocent, powerless and needy individuals then what will the federal government do? Remember children can not vote, should they suffer because of state politicians who they cannot choose?


On the last point, you might be right, it might cost more money in the long run. But isn't it worth it, isn't it the right thing to do? Why do we provide our children with education? Should we stop providing children with education, simply because it is expensive?




-----

Blind Liberals...

This first statement doesn't answer your concern, but what did Bush do before he became president? Certainly a lot less than Kerry.

Just because you don't know what Kerry did in the Senate doesn't mean he didn't do anything.

He was on the following Committees:
Commerce, Science & Transportation
Finance
Foreign Relations
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Ranking Member


While you are right that Kerry did not introduce very many meaningful bills, he did introduce some, and spent most of his time conducting investigations (it's not like he was relaxing back on his farm). This article should help clarify your concerns.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041024-124559-1575r.htm


If you know anything about the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) investigationt that he conducted you would know that he shut down a major source of terrorist funding, years before terrorism was a "hot topic" in the government (during the 80's) and he went against strong party leaders on both sides to do this.

If you want to read about it here is a pretty decent link. Senators' Kerry and Brown were the leading force behind this investigation (stateside at least).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International

Sorry, one more thing.

Even if you believe that Kerry can not get anything passed. He will definitely fight for this bill, by trying a method which has never been tried before (internet petition) to grow support for his bill he may succeed. And if he does it may change the way government functions. Personally I find this an exciting possibility.

For me, an potential doctor, I find the ideas behind this bill to be of paramount importance. This bill benefits everyone.

Ok Bozzy, I have a question about States Rights vs. Federal power. What should the Federal Government be able to do then, nothing? If not providing for its most innocent, powerless and needy individuals then what will the federal government do? Remember children can not vote, should they suffer because of state politicians who they cannot choose?

Actually, the Federal Government has a good number of things it can do, among them these explicitly stated in the Constitution,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So, Kwangistart, do you think the federal government should be only limited to these things?

So, Kwangistart, do you think the federal government should be only limited to these things?
Well, I'm not a super-strict constitutionalist, so no. Healthcare, though, has traditionally been considered in the domain of the states. As it is, the current hodgepodge is worse than totally state-controlled or totally federally controlled. Unless there's a compelling reason to bring it to the national level, though, I think it should stay at the state level.

From 1988 to 1998, the proportion of children insured through Medicaid increased from 15.6% to 19.8%.

There is your federal health insurance for children.





What should the Federal Government be able to do then, nothing? If not providing for ...

There is your answer, the government is not made to provide for anyone.



I am a big fan of states rights' and all, but something this important should be left up to the whim of state politicians.

If you were really a 'fan' of state rights then your confidence in their leadership would not be so low. You are arrogant enough to believe that the federal government should trespass over state rights because States are not 'wise' enough to have the right 'whims'.