Deseret News | CHIP veto riles advocates

Reader comments
CHIP veto riles advocates

Page:
< Previous
1
2

To: Yes to the Veto | 3:37 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Your ignorance is very disconcerting and hopefully not shared by too many other Utahns. Bush has done more then Clinton/Bush I/Regean/Carter combined to expand socialized medicine. Every heard of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Act of 2003? Bush also expanded steel subsidies and agricultural subsidies in his first term, costing taxpayers billions.

You need to do a little homework on what Bush has done versus the rhetoric. Please see past the Republican label and look at his record.

SCHIP is not a perfect deal but it is reasonable and will help more then harm our nation.

So stop crying about Bill Clinton costing us millions when Bush has cost us trillions.

Anonymous | 3:43 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

To: Sick of Libs Spending My Money,

Who needs liberals to spend your money when Bush has been spending it at a faster clip than any president in 40 years? Bush has bought votes more effectively than almost any President since Lyndon Johnson.

Tim | 3:52 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

To A Mom,

The constitution doesn't give you or the government "the right" to TAKE money (by taxation) from someone else to pay for your childs diabetes. Unfortunately today politicians can only be elected by offering entitlements to a dumbed down population that is more and more living of the government instead of their own labors and ingenuity!

There should be no arguments as to how much money is enough money to pay for health care. It's all arbitrary and therefore impossible to draw a line. Someone who makes 35k/year thinks someone who makes 100k/yr is rich but someone making 1mil/yr can't imagine getting by on either. Regardless it's not the Government job to decide. Complaining about RICH doctors and lawyers or RICH anyone is ignorant. It is not yours, mine and definitely not the governments business who makes what.

I have a wife and 5 children and haven't had health care for 7yrs. I don't consider myself rich but when my kids need the doctor I pay cash and when my wife has had a baby I paid cash and it's a whole lot cheaper than any insurance and I don't need the governments help!!!

Comments continue below

James | 3:59 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

"Presidents: Ezra Taft Benson, David O. McKay and Heber J. Grant"??? We're talking about US Government policies and legislation here, not how your tithing is spent. Leave the religion out of it.

A Mom | 4:37 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Tim, I resent being called "dumbed-down". I am very politically involved and keep myself apprised of the happenings here at home, as well as in our international community. I have a Master's degree and an open mind.

Maybe it's unconstitutional for my money to pay for your 5 children's education. That's not the point. With all due respect to our founding fathers, times have changed immensely from the time the constitution was written. It was impossible for them to include every little detail about how this country should be run. They stuck with the important issues at the time.

I didn't say we had the "right" to take "your" money. Perhaps educated people can learn to help each other.

If you can pay cash for your wife to have a baby, you've got a lot more money than many people who are forced to go on government programs.

Sometimes working hard isn't enough to afford exorbitant medical fees. I will get a new job and insurance, don't you worry about that.

I really hope your family doesn't have a major accident, cancer, diabetes, or heaven forbid, you lose your ability to work.

P.S. My daddy's a lawyer. I'm not ignorant.

Cool! Free Health Care | 4:41 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

What a great idea! I can get the government to take money out of my neighbor's wallet to pay for MY healthcare. Awesome!

Now I can spend my money on more important things like cell phones and iPods. I always knew free healthcare was a right that was owed to me. I'm pretty sure it says so in the constitution.

Now that we have my health insurance taken care of, you people better get busy taking care of my car insurance, homeowners insurance, boat insurance, etc. After all, I'm entitled to it. I have rights you know!

RN | 5:04 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

The president doesn't seem to be honest when he says he is worried about spending an extra $35 Billion to provide additional health care for uninsured kids for the next 5 years. We are talking an extra $7 billion per year for kids health insurance vs. $117.6 billion per year that is spent in Iraq.

It is simply a matter of priorities. Bush has never shown himself to be a fiscal conservative. It seems clear that Bush does not want to provide health insurance for kids, but also does not want to appear to be cold-hearted. If Bush were really concerned about the money, Bush wouldn't have allowed the run away spending when the Republicans had control of congress. Why should we believe his sudden conversion on the subject?

Buzzard | 5:11 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Let's see. Retired folks-Medicare. Poor Folks-Medicaid. Not-poor-but-not-rich-folks...CHIP. Give us a few more years and a few more "needed expansions" of this and other programs, and we will be where you all are afraid of, with the government handling all the health care reimbursements. Once they (that really means us, through higher taxes) are paying for it all, it is a very short leap to controlling it, then dispensing it.
As a side note, I once was unemployed and uninsured with a medical issue that turned out to be serious. I paid for my own treatment as best I could, but when I obtained insurance, I ended up in the hospital, costing the system over 250K, when timely treatment would have been about 20K. HOWEVER-the treatment that did the job on my condition was cutting edge, and would not have been available in a country with rationed socialized medicine. And without that treatment, I would be dead/expired/history/a corpse now. So is my life worth $225,000? The questions on our medical system are complex, the answers are not simple either.

Huh? | 5:37 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

"Socialized Medicine is Great", where were you? In a third world country?

I lived in Sweden--a world leader in medical research, with a much lower infant mortality rate than the United States.

All three of my children were born there and I'm glad.

Increasing Medical Ability | 5:55 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

A hundred years ago a person with cystic fibrosis would just die. A person with lymphoma would just die. If your hip wore out, you would get a crutch. It was much cheaper to let people die and to give crutches. Even poor people can afford to die and can buy crutches.

Now, we have technology. $30k for a hip, $200k for lymphoma. Poor people can not pay that much. Do they just suffer and die? I can not believe that the people of Utah want that. We desire the best for all of God's children. So, if we treat them, we, the society, must pay. Either by over charging the paying patients, by charity, or by taxes. I think that the tax route is more certain and reliable and actually fairer.

Jesus would say that we need to be good and forgiving to all people, our friends and enemies. We can help children. Remember what Jesus said about child abusers. "Better that a millstone be hung about their necks and they be drowned in the depths of the sea."

We should try to do good with our wealth and power.

Dumbed Down? | 6:07 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Dear Tim,

When your eference "dumbed down" you may want to look in the mirror. Sure you and your wife don't need healthcare now but should you or a family member be unfortunate enough to get severe chronic illness or need a transplant I'm sure you'll be more than happy to accept Medicaid after the catastrophic costs wipe out your life savings and still don't pay the medical bills. What you're doing is ultimately irresponsible unless you're worth millions so stop parading it around as a virtue.

Buzzard's Right | 6:13 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

There are no easy answers. One thing is for certain, Bush has politically miscalculated his timing to be "reconverted" to fiscal responsibility. This is a popular bill, even among many republicans. By opposing this bill and dragging congressional republcians along with him, Bush has ensured that Republicans will lose even more seats in congress in 2008 and Hillary and the overwhelming democratic majorities in congress will pass a universal healthcare bill, furth degarding uour system.

This is a fairly reasonable bill. Just pass it and live to fight another day. There are bigger battles on the horizion.

A Mom | 7:17 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

You know, six months ago I would have been right there with those opposed to welfare programs. I would have agreed that people on welfare were lazy, and needed to get to work and pay for themselves and their families. I would have said that they didn't deserve 'my' hard-earned money.

It's funny how our attitudes change when the shoe is on the other foor...

A Mom | 7:18 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Sorry, that was FOOT.

Life, Liberty & Happiness | 7:43 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I am a diabetic with 3 asthmatic children. I carry private health insurance; however, if I did not, no amount of money would buy me any insurance in the US because I and my children have "pre-existing conditions." My husband's insurance will not touch any of us.

I grew up in Canada and they do not have the medical issues we have in the US. They don't have unlimited medical lawsuits, either. Somehow, they manage to provide good care, good pharmacy rates, and they have loads of Americans crossing their borders to get medical care in Canada. Something must be right about the system! Why can't we learn something from places who have universal coverage and strive for that in the US? Why can't everyone in the US live life without worrying that we're only one illness away from bankruptcy?

Tim | 7:44 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

No, I wouldn't accept Medicaid, it would be my cross to bear and it might take my entire life to pay it back but that's what I would have to do to take care of MY problem. It would me MY responsibility not the governments or my neighbors. Does that mean I wouldn't accept assistance from family, friends, and charity, of course I would. There is a fundamental difference that so many people today don't grasp. Government is coercion and charity is choice. If I tell my brother to give me $1000 he can tell me no and I'm out of luck but if the government tells him to give them $1000 he risks losing his home, cars and freedom.

Should society help less fortunate? Absolutely! Should government be the facilitator ? Absolutely not!! I have no right your money and you have no right to mine.

RRC | 9:26 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Worried about big government? What about the bloat and waste with the war? The President will spend money on his pet projects helping the military industrial complex (ignoring the warnings of Eisenhower), ignoring the needs of the little guy. And if you don't think there is a need, you are wrong.

Dumbed Down? | 9:57 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Tim,

I know right now you fully believe everything you have written. But should you ever find yourself in a situation where charity is not forthcoming and medicaid funded healthcare is the last resort to treat your child for a chronic condition, I think everyone would agree your perspective would be radically altered.

What???? | 10:42 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I make almost $80k and under this bloated bill my children would be covered. Once again so called public figures try to take us down the slippery slope of socialism. Wake up people, this has nothing to do with covering under privileged children. In Arizona where I live 56% of people already on this are over the age of 18. This makes them an adult covered by a program to protect children.

To: What???? | 12:09 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Please read the bill before you you start throwing around inaccurate statements. In Arizona the cap would not be close to $80,000. The bill only allows families to enroll with incomes up to 300% above the poverty level.

Wake up kiddo and start doing some independent homework rather than repeating misinformed drivel.

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.