Casey vs. Glenn

As a blogger, I am loving the fighting going on between the Senate and the House. It makes for great blog posts. Today, Travis Fain again provides a balanced, solid look at the fight over Peach Care. The House and Senate have resumed their pee fest on each other over the various plans.

The Senate’s changes are more complicated, and Richardson said they’ll cost Georgia taxpayers more than the current program.

“Now, apparently they’re going to be liberals,” he said of Senate Republicans. “(PeachCare) was out of money. We’re still out of money. And yet the Senate’s response is they’re going to expand benefits.”

On that, Cagle disagreed. “Our proposal costs the state less money than any other plan that’s out there,” he said. “And that includes the speaker’s.”

I frankly haven’t paid enough attention to know which is the better choice, though I do know that watching all of this is a hellavalot of fun!

24 comments

  1. eehrhart says:

    The Senate plan adds 60 thousand people to the medicaid entitlement program.

    Tell me how this is a conservative proposition?

  2. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Rep. Ehrhard is a genius. Here’s how it goes: House kills plan to expand access to Peach Care. The 60k people Rep. Ehrhart references then have no choice but to go to his friends the payday lenders, creating the “demand” that had been cited for these, uh, “lenders.”

  3. Donkey Kong says:

    I Am Jacks, back grinding the ol’ axe again, eh?

    I can imagine the next few postings will go something like:

    eehrhart: “Vote conservative.”
    I Am Jacks: “No, cause then poor people will be forced to go to your payday lender friends against their will.”

    eehrhart : “Support the troops.”
    I am Jacks: “Why? To spend less on Medicare? This is an elaborate scheme that would give the poor people in Georgia less taxpayer money and FORCE them to go to your payday lender friends!!!!! C’mon, don’t you guys get it???!??!? Why isn’t anyone listening to me?!??!?!?!??? It’s a conspiracy!!!!!!”

  4. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Nice, however, I don’t support expanding Peach Care, nor do I support most government handouts. Nothing I’ve ever posted could lead you to believe that I’m a fan of government.

    I was merely commenting that the lobbyists (from TN, I might add) and Rep. Erhart were talking out their collective butts when trying to convince us that there was “strong demand” for the return of payday lending. That’s all.

  5. Andre Walker says:

    Peachcare is not an “entitlement program” and expanding the program is not a bad thing.

    Whenever we’ve got an opportunity to provide more of Georgia’s children with healthcare, I’m of the opinion that we should take it.

  6. Donkey Kong says:

    And I was merely commenting that you were talking out of your butt in trying to link the House Republican’s position to the payday lobbyists.

    Nothing personal. We probably agree on a lot of issues. But whether your post was a joke or not, your attempt to bring old laundry into this was a bit too ridiculous for me to keep quiet.

  7. Donkey Kong says:

    “Whenever we’ve got an opportunity to provide more of Georgia’s children with healthcare, I’m of the opinion that we should take it.”

    And…um…why aren’t their parents doing this?? Oh yeah. It’s Big Brother’s job now. Or, more appropriately titled, Big Daddy.

  8. Andre Walker says:

    Donkey Kong,

    When parents are put into a situation where their jobs don’t provide them with health insurance and they can’t afford to pay for health care out of pocket, then how exactly are the parents supposed to provide health insurance to their children.

  9. Jason Pye says:

    I don’t particularly care for Glenn Richardson, but in that video you have of him, I think he is dead on.

    Government has become a giant insurance company, which it was never intended to be.

  10. Mad Dog says:

    Did Erick lie again or was this a ‘liberal flip flop’ that he just did.

    “I didn’t realize that. That is bad news. We shouldn’t be expanding entitlement programs.”

    Erick Erickson, a man who can talk out of both sides of his mouth. Must be a GOP blogger.

  11. Icarus says:

    I’m not going to claim I know a lot of details on this, but my understanding is as follows, with corrections cheerfully accepted:

    The Senate plan shifts some receipients who are on Peachcare but qualify for Medicaid onto the Medicaid rolls, which I’m assuming has a higher federal gvt match. Thus, the Senate is claiming lower overall costs to GA. (Of course, Georgians pay federal taxes too, but I digress).

    The Senate adds higher premiums to the top level of income qualifiers under PeachCare.

    As noted above, Peachcare is for the working poor, and while still an entitlement, does require a percentage of a recipients income (1-5%) to qualify.

    I believe Political Insider did a good job recently of demonstrating that most of these recipients are living in Republican Congressional districts, so quite frankly, this IS a Republican problem.

    It should also be noted that those who are dropped off the roles from Peachcare probably aren’t going to buy private sector insurance. Everyone may want to consider how much we’re ultimately going to pay for their health care for these folks when they show up in emergency rooms for treatment that would previously have been handled in a local doctor’s office.

  12. Mad Dog says:

    Icarus,

    And you should add that as emergency rooms become even more overcrowded by Republicans without health insurance, trauma care will be done by overworked staff.

    Now when your college aged son gets shot three times by a Glock 19 while taking classes at NGCSU, make sure you don’t blame the GOP for writing bad laws on automatic weapons, healthcare, and budget cuts for university staff.

    Do call up Nancy Schaefer and thank her personally for refusing to let schools provide mental health services of any type.

    The GOP wants your child to have a gun and an attitude. The New American Order …

  13. Donkey Kong says:

    Andre,

    I look at it as an issue of personal responsibility. There are certainly a good number of examples of families who fall onto difficult times and it’s not their fault–they need our help. But I think often it’s an issue of wisdom. Why have children if you know you won’t be able to adequately provide for them? If you want children so badly, you find a way to make ends meet. Parents have done this for millenia. Unfortunately, this is one example of the harm of a diminished importance of family. After all, it takes a village, right? If I can’t provide for my family, who cares, the government will. So I’ll just have children regardless, knowing someone somewhere will step in and help. And if nobody does, it’s not my fault. After all, everyone has a right to have children whenever they want, right?

    If I can’t provide adequately for my family, I’m doing a lousy job and need to change some things. A practically nonexistant emphasis on personal responsibility and the degradation of the family is to blame for this. Ironically, when children lack healthcare, we blame the government. Let’s start blaming the parents who had the children in the first place. We need a stronger social pressure on parents to both adequately provide and sufficiently CARE for their children.

  14. rightofcenter says:

    Donkey Kong,
    Your “personal responsibility” retort looks great in theory, and I agree that we should stress it more as a society than we do. However, we don’t live in a theoretical world; we live in a real one. In the real world, even married couples with no more than two children can get horribly squeezed. If they don’t have the good fortune to work for a company that provides healthcare, their premiums for a barebones healthplan will cost them in excess of $1,000 per month. Add up the expenses of food, shelter, childcare, transportation, etc., taxes, etc. and you can move pretty far into the ranks of middle class before someone can afford it. Who suffers? First, the children. Then the general public, because these people avoid preventive care because its expensive and end up in the emergency room where the rest of us pay for the inefficiencies.

    I am a conservative on most issues, but I am coming to the conclusion that the current healthcare system is horribly broken and perhaps unrepairable. We are slowly but surely moving to a single-payer system because we are heading for a revolt by the majority in this country over the disaster we currently have.

  15. jsm says:

    ROC, we force the elderly onto Medicare roles, and the government insures most of our children via Peachcare and similar programs. This is all moving us toward socialized medicine, or the single-payer system, as you call it. It doesn’t work in Canada, and it’s not going to work here.

    When something is free and people don’t invest personally in it, they overuse it and don’t appreciate it (i.e. illegals at emergency rooms).

    There are better ways to deal with our healthcare system.

  16. rightofcenter says:

    jsm,
    I think socialized health insurance would be the more accurate term. It’s what they have in Canada, Japan, etc. Socialized medicine is what they have in England. And, no, I’m not sure what the answer is. But what we have now isn’t it. Is there an example anywhere in the world where a free enterprise system works?

  17. Donkey Kong says:

    ROC,

    “I am coming to the conclusion that the current healthcare system is horribly broken and perhaps unrepairable.”

    Horribly broken–agreed. Unrepairable, disagreed. I recall reading somewhere that American health care costs are rising 5x faster than wages. I don’t know if that figure is accurate, but appears so. We have a problem, and a big one, and it hits my wallet like it does yours. The problem is that there is little or no competition among health care providers.

    True Story: I need to have a test run. I have had some problems with my insurance, so I called the diagnostic center to determine the cost of the test. The answer? $1,600. When I told her my dilemma and that I might need to pay out of pocket, she said the “cash price” was $800. Wait–so is the price $1,600 or $800? It depends on who pays.

    This gouging of insurance companies is widespread and, IMHO, is the primary factor of spiraling insurance rates. The cost of the gouging is directly added to the premiums. What we need is more transparency in pricing. I’ve heard Clark Howard harp on this often. When there’s no transparency, there’s no price competition.

    Big Daddy has encouraged consumers to take interest in the price of health care by instituting HSA’s–health savings accounts, which include a tax benefit similar to an IRA. The catch–HSA’s must be coupled with a high-deductible insurance plan, forcing the consumer to pay more up front, thus taking a greater interest in the cost of health care. Simply put, it’s not enough.

    We need real solutions to this problem. This is not a failure of free markets, it’s the opposite. Free markets are not able to effectively work because consumers do not have enough information. Health care providers often give consumers the run-around when asked for a price quote. All other industries are forced to standardize prices, and the health care industry should do the same.

    We need real solutions. Lapsing into a socialist universal healthcare would certainly not solve the problem. Just look at Canada.

  18. Bill Simon says:

    If you “pro-life” yahoos want to demand that every pregnancy come to term, then you gotta provide government help for all of those bodies.

    I say we tax yahoos like Earl Ehrhart’s illegal use of campaign funds to host golf tournaments for all of his homies. Whaddaya think, Earl?

  19. Donkey Kong says:

    Aww, Bill, a little sore after the Supreme Court ruling today?

    Speaking of yahoos, you and I Am Jacks must conspire together on how to do a lousy job bringing up dirty laundry in a completely off-topic manner. Don’t be a hater.

Comments are closed.