Price defends SCHIP vote

Tom Price defends his vote on SCHIP:

Despite impassioned pleas from House Republicans to meet the original bipartisan intent of SCHIP, the new majority is moving forward with a massive expansion of government-controlled health care under the auspices of helping poor children. Sadly, when they offer the President their veto-worthy bill, the new majority will declare politics more important than the health care of our nation

13 comments

  1. I heard a comment the other day that “children” as old as 25 would also qualify. Once again, both sides of the aisle have no problem spending to get votes. Sadly most people do not realize that one day the bill must be paid and if they aren’t the ones to pay it our kids are. This short term thinking mentality is ruining this country but alas the majority does not seem to care about the future.

  2. I try to read as much as I can about health insurance policy. One thing that I read often from objective analysts is that if the government is allowed to compete with private insurers the government plans are likely to win out.

    How many for profit industries can we say that about? FYI, Democrats initially tried to alter the formula that pays private insurers for some Medicare related expenses and the Republicans howled. The provision has been removed.

    So, in summary for the Republicans: pay more for American children to enroll in public health insurance? Bad. Pay more to private companies to cover people already on the dole: Good.

  3. Paul Shuford says:

    The government plans “win out” because they aren’t subject to the kinds of rules and regulations that private insurance companies are. Government can promise anything they want, and when it comes time to pay the piper, they can change the rules, or they can simply take more money from others by force to make their “plan” work. Private companies can’t do that, they have to deliver what they promise or risk lawsuits and losing their licenses to do business within a State. They also can’t charge more money unless it is allowed by the contract they’ve signed with the insured.

  4. Holly says:

    Republicans love to expand government involvement in health insurance when they can take credit for it. Medicare part D, and the increased unfunded liabilities that came with it, is the best example.

    Not all of us like Medicare Part D, Jason. It’s just that for so long we stupidly sat back and let the big government nuts take over. Maybe, just maybe, we can find the way back to smaller government, which, you know, is supposed to be a party principle.

    But let me stop before I write a novel on fiscal responsibility and the hipocrisy of those in my party who promised to defend it and didn’t.

    A side note to be fair to Tom Price, though: he wasn’t in office when Medicare Part D was passed. Neither was Lynn Westmoreland. The rest of the delegation was, I believe.

  5. Jason Pye says:

    Holly, I realize that Price and Westmoreland weren’t there…and Westmoreland and I have had the chance to talk about things like this, and I think we agreed that Medicare expansion a very, very stupid move. Charlie Norwood was the only Republican member of the Georgia delegation to vote against it.

    I’m not directly criticizing Price either. I’m simply pointing out that Republicans can’t defend this by saying…”Look at us, we’re fiscally responsible,” when you have Medicare expansion and even the initial creation of SCHIP to point back to. And it doesn’t end with those two programs either.

  6. Holly says:

    Oh, I agree with you, Jason. I’m just saying that not all Republicans support government expansion, and it’s up to those of us who don’t to take control of the ones that do. Sorry if I sounded like I was jumping down your throat. I didn’t mean it that way at all.

    John Konop, what is your solution?

  7. John Konop says:

    Holly

    That is why I am for mandatory pay health insurance. If people cannot afford the full price they must contribute something for many reasons I am sure you would agree with.

    Also individuals or business should be given the choice between to buy private insurance or the same plan Congress is using. This would create competition and lower prices while increasing quality. Congressman should have to pay the same co-pay, average contribution and get the same service will get to understand the issue.

    Also we must eliminate exclusion from health insurance which would force the underwriter to practice preventive medicine that would save us all money. By letting insurance companies drop people they have very little incentive to promote preventive medicine. Also pricing should be based on life choice behavior a person chooses.

    We must also use lower cost healthcare like nurse practitioners for people being subsidized for check ups and low level healthcare ie colds, flue

  8. TPSoCal says:

    As a smoker, I would be really ticked off if they impose another 61 cent tax per pack. I am already paying out the wazoo for my cigs. It has gotten so bad in the golden state that I have been forced to by my cigs from the black market. I get them from a guy selling them out of his trunk. I have been forced into crime by the government!

  9. TPSoCal says:

    for the record smoking is my only vice. I do not drink, do drugs (anymore) or solicit undercover cops in airport bathrooms.

  10. John Konop says:

    In the solution I gave above I took the following question in consideration. I asked myself what is moral and fair. No solution ever maker everyone happy but we must deal with reality.

    Should we let parents and kids get sicker and die if they cannot pay for healthcare?

    Do we think a 2 year old kid should be punished with no health care?

    Does a child need a healthy parent?

    Are we only pro-life via birth not 95% of a kid

  11. dingleberry says:

    Should we let parents and kids get sicker and die if they cannot pay for healthcare?

    Yes. We have an overpopulation problem as it is. Let them all die.

    Do we think a 2 year old kid should be punished with no health care?

    Yes. How about the little brat go and get a damn job and buy his own health care?

    Does a child need a healthy parent?

    No. Orphanages work fine.

    Are we only pro-life via birth not 95% of a kid

  12. Federalist says:

    Allowing the health-care to age 25 is very responsible. So exceptions should be made though. I personally think that this coverage should only be allowed if the kid is in college…otherwise cut this off at 20 or 21 years of age.

Comments are closed.