Strollerderby

I don't think President Bush vetoed the bill because he didn't want to insure children.  But this bill insures not only children but people in their mid to late twenties.  And allows people who are making a decent living to opt in...

I'm all for making sure people are insured, but if this is a children's insurance bill, some 25 year-old is hardly a kid.  Heck, I'd agree to insuring them until 22--4th year of college.  

I'm white, but not rich, but we are insured.  Why is the fact that my husband works 14 hour days so we can be insured such a problem???  

It's not the fact that he does work 14 hours a day, it's that he shouldn't have to.

when people who can't afford health insurance use the er and don't pay their bills, that cost is passed on to everyone in higher hospital fees. Covering children, and yes people in their 20's, could bring down costs for everyone because they would get  preventative care and not use the er so much, and also because the hospitals would actually get paid.

"Hmmm, let's see--would we rather help smokers keep their tobacco costs down or give four million children health insurance?"

How about neither one?  Here's a thought - people take responsibility for their own insurance and don't steal from someone else to get it.

The people who support this type of legislation are more than welcome to give to any charity that helps people who currently cannot afford health care.

I don't see why making a decent living is grounds that someone shouldn't be getting healthcare? The whole reason I worked hard in highschool, college, and grad school was so that I'd have the opportunity to afford healthcare for my chronic medical conditions.  I certainly don't see why someone making good money shouldn't have the opportunity to get healthcare if their employer doesn't offer it.  My employer doesn't offer a retirement plan - and I have the opportunity to put away for retirement due to the tax laws, anyway.

But we'd all be healthier and more productive - and individual premiums would go down - if we insured everyone - spreads the risk out over the biggest pool.  

I'm assuming Dan paves his own roadways, puts in his own traffic lights and delivers his own mail (among all the other services the government currently provides for us), because why else would he be so upset about an additional government-supported program?

I can't believe nobody has said: "Women and children first?! What chauvinism!"

More seriously, opposition to the government getting into healthcare is not just (or even primarily) about tax increases for at least a few people. I'm actually for universal healthcare, but my childrens' godfather (a nurse) isn't, because he says that gov't interference will slow down and lower the quality of care across the board. Anyone is free to disagree with this, but saying that "the [opposition's] real concern is the possibility of having to pay an eensy bit more in taxes in order to help impoverished children and families get covered" is neither fair nor accurate.

Somewhat related to the too-rich-for-Medicaid-too-poor-for-private-insurance: I've wondered for ages why there aren't more tax breaks for people in high-cost urban areas. We live in Chicago and pay a huge percentage of my husband's salary in rent. We can't afford to buy here (thus, no mortgage tax breaks), and aren't foolish enough to take on some "too good to be true" mortgage and lose our home. Some sort of tax credit for considerations like this would be so helpful. Oh, wait, I forgot, we're not homeowners, so we're basically basically 2nd-class Americans. Sometimes life is depressing.

Ok, lemme ask, since I don't know if anyone else will, who forces you to live where you live or work where you work???

No one.  I live outside Chicago behind the Hoosier curtain.  Affordable housing.  My house somewhere in IL would cost about twice as much (I don't live in the ghetto either).  

My husband is a truck driver.  He is good at what he does and turned down jobs from several companies because they didn't offer healthcare or it was too expensive.  

I know now there is an economic turndown, but don't most of us have a choice???  

And how much is eensy???

Sheri, Was your first question directed at me? If so: You're right, no one "forces" us to live where we do. However, my husband works downtown Chicago. Living where we do allows him to commute on mass transit. We try to live relatively simply, and, for a number of reasons, don't own a car. Anyway, without getting into details (unless you're dying to have them!), living in the city without a car is the "best" choice for us right now, but it comes at a price.

As a side note: The NYTimes had a column awhile ago about how renters actually benefit the economy because they tend to be willing and able to be mobile -- they don't have to worry about selling a house before moving out of state for a better job. Yet renters (and their landlords, if I remember correctly) don't get tax breaks like homeowners do, which, one might argue, isn't "fair." It was an interesting perspective and made me feel better able to defend our present decision to "throw our money down the drain" by renting.

First, the govenment needs to go after the insurance companies like their going after banks right now, dig in their books a little and see why it costs so much. Then, make major employers pay for health insurance.