Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Why does Bush avoid talking to Governors on child health care

Why does Bush avoid talking to Governors on child health care?
The self called compassionate conservative has done one more thing to prove his lack of compassion. He is avoiding discussion with state governors toward affordable health care for millions of children nation wide. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_go_pr_wh/governors_kids__health
Other - Politics & Government - 5 Answers





 Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Health care isn't something the government should be involved in
2 :
Bush doesn't care about the welfare of the American children that's why. Incompassionate would be the word here, or in short Republican ideology.
3 :
Maybe Mr Bush has read The Constitution and realizes it's not a Federal issue.I wish!
4 :
Because bush's buddies, the health care providers(Bill Frist comes to mind), insurance companies, and of course all the EMPLOYERS in America don't want to pay anything they don't have too(taxes in the cases of all of them) and don't want to lose their profits(once again all of them) and last of all bush doesn't care that about children.. its in the conservative mantra... "Love the Fetus, hate the child" Randi Rhodes stated that... and btw look at how Conservatives look at abortion.... they really don't care about children...only the Fetuses. He also is probably avoiding the state governors because he is moralily wrong or a moron, not sure which, or maybe both
5 :
I'de have to say because bush isent real bright! I mean let's all face it the only reason he went after saddam is because saddam tryed to kill Daddy bush! Yeah bush is a real winner,not!
6 :
Why would the president talk to any Governor about YOUR children? You people need to start thinking about reasons why we were way better off when the government could care less about your children. You brought then into the world, you deal with it. If you can't, why is it the president's problem, any governor's problem, or my problem?



Read more discussions :

Friday, December 24, 2010

Why is Bush Vetoing the child health care bill, Is he having another tantrum against the Democrats in Senate

Why is Bush Vetoing the child health care bill, Is he having another tantrum against the Democrats in Senate?

Other - Politics & Government - 14 Answers






Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Did you just get out of a coma? This was done a while ago. The Dems want to slip nationalize health care through under the guise of child health care and Bush wouldn't let them do that. 23 year olds are not children and people making 80k or more a year should be able to pay for their own health care; I shouldn't have to carry them.
2 :
Because the nation cant afford it why don't other states have mi child programs like Michigan that for $5.00 a month pays everything for your child till age 19? health eyes teeth.
3 :
No there are things attached to the bill that will be detramental. That is the problem with the political system anything can be attached to any other bill to try and force the President to sign it. Thats also why the President needs a line item veto power!
4 :
Maybe he hates kids... or probably he just wants that money for Iran.. or Iraq.. or to give it to Israel... who knows. I can't begin to understand this crazy man.
5 :
It probably doesn't yet address the issues that he considers important. The president has said outright that he would not sign a bill that: A) Did not ensure that 90% of low income children were enrolled prior to covering middle income children, B) Receives its funding from a cigarette tax incrase, which just so happens to be a highly regressive tax (disproportionately taxes the poor) Based on the idea that this bill is supposed to protect poor children, you would think that by now Congress would have made these provisions. Doesn't Congress want to help poor children?!? Too bad! I guess they are too caught up in politics and the next election to govern.
6 :
It's not fair. It makes moderate income families who also can't afford health care wait behind lower income families and the unemployed. If we are going to have subsidized health care for children it should be available to everyone. What we really should do though is stop the frivolous malpractice suits, and encourage the private insurance companies to stop raising their rates so much.
7 :
Because he and the repKon base do not benefit from it, and he couldn't care less about the children of people who aren't wealthy donors to neo causes
8 :
Oh Please, stop it I know for a fact that nobodies that stupid. Do you know how to say pork?
9 :
u suck . cause he wana
10 :
Old news, Thank God for Bush
11 :
He wants a blank check for his Rubber Stamp REPUBLICAN War in Iraq, but he won't do anything for the children of America. It's really disgraceful. The man has no concept of compromise.
12 :
he is just doing what republicans do, hate dems and there priorities and will vote against anything that looks like a hand out that they cannot make a profit off of.
13 :
Why is it that key facts are always left out of questions like this? This is not another tantrum and there is a lot more to the bill than the headline suggests.
14 :
If you followed this stry, he vetoed it because it was unfairly taxing to middle class citizens. · President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance, after saying the legislation was too costly and had strayed from its original intent. It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could be used against them in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage. The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years, allowing an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding. Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families. The president faces a possible rebellion by Republican lawmakers who back the bill. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) berated Bush on the Senate floor for having labeled the legislation "irresponsible" in his radio address Saturday. "If you want to talk about the word responsible and whether Congress is responsible or not in this bill, I would say that anybody that wants to leave the program the way it is — and that's what's going to happen with a veto — that's an irresponsible position to take," Grassley said. House Democratic leaders have said they will wait until next week or later to try to override a veto. They are hoping by then to peel off some 15 Republicans to get the two-thirds majority they need for an override. Texas A&M presidential scholar George Edwards says that lawmakers who stick with the president could pay for it in next year's elections. "I think in a widely supported policy like the SCHIP bill, that the risks are substantial for Republicans," Edwards said. "It's difficult to take the case to the voters on something specific like that when we're talking about health care for children and explain the complex rationale for opposition." Asked why the president has also issued veto threats against almost all the spending bills this year, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president has a role to play in the legislative debate. "One of the things the president can do is say, 'I'm not going to sign a bill that comes to me with extraneous spending. I'm not going to sign a bill that has policies in it that should not be a part of the United States policy,'" Perino said. "And so I would hope that we wouldn't have to do veto threats, but I think that the Democrats have shown that these are the types of legislative angles that they're going to take, and that's why the president has to send some veto threats up." At issue is the fact that, added together, the spending bills exceed the president's own budget by some $23 billion. But Dan Mitchell of the libertarian Cato Institute says that amount is paltry compared with the amount of excess spending that Bush signed during the Republicans' control of Congress. "There certainly does seem to be a legitimate argument that the president only objects to new spending when Democrats are doing it, because he certainly wasn't objecting when Republicans controlled Congress," Mitchell said. On Tuesday, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee said that if there is a spending problem, it is the White House asking for nearly $200 billion in war funding. "If the president is really concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation that will provide for a war surtax for that portion of military costs related to our military action in Iraq," Rep. David Obey (D-WI) proposed. If President Bush does not like that cost, he added, he can shut down the war. Most Republicans derided the idea of a war surtax. "You pay for the war by winning the war," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "This is not an accounting exercise. How did we pay for World War II? Everybody rolled up their sleeves and did the best they could." They also paid a war surtax. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the idea a thumbs down; so did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "The speaker said that is not what she wants," Reid explained. "That's good enough for me." Facing a spate of veto threats, Democratic leaders show little appetite for a separate fight over raising taxes. With additional reporting from The Associated Press heres the link.... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14938419




Read more discussions :

Monday, December 20, 2010

father and mother BOTH have the child covered under their separate health insurance plans

father and mother BOTH have the child covered under their separate health insurance plans?
under ca law the fathers insurance is primary due to the fact that he is older . how or could it be possible to have the the mothers insurance primary ? we what the mothers insurance company first due to the fact that it has always been used for the baby. we are now in the hospital and out of network with the fathers insurance and they will not cover it due to that fact. The er ntransfered us to an out of network hospital so how can we resolve this? his insurance is first adn they already denied the claim.
Insurance - 5 Answers







Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If the law states that one is primary, then that is the way it will be. The other would only be tapped if and when the claim exceeds the primary coverage. All you have to worry about it to be sure you never attempt to make a claim on the secondary until the primary is exhausted, or, if the claim is not covered by the primary but can be by the secondary.
2 :
Why? It only matters to the insurance company. It should matter to you. If you get a $100 invoice, it'll travel to company A first then to B and then you pay. If it goes to B first and then A it wouldn't make MUCH of a difference to you. If you want to keep it simple keep one plan.
3 :
The choice of whose plan you use is not yours but the state. Laws govern whose policy is primary. So, you use the father's coverage first, and then you use the mothers' insurance for what is not covered. You can file a claim under both, but when you use the secondary insurance, they will want to know what the first coverage paid or did not pay, and why not. This is called " coordination of benefits."
4 :
The "birthday law" isn't about AGE, it's about what day of the year the birthday comes FIRST. So clearly, dad's birthday ocurrs earlier in the year than moms. The ONLY way to get mom's policy primary, is to cancel child from dad's policy during the next open enrollment. If the transfer happened, because there wasn't a local in network hospital that could provide a specialty service (like a pediatric nephrologist), you appeal to dad's insurance to have it covered as a medical necessity on an in network basis.
5 :
You do not have to change which is primary. The secondary will pay the claim if (1) the primary denied it, and (2) the secondary would have covered it if you did not have the primary.





Read more discussions :

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Do you support a Constitutional tax on tobacco products to fund child health care (Measure 50)

Do you support a Constitutional tax on tobacco products to fund child health care (Measure 50)?

Law & Ethics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
well i pay 6 dollers a pack right now..of that 6 dollers the company that made it gets .25 cents, the rest goes to taxes i think they are taxing cigarettes enough
2 :
No it is flat out wrong.
3 :
Sure, and I'm a smoker....at least we would be helping children while killing ourselves..
4 :
if they can give kids (and everyone else) second-hand smoke, then they can never give enough money for healthcare.
5 :
sounds good in theory. The problem is that legislation keeps getting stricter. Pretty soon there wont be anywhere to smoke. This will reduce available funds, leaving an underfunded program that will be forced to pull funds from other programs.
6 :
The percentage of people who smoke is down to less than 20% and continues to decline. You can't have it both ways. Don't tell people to quit and then plan to finance things from them not quitting!
7 :
let the alcoholics pay some more taxes. I can smoke and drive down the road and not kill a family. Can a drunk say that.
8 :
It depends on the amount of tax...
9 :
No, I am tired of every health problem in this country being blamed on smoking. They want to blame asthma in children on smoking, ignoring the fact that as the smoking rates have gone down, the kids that are getting asthma have increased. How about starting to tax other "unhealthy" activities at the same rate that they currently tax tobacco? How about that $9.00 big mac meal? Or that $12.00 6-pack of cheap beer. How about taxing the amount of time spent watching T.V? I hope you are seeing where I am heading with this. Tobacco is just an easy target-- This is a measure that was written to sound good-- who is not for better health care? The only reason bush vetoed it, was because it included kids that were not already covered by most states! What about the rest of the people, who cannot afford health care? Everyone seems to think that if you have health insurance you are ok, but many people who have insurance still cannot afford to get the medical care that they need. When 1 test can cost over $5000, then the insurance company decides it is not going to pay for it, because the doctor did not get pre-approval there is a problem. When a child can get health care, but their parents can't, there is a problem. I know some are going to say-- go to college, get a better paying job and you won't have these problems, but please tell me how much your degree is going to be worth when 50,000 people have one just like it instead of 5,000?




Read more discussions :

Sunday, December 12, 2010

health clubs child care cost

health clubs child care cost?
I am trying to gather information on what health clubs or fitness centers charge for their on site child care. Please let me know what you pay a month, how many hours you are allowed to use it per day, and where your club is located in the US. Thanks in advance.
Diet & Fitness - 1 Answers
 





Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Try to do a lot of research at many different health clubs to get an average price. At my health club child care is totally free and is meant to get a lot of mother out and exercising which it really does.




Read more discussions :

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Child Health Plus

Child Health Plus ? ?
I was wondering if my kids would be eligible for if my husband already has health coverage and my children are on it. They do not have vision or dental, will they at least be covered for vision and dental
Other - Health - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
call the tenn care they should answer all your question it really depends on yalls income to




Read more discussions :

Saturday, December 4, 2010

would less child births have a major impact on our planets health

would less child births have a major impact on our planets health?
I live in Utah and there was just a news story about a local man who died. He had 8 children, 54 grandchildren and 88 great-grandchildren! This is normal and not just for this state. I am just thinking of what would happen to this planet if everyone procreated in this way. What would our earth be like if people didn't feel so entitlted to breed in such huge amounts and instead have no more than 2 children? Is religion to blame (and I mean all religions that encourage expanding the church by creating more followers) for our planets peril?
Other - Society & Culture - 4 Answers
 





 Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
The world has more than 6 billion people already. Too much sex is going on in my view. =/
2 :
Religion is highly to blame. Less religious areas tend to have less children because they have children on their own terms. not because something in the sky with questionable existance tells them they should. Most major religions brainwash people to have kids by telling them that children are a "gift from god". If we had less people it would benefit our planet in that it would be easier to support fewer people and that those people as a whole could live better lives because the planet would actually be able to support the smaller number of people.
3 :
too many stupid people are breeding I think the lack of education about birth control and sex is to blame religion is only a small part of it. also, kids are encouraged to keep their child even if they are not ready for parenthood. they have the ability to get on welfare and child support...if those two things weren't in place then more people would think a lot harder about going with "plan B"
4 :
yea but its not going to change because its not going to effect us in our lifetime maybe it will help us later more people = more scientests = solves problems




Read more discussions :

parents health carrying on to child question

parents health carrying on to child question?
If I'm in my 20's, in perfect health and the father of the baby is in his 50's and his most significant health problem is kidney stones. He's passed several of them, this would carry on to our kids correct? Would it make more of a difference if the father passed any kidney stones before getting the mother pregnant or passing them after the kid was already born to the chances of the offspring getting kidney stones?
Other - Pregnancy & Parenting - 1 Answers
 





Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I don't see how his kidney stones could possibly affect the baby. The baby may have a chance of getting them as an adult, but I don't think it would be any greater than anyone else's chance of getting them. Why don't you ask a doctor to be sure, but I thought kidney stone were an isolated problem, not one that was passed on.




Read more discussions :

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

If you are a health professional and you suspect child abuse, can you hold the child from their parents

If you are a health professional and you suspect child abuse, can you hold the child from their parents?
This is hypothetical, we were discussing this in a counseling class.
Law & Ethics - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You are required by law to report it
2 :
No. That is kidnapping and possibly false imprisonment. The health professional has an obligation to report suspeced abuse to social services.
3 :
As health professionals are mandated reporters in most states, it is important to make a report to the Department of Family and Children services immediately upon discovering, or suspecting abuse. If possible, the call should be made while the child is in care, this way DFCS can make a recommendation to stall until a caseworker can arrive, or allow the child to go home, with a home visit to follow. In cases where severe trauma or sexual abuse is suspected, a call to law enforcement may provide the opportunity to protect the child and speed the referral process with DFCS.
4 :
If you think a kid is in danger you need to report it as fast as possible. You can strongly recommend the child remain in the hospital for observation. You can tell the parents the child needs to be held in the ER for observation. If the parents want to take the kid you can insist they sign an "Against Medical Advice" form. In many cases these three tactics will keep the kid under observation and safe until law enforcement gets there. If law enforcement does not get there in time and you tried your best to hold the kid legally, you did all you can. You can not hold the kid against the wishes of the parents.
5 :
No. You call the police (as required by law) and they handle it.




Read more discussions :