BO fining parents

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2008
BO fining parents
111
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 1:11am

I was watching some of the debate from last week online because i missed it. McCain brought up that Obama wants to fine parents who do not have health insurance on their children.

I'm not sure how most people feel about this, but isn't health insurance just as important as shelter, education and food. I definitely think that not insuring your children should fall into the neglect category. People can complain about the cost of health care but if you can't afford having a child, don't have one.

I guess i was wondering what others thought about this.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 9:50am

Uncomfortable? LOL, no.

It IS odd, though....that's what I am doing with respect to your posts: assessing the facts surrounding your normal pattern of bashing Democrats. Does that make you uncomfortable?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 9:51am

Experience doesn't always equate to excellence.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 9:52am
Nope. Wasn't me. I do think his "explanations" are dishonest. Maybe that would be what you read from me.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 9:56am
I only bash Democrats when I think they are wrong. There are actually a lot of things that I agree with Democrats about. Those would be social issues - but I usually don't base my vote on social issues since National Security and fiscal responsibility are much more important to me.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 2:35pm
Wow, see that proves my point that bad health care happens no matter what. I guess one of doctors faults would be that they are human still. Quite a downfall to have, I guess. Unfortunately for them they really can't be human and mess up like that. Ok, so I mentioned that I wanted to compare this idea to military housing (I know, two totally different things but the idea is fairness). We choose to live outside of housing, always have, but there have been two cases when we had to live in housing when we just transferred to new areas. The first time we lived in it was when we first got married. He was an E-4. We had no kids, so we got placed in the oldest, crappiest housing there was. I expected that because we were low ranking and all. The second time we lived in it for 1 year was when we transferred to our current duty station. He was an E-6 with 14 years in. We only had one child at that time so we only qualified for a 2 bedroom. Ok, fine, I guess we deal with it, but they screwed up and compensated us with a 3 bedroom (long story short, the one we signed for, they gave to someone else so we lost the house we signed for). By the way, the 3 bedroom was crappy and old, too, but that isn't the point. It was a duplex type house, where our neighbor was an E-4 with one child. Why should someone with less time in and lower ranking get a 3 bedroom before we could? We would have been in a 2 bedroom if they didn't screw up. They were in the 3 bedroom because they complained about having a 2 bedroom, so the housing office moved them into a 3. squeaky wheel gets the grease, I guess. Fast forward a few months, I find out that an E-3 has a 4 bedroom, newly built house. HUH?? Meanwhile DH has made E-7 by that time. Military housing is not free, we still have to pay for it with our BHA. Not sure how much it all is because it varies for different areas so I'm just throwing numbers out, say an E-7 gets $1800 and an E-3 gets $1000. Is it really fair that just because the E-3 has more kids they pay less for a bigger place? In the real world you get what you can afford. We have friends that are E-7 with no kids and they can't get anything larger than a 2 bedroom. (By the way, military housing is privatized) Is it really fair that someone with 18 years in who chose not to have kids only gets a 2 bedroom where someone who just enlists and is an E-3, who comes in late or marries someone with a lot of kids, qualifies for a 4 bedroom? Does this make sense? I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we just have to deal with it because life just isn't fair, and it's better to at least have a house than nothing at all, but doesn't it make more sense to say 2 bedrooms cost this much, 3 bedrooms cost this much, and so on, and if you choose to save some of your BHA you can live in a 2 bedroom with a couple kids, or if you have more kids, and need a bigger place, it is going to cost you more like in the real world? So now compare this to health coverage (which when you think about it, the military is socialized, and it sucks). You get the coverage you could afford. I would say that coverage for certain conditions (ie, cancer, AIDS) is the same for all tiers. But otherwise, similar to the military, if you have lower tiers, you can only get your main treatment at a group health sort of thing, but if you were a higher tier you can go to a private doctor. Similar to the military, if it is something that the doctor at the group clinic can't treat, they can put in for a referral to a different doctor that treats it, and it will be up to the insurance to deny or support the claim, because they might be able to find something within network. When we get private referrals, the doctors have to be within the Tricare network. It works for the military, why couldn't it work for the rest of the country?


Edited 10/13/2008 2:46 pm ET by lighteningcrashes
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 6:42pm

I meant to ask, how do you think the health care system can be fixed?

Right now most states do offer some type of coverage for children, not their parents, and in my idea, the parents at least get some coverage. It's not fair for children to be without coverage at all. But equally it isn't fair to the parents either, if a parent gets sick and dies, who takes care of the kids then? I have heard from some that have state coverage for their kids, and currently there is not a huge selection of poor doctors to choose from, or the clinic is in an unsafe neighborhood, etc.

So what ideas do you have? You know, the old saying is two minds are better than one, and if one gets an idea, how do you improve on it?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 7:03pm
oops, to wrong person,...sorry


Edited 10/13/2008 7:09 pm ET by strawberrymom22
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 7:13pm

It didn't say "parents who HAVE health insurance must insure their children"...it said "parents must insure their children." What about parents who can't afford health insurance? Obama will put the screws to them just like he'll put the screws to small businesses who can't afford to provide health insurance for their employees.

Screw the little guy...vote Obama!

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 7:15pm
And if the parent doesn't make enough to be able to buy insurance for their children from the employer? And they make too much to get Medicaid or SCHIP? How does Obama's plan insure these children?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2008
In reply to: pie_28
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 7:19pm

>>> No....he didn't address it because you don't allow your opponent to force you into answering false charges, the very answering of which makes you look bad.

Um...so it's better to allow your opponent, who's standing right beside you in a televised national debate, to tell lies about your policies in front of the people you're trying to sell them too? Hmmm...no, don't think so. Obama almost leapt off his stool to correct McCain several times...to sit back this time is a pretty good indication that McCain was telling the truth.

Pages