That's not true and I'm surprised by how many Americans don't know how the system works in their own country

That's because it's different in each state. It's not the country that determines it, it's the state you live in. Which is why people wouldn't know how welfare healthcare works in their country. It's not universal in their country.

You misunderstood me. I wouldn't expect everyone to know exactly how it works in each state. But I WOULD expect them to at least know that in some states it is determined by income (which Jessica didn't. She assumed they were all the same as her state). I mean that is one of the main reasons why Obama is trying to make changes... to get THOSE children covered. How can someone really argue against the new system if they don't even know the most basic of things about the existing system?

I have found that unless they have ever needed to utilize those resources in a different state, they don't tend to know it works differently in different states. They tend to believe it works the same in all states as it does in theirs. They don't tend to research other states because they don't feel they need. If I'm not going to move to that state, why does it matter to me? Not that I think that's okay, mind you.

And you are most certainly correct in your final statement of How can someone really argue against the new system if they don't even know the most basic of things about the existing system? Which I think is where a LOT of the problems come in: they DON'T know the most basic elements of the existing system, which means they don't really understand where the people on the side of support for the new system are truly coming from.

I was going to say this in my previous post above, but something came up and I had to leave the computer for a moment.

Yes, all states have a means test for health care for children. Each states requirements are different, though. And some states have entirely different regulations altogether. So it still isn't universal and thus Americans can't possibly know how it works in their country because it's not the same in each state.

The most prominent practice, however, does tend to be determining a child's eligibility for free health care based on the income of the parents. Which, frankly, is necessary. There are some parents who absolutely have the means to be able to afford health care for their child, and yet simply do not want to because it costs money. Why pay for something when they think they can get it for free? I know of a number of families who absolutely have the means to pay for health care for their entire family, but because that would take too much money out of their pockets that they want to use however they want to use it, they won't. So they apply for health care through the State. If the State did not have regulations on income requirements, EVERYBODY would be able to get free health care for their children, regardless of how much money they actually earned in a month.

So what Jessica says about how it works in her state may very well be how it works in her state, and yet another state will have stricter requirements. Some states, the cut off is 18 years of age. Some states, it does NOT cover the whole family, JUST the children, except in the case of a pregnancy, then it covers the pregnant woman for up to three months after giving birth. Some states let her have it a whole year. Some states, even longer than that. Some states have a very low income requirement, some have a higher income requirement (not based necessarily on the cost of living in that state). Some states have programs where no matter how much income the family brings in, if one parent has lost their job they can get health care for the children. Other states have very strict income guidelines and say it doesn't matter if one parent has lost their job, if they aren't within those income guidelines they absolutely cannot get insurance.

So it really is a state to state thing.

I have also found that you cannot trust what the internet says about eligibility requirements. What they say on their website may be practiced entirely differently at the office. And even then may be put into practice entirely differently depending on the person who works the case and how they interpret the requirements.

Actually, even in Wisconsin only children from families of four with income below $35,798 qualify for medicaid. So it is not true even that all children in your state have healthcare! It's bad enough not knowing how healthcare works for your country in general... but it appears you don't even know how it works for YOUR state.

Information is from the American Academy of Pediatrics website.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/washing/elections/mfs_wi.pdf

http://www.badgercareplus.org/

This is the specific program she mentioned.

Under CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

All children under 19 years old – at all income levels – can enroll in BadgerCare Plus.

I do stand corrected, it's under 19. Not 24 like I thought :)

Thanks for clarifying!

Er... no.
My family has always only been three people, and we got badger care.

And Mary Magdelene already linked you the program I was speaking about below. :)

Apologies. Mary Magdelene has just made me aware of the Badger Care Plus programme. It's good to know that Wisconsin at least ensures that it's children are taken care of. If only that was true of all of the other states.

Last I heard, as of 2008 most states were implementing such things for children. I can't say for certain if they all actually HAVE, though. I know my state does, as well as a few other states where I have some friends who need the programs. It's not public knowledge though. Typically you have to know exactly where to look in order to get the information, and most people either just don't know where to look, or don't have the means to do so.

I honestly thought more states had something like that. But I think I'm only aware of it because I had it when I was younger.

They really don't advertise it here, unfortunately. And they should be.

Very true RedFraggle. If you've ever been without health insurance, couldn't afford it but couldn't qualify for medicaid, then you'd know how desperately needed a govt. healthcare option is. My sister has many medical issues, which includes her having her period constantly (she gets about two days a month without it), bad chest pains, asthma etc. She cannot afford healthcare but she can't qualify for medicaid. She could have cervical cancer for all we know, but a doctor will not see her unless she pays up front. PlannedParenthood can't do anything for her, the ER will just turn her away, and that breaks my heart.

So people may not agree with a govt. healthcare, but that's because you HAVE IT!!! I'd gladly pay taxes so no one can get turned down and everyone can get help. We're paying for health insurance we barely use as it is! If I could pay 200 a month so everyone could have it instead of just me and my husband, who rarely get sick and who rarely see the doc except check ups, why not?

exactly. this is why we need it!

I never said anything about eliminating it, I said, "What is so wrong with tweaking what we already have available and make it more accessible but those that don't have jobs will have to FIND one or try to to get help?" The government cannot run anything, without running it into the ground.

Oh, okay. Explains why the postal service, FBI, CIA, highway services, and education are all falling apart.

Hm, well Fed Ex is KILLING the postal service, this why they came out with the new "one box, one price" thing. Have you ever been to Illinois? There's a saying here, there's two seasons - winter and construction. Any idea why that is? Also, have you ever stepped foot inside a public school in any inner city? They have so much money for books and paying their teachers that most of the teachers pay out of pocket for their essentials. No Child Left behind is killing our schools. If you don't get a certain grade point average, then you don't get the funding. If you don't get the funding how are you supposed to get the good average?

Also, I'm going to be the biotch here now. I'm sorry you don't have health care, that really bites. Now, tell me why *I* should pay for your insurance. Money doesn't magically appear out of thin air. You know what? Take my whole paycheck... just take it, cause I obviously didn't work for it.

One slippery slope argument. Two slippery slope arguments, one personal anecdote. Three slippery slope arguments and a personal anecdote.

Oh look. Four slippery slope arguments and a personal anecdote.

The postal service isn't failing. Would you rather they didn't do construction on the roads? Inner city schools =/= all schools. I never made an argument for NCLB. I never asked for your paycheck. Quit bitching about taxes when this country has some of the lowest in the world.

When I want to make SURE an important piece of mail gets somewhere, I never go to the postal service as they are unreliable. Which is why Fed Ex is doing FAR better than the postal service. Construction, in Illinois, is ridiculous. They "repair" the same roads every year. This is why the on-ramp that I would prefer to use get onto the tollway hasn't been open consistently for four years, it's always "under construction." I highly doubt, if everyone could afford it, they would choose public schools over private ones. Is there any parent that would PREFER a public school over a private school? Who would be paying for this health care? Tax payers. I happen to be one and it would come from my paycheck. My argument was against yours that the government does things so efficiently. War on drugs? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? And yes, public schools. Cash for Clunkers? Distributing the influenza vaccine? ALL of these things have failed or are falling. The only thing that works like it's supposed to is our military. Our government is totally free of corruption and in a great position to gain more power...right. Republican OR Democrat, most of those that hold a seat in Congress or the House are corrupt.

Yet more personal anecdata. Look, your personal experiences don't logically follow with your argument. If you use FedEx, that's great, but it doesn't mean the postal service is unreliable. Sure, if you want better service, or faster times, go with FedEx, but the Postal Service is fine as well.

I don't care what goes on in Illinois, because that's 1/50 of the United States. If I was using the logic you're attempting to use, I could validate my argument by saying that construction doesn't affect me down here in South Florida because it's usually never in my way.

I also know people who would prefer public schooling because they simply don't have the money for private schools unless they're wealthy. As far as money not being an object, sure, but that's simply not the case. If you're trying to make an analogy with health care, I'm sure you could think about how it fails.

If you're trying to make the argument that these programs should work as well as programs by specialized private companies, then you're simply asking for too much. The social programs exist for people who simply can't afford programs by private companies.

Let me give you a few examples.

FedEx vs. USPS - I'm not going to pay $10 to get a package to arrive at its destination a day before it would with the USPS.
Public health vs. Private health - I can't afford private health, so public health is better than no health.
Vaccine vs. No Vaccine - Self explanatory.

You're not going to find a private social security service that's not a scam, and the only reason that's failed is because our government in the past 10 years has spent more money than it had.

Guess why our military works. There are no legal private militaries, and we throw cash at them like they're getting paid by the minute. I mean, I don't get what you're trying to say here. Please tell me you're saying we should level out the funding between social programs and the military - it would be a fun point for me to completely destroy.

ROFL. We say that here too!
Road construction is ridiculous here. Major streets have been closed all summer just to add another lane to a highway they just flipping redid a year ago.

And public schools are so garbage =/

Personal experience doesn't rule out my argument, just because it's personal. Public school sucks, so does social security, so does every other government run program. Tell me how you're not getting this? Our government is corrupt and "throwing money" at different programs doesn't work. Especially when we have none. They are doing such a GREAT job with medicare, medicaid, and social security. Of course, obviously I think we should let them run a public option health care, because they've been doing such an excellent job so far!

Then don't use the public school system or social security. Your problem.

We will never agree, we obviously have very different view points. I'm just going to have to agree to disagree, because this won't change your opinion or mine.

I just don't think you're getting it. Services like education and welfare are for people who can't afford more expensive and quality alternatives. Same thing with health care. The point is these people would be better off with a cheap alternative to health care, provided by the government, than either going into complete bankruptcy or not having health care at all.

I find the medical debate rather redundant. People who NEED it explain why they need it..other people basically say, sucks for you johnny i dont give a shit if you die from not having health care..i sure as hell would rather many many people die then me helping out. Geez. I hope I raise my girls to have better logic and compassion than this. You know whats sad though? This doesnt affect me. Not really directly, my health care will always be free because I am married to a disabled man. My kids healthcare will always be free. But for people like my little brother who is dying of kidney failure and cannot afford health care everyone says "well sucks shouldnt have been born with kidneys that dont work"