A good reason to not support Mark Warner

"As the number of people without health insurance has increased for four years in a row, Republicans are charging ahead with $45 billion in cuts to Medicaid -- the health insurance program that provides medical care to America's poorest children and many of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) thundered Nov. 18, just before the pre-dawn passage of the bill. "Republicans give new meaning to the words 'suffer little children.' "

What she did not say is that those changes were proposed over the summer by a bipartisan task force of governors, led by Virginia's Mark R. Warner, whose popularity in a Republican state has made him a rising star in the Democratic Party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700781.html

You forgot to mention the other Democratic Governor's involved:

Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa), Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.), Jennifer M. Granholm (D-Mich.), Jim Doyle (D-Wis.), and Edward G. Rendell (D-Pa.)


Im guessing Warners main concern is the fact that Medicaid is bankrupting the states. If people think SS is in crisis, just wait until they get ahold of Medicaid/Medicare.

Back to the topic at hand. To claim Warner is anti-health care for the poor and elderly is just flat out ridiculous. He founded the Virginia Health Care Foundation, which has provided over 500,000 underprivileged Virginians with health care. On top of that Governor Warner recently signed legislation into law that would provide health care for 97% of elgible children.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Releases

Governor Warner and anti-health care is an oxymoron at its finest. Thanks for playing.

and actually hope to make the average voter feel all warm and fuzzy.

A potential Prez candidate who can't speak against the $ wasted on Iraq will never win. Dem or Repub.

because it would have deflated the spin of his post

your self a Democrat. You just don't do that.

You just cant do that. :)

As I pointed out in my other post...

To claim Warner is anti-health care for the poor and elderly is just flat out ridiculous. He founded the Virginia Health Care Foundation, which has provided over 500,000 underprivileged Virginians with health care. On top of that Governor Warner recently signed legislation into law that would provide health care for 97% of elgible children.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Releases

Absolutely stunning.

"Let me shut my ears so I only hear what I want to hear".

:eyes:

stunning indeed

when it's YOUR stance that is promoting cuts for poor women and children, not Mark Warner's.

"... allowing state governments to impose higher health insurance deductibles, co-payments and premiums on poor Medicaid recipients, including, for the first time, impoverished children and pregnant women"

Higher fees are never desirable, but it most surely is not CUTTING anybody off medicaid as you just misstated.

The only CUTTING that has gone on in terms of poor people is in states where there has not been the flexibility to raise fees.

In other words, your opposition to this will end up CUTTING lots of poor people off of medicaid, because you will be forcing the states to take draconian measures.

"Policy improvements have included streamlining the state's SCHIP and Medicaid programs into one program called FAMIS."

Do you know where the SCHIP program came from?

If he wants to be "popular" in a Republican state, join the friggin party.

he's a :kick: DEMOCRAT :kick: !!!!

(Sorry leftsteet.. but that question was... )

I need to improve my snarky skills.
:P

DLCer's just crack me up. If ya wanna attract Repub voters, run on a Repub ticket!

Democrats DON'T BARGAIN.

In your book they do not deserve support now?

"...provisions in the House bill were adapted almost word for word from a document drafted by Govs. Warner, Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa), Haley Barbour (R-Miss.), Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.), Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.), Jennifer M. Granholm (D-Mich.), Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), Jim Doyle (D-Wis.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Edward G. Rendell (D-Pa.)"

It was rather something governors of both parties were pushing for.

So she's out of the running by default.

He has far too many attributes to kick to the curb because of a single issue without hearing him out first.

He has a pretty popular forum (website) going right now-- and I'll bet that article will be brought up there. If it is, with any luck he'll address any questions on the subject.

Wow.. several of those Governor's in that article were on "America's Top 5 List" ! :o

From what I can tell, the current co-pay is $3.00, and could increase based upon medical costs. That tells me nothing.

The "no more than 5% of low wage earners income doesn't tell me anything either. Is it an increased co-pay until your costs reach 5% and then you pay nothing?

Discouraging people from going to the ER isn't a bad thing either! The current approach is wrong! It far more expensive to go to an ER than to a local clinic.

When I lived in Texas, there were lots of walk in clinics everywhere. I don't know what the local medicare/medicaid co-pays were, but I went to the closest one and just paid my insurance co-pay. They did an excellent job of seeing patients in a very timely manner, and seemed well staffed.

I also read something in my local Sunday paper that surprised me. It was an insert from CVS Pharmacy. The header was "Minute Clinic is here!"

The copy read "Diagnosis and treatment for common illnesses; prescriptions written when appropriate. Visits take approximately 15 minutes. No appointments neeeded, open 7 days a week.

I don't know anything else about this, but it sounds like it might be a step in the right direction.

Geez.

The guy heads a panel trying to rein in costs of Medicare, the very future of which is being theatened by cost increases. The panel recommends raising the copay from three dollars to some higher number.

And due to that, he's being labelled as some of heartless Republican bastard?

Jesus Christ, you can't even put faith in political rants any more.

They don't have a 'copay'. A typical doctor's visit runs around $75.00 plus the cost of medicine. That wouldn't include any 'tests', return visits, or followups. God forbid the doctor actually finds something wrong that needs hospitalization at $300.00+ per day.

"Lots of 'walk-in clinics" are run by for-profit businesses--they don't do 'charity'. In many states, including Texas, virtually the only way for many without insurance or the ability to afford a visit to a private doctor is a county hospital (paid for by local taxes) and tasked with treating whoever walks in off the street.

Obviously, you've never been without insurance or you'd know a little more about the desperate plight of families with children in this situation.

vulnerable ones among us. I can't understand anyone voting for this. Did he/they think the Federal Government was going to provide what the states didn't want to?
John Kerry actually has a good initiative called, Kid's First, that would help out the states with their costs while insuring the children and it is paid for by rolling back the tax cuts given to the wealthy by Bush. More information is available on John Kerry's web site.

And you can also go to Governor Warner's website and ask him questions if you'd like him to clarify--- http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/

This place is going loonie...

That hasn't been plugged around here lately. Just doing my part.

Oh my God.... he wants to reduce benefits in the CHIPs program? Are you kidding? TX Leg did that 2 years ago..... CHIP rolls have declined by over 130,000 poor children since 2002.

The cuts were so egregious that even Republicans voted against the Repub who wrote the bill (she was handily defeated when running for Congress in Texas). Even Carol Keeton McClelland Strayhorn (yeah Scotty's Mom) who's the comptroller in Texas opposed it.

You cannot imagine what a bad idea this is.... rolled out first by Bush's handpicked crony Governor "Goodhair' Rick Perry.

The Ft. Worth Star Telegram said ""Texas health officials insist that they want to provide health care for the "truly needy," with an emphasis on prevention that reduces the need for medical services. It boggles the mind, though, how anyone might think that this can be accomplished by eliminating services and cutting back on those eligible for state-federal coverage through the Children's Health Insurance Program." --Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial, April 9, 2004. "

This certainly isn't good DEMOCRATIC policy, I don't care who 'supports' it.