It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to the Hawaii Reporter, the state administration was concerned about the Keiki Care Plan’s enrollment process because it didn’t make sure that children were ineligible for Medicaid and its superior benefits.
The screen said “Hawaii’s Budget Ax” and anchor Heidi Collins reported that, “For the past seven months it’s been the only state in the nation to offer universal healthcare for children. Now that program is being dropped.”
The program was a public-private partnership with Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA), which will pay to cover the children through the end of 2008.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by mikerussellus
I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
But to answer your point about the article:
According to the Hawaii Reporter, the state administration was concerned about the Keiki Care Plan’s enrollment process because it didn’t make sure that children were ineligible for Medicaid and its superior benefits.
The state of hawaii wasn't doing its job.
The screen said “Hawaii’s Budget Ax” and anchor Heidi Collins reported that, “For the past seven months it’s been the only state in the nation to offer universal healthcare for children. Now that program is being dropped.”
The program was a public-private partnership with Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA), which will pay to cover the children through the end of 2008.
Then it wasn't totally public plan.
The program seems to resemble MCHIP, which works just fine all throught the United States.
Originally posted by Gateway
reply to post by mental modulator
Ahhhhh no...
What planet are YOU living in?
"68% of American voters have health-insurance coverage they rate good or excellent."
I'm not too good at math, but isn't that A MAJORITY?
online.wsj.com...
[edit on 14-8-2009 by Gateway]
Originally posted by mental modulator
Once again it is the duty of the lender to assess the borrowers risk -
Keep shilling you lobbyist you
Originally posted by Gateway
Originally posted by mental modulator
Once again it is the duty of the lender to assess the borrowers risk -
So lenders should STOP people from borrowing, because they see interest rate go down? Great logic here...
Here you show your ignorance and lack of basic economics. People when prices for anything goes down people BUY more of it. Interest rates is the PRICE of MONEY. If they are distorted down, like they were by the FED, WHAT ELSE DO YOU THINK A rational person is not going to do. NOT BORROW?
Do you OWN any assets? Do you own a house or a car? If interest rates are forced will you not, borrow?
By the way, as far as assessing lending, how is a lender supposed to assess risk, when he's forced to lend to those least qualified by imposed legislation like the "Community Reinvestment Act"?
Keep shilling you lobbyist you
keep, being a Central Banker apologist. Maybe Greenspan or Bernanke can give offer you a job, since you seem pretty good at liking the State's Boot.
[edit on 15-8-2009 by Gateway]
So LET me get this straight? I work 5 to 6 days a week, 70 to 80 hours. And I'm being greedy for wanting to keep more of my OWN INCOME? Boy, you have no idea of what selfishness is.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Me Mine Me Mine.
Why is it greed that people want to keep a portion of their income.
don't complain that the younger generation does nothing but care about themselves. It is already starting to happen.
Complete and whole and equal opportunities for people, will I agree that people should keep what is theirs.
Now what are you taking about?
When there is no more discrimination of sex, religion, age, and sexual preference.
Yes, those are called UNIONS. Get rid of them.
When there is no more good ol boys club that keep people out of jobs.
Yes, so let's keep granting the STATE ever more POWER. Since they definitely are not a bunch of TASER happy, quick to shoot, jack-boot group of thugs.
When people are not unjustly arrested and prosecuted for the above mentioned.
Can't help you out here, these are social and cultural influences.
When families no longer have a parent abandoning them.
Yes, get rid of affirmative action and racial quotas and alumni preferences. Then you'll have people who merit going to college attending.
When people can afford to go to college based on merit and not ability to pay.
Well, then if this is a problem. Don't blame the market for this, PUBLIC schools are PUBLIC schools. The problem here ONCE again, is the STATE BEING involved.
When people of minorities are not told they are not going to amount to anything in school.
Now what are you talking about? You think most of the layoffs have been ONLY on people with disabilities?
When people are not terminated based on disablility and getting hurt on the job.
People already have access to that. The MAJORITY of people in the UNITED STATES have insurance AND ARE OKAY with it.
When people have access to the mental health care and crisis services they need to function.
Yes....there's NOT enough people dependent on legal not to mention illegal drugs. How many kids, in this country are prescribed Riddelen for so much as being on sugar highs. Don't you think we have TOO many people being placed on DRUGS, by a DRUG HAPPY pharmaceutical industry...all to happy to provide the solutions to YOUR PROBLEMS at the bottom of jar of pills.
When there is no more rampent undiagnosed mental illness.
Now you're talking about never never land....
When illegal drugs are completely eliminated.
So I take it that you have not been allowed to go to college even though you vastly intelligent, then you were not allowed to get the job you were qualified to get because someone hired their buddy instead of you, then once you got the job, you were discriminated on because you had some disability.
Then, and only then, will I say your post rings true. Then that would mean that every American would have equal, unhindered access to employment and education. And your statement that what I worked for is mine, will stand true.
Seems to me that you want something ONLY If its payed for BY EVERYONE ELSE, and you don't even know it.
Fact is, you may just well have at the expense of another, and you don't know it.