CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in More on the threatened veto…

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Lula May — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:57:54 -0000

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Lula May — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:49:30 -0000

Chicago Tonight w/Carol Marin was very interesting. Everyone agreed the state of Illinois has never experienced such a polarizing governor. To find someone with Rod's governing style you would have to go to Louisiana and Huey Long. Sad

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Marbley — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:58:56 -0000

It is late I know. I just got back from the Statefair. However Rich I think you are a wanted man for your knowledge of the State Government. Has anyone ever asked you to work for them? Great Job!

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Lainer — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:42:40 -0000

Just My Opinion has a good point... if doctors don't take any Medicaid/All Kids patients, their citizenship status isn't going to matter one way or another. Which proves my point that the notion that these new programs constitute some kind of gravy train for illegal aliens is highly exaggerated.

I understand why hard-working middle-class people who see their taxes constantly going up, and who struggle to pay for health insurance, education and other goods, resent those whom they think are getting a "free ride" at their expense. But the fact is, the poor aren't getting anywhere near the "free ride" people think they are.

Again, it should be obvious to everyone involved that the IDEA of making health insurance and preventive care more accessible to lower- and middle-income individuals is not the problem. It's the WAY it's being done -- by a chronically untrustworthy governor with little or no respect for the legislative process and a long history of broken promises, in a state mired in debt, already unable to pay for the health programs it has.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

daa — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:39:34 -0000

Come on rs you lost, 4 1/2 years later and your still not over it, and which way do you want it if he gets a long with the speaker you say he's giving everything to Chicago if he goes against the speaker thats terrible also you cant have it both ways but you still lost and whether they all get along or not you still cant beat anyone of them in an election you are facing a longer dry spot than the cubs

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Chicago Cynic — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:05:52 -0000

Steve,

I agree with you which is why I've been saying Rod will probably get away with this move. In order for it not to go forward, someone will have to sue (since Emil said he won't override). Who wants to sue to stop heathcare for middle income women? Now that's a platform I wouldn't want to run on.

People get excited and often miss the bigger picture and the long view.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

steve schnorf — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:50:43 -0000

I guess I just don't see how you hurt yourself politically by offering mammograms to uninsured women. I generally try to be tolerant, but I would have a hard time understanding a person who thought that was a bad idea. I think I wouldn't want to run for any office on either (sorry Squid) parties ticket with that position as part of my platform.

Perhaps someone will educate me as to why it should be opposed.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Just My Opinion — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:22:57 -0000

Hastert for Governor????

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:47:09 -0000

Boy Daley not only blasted the Gov. At the same press conference he had high praises for Hastert. Denny could work with everyone and always took care of Chicago a democratic city.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Southern Right — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:41:54 -0000

I'll take a different position now. I strongly believe that programs that give paps, mamagrams, PSA exams, and all immunizations would be a tremendous benefit for all concerned. I think we should have some additional help for diabetics and their needed treatments. Give it away to everyone. Insurance premiums will drop. Overall health will improve. It will free up doctors time on items a nurse could do. We also could use a dose of transparency aka Pennsylvannias website that lists billing charges by hospitals, doctors, and labs. These are the types of programs our state or federal government can help lower costs. Just buying votes by proposing over priced under utilized programs is morally criminal.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Just My Opinion — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:05:53 -0000

Blah Blah may think he needs $500M to fund his insurance program but he will actually need close to $0 if he cannot come up with medical providers who will take patients. I used to be of the opinion that Illinois would become a haven for illegals with this program but I don't see that happening if even they can't find a doctor to see them. What will happen is that the ER's will become more and more crowded because that will be the only avenue people with this State program will have. And if you have recently been to an emergency room, it is very frustrating getting your 94 year old insured mother's breathing problems diagnosed and treated because of the huge overcrowding situation with uninsured and homeless people using the ER's as their only source of medical care. It's the ER employees I feel sorry for.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Southern Right — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:13:17 -0000

ZC The jury is in on Ma. Romney guessed $200 a month for premiums. It's actually $370. That happened in less than six months. Mass has postponed the start of the plan to late 2008. Sometime after November! Get it. It hasn't been done successfully yet. Blagojevichs plan can't con doctors back in after Allkids, it's DOA. Repeat after me "You must have competition"

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Lainer — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:47:47 -0000

Forgive me if this sounds naive or uninformed, but why the obsession with illegal aliens?

Now PLEASE don't get me wrong, I DO NOT endorse illegal immigration in any way and I agree it's a serious problem. But come on, are they really sucking up THAT much of Illinois' healthcare dollars? In border states like Texas, California, Arizona -- yes, I could see where they might have become an overwhelming burden on the system. But has that happened in Illinois yet?

I just wonder if anyone has evidence from some reasonably objective source that this healthcare expansion is 1) primarily aimed at covering illegal aliens and 2) that illegal aliens really do comprise a significant percentage of current Medicaid/All Kids/whatever clients. If anyone has such figures I'd like to know. Otherwise it sounds like just another pretext to blame illegal aliens for everything that's wrong with this country.

I agree that government healthcare subsidies and other benefits ought to be reserved for citizens and LEGAL immigrants. But I get a little tired of the way some conservatives paint illegal aliens as the root of all evil. That's just my opinion.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:31:06 -0000

Now not only will we pay for health care for illegal alien children like Allkids does, we will pay for health care for illegal aliens of all ages!!!

Re: More on the threatened veto…

amy — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:20:02 -0000

Rich, thank you very much.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Former JCAR Staffer — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:05:15 -0000

The JCAR ladder is more horizontal than it is vertical, but I was there long enough to work on some significant rules but not quite long enough to be irreparably jaded. I got out as soon as I could, but I was engaged with the members to know that they are not solely rubber stamps.

Reasonable people may differ on that assessment, but in my 2 1/2 years there, I saw more integrity in that process than I did in the legislative process itself.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

One who knows — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:53:51 -0000

I think that the "pork" Cassandra is referring to are the project like the ones purchasing 50,000 chairs for a church daycare (that only services 50 children - you do the math) or the thousands of dollars dropped into silk plants at a Chicago museum a few years ago. As a parent, I agree that I am concerned about maintaining healthcare, and our family insurance is quite costly. When I asked around for doctors who would accept the state's healthcare plan for my child if I put him on it, I only found one doctor of the 50 I spoke with that would even consider it. What good is his healthcare plan doing Illinois anyway? Why would we want to expand it if doctor's won't see the kids who are on it now?

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Jaded — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:41:36 -0000

Former JCAR staffer,
Not sure how high you were on the JCAR ladder, but JCAR members vote how their leaders tell them to vote. That is why they are appointed to JCAR (by their leaders).

Re: More on the threatened veto…

ZC — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:39:19 -0000

TennCare's failures may have more to do with managed care, but there's also Washington state's universal efforts in 1993, Hawaii in 1994, and Oregon's efforts to get closer in 2002. The jury is still out on CA and MA.

I'm all for universal health coverage. But the efforts of states to provide it on their own has not been a hopeful one of late. This seems a fight best left to the federal level. Another reason to back Madigan in this whole charade.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:33:59 -0000

So... the Senate is on perfunctory sessions only until further notice, probably until veto session, and so is the House. That's it? The session just sort of sputtered to a halt? This doesn't count as an adjournment, I presume, so no prizes for anyone who guessed Aug. 15 as an adjournment date? lol

Re: More on the threatened veto…

dc — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:30:49 -0000

Cassandra - what specific pork projects do you mean? Are you referring to sprinkler systems for schools to protect kids? Do you mean updated sewer projects to protect the public water supply? Do you mean ambulances to increase response time for patients of cardiac arrest? It's easy to label things as "pork" (and there are some things that could be described as less vital than others) but take it easy on the paintbrush of pork labels. Many of the items you call "pork" are directly or indireclty related to preserving life and health -- some would argue a better use of money than a state-run system that puts money in the hands of doctors and insurance companies (and eventually, trial lawyers).

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Cassandra — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:16:12 -0000

A universal health care system doesn't have to be run directly by the government. We don't have to turn into France in Illinois (although the French are, I believe, healthier than we are on standard measures such as infant mortality, life expectancy, little things like that) and there is the option of subsidizing Illinois resident workers so they can buy insurance at reasonable rates (for their income level) on the private market regardless of prior medical history, age and so on.

Let's not confuse universal health care with universal state-run health care.

As to the costs--why not spend the state's zillions on a healthier citizenry. It's certainly as important as "pork projects" or even state employee pensions. Maybe even as important as education, although the education-industrial complex would have us believe otherwise.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

steve schnorf — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:40:42 -0000

Rich, it may have changed in the past 3 or 4 years, I don't know, but in the past it was pretty common for the BIMPs to have language critical to the budget assumptions on which the budget being passed was based actually happening (e.g., extending the Medicaid long term care rate freeze, transferring funds out of special funds, adjusting how much road Fund money could be used for non-road spending, etc)

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Just My Opinion — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:15:19 -0000

In 2010, we are going to be saying Bye Bye Blago. He will not be running for Prez in 2012 because our Prez at that time will either be Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama and they will be halfway through their 8 year term. By the time 2016 comes around, Blago will be a convicted felon (perhaps still jailed) and ineligible of running for U.S. President, ever! No Macbeth, Peter PressRelease has definitely risen to his highest level of incompetence. Hollywood and NYC money will not be behind him for another election.

Re: More on the threatened veto…

Silly Question? — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:14:23 -0000

sorry for the double post - technical glitch