Up to 40,000 low-income adults may lose Basic Health (state of Washington)

Tens of thousands of Washington's working poor may soon lose their state-subsidized health insurance with a lauded program facing drastic cuts.

Legislators and program boosters are preparing for the worst after Gov. Gary Locke said earlier this week that, barring a tax increase, it's possible as many as 40,000 low-income adults will lose health-care coverage under the state's Basic Health Plan.

The numbers come as Locke finalizes his proposal to deal with a projected $1.6 billion shortfall over the next two years. Locke, who leaves office in January, is due to release his proposed budget Dec. 16. It probably will serve as a launching point for the new Legislature and new governor.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002109108_basichealth04m.html

And it looks like that will happen next month.

Their only goal is to force women to give birth ... no matter what.

Once the child is born, pro-lifers give a f*ck about him/her.

that's their term for it. Call them anti-choice, or I saw another good one here, pro-forced birth. I'm sure that there's many more good ones but pro-life definitely isn't applicable. As you say, they don't care if the people starve or have health care after they are born.

I usually prefer to call them anti-choice. Pro-forced birth is pretty accurate, too.

The hypocrisy of it all is that they call themselves pro-life, but they are actually supporting policies that are killing people.

With Bush's policies, more people were pushed into poverty. Economic hardship is frequently the reason for women to have an abortion. And with the war on Iraq, thousands of American soldiers had to die needlessly. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi babies, mothers, and fathers were killed. Lots of the elderly have to chose between food and medication, which puts them at risk of dying early. They are trying to keep teens stupid with their abstinence only programs. Some of these teens have to find out what risks are associated with unprotected sex the hard way.

We already had 45+ million without health coverage. Now, that number is going to go up, up, up!!!

"Pro-death after birthers" will respond: it's American's fault for being to lazy to get a job. (I'd call that very anti-American).

Of course, "a job" that pays a "living wage" and provides health benefits DOESN'T EXIST! But, the "Pro-death after birthers" will respond: There are jobs to be had and Americans should take whatever they can get. (I'd call that pro-slavery to corporations).

You're either "anti-criminalization" or "pro-criminalization." We definitely need to reframe the debate, I'm tired of the knuckledraggers defining the arguments!

I also like "pro-forced birth"... good one!

n/t

their values now, do we?

(Sarcasm off)

:scared:

THIRTY PERCENT PROFIT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES MAKE WHY DO YOU THINK HEY CALL IT A HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY?

of what happened in Mississippi with Barbour

In my rural WA community a church started a charitable clinic - one day a week. They did this because local doctors would not take any new Medicare patients.
They have been swamped, but not by Medicare patients. They range in age from the 20's through the 50's.
The doctor has found many people with chronic illness out of control - diabetes and blood pressure to name two.
They have added an additional day of the week to be open.

Now let's see:
I carried medical insurance for 27 years, paying the full premium myself for 20 of those years.
Chronic illness kept me from working with no money for medical insurance.
Basic Health saved the day.
Next stop - Charity Clinic.

Why shouldn't people leave this f*&#ing country.

It's the old domino theory, bush style.

Pro-birth people, heads up! Your kids will not be taken care of, either, because people are running out of money for charity, too.

H Barbour is right on track. 65,000 face cuts. From NOW-

MOYERS: Under the old Medicaid rules, an elderly or disabled person couldn't have an income above $12,600 a year. Under the new rules, the limit will be around $6,800 a year. In other words, if you make more than $564 a month, you're out of luck.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript329_full.html

:eyes:

Otherwise, may I ask how you expect the working poor to save for anything?

But I surely hope I'm right and you were just being sarcastic. I found out the HARD WAY that you have to let people know that with a signal. Like <sarcasm off> at the end of your message. I've been attacked a time or two for not making that apparent (and it was my fault for not stating what I thought would be obvious). Just a little tip to avoid responses like this where it's not obvious.

If I'm going to post something like that seriously, I'm not sure the folks on freerepublic would even buy that. Let's just say, I'm not sold on the health savings accounts........................... because it's a stupid idea!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=184&topic_id=2325&mesg_id=2325
Did this work?

and only ONE of them has a part-time job. They decided to "get pregnant" anyway. They go to church and pray to Jesus every week.
Well, there were massive complications with the pregnancy and birth. The mother almost died (her body was rejecting the baby), and the baby and mother were hospitalized in intensive care for a month. The cost is about a million dollars so far( University of Washington, specialists, etc.)
She said that she paid "taxes" from the 2 years she worked in retail and now it was pay-back time. She has signed up for every government program there is.
Even though they had NO resources when conceiving their child, they went ahead anyway as it must be "God's Will".
Personally, I am disgusted that I and every other taxpayer in the state of Washington has to pay for this irresponsible family that will continue to be a drain on our social services. They feel it is a right!
Bottom line.......if you can't afford to have a family, then do not make babies. I DO NOT want to pay for YOUR kid..........period!

There's a family of sextuplets (6) here in Pennsylvania that have been living on donations lately because daddy's out of work and can't find another job no matter where he applies to (they also have two other kids). In the beginning they were getting the usual "ooh, six adorable kids...let's all buy them stuff" treatment, but now that reality has set in and the spiffs have dried up, they're finding it tough.

My guess is nobody wants to deal with the health insurance nightmare so that's why they don't want to hire him.

what's the bad part, in your eyes? that she prays every week or that she didn't die when her body tried to reject the baby?

Where did I say anything about wanting anyone to die? Your attack was uncalled for.
The only thing Sunday morning has to do with it is that I just saw them drive by on their way to church, in their pick-up truck, dogs in the back, "support our troops" ribbon and a "Bush 04" sticker on the bumper.
More facts about this couple:
She voluntarily QUIT her job 2 years ago because it meant she had to work on Sundays (she therefore chose a financial situation as a religious one)
Her doctor warned her beforehand a pregnancy would be difficult and possibly life-threatening because of her physical condition. (turned out to be the case)
The guy is 25 years old, 6'4 farm-boy build and only wants to work part-time
After they were down to one part-time income they go to the food bank regularly.
They admit they can't feed their dogs premium dog food because they have no money (they buy the cheapest non-nutritional grocery store crap there is)
These are choices they have made.
All good societies have safety nets for the disadvantaged.This is how it should be for people who through no fault of their own are struggling. I do contribute to the food bank and donate firewood to senior citizens (mostly widows on Social Security only for their sole income).I believe in helping people who are making an attempt.
But..........when young physically able people choose not to get a job,(quit the ones they have), knowingly, deliberately conceive high-risk babies when they have no money or resources and do this with the INTENT of having Welfare pick up the tab, this is irresponsible.
Is this how you conduct your affairs?
They say it is "God's will" No, it was theirs.
Why do you think I am off-base here?

The story at the head of this thread--& your rant--remind everybody that there are stingy Republicans in every state.

Yes, getting pregnant in the situation you describe was probably unwise. That doesn't mean the woman & her baby should have just died to save your precious tax money.