Say "Yes" to Kids & "No" to Bush

What is more basic than providing health care for children? Nothing, you might think. Yet, in America today, 9 million children live without health insurance. Nearly 70 percent of the children without health insurance have at least one parent who is employed. This is just not right. In a country that spends more per capita on health care than any other nation in the world, to leave so many families without access to health care for their kids is worse than bad social policy. It is morally indefensible.

Before Congress left town earlier this month, they threw a lifeline to those families. Both the House and the Senate voted to extend the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), a vitally important federal effort to provide health insurance to families when their income level is so low that they cannot afford private health insurance. But now President Bush is promising a veto.

Basically, S-CHIP provides a safety net for low-income families to ensure that their kids get medical care when they need it. It is cost effective and the right thing to do. What kind of country would we be if we kept any medical care from a child simply because of the size of their parents' paychecks? S-CHIP provides the coverage that allows a family to see a doctor or get preventive care, rather than the far more expensive option of going to an emergency room for their primary health care needs.

Many states have different names for these programs, from KidCare to HealthStart to Child Health Plus. But in each state, regardless of its name, the programs provide poor working families with the kind of medical care that Medicare provides for seniors. More than 3 million American children are currently covered, and both houses of Congress support expanding the coverage to more children. The nation's governors are in favor and so are groups ranging from the Children's Defense Fund to the Catholic Health Association of the United States. Recent polls suggest that nine out of ten Americans support the program. They know it makes sense.

Funding for the plan hasn't kept up with the rising costs of health care. Under a proposal the president supports, S-CHIP funding would stay flat. Given the rate of health care inflation, flat funding means that many children currently enrolled will be forced out and access will be closed to all the other kids who should be covered. We should be expanding the number of children who are in these programs. The president is cutting them instead. We want to cover kids. He wants to cut them off.

The House of Representatives voted $47 billion in new spending on the program to cover 5 million more poor kids in America. While the Senate bill provides $35 billion, it covers 2 million fewer children. The House bill is better, of course, because it covers more kids. The House bill has an added bonus. It offsets the additional costs by cutting a wrong-headed Medicare privatization scheme that was set up to give profiteering insurance companies more of the dollars we're spending on senior health care. That give-away to the insurance industry costs taxpayers $1,000 more per beneficiary each year than traditional Medicare does. So the House protects seniors, kids and taxpayers, all at the same time.

Now is the time to let your senators and representative know that you firmly support the House proposal and oppose any effort to curtail the access of poor kids to quality and cost-effective health care. If George W. Bush and the insurance industry win this battle, millions of kids will have no health coverage. We face a stark choice: Will we stand for the needs of our kids or will we allow President Bush to veto their access to health care? Will you take action today?

Comments

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

THANK YOU for distilling this issue down to brass tacks.

I sincerely hope the issue helps the masses awake from their collective political coma, but the realist in me says they will continue to slumber.

I'm reminded of a tshirt I saw in Key West: Working people that support Republicons are like chickens that support Colonel Sanders.

[rwoodsathome]

You forgot to mention that the states are trying to implement rules (NY and CA for instance) that would expand CHIP to families making $80,000.

CHIP was established to assist the poor. 80K is not poor even in CA and NY. If CA and NY think it is they should throw their own state money at the problem. I for one, don't want my tax money to subsidize the middle class.

[yellowdogSC]

rwood,

Depends on the size of the family.

That's part of the calculation, I understand.

(200%/poverty level for area, based on family size, yada, yada).

For someone in the valley having just lost job AND insurance, unable to relocate to less expensive area while forced by mortgage to spend barrels o' cash, with 4/5 kids, and OUTRAGEOUS COBRA for parents only, I can believe that number is valid. That would NOT be middle class in such a situation. Also, bear in mind the parents are almost certainly paying $1000+/month for their own insurance.

Actually, I'm sort of pleased to find out the government MIGHT just be smart enough (at long last) to be this detailed in assessing need.

Thanks.

[rwoodsathome]

You described someone in the 'valley' who is way over his head in debt. Has a house too large for his wallet and certainly was more interested in 'today' than 'tomorrow'.
CHIP is not for this family. It is for the poor - not the over-extended.
Besides, if the state thinks this is typical of their state they can throw in STATE MONEY to make up the difference.
Again, I am willing to send my tax money to Washington to help the poor - not the irresponsible.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Correction, you're not real pleased to pay your fair share for the government that the majority has created, PERIOD.

Except for in the slums, $80,000/year buys the same lifestyle in NYC that $30,000 buys in my town. Here, if you have a $30,000 job with no health insurance you're one sneeze away from the Bankruptcy Court.

[oldpotsmuggler]

The reports I've seen about the proposed legislation leave me with one major reservation. It appears like there is an intention to make cigarette smokers bear the cost of the wonderful program either singlehandedly, or at least to a disproportionate degree.

Here's an idea. Why don't we just confiscate all of the assets, and capture the entire future income stream of anyone who is still misguided enough to be hooked on smokes on 9-1-07? Once we've spent all of their money, we can either deicde to do the same thing with other "sin taxes", or maybe the rest of us can just agree to pay our fair share.

[yellowdogSC]

OlPoSm,

DISCLOSURE: My family has raised tobacco almost exclusively for nearly 250 years.

I would imagine if the cigarette companies had simply paid the assessed penalties as an appropriate price for lying and killing "I do NOT believe cigarettes are addictive" or republican "activist judges" hadn't screwed with court DECISIONS because Mr. bUSH made their hearts go pitty-pat, smokers wouldn't be at issue now.

I believe you implicitly, but could you please send me link(s)? You've made me EXTREMELY interested in this. Something about "the sins of the fathers" that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around (except in the context of good ol' fascism, of course.)

Of course I've always been willing to pay my share. But since "the larger the group, the lower the price", I can't pay for a group of just ONE.

You say "disproportionate". Is there any sort of gauge or calculation for this determination?

Are any other sins from my short list included?:
Speeding
Overeating
Fried foods
Too much sugar
Red meat
Green meat
Too much alcohol
Too much caffeine
Too little fruits and veggies
NOT ENOUGH FIBRE!!!
RLS (while driving)
Dangerous situations/Bars/Drunk friends (ex-friends)
Too little sleep
Unlocked guns in the house
Too much stress
Not enough exercise
Not enough hygiene
Solitude
Excessive time on roads
Multitasking while driving

Thanking you in advance. (Must add THAT to my list....)

[oldpotsmuggler]

Sorry. It was in my local paper a few weeks back. In an attempt to be "revenue neutral" the House was proposing a fifty cents per pack increase in the federal tobacco tax and adding more kids. The Senate was going for a smaller tax increase ($.25?) and adding fewer kids.

No one else on your hit list, but there's still time for us to get them all for something. Users fees, impact fees. Anything but "let's just decide the amount of government we want and set taxes at the level needed to pay for it."

[Rosanneofpgh]

chimpy is a total waste as a president, commander in chief and most especially as a human being.

What an ugly, ugly person.

God will get him in the end. I pray that he will be made to suffer as much as the troops, Iraqis and poor people are suffering.

[Orphandog]

Right on! This President has done a lot of harmful things to our country, but denying poor kids health insurance is beyond the pale. I'm counting the days until this guy is gone.