- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- 2010 Elections
- |
- Health Care
- |
- Iraq
- |
 |
||
In the next week, we expect Congress to put legislation expanding the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) on President Obama's desk. With his signature our new president will take care of unfinished business from the last Congress and expand health coverage to approximately 4 million. He will be righting one egregious wrong of President Bush who vetoed this legislation two years ago, while also providing critically needed financial help to states. But this CHIP legislation designed for passage during the Bush administration is neither the comprehensive child health reform truly needed in 2009 nor President Obama's promise of health coverage for every child in America.
Once Congress enacts the CHIP expansion, we hope it will move to the next chapter on child health care in America and make the president's promise a reality. We say this as individuals who have been big supporters of CHIP since its inception and have worked tirelessly to extend coverage to more and more children. CHIP was important legislation passed in 1997 that expanded health coverage to millions of children over the past 11 years. But now is the time to enact real health care reform that will provide coverage to every child in America.
With the legislation President Obama will sign into law this month, 5-6 million children will still be without any health coverage and millions more will remain under-insured with coverage that falls short of meeting children's health needs. Children are subject to a 50-state lottery of geography in which some states to do well for children and others not. Six million of the nine million uninsured children currently eligible for CHIP or children's Medicaid are not enrolled because many states have adopted policies and procedures that block coverage or make it very difficult. A child will lose eligibility in North Dakota if his parents earn more than 150% of the federal poverty level while in twelve states and D.C., families can earn twice that amount and still be covered. Alaska and Illinois have a 12-month waiting period for some children to get coverage, and Mississippi, Utah, and Kentucky require onerous face-to-face meetings to get or keep coverage. States can even decide not to cover critical dental, vision, and mental health services. And in this economic downturn, at least 19 states have cut or are considering cutting services to children.
One thing we've learned over the years is that children must have comprehensive, guaranteed coverage that does not differ from state to state. And we certainly don't want to prolong a system where children lose access to affordable health care on their 19th birthday and have to wait until they're 65 and eligible for Medicare before they have health security. CHIP's strengths and weaknesses can become guideposts for how to create a sound child health system within overall health care reform that guarantees comprehensive, affordable health coverage to all, including national standards of health benefits that meet each person's age-appropriate needs. The cost of coverage should be based on family income without financial barriers that discourage people from getting needed care. The coverage system should include rules to assure that health insurance companies are not allowed to charge higher rates for coverage based on a person's age or health status or because a woman is of child-bearing age. And we believe we should offer Americans a choice of private or public health coverage to assure everyone access to a health plan that is accountable to public health and not to increasing profits. Each of these principles is included in the health care plan that President Obama championed while campaigning.
When Congress places the CHIP expansion bill on President Obama's desk, it will be completing the unfinished business of the last Congress. We must now move forward with real health care reform for all children - and for everyone in America - in 2009. With his signature, President Obama will be taking a first step towards fulfilling his campaign promise of affordable, accessible health care for all in 2009.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Sometimes I wonder if anyone cares about health or if everyone just wants doctors to fix your problems and to do it for cheap or even better free.
I always counsel my patients about the importance of eating right which means making your own meals, not Marie Calendar's. Most people nod and agree and give me the yeah, yeah, look.
Then, one such guilty party lost her health insurance. Now she's interested in knowing what I recommend she cook.
Hmmmm.
drcate
drcate.com
What is mind numbingly hilarious, is that these government genius' want to pay for this on the backs of smokers...
So what happens when only the very wealthy can afford to smoke, and the coffers run dry?
What will be taxed into oblivion next?
A bunch of spoiled, rich, inept jokers are running this country...
Just issue all the kids a DD-214, and let them get treated at any one of hundreds of hospitals and clinics run by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
See "Universal Health care - Hawaii.
How embarrassing it is that in the United States citizens who do not have the stress and worry of obtaining good health care are those in either abject poverty or the wealthy.
Lack of proper health care is putting further stress on the system for the poor and causing more worry and deaths to the American People.
We are pushing the Middle Class further into poverty and heading towards an economic society of two classes - rich and poor.
In a civilized world, in this great nation, ALL our citizens should have, at least, the same basic health care and protections as Europeans, Israelis and Canadians.
CHIP (didn’t it used to be called S-CHIP) is nothing more than a marketing ploy. The C stands for Children (maybe that’s why they got rid of the S. Cut to the chase). What they don’t tell you is that Medicaid already covered children. They also don’t tell you although a stated goal is to provide health insurance to uninsured children, 60% of those in the program already had health insurance, i.e. they switched from private care. They also fail to mention that in some states, over 50% of the money goes to adults. Sounds like another well thought out government program.
They (the federal politicians) could have actually changed Medicaid to accommodate this expense. Of course, then were would the “what about the children” argument be?
If you own a car/ house.. you dont qualify for Medicaid..
If you have cash coming in then the amt you pay goes up....
Medicaid serves those with no income/no assets...a
I own healthcare centers... Most fine that once they get seroiusly sick, if you are the wage earner... that their heatlhcare will go away for them and their family... they are no longer covered by their employer..
Its not that the US does not spend enough on healthcare
Its that the insurance companies which treat no one get 30-50% and we pay 2-5 times for the same driug as the rest of the world.. Go to single payer and get rid of this middleman (insurance company).S
Regards
Medicaid does whatever is legislated. It was not necessary to create a brand program (with the word children in it) to cover children. The medicare program could have easily been altered, but covering children is not the goal. Having a program that politicians can point to as being "for the children" is the goal.
"Go to single payer and get rid of this middleman (insurance company)." Yes, but you add this middleman, the government. The same middleman that currently disallows you to buy drugs in a foreign country and bring them back (causing our extremely high drug prices). The same middleman that gives employers a huge tax break to pay for insurance (actually making your hated middleman used more than it otherwise would be) which raises the price we pay for healthcare.
The difference between insurance companies and government is not profit. Insurance companies is money, but politicians is political. One is quantifiable, the other is not. The big difference is competition and voluntary exchange. Insurance companies are entities that we use voluntarily and that compete with each other for our resources. The government is a monopoly that uses force to take our resources for whatever political purpose they desire. Our only choice in the matter is the flavor of politician that is going to take our resources.
Adding more children to the government dole is not going to help the health care system.
Physicians, hospitals, and clinics get reimbursed at rates lower than their expenses for Medicaid (30% below costs), Medicare (10% below costs), and other programs (like SCHIP). Several states don't pay Medicaid for several months at a time, if at all.
We need a two-tier health care system:
1) a national network of state, county, and rural hospitals, clinics, and physicians subsidized by the government (financially and with free electronic medical records and bulk purchasing discounts) in exchange for accepting Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs (such as SCHIP)
2) a private network of hospitals, clinics, and physicians free to set their own rates in order to recoup their costs, and free to negotiate with insurance companies for fair reimbursements for services, instead of the current system (as in California) where insurance companies can set their own arbitrary low rates and protected by law in doing so
If we don't institute such a two-tiered system now, health care will continue to crumble. This year.
Why is healthcare a responsibility of the fed govt? What part of the Constitution gives congress the power to take money from one American and spend it to benefit another American? Why not let the states decide on their own how much care they will give if any?
It's disturbing that even the facade the Dems used to have about not wanting to control every aspect of our lives is slipping away. The writers lament that upon turning 19 people may lose the govt mandated healthcare until they turn 65. Let's just scrape the terms medicare and medicaide and call it what it is, cradle to grave dependency on the govt.
The pricing scheme dreamed up by these two is horrifing in its own right. Insurance premiums to be determined solely on a financial basis with no respect to age or health of the patient. Old, sick people use more healthcare than young, healthy people. It's not fair but that is the way it is. So instead of having only the high risk people pay more let's raise the rates of the healthy.
Lastly if I don't want to pay for insurance and would rather keep my money in my pocket and run the risk of getting sick and paying for it myself, why can't I? Why should some govt bureaucrat decide for me how I'm going to spend my money? If I can't make this determination on my own how is this different than stealing my money from me?
"What part of the Constitution gives congress the power to take money from one American and spend it to benefit another American?" The progressive part.
The best part about universal healthcare is that once the government provides healthcare they'll have the right to tell you how to live so that you're "healthy". After all, they're paying for your healthcare.
Don't they already tell you how to be healthy, and try to prevent you harming yourself?
But your argument is really a slippery slope fallacy - even the most covered countries haven't instituted forced health monitoring on their citizens. It is imaginable ( I can imagine it) but it is a long way off. Just getting people working at all is the main issue at the moment.
What does it say about us as a nation and more importantly us as a people and human beings that we are willing to stand by and watch our neighbors and our neighbor's children be ill and possibly die just because we don't want to pay more taxes. SHAME
You don't think there is any shame in taking people's resources against their will. If you protest after I steal $100 from you and I give $10 to sick child, should you be shamed for not caring about children?
There is something morally wrong about taking money from a poor person and giving to somebody else that is better off, just because the better off person has a child.
"Why is healthcare a responsibility of the fed govt?" You want to shutter all VA hospitals and clinics?
RightWingMarine? This gripe coming from someone who got a paycheck, food, and healthcare, and housing from the federal government. And will get a government burial when he dies.
I so agree, we should cover all the children we can. However, in addition, we should consider all other Americans too. When an uninsured parent provider becomes ill, the family crumbles. I saw on CNBC a women advising people who lose their jobs that the first thing they should make sure of is not to lose their health coverage. Fat chance! Unemployment is often only $800 a month. Health Ins. would take every dime and them some. Most parents will feed their family, and pay for housing, and run the risk of no health coverage. First things first. This country NEEDS single payer health care, especially now. I'll bet that 47million uninsured figure that is mentioned repeatedly is masssively higher now. Not just the unemployed, but the people who have been reduced to part time usually have no coverage. This is a major problem. But, of course those will the big bucks are so afraid it might cost them something, and they have coverage.
I agree, we now have the Autism Epidemic which costs the families directly billions of dollars and tons of heartache, we have the Alzheimer/ BSE epidemic which costs 100 billion per year and we have the TVA failure that has polluted hundreds of miles of rivers... If we had a decent health care system ie UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, maybe we could put these epidemics to rest like we put polio and smallpox to rest...
It is criminally negligent that we give a taxpayer bailout to Wall Street while we are not addressing these healthcare issues...
I did not read this post but I disagree with it because I've been there, done that.
The pols always come up with some incremental change that does nothing to right the capsized health care system but just adds another layer of muck-up to a very mucked up system.
It has been said of Americans that they always do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.
It is time to do the right thing.
I agree completely. If a million people need access to health care lets provide access for one hundred instead and maybe another one hundred after the next election. RUBBISH!
The US Health Care System needs a complete overhaul. It's time for our government to look into how other countries are providing health care for everyone at a much lower cost. For profit health care will never be affordable. Competition between Insurance Companies does not lower the cost of health care. Band Aid solutions to the current system is no fix at all.
"It's time for our government to look into how other countries are providing health care for everyone at a much lower cost." That's easy. Rationing (and a lower GDP helps).
Very good points, but sometimes the method becomes horridly flawed, and ends up to be "worse health care coverage for everyone, not just some."
I was wondering whether it's worth considering the idea of the government paying for medical school tuitions, as well as nursing school, and then having the medical staff receiving salaries, also government paid. Kind of like the public school system. The medical infrastructures could be privately owned, subject to regulation. Medications could be paid for privately, in order to keep the drug companies honest.
It's also worth considering that people should be aware that universal health coverage will basically cost them the same as it does now in insurance premiums, except that it will become mandatory. Like taxes.
Last point...in the event of universal health care, where do the celebrities and uber-rich go? Somehow I don't see them lining up with the rest of us.
It's even worse than in your first sentence, it's actually "bad health care coverage for some". Almost couldn't BE any worse.
And as to the "in the event of universal health care, where do the celebrities and uber-rich go?", they would just do what they always do, pay for private doctors and specialists, out of their pockets. Just because 99.9% of us would benefit by universal health care, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be ANY private medical providers that extremely affluent people could use.
Don't you worry, the rich will always have their PLASTIC SURGEONS..
How kind of you to worry about the rich. Not to worry, they will be OK. They are rich you know.
"Kind of like the public school system." Is this really the model you want to use for healthcare?
President Obama campaigned heavily on the health care issue. I have no doubt that relief from multi aspects are in order with Mr. Obama at the helm. His entire approach at getting things in order and getting things done expediently are calming just to watch. This country will be alright again. By the grace of the Lord, we've come a long way! Obama 2012!!!!!!
It is very important that at the same time costs are brought down more in line with other industrialized nations. Quality needs to stay high. Everybody needs to pay towards the cost. No free lunch on the back of the guy next door.
Conyers has a bill for single payer ready to roll. Too bad it only has 29 co-sponsors.
Polls indicate the people want single payer. But in the "peoples house", only 29 co-sponsors. So who are the Democrats representing?
If the people want it, why don't they enact in one of the 50 states? Won't we all see how wonderful it is and follow suit?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
