"An Aggressive Effort" for Children's Health Insurance
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will take one of the most important actions in this new Congress when it votes to renew and improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
SCHIP currently provides health care coverage for 6.6 million children across America, and its reauthorization preserves existing coverage while expanding desperately needed health coverage to a total of nearly 10 million American children.
The renewal of SCHIP includes investing $35 billion in new funding. These funds are essential in strengthening SCHIP's financing and increasing health care coverage for an additional four million low-income children, all while improving the quality of health care that children receive.
We must take note that this program has the support of the majority of Congress and the American Public. In fact, the only place you can find opposition to providing health care to American children is the White House, as President Bush has made clear his intention to veto SCHIP!
A recent poll by the Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans support expanding the SCHIP program. Additionally, The Hill newspaper reported that a Republican pollster recently found that "62 percent of Republicans favored the $35 billion expansion of the program while 59 percent of GOP voters said they wanted their representative to approve the measure."
Key members of the Republican caucus have also joined in support of this bipartisan legislation. "I am proud to be part of the bipartisan legislation to provide quality health care to millions of uninsured children. We owe it to the future of our nation," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL).
The SCHIP program not only enjoys overwhelming support with the American people and Congress, but with private health care providers and a majority of governors who administer their states' children's health care programs. In fact, the heads of the Republican Governor's and Democratic Governor's Associations issued a joint call for Congressional action, stating, "This effort to enhance the health of children is a bright spot in an otherwise troubled American health care system and we urge your continued support for it, and by extension, our nation's children." Meanwhile, NPR reports that even the Healthcare Leadership Council, which represents private health care providers, has endorsed the bill and thrown its support behind it.
With everyone from the American public, to the nation's governors, to the private insurance industry working together, it is sad to see President Bush as one of the last obstacles to ensuring the health of our nation's children.
I would close by saying this to the President, "America's children must also have a healthy start in life. ... we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need."
Those words remain as true as the first time George W. Bush spoke them in September 2004 at the Republican National Convention.
Friends, President Bush must sign SCHIP into law; the lives of literally millions of American children depend on it.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Socialized medicine is the government takeover of the means of healthcare delivery. In this scenario, government would pay salaries to physicians, nurses, administrators, therapists, technicians, etc. and own the hospitals, long-term care facilities, clinics, etc. This is the British model.
Single-payer universal healthcare is the funding of healthcare services ... delivered by privately-owned healthcare facilities and privately-paid healthcare professionals ... by government. It enables government to act as a centralized healthcare purchaser with the power and accountability system necessary to ensure universal healthcare access, enforce quality and patient safety standards, and take the waste, fraud, and abuse out of the current grub-fest we have now.
Once journalists and politicians are able to confuse the public and obscure the difference between "socialized medicine" and a single payer universal healthcae system ... as they have done for decades ... we are well on our way to retention of some form of the status quo aka insurance-creep, tax incentives, partial coverage for many, and a profit trough for industry special interests.
e mail all your senators and congressmen no health care for everyone by 2009 then No health care for anyone....
why can't everyone in the whole country have health care? can't congress figure out how to make money off it? we already don't trust any of them.what good is health insurance if big business decides who lives and who dies. i agree with if the whole country don't have health care by 2009 then congress and all government employees should lose theirs until we all have the same thing
Why can't we have Universal Healthy Care? Are you simpleminded? We can't afford it! I know that Israel, has universal health care, but that is different.
How different? WEell, they can afford it.
And WE send THEM Billions each year.n Why?
Are they so poor? How can such a poor poor nation like that (or like Costa Rica) afford what we cannot? Aren't we the richest nation?
Oh, so our rich people prefer to have the government spend monmies promoting their interests than wasting it on health care for the rest of us. Makes sense to me! How about you?
Check out my reply post on Page 1 to some other relevant comments on fairness, comparing the Canadian system to the US. Sorry, I should have posted it at the bottom here.
Rep. Slaughter,
May God bless you and yours. That is what I call pro-life and pro-family.
The religious right and the Rethugs are criminals and full of lies.What they call pro-life is only pro-death for profits. political power, and dominion and domination over the lives of others who just don't exactly follow their ideological mindset of death and dominion over others.
And my religion, but not me, is at the very center of this cabal of horrors. But then why should that surprise me when I remember the Galileo episode, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and most especially it's endorsement of Hitler and the Holocaust. So what else is new.
The Church neve gets it right, it only gets and endorses right wingerism and it's death agenda for money and political power.
I will try this again, as huffpo doesn't like to print my e-mails for some reason....
You cant have it both ways.
Either smokers are the bane of society, or they are now saviours of the children.
I had one child, since thats all I could afford, maybe others should consider the same.
This controversy more clearly shows the push and need for universal health care. When the real LOSSES are examined to our economy due to LACK of health care, is soon becomes apparant that with the consolidation and lack of duplication, it becomes a actual cost savings not a financial burden. The insurance companies will be marginalized and dealt out of this eventually. No matter if it raises taxes, or gives Shawn Hannity spasms, its comming, and the repugs are trying to minimize the impact. I've got rationed health care that cost 600/month not counting deductables. Will someone tell me thats not a tax.....I must pay it or loose my home and have my income garnished. Oh yeah I know when I vote it will be that Universal Health Plan person. This is the defining issue of our generation, and will be a landmark in history, when free market sources are funded for real research.
As much as I am for covering all of our children, another cigarette tax is not the way to do it. As usual, the burden is being dumped upon people at the margins with nobody to speak up for them. If they are OUR children- WE should pay for it. Not just some of us.
There is far more than enough 'sin tax' on tobacco, largely paid for by poor and working class people who make up the bulk of smokers these days. Picking upon addicted people is not the way to fund it.
Grow some stones and fund it properly.
Archie1955
I happen to live in Canada at this moment and have universal health insurance for a family of four. I pay $1,200 per annum for this coverage.
Archie1955 is correct, I have a friend who was born and raised in Newfoundland. I have met a large portion of his family, which includes a Nato Communications Officer who has just retired, if their are any complaints and they are few, a shortage of doctors comes to mind, mainly specialist, but family medicine is not a problem. Another interesting point is my friend's nephew's property taxes are less than half of mine and they can afford a Mercedes SUV. To hear Levitt's BS, Canadians are running across the border in droves to pay top dollar for US healthcare. Maybe rich Canadians are, but not the ones I know. Why is GM as well as Jeep manufacturing in Canada, is it because Canada offers an educated work force and they do not burden business with healthcare cost? I for one rather pay taxes for healthcare than pissing it away on another 2 billion dollar stealth bomber. Useless wars do not create wealth in the long term, they just line the pockets of corporatist who lack vision like Bush-Cheney for the short term. This is why the Chinese gave up on spreading their ideology years ago.
The Bush administration says the legislation could qualify some New York families of four making about $83,000 a year, or four times the poverty level.
Note that a certain Mr Snow, who has two children, had to leave a job paying twice that because he needed to make more money. And that job included health insurance.
I think the key word and 'scare tactic' is "could qualify".... wow, two parents.. making a whopping 42K a year with two kids to raise.
It's just another way to stop Universal Healthcare.
USAisOK is an idiot. If you don't know what you are talking about then please don't blog. I happen to live in Canada at this moment and have universal health insurance for a family of four. I pay $1,200 per annum for this coverage. I don't worry about any health problems I or my family might incur. It is all covered and guess what if for any reason I can't get reasonable treatment within certain proscribed time limits the government will pay for me to be sent where such treatment is available immediately (the U.S. because so many Americans can't afford it there is slack in the system). The reason I don't mind paying my taxes is because I am reminded on a regular basis that my healthcare is covered by my taxes. All those who oppose universal healthcare in the U.S. are morally and ethically challenged. There is nothing more important then your personal security that taxes can pay for, nothing!
Yes, and do they call it there *taxes*, or is it, as in The Netherlands, a health Insurance Premium, just like you would pay a health Insurance Premium here if privately insured, except cheaper, AND you are not cancelled when you get sick? Americans are not reasoning. It is NOT as if they are not paying any taxes now. There are taxes on anything and everything. It is also NOT as if they get private healthcare for free now, no, they pay dearly for it. Apparently, what they like is the idea that you pay and pay, and pay, and then do not receive the merchandise (healthcare) you pay for. That, in addition to losing your job as well, because insurers will cancel you and your employer makes deals with insurers. Yes, and we are also not doing too well educationally, if we may believe the statistics. That, of course, would explain things.
Thanks Archie! I thought the same... but you were kind enough to say it.
Given the need for and value of the program, why can't it be funded fairly, instead of by a regressive and obscene increase in tobacco taxes?
I think what people need to understand is that this President is not about people being healthy or happy and living in peace. This President is about people dying and chaos, to further political agendas which most Americans would not approve of.
Forget rhetoric, look at the facts.
Rep. Slaughter, now that we have your attention would you mind personally telling us why congress does not impeach Bush and Cheney for war crimes and not upholding the Constitution of the United Stated? This is a direct question, please answer.
I don't think it's sad that he opposes something of value to children I think it's expected. Please rack your brains and name one thing he has done right in over 6 years of occupying the Whitehouse. Can't do it huh? That's all right no one else could either.
Loading comments…
Posted September 25, 2007 | 02:20 PM (EST)