"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
Slap a generic argument on something like this and the uninformed automatically seethe. REALLY read EXACTLY what the DEMS are proposing, maybe then you would all have a clue. The opponents of EXPANDING SCHIP are not CUTTING out the poor!
expanding schip helps families who otherwise cannot afford pivate insurance. 200 times the poverty level isn't all that much when that line is around 20k. 60k divided into clothes, housing, food, utilities, car note, car insurance (or other transportation), daycare, and emergencies for a family of 4 doesn't go that far. it makes even less sense if anyone in your family has "existing conditions" as they will have to pay for all of that out of pocket. one $18000 hospital bill (like that one i had for delivering my daughter) could bankrupt a family bringing in 60k a year.
as for these children over 21 the new proposal covers, how many of those are ones who are handicapped to the point that their parents will have to take care of them forever? or have debilitating congenital abnormalities that insurance companies consider pre-existing? these children over up to 21 and 200x the poverty line don't deserve health care because they aren't either dirt poor or disgustingly rich?
usaisok--
how much do you make a year? do you have insurance? how much do you pay for it a month? how many people do you have to cover? have you ever seen firsthand how expansive a chronic illness is?
usaisok --
your argument is apecious. insurance is a scam. bush wants to keep taxpayer $$$ in the pipeline for the insurance industry, irregardless of how ineffective the service (ha!) is they deliver.
what this country needs is a health delivery system that doesn't have to go thru private industry hoops that only create busy-work jobs for their employees . . . and big corporate profits for their top-tier managers.
No one should be surprised about Bush's plans to cut poor kids' healthcare. That's exactly what he did in Texas when he was governor.
We can afford hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare for defense contractors, but nowhere near that for little kids.
Oh, yeah, and don't forget the insurance industry pigs. They're entitled to those big, fat paychecks because they provide a suckee product that's such a rip-off, no one wants to buy it, so Bush wants to make it mandatory -- you either buy private insurance or you go without, no government assistance.
How fucked up can you get?
Bush's plan is NOT to cut out poor kids' healthcare. Bush's plan is to not enroll kids whos parents make 2X the poverty level.
At some point, folks need to skip the cellphone and cable TV and pay for their own insurance.
At some point, some right-wingers need to skip the sanctimony and support something that costs them nothing and helps out a lot of people.
Seattle, Have YOU tried raising 2 kids on 50-60K a year? I'm gonna say..... probably not. This means that both parents (if there are both parents) earn 30K or so a year... let's not consider day care - cause they DO have to work - then school and supplies, clothing, food, car (or should they be forced to walk to save money as there is little public trans systems available)and just SIMPLE daily necessities. How about saving for school, the future and perhaps for a rainy day? No need to you say? That's the current american way. These kids may not be POOR, but their parents i'm sure are one disaster away from losing their house, or job or everything. Now you want to squeeze in $600 a month for healthcare into that tight budget?
At some point... you need to get out the coffee house and check out what it's like to raise children..
The Bush voters are obviously as f***** as you imply. When Bush was governor of Texas, he did nothing to improve the lives of the poor, improve the schools, improve the jobs market, or abolish the death penalty which flies directly in the face of compassionate Christians' values.
Now that Bush has spent the past 7 years demonstrating how little he knows about governing from the big chair, the Bush voters will once again elect someone so much like him in 2008 that it will not be funny - again! I guess they enjoy having an incompetent president so that they feel that much better about their own incompetence.
What did Jesus say about whatever you do unto these kids you do unto me? And the Christians still support Bush?
Yeah, I mighta said something about that once.
And Rep. Slaughter, when you start talking about health CARE for children instead of insurance, we might get somewhere.
Democrats are attempting to use SCHIP to segue into universal healthcare coverage. Groups like MoveOn are putting out arguments that Republicans want to yank healthcare from
children. But let’s put the facts to the test.
SCHIP has been around for awhile and it’s up
for expiration here pretty soon. Instead of just keeping the current program – which does help low income children – Dems want to revamp it towards greater coverage. Essentially, taking more people off of their private coverage and into a government plan – costing extra money for everyone and slowly stripping away individual choice.
A recent report, written by Nina Owcharenko and Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., from The Heritage Foundation analyzed the negative aspects of the proposal. SCHIP was designed to insure kids who’se families were “at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.” With the proposed expansion, this could cover those
making up to $62,000/year and includes “children” up to the age of 21.
The second negative found is the “crowd out”
effect, meaning that when government programs
expand, private coverage always decreases as
well. People jump on the nanny state bandwagon
because it’s appealing at first.
Lastly, because the expansion funding depends on a tobacco tax hike, it’s not likely to garner all it needs. A significant tax raise (61 cents) will only decrease the amount of tobacco sold and the excess necessary to cover SCHIP will be paid for extra taxes.
There is not faultless healthcare system but
moving towards government coverage is a bad idea. Though Michael Moore’s ‘Sicko’ was aimed at promoting the universal system as positive, it did little but expose the inadequacies in the systems featured in the film, like Cuba and Canada. There are always enticing qualities to government run programs but they are like gross tasting frosting on a really bad cake that someone else made. And you don’t see how bad it is until after you’ve already eaten it. Well, we’re telling you now people – don’t eat that cake!
"it did little but expose the inadequacies in the systems featured in the film, like Cuba and Canada" ... none of the gov't systems are as bad as what we now have in the US
"slowly stripping away individual choice." ... the choice being whether or not sick people have to forego treatment as they do here. (Gov't schemes don't limit your choice of doctor and don't stop the rich from paying for private treatment.
Well, I live in Canada and that gross icing on the crappy cake tastes mighty fine to me. I choose my doctors, I get great care and I don't live in fear or on the brink of bankruptcy.
I really hope the American population wakes up to the fact that right-wingers are simply feeding fear and misinformation to the population.
Anyone who travels outside the US knows how backward your country really is. Sorry, no offence to all those great people out there who are fighting Bush and company tooth and nail. You have my deepest sympathy.
I have relatives in Ontario and Quebec, my father-in-law is also Canadian but lives here in the states. They all do not share you view.
Thank you Doctor and MsCanada. I have friends and family in Canada and they feel sorry for us Americans.
Some of my friends are buying into this fear thing.. of "national health care is BAAAAD"... the recent scare tactic is... "national health care does NOT TREAT PROSTATE CANCER IN MEN"... yes, this came from a what I used to consider intelligent man. Then he spewed out some statistic that the survival rate is 62% in the US and 47% of all national health care countries. So I asked him who was considered in this 62%... those that have private insurance? He did not answer and refused to consider what I was saying. Because there are millions without ins. that are NOT being considered in number compilatio
And thank you for your sympathy MsCanada..
I do not think that the AMA shares your point of view on SCHIP. You might want to inquire. Universal Healthcare, dear, is NOT government coverage. It does NOT come out of taxes, unless one would go to Medicare coverage, which will not be possible. Universal Healthcare makes it possible for people to get healthinsurance they can afford to pay. Read this again, HealthInsu
i have been so ill for the last year and a half that I have been unable to waork.I suffer from spinal stenosis and myofacial pain syndrome.I can barely wlak.i couldn't afford health insurance befotre I baecame too ill to work,and cannot get any kind of assistance from the state or the federal government,because they don't consider me to be"totally and permanently disabled".
The point of this is while I support your efforts to insure children,there are millions of Americans who have worked hard,but are unable to afford insurance,who are going through the nightmare i am.
Please,health coverage for all Americans and soon.
dont hold your breath meandmagoo. this is a country based on capitalism and not the wefare of its citizens.
this american style of capitalism has turned america into an imperialist nation.
nixon actually though it was a good idea that medical providers provide less health care to max their corporate profits. that is the mind of a neo con. selfish greedy and materialist and often religious.
to a neo con profits rein supreme not the medical care of its citizens. the type of universal health care that congress will come up with will bankrupt our society to pay off the insurance companies, drug companies and medical doctors that want to become millionaires off your health care. ie medicare is doing just that now.
unchecked capitalism will self destruct wait and see. has to; goes against every spirital law known. the karma of capitalism and materialism demands it.
Are you aware that capitalism results in the highest welfare for citizens?
Our poor are overwhelmingly obese. The poor in other countries are starving.
Our poor overwhelmingly have cable TV. The poor in other countries don't have electricity.
Our poor have cars, air conditioners, etc.
The US has made enormous strides against poverty, from 22% in 1959 to 12% today.
Pick a EU country you like. Belgium? If Belgium were a US state, it would be the sixth poorest in the country. Sweden? The 7th poorest in the country.
Sweden, for example, has more than 40% of all households with LESS than a $25K income. There is only one state in the US worse than that. Every other state is significantly higher.
The GDP of the EU puts it on par with Arkansas in the US. GDP strongly correlates to income.
I know exactly what you are going through. It wasn't until my 3rd hospitalization and bypass surgery that I finally received help and during the entire 5 months of home care I was continually threatened with eviction with nowhere else to go while I waited for that help to start. Since then I have had a stent in my heart and 2 severe GI Bleeds caused by a combination of the blood thinners I have to have for the stent and pre-existing conditions that only were found after the first GI Bleed, including kidney tumors. I wish you luck. The people who make up the rules all have the same attitude as most republicans. And that is if you are unable to afford health care you are supposed to die and get out of the way of the "Deserving". One of the republican senators called all of us who can't afford health insurance "The Great Unwashed" during the debates on welfare reform. I was sued 3 days before Christmas last year by one of the doctors who was called in the first time I was hospitalized. but other than that one doctor, I was blessed with some wonderful doctors but the ones who treated the bleeding have people who work for them that have that attitude. They would not even give the doctors the messages from the pharmacist when prescriptions were not covered. The first time, my cardiologist gave me samples and the second time the hospital gave them to me. Don't give up, though. Take care.
The argument that I have heard against this bill is that it would provide health insurance to children of families who can afford to pay for private health insurance. Hey, that's not fair. Why, that would be like giving a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans in the highest tax bracket!
Bingo!
Really? I believe the annual income in these 'affordable families' is about 50K a year. Health insurance is about $600 a month...gi
Concern, possible you missed the point of voodoo's post. You're on the same side.
Peace
Concerned:
Excuse me, do you understand SARCASM????? I do have two children and CAN'T afford health insurance. I was being sarcastic!!!
It's $80,000 a year. It should be dropped to A max of 50,000...I
not to mention the fact that even many upper middle class families can't afford private insurance.
Maybe they could have paid for healthcare before Bush stole the office.
As sad as it is to say, Representative Slaughter, this president is an obstacle to virtually everything that's good in America! He takes money away from the poor and gives to the rich. He cuts funds for armored vehicles and safer helmets for the military and tries to tell us he supports the troops.
He says we're a nation of laws, then breaks every one he comes in contact with.
This president is an obstructionist of monumental proportions, and our children and grandchildren will suffer greatly because we've let him get away with it.
THE COST OF 41 DAYS IN THE IRAQ WAR WILL PAY FOR THIS BILL.
$500,000.0
JUST 41 DAYS BUSH! END THE WAR 41 DAYS EARLY!
Loading comments…
Posted September 25, 2007 | 02:20 PM (EST)