SCHIP-pery Slope
The House and Senate sent a hugely expanded version of the SCHIP program to the President and the President, as promised, vetoed the bill.
First things first. SCHIP is not pronounced "ship." It is pronounced "ESS-chip."
Now for the dead lock bar bet: SCHIP stands for … State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Which, of course, it is not. It is a FEDERAL children's health insurance program but "EFF-chip" wasn't ever going to fly if only because it sounds too much like F-Troop.
According to PBS, the original CHIP (no S) program was adopted in 1997 having been supported by President Bill Clinton.
The idea behind this program is a worthy one: To provide health insurance to children whose families are too poor to afford the premiums on their own, but make too much to qualify for coverage under Medicaid.
The program which has been in effect covers young Americans up to the age of 18 with a family income of not more than twice the official poverty level.
According to the Department of Health & Human Services web site, in 2007 a family of four was deemed living at the poverty level if it had an annual income of not more than $20,650. That level of income for a family of four would qualify as poverty in 2007 under any fair assessment.
A child in that family qualifies for health care through Medicaid but a family making a total income of $30,000 would not. Under the existing SCHIP guidelines a child with a family income of up to $40,000 would qualify.
But, the Democrats' re-do has upped the income level for a child to qualify to $83,000 - FOUR times the poverty level (at least in New York) which is an income stretching the definition of "poverty" to the point of snapping.
Not only that, but the Democrats' bill redefines a "child" as someone up to age 25, stretching the definition of "child" to … well, you know.
There may be people who believe that if you can't afford health insurance for your kids, that's just too bad, but I am not one of them. The kids didn't ask to be born - and they certainly did not ask to be born into a family earning just 200% of the poverty level.
Of course, the Popular Press has joined with its allies in the Democratic Party to portray President Bush as being anti-child. The Washington Post's Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman led their piece thus:
"President Bush yesterday vetoed a $35 billion expansion of a popular children's health insurance program, a move that left him as politically isolated as he has ever been and had even Republican allies questioning his hard-line strategy."
President Bush made it clear that he wanted the Congress to send him a re-authorized SCHIP program which he could sign, but Democrats sent up a bill which the White House had warned was veto-bait.
Why? So they could set up this exact discussion: Bush will argue in favor of tax cuts for the rich, while he vetoes health care for poor children.
No main stream medium will write this, but the reality of the situation is: Congressional Democrats were willing to trade the health of children to score political points against the President.
It is also true that if they can expand coverage to families up to 400% of the poverty line and individuals up to the age of 25, Democrats can go to 800% of poverty ($160,000 per year) and individuals up to 65 (when Medicare kicks in).
National. Health. Insurance.
I told a New York Times reporter when I was called about the political impact of the President's veto that for many - if not most - Republican primary voters, this expansion of the SCHIP program was not a step down the slippery slope of national health care - it was a four man bobsled on an Olympic run.
He didn't use the quote.
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: A link to an explanation of F-Troop, the HHS poverty page, and the White House myth/fact page. Also an Autumnal Mullfoto and a Catchy Caption of the Day.
17 Comments:
Why, after a history of failure is socialism still such an easy sell to Americans?
Is it ignorance of history? A weak morality that expects 'something for nothing'?
Or, am I naive to think that communism only has to be defeated once,
instead of re-defeated every day, every election?
Every election ... and allowing the Left to convince us that we cannot possibly be satisfied with any of our candidates; while the Democrats would be happy with any of their's is part of the psychological warfare.
Rich
terry jim,
socialism is a form of religion, with all the misdirected fervor of true believers. they never give up their illusions of creating a "perfect world" in spite of failure at every turn. as you say, they need to be re-defeated every day, every election.
"gunner"
Uh, did you intend for the Mullblog to be the same as Mullings today?
It sure does seem like Rich was cheating today. :)
Ignorance of history? It's easy to be ignorant of history given the current state of our dumbed-down public schools. It's simply not taught properly (revisionist history), if at all. Especially in our large central cities. This ties in nicely with the "something for nothing" mentality frequently, but not exclusively, found in those same areas. Not coincidentally these are the same areas that tend to heavliy favor left-wing democratic candidates in the House of Representatives.
It all ties together.
Thanks, Rich for putting out info that the mainstream media won't.
Thanks for keeping us "in the know" about this type of info the press would rather us be ignorant of. You do such an excellent job with your homework that you allow an ordinary person such as myself to be able to write a very informative and educated letter to the editors of our large Indiana newspapers. Now if only there was a guarantee that it would be printed, and more importantly, read by those who would otherwise believe the one-sided trash presented in the mainstream media.
Having just been through this with two kids, I would say that covering kids up until the month they turn 23 is reasonable. That is what my employer did. It gives the kid a chance to graduate from college and get a job. Given housing costs, and the lack of employer coverage in starter jobs, it is too much to expect an 18 year old to cover themselves.
I think a thought experiment is always a good way to gain insight. Let's say a person breaks their arm and that not treating it will result in gangrene and death. How does society ensure the person will be treated? Does it matter if the person is a child? an adult who spent all their money but didn't buy health insurance? an adult who is a crackhead? a lower-middle class person with $15,000 in credit-card debt, unable to borrow more?
Pfft. Twenty-three?
How is that 23-year-old a child?
What a crock.
How does society ensure the person will be treated?
You're asking the wrong question, Paul.
Try this: Should society ensure the person will be treated or should the individual be responsible for taking care of his or her own affairs and not rely on others to provide for him or her?
a. I guess if you had had to cook all night in a greasy spoon for $2 an hour to go to college like I did you'd know you couldn't have taken care of your own health care at that point. The right question is not the semantic one over whether a person is a child or not but whether they have had any reasonable chance to take care of themselves yet.
b. On nearly every other topic I agree with you, Jim, but I just don't agree health care is the same. That's why I posed the thought experiment. Tell me what you would expect to happen in the cases I listed. Our current answer is, go to the emergency room, wait six hours, we'll save you, and everyone will pay for it for you but it will cost four times as much as it should. That's not smart.
Nor is it smart to give even more power to an over-bloated federal government. A better solution would be a reduction of government interference in all involved sectors: insurance, medicine, research, etc... Free the market to work as it should. The cost will go down and the quality will improve.
Paul,
I also worked at a greasy spoon. Did asbestos removal, data entry at HR Block and a host of other jobs during my college and early 20s years. And I didn't have any health care coverage. It was a chance I took because paying for food was more important than health insurance.
And I certainly didn't expect - or want - the government to do it for me. Did I require a trip to the hospital? Yes. A minor surgery that wasn't covered by workmans comp. How did I pay? On a schedule I set up with the hospital.
Choices. Adults make them. Adults above the age of 18.
I fear some took my questions about what the right solution is as implying that I favored government-based solutions; I don't, clearly that is wrong. But this 'self reliance' mantra also only goes so far because it is a life and death issue. A person in their 20s without health insurance can suffer an illness that costs $100,000 so they don't pay it or can't pay it. If you aren't advocating that we just let them die, then what?
I personally suffered such an illness at that age when I had almost the equivalent of no insurance -- I was living in Canada and traveling back home to California. I phoned Canada and they said, no problem, you're covered. When I got the bill it turned out they meant, "covered for Canadian rates, you pay the rest." Yikes. Anyway, I know first hand about socialized medicine.
The Left believes that if they can get everybody feeding at the public trough,i.e. pander to the entire population, they can get themselves elected for eternity.
Think nothing is wrong with the current system? Here's a note from someone I know. This bill paid by Medicare, i.e. by you and me.
Last week I had a defibrillator placed in my upper left chest.
Everything went well and I feel fine.
There overnight. One meal. Lousy breakfast.A few problems with the surgery, but no harm done.
Got bill yesterday. $144,900.
Rich--you ought to be able to defend the President without distorting, to put it kindly, the facts. First, you call this a Democratic program when, in fact, it is supported by many Republicans, some of whom say the President simply doesn't understand the bill. All of a sudden, after six years of profligate spending and a lost veto pen, the President has to show how tough he can be. Hell, he hasn't invaded a country in years. Also, it's not a federal program. It's a state program funded by the feds. Big difference. And it doesn't make families with incomes of up to $83,000 eligible. It allows states to seek a waiver to that level--a waiver from the administration. So don't grant the waiver. How much do you think a family has to earn to be able to afford $12,000 a year in health insurance? Certainly more than $40,000. Without coverage, a $50 offcie visit becomes a $500 emergency room visit, for which, by the way, the rest of us pay. Why does the President's proposal actually reduce the number of children cobvered, when he said in his state of the union address that he wants an increase? So, the President wanted a bill "that he cold sign." He could have signed the bill they sent him. I missed he civics class where they taught that Congress is supposed to pass laws only if the Prsident approves. Here, the bill that passed had substantial majorities with support from both parties. I guess what the people want is not as important as what the President wants.
Post a Comment
<< Home