Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > September > 21 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMore SCHIP: Revived but already dead
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Good News: House and Senate negotiators struck a deal on PeachCare’s parent program Friday that would expand the program by $35 billion.
The Bad News: President Bush already announced he’d veto it.
The final agreement, which still must pass the House and Senate, would insure the 6.6 million low-income children already enrolled in the program, known nationally as the States Children’s Health Insurance Program or SCHIP and locally as PeachCare. It also would as many as 4 million more kids by 2012.
The legislation would repeal President Bush’s order to the states forbidding them from expanding local SCHIP initiatives on their own.
The compromise bill encourages states to enroll children of parents who earn 200 percent of the federal poverty rate ($41,000 for family of four), but allows an expansion up to 300 percent ($62,000). The only adults allowed to get coverage through SCHIP are pregnant women. Parents and childless adults, now covered by some states, would be phased out of the program.
Bush has vowed to veto any SCHIP bill that greatly expands funding, saying it was a move toward socialized medicine. Bush said the program should continue to focus on children only, with eligibility capped at 200 percent, as the program was originally designed 10 years ago. Some states are now as high as 350 percent.
Still, the Democratic Congress continues pushing a bill Bush is sure to veto, believing that Democrats would still win a political points by portraying Republicans as virtually heartless in the 2008 election.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Screw the kids
September 21, 2007 8:27 PM | Link to this
W is right on. Let’s screw those kids without health insurance. Let’s screw those parents who want to pay what they can to keep their kids healthy. Let them go straight to the hospital emergency room when their kids are sick. Let their kids develop life-threatening illnesses that could have been stopped by a primary care physician. Sure, some kids might die without SCHIP, but hey, sh@# happens.
W is the man. Who needs a heart, who needs empathy. Let them eat cake! Right on compassionate conservatives! We win again!
By Charles J. Janigian
September 21, 2007 9:06 PM | Link to this
The Democrats’ PAY-GO rules, which means no new deficit spending, have found the goose to lay the “golden egg” to fund their plan to expand their SCHIP legislation. In other words the goose is the tobacco industry, once again. When will the Democrats learn that enough is enough when it comes to demonizeing tobacco for their own agenda? Say no to expanding SCHIP.
By Churchill
September 21, 2007 11:10 PM | Link to this
When everyone quits smoking where will the money come from. This will further feed the black market for smokes. Good intentions, no grasp of the potential long-term impacts. Slap the phares “for the children” on something and slam those who disagree. Typical.
By Sam
September 22, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this
Billions of American taxpayer dollars for Iraqi kids but none to provide healthcare for American kids! Somehow, I think “W” wants to be re-elected President…. of Iraq!
By Sam the man
September 22, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
Nice point Sam! Conservatives have no problem with billions unaccounted for in Iraq. If the Iraq war was run without any waste & corruption, there would be plenty enough for our own American children.
By Don't get it
September 22, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
People, without SCHIP, you pay more in the long run. If kids have their own doctors and don’t use emrgency rooms for health care, there is actually less spending. Prevention saves taxpayer money.
By maddingly
September 22, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this
The same hypocrites who won’t support health care for kids are some of the same people who fght choice for pregnant women. Their idea of choice is to ignore the same children they say they want to protect.
By Dave
September 22, 2007 7:54 PM | Link to this
So if I earn $62,001 I’m suppose to pay for insurance for someone’s children if they earn $61,999…….. Amazing how $2 requires me to redistribute my income.
If you can’t afford children use a condom or the pill! Don’t force me to help you support them.
By John
September 22, 2007 8:04 PM | Link to this
I don’t know, but to me it seems irresponsible to expect to have your own kids healthcare paid for by other people. As much as I hate smoking, should cigarrette smokers be responsible for supplying healthcare to other people’s kids? They are already going to have health problems of their own, and now they have to pay for other people in addition to that. To me this is discrimination against smokers just because they are unpopular. Having kids is a choice. I mean it would be infinitely better to spend money on healthcare than the war on Iraq but that money still has got to come from somewhere. I can see it in the future if I decide to have no children, my neighbor will probably have 5 and I’ll end up paying a huge tax in order to pay for their healthcare. There won’t be enough smokers to fund this expansion, so the regular taxpayer will foot the bill. That’s where this is headed. Oh but it’s the CHILDREN. Only a cruel evil person wouldn’t provide healthcare to the CHILDREN. This is propaganda meant to shove socialism down the throat of the American population.
By Jack P Hardy
September 22, 2007 8:21 PM | Link to this
What part of socialism do you advocates of this expanded health coverage not understand? They want to increase tobacco tax by another 60 cents a pack. Liberals love to hate tobacco users but they love that money coming in even better. This is just another welfare program for all of the illegals coming in and pumping out babies.
By Jeff
September 22, 2007 9:15 PM | Link to this
600,000 of the 6.6 million enrollees in 2005 were adults. I’d like to know if the adults enrolled now aren’t included include in the 6.6 million the reporter identified as children.
I guess the national motto for health care financing should be the same as the movie title: Thank You For Smoking.
Dave correctly notes a common weakness in government programs, fixed income limits, where an additional dollar earned actually lowers your effective income.
Additionally the SCHIP benefits are often more generous than private insurance. So the people who both pay their own way plus help pay the way of other are worse off.
I’d rather see a program where all children are eligible and parent’s costs would be adjusted upward with their incomes. That would increase the “crowd out” of private insurance coverage so it would cost the government even more. However it would result fairer treatment across individuals and employers. They ought to fund it by capping the amount deductibility of insurance, something that would also result in greater fairness.
By Churchill
September 23, 2007 3:48 AM | Link to this
Dave, John, Jack, et al. Where have ya’ll been? Good to see some reason on the AJC.
Be careful, there are those that will use your usernames and write some horrible stuff.
Best of luck and keep up the good work.
By robert
September 23, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
Goldman Sachs just announced record profits, and 16 BILLOIN DOLLARS for bonuses I’m those people will find it in their heart to help the poor. According to our El presidente that is what should be happening.
By Mike
September 23, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
It’s an amazing tragedy that this Bush administration is about to veto the SCHIP over 5-10 billions disagreement with Congress. But on the other hand the administration stubbornly keeps asking for 2 billions each week to fight the war in Iraq which has yet to produce and measurable results. Apparent it’s for our safety. I don’t feel any safer because of the war. I don’t feel any safer with low income kids without healthy insurance. I don’t feel any safer living in New Orleans because when there is a disaster don’t count on your Federal government to protect you. This is another tragic example of this administrator failed domestic and foreign policy.
By James
September 23, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this
Mike,
Since when is it the federal government’s responsibility to make it safer to live in New Orleans? Gee, I thought that is why we have STATES, and CITIES… If New Orleans wasn’t so damned corrupt maybe it wouldn’t have been such a disaster…but hey, just blame everything on ol’ W… Why don’t you liberals just get it over with and start blaming him for the Lindberg baby kidnapping too… Here is an idea…go out there, and get yourself a real damn job, then make some money, then, wait, it gets better…amazing but, true, PAY for your own medicine?!?!?! HOLY MOLY WHAT A CONCEPT!!! Why do that though when you could just be lazy and demand that the rich should pay for you (Oh except for the problem that the rich don’t pay, because last time I checked the rich don’t smoke 400 packs of cigarettes per day, per person…actually the lowest incomes smoke the most…so somehow we are taxing the lowest incomes to provide health care for the…poorest/moderately poor/not poor/middle class/upper middle class kids that are in this country???)
OMG THEN GET THIS, when packs of cigarettes get to be too expensive, then maybe people will buy black market, and then who is going to pay for these upper middle class kids (I consider a family earning $61k per year to be upper middle class)??? How about a $10 per cigar tax…that sounds fantastic!?! Gee and the Democrats want to let Cuba trade with us…imagine anybody buying Cuban Cigars with $10 per cigar tax…you can already get them on the black market for cheaper than that!!! Morons…Why don’t we just say enough to the looters already. (And by looters I don’t mean the idiots running around your precious New Orleans stealing diapers and duct-tape during a disaster, but the people who seem to think it’s ok for everybody else to be responsible, monitarily and otherwise, to every concievable bad thing that could happen to them)
By lloyd
September 23, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this
I never thought I’d see a political debate on the necessity of free health care for poor children.
While I agree that many social programs spend too much and exceed to far on individual freedoms, I have to dismiss any arguments against children’s healthcare; even if a small percentage of adults are covered under the plan.
A similar program covers my autistic nephew and I have to confess that I would agree to any new tax that covers the basic needs and preventive care for children. Our nation has spent our tax dollars on things far worse than children’s healthcare. The President is going to lose this battle.
By Churchill
September 23, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
James, I have never understood why there was ever any poverty in New Orleans at all. It has been a liberal-run democratic city forever. With the democrats in charge, how could there ever have been any suffering, racism, worn-out infrastructure, or anything negative. Scary thing is that if we let a bunch of libs take over the country, then we will all live in “New Orleans”.
Isn’t funny that Bush is blamed for the failed government of New Orleans. They never mention “School bus Nagin” or that idiot Blanco. Go figure.
By james
September 23, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this
lloyd,
I guess you didn’t understand the point…I agree that UNDERPRIVELAGED children should have access to health care, I DO NOT agree that SCHIP should be expanded, because underprivelaged children already have it, why let states extend this to 3 1/2 times the poverty level (or more), while the entire nation foots the bill. If one state wants to do that, let them pay for the entire thing themselves… While I work and pay taxes, I have a civic duty to point out when I don’t agree with giving my hard earned money away to people who I feel don’t deserve it, via the Federal Government. Maybe you think I should just roll over and play dead while the government mugs me and steals my wallet, just because they put a “for the children, oh pity the pooooor children” stamp on this.
By james
September 23, 2007 8:07 PM | Link to this
What’s this I hear about a “child” being an eligible boy or girl up to the age of 25!?!? Holy smokes. OOOOOH PITY THE POOOOOOOR 24 1/2 year old “children” of underprivelaged parents (earning in some cases up to $82,600 per year). This is absolute garbage. Sure is easy to spend other people’s money, isn’t it? Just ask Congress (Republicans too, not just Democrats, you all should be ashamed of yourselves, dirty little thieves) to which they probably would respond, “oh but the chilren, who will take care of ALL THOSE CHILDREN”? um, maybe their parents!?!? HOLY CRAP WHAT A CONCEPT! Just because Mr. John Doe and his lovely wife and two kids, absolutely MUST have that brand spanking new plasma TV, doesn’t mean the taxpayer should foot the bill for their children’s healthcare…(Maybe we should take away the TV of any recipient of S-CHIP money, and sell them to local pawn shops to recover money spent on S-CHIP, last time I checked, TV was a luxury, not a necessity, yet damned if I’ve met many people that don’t have one…or two, or three) Yeah, I like that idea. The TV or healthcare, TV or healthcare…betcha S-CHIP would hardly be used then.
By Craig
September 23, 2007 8:15 PM | Link to this
James I understand your argument. However, we are all paying the bills for uninsured kids anyway, through our health insurance premiums. Kids without insurance don’t get routine care, so when they get sick they end up at enormously expensive emergency rooms. The parents can’t - or won’t - pay the bill of course, so the costs get added to everyone else’s costs, and you and I end up with much higher insurance premiums.
If everyone had insurance, the costs would likely be lower than they are today, saving both you and your employer money.
By James
September 23, 2007 8:41 PM | Link to this
I agree Craig, and I am definately for everybody having health insurance, but we are marching towards socialized medicine. S-CHIP and medicare is not the only option to getting this country health care…what about allowing people to get out of state health insurance, there-by forcing more competition, and lowering costs. How about a tax-cut for individuals getting health insurance like they give to companies, so that you don’t have to be penalized for wanting better (or cheaper) coverage than what your company has.
By The good part of SCHIP
September 24, 2007 12:10 AM | Link to this
As a strict fiscal conservative, and friends of many doctors, I’ve learned that taxpayers save more when children with health insurance and a primary care doctore than without one. The longterm, overall costs, and clogged emergency rooms cost taxpayers much more in the end. Better than talking to a doctor, talk to a veteran nurse or PA about this topic.
Keep SCHIP to 19 yrs. old and under, no adults, and keep it to 235% of the poverty level. That’s what our own governor wants, and he’s not letting his party affiliation dictate what he feels is best for his state.
And for those dissing parents as deadbeats, there are a whole lot of single mom’s, and even grandparents caring for kids, (and yes, some single dad’s) busting their tails out there, trying to do the right thing for their kids. SCHIP is not a handout like welfare. Give props for those working hard and who want to pay for their children’s health insurance with co-pay’s and deductables, but simply can not afford private insuarance and need a little helping hand. What was that I heard once about “a thousand points of light”? George Sr. had compassion & empathy.
By Craig
September 24, 2007 7:31 AM | Link to this
Probably good ideas, James.
By Bruce
September 29, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
SMOKERS AGAINST UNFAIR TAX
THERE IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO STOP THIS UNFAIR TAX
S-CHIP might be a good idea, but not solely on the backs of smokers. So here’s something we can all do stop the unfair tax: Write your congressperson and let them know that, since the government has claimed first dibs on your charitable giving, you have nothing left for any other charitable giving. This includes, churches, AIDS projects, United Way, etc. Give special attention to United Way, because they are a very powerful political force and have a presence in most businesses in the US. Next, write to United Way and let them know what you have told your congressperson. They would not like anything to happen that would cause a drop in their regular dontations.
By Lewis Salem
October 3, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this
Wait a second, how is $62,000 a year poor? All this does is discourage my wife from going back to work after giving birth and suckle off of the government teat.
Nothing in life is free people. Not to mention raising cigarette taxes simply opens the door for more mismanagement of these funds. But hey, “It’s for the children!” TM.
By matt
October 3, 2007 5:36 PM | Link to this