ENROLLING IN PROGRAM NOW CAN HELP ALL
Here's today's DN Editorial Please be sure to note the Action Item at the end. Thanks.
WE COULD mention that the U.S. House of Representatives has drafted a bill on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that could be up for a vote as soon as today. This "do-over" is in response to a veto by President Bush, sustained by Congress last week, of a bill that would have expanded SCHIP to include many more children in the popular program that provides affordable health insurance to low- and middle-income families.
But that's not what's important today.
We could also mention the irony of a president who, days after he vetoed spending $35 billion over five years to expand health-insurance coverage to four million more children, requested $46 billion more to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This brings the request for war spending to $196.4 billion . . . for this year alone.
War appropriations could reach $1 trillion by the time Bush leaves office.
But that's not what's important today.
Today, it's important to remind parents that they have a part to play in the future of SCHIP:
Enroll their children, if eligible.
This may be a counterintuitive message at a time that states are fretting that their enrollees are going to be cut from the program. But the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been doing a good job with SCHIP, both in aggressively signing up families and in anticipating the current crisis. The state Insurance Department says that the program, which provides affordable health insurance to families up to 300 percent of the poverty level and beyond, is funded until next May.
They have not, nor do they intend to "disrenroll" children.
The state is concerned that if enrollments drop because of the scary messages coming out of Washington, the state's funding, which is based on enrollments, could be cut.
SCHIP is not a handout. Although it provides free health insurance to poor families - 150,000 children now get free health insurance - it allows families who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid to purchase health insurance at a reduced rate. At higher-income levels, families pay the full cost.
Comments (8)
Well Flavia, I suspect that if the president's veto was not what's important today, then you would not have brought it up.
My understanding is the president vetoed the bill because he wanted another health insurance bill that was geared towards the children that need it the most. But my knowledge is shabby and only based upon his quoted statement following the veto.
Posted by: Todd Levari on October 26, 2007 10:39
I am raising my granddaughterand although we live in another state,we have the insurance for her that is provided by the state.We cannot afford a supplemental insurance for ourseleves let alone for our granddaughter,I don't know what we will do if she is cut off,I can't even let myself go there.
President Bush I believe has lost what little sense that he had. The war has worn him out and quite frankly most of the american people.
Posted by: mother on October 26, 2007 12:37
Here we have a classic example of a legislative stalking horse. Anyone remember the "for-the-childrruuuuun" days of the Clinton regime? It's back. If you don't support this you're in favor of letting poor children get sick! You selfish bastard! How dare you!
What the bill's proponents fail to mention is that the expansion of SCHIP would replace the formal 'proof of citizenship' requirement by making taxpayer-funded health care available to anyone who had a social security number. Just one 'lil problem there, you don't need to be a citizen to get a SSN, as the 9/11 terrorists made obvious for all to see.
But at the most basic level, it does make sense for the Dems to reward the people that elect them. Maybe they should include an appropriation for cemetery upkeep as well...
Posted by: Voice of Reason on October 26, 2007 14:42
Well mother, I agree with you that the mission and perhaps just 7 years of being the president have worn him out. He looks tired and has lost alot of the snap that he once had. Words are coming to him slower when he speaks and he just looks generally drained.
I noticed this with Presidents Clinton and Bush Sr. near the ends of their terms too but then they seemed to recover shortly after their terms were over. And of-course age was robbing President Reagen of his mind the last two years of his second term. He seemed to go downhill quickly after he was shot.
I wonder how many years a US President looses off his life from the stress of service.
Anyway, I disagree with you about him loosing his senses and your suggestion that he was ever lacking in sense. He is still doing what he thinks is right and is not going to let concern over his legacy get in the way. No one gets to the level of the US president without a keen sense of awareness and focus.
I should state that Americans grew weary of WWII as well. By 1944 most Americans wanted to cut and run. I think that would have been a horrible mistake.
God will keep you and your husband and your grandaughter safe. Don't forget to talk to Him once in a while. He likes that. Better we should put our faith in Him than government regardless of who is at the helm.
Keep the faith.
Posted by: Todd Levari on October 26, 2007 14:48
So I was taking a quick glance at the Constitution. It does not say anything about the Federal government paying for the health care for anyone.
Then again, the Federal government does not really pay for these programs. It uses OUR taxes to pay for them.
And people wonder why our taxes go up......
Posted by: NJ_Taxpayer on October 26, 2007 22:19
SCHIP is a great program and it deserves to be expanded. It actually saves states money in the long run.
In 2007, researchers from Brigham Young University and Arizona State found that children who drop out of SCHIP cost states more money because they shift away from routine care to more frequent emergency care situations.
And as far as the constitution being silent on health care, perhaps it should say something. It is just common sense. It is fundamentally unfair that people who can't afford health care have to suffer. As far as I'm concerned the right to free universal health is a fundamental right which should be guaranteed for all Americans, not just those who can afford it.
Posted by: Steve Urbanski on October 27, 2007 14:36
"And as far as the constitution being silent on health care, perhaps it should say something. It is just common sense."
Then get it changed. You may have heard there is a process to do just that. Of course, you'd have to get up off your ass and actually do something other than whine or think that happy thoughts will make every better.
Posted by: on October 27, 2007 18:32
"free universal health is a fundamental right which should be guaranteed for all Americans, not just those who can afford it".
How about free cars? Nobody should have to walk. How about free food? Nobody should be hungry.
How about free clothes? Nobody should be naked.
How about we raise your taxes to 75%, shouldn't everybody be equal? Or better yet, let someone rotate into your job every few years, that way they would also have employment. And you can live at below the property level for a year or two, wouldn't that be fair? Isn't it just common sense?
Posted by: Lovely Rita, meter maid on October 29, 2007 11:49