The problem with this bloated bill is that it doesn't just address the real problem of uninsured children. The bill would massively expand government health coverage to include 90% of children who are currently already privately insured.
It's long overdue for President Bush to veto a bloated spending bill, as he promises to do with SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). The problem with this bloated bill is that it doesn't just address the real problem of uninsured children. The bill would massively expand government health coverage to include 90% of children who are currently already privately insured. 71% of the children in the U.S. would be eligible for taxpayer subsidized medical care, including those in the country illegally. Families of four making up to $83,000 would receive government healthcare coverage practically free. It is a sneaky step towards nationalized healthcare, which failed as Hillarycare the first time around during the Bill Clinton presidency.
The House voted on August 1st to increase funding for SCHIP by $50 billion. The Senate version isn't much better; it would increase funding by $35 billion. Bush is proposing an increase of $5 billion instead.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House version would create a $72.9 billion deficit over the next 10 years. The House version would limit the program to those living at 200% of the poverty level, although for some that would increase to 250%. The expansion raises the age eligibility to 24.The House version is sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R) from Texas and has at least 12 Republican co-sponsors so far.
Although the bills boast an increase in the cigarette pack tax to pay for it - as much as 61 cents per pack in the Senate bill, 45 cents per pack in the House version, in actuality it will also require state matching funds, an increased expense states like Arizona will have difficulty paying for. And the Senate bill doesn't even address Medicare physician payment cuts.
Fortunately, lawmakers like Rep. John Shadegg (R) from Arizona and Senator Trent Lott are speaking out against this Hillarycare. Bush calls it "Congress's attempt to federalize healthcare." Shadegg asked, "The question is are we going to move toward government-run, bureaucratic-controlled, rationed health care or are we going to move to increase patient-centered health care, giving individual people control over their health care decisions?"
Government shouldn't be in the business of providing healthcare. We should be encouraging people to become self-sufficient, not becoming more and more dependent upon government services. SCHIP was originally passed to provide healthcare to families making more than the poverty level. It was a bad concept from the start; families living above the poverty line shouldn't be treated like they are living in poverty, otherwise why have a poverty line?
rachel@intellectualconservative.com
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/
Read more articles by Rachel Alexander
I live in N.J. and I believe every low income child is covered presently by CHIP, if paperwork is completed by parent /gaurdian.
Where are the present uninsured children and why.
I have not seen any of the facts detailing the present uninsured children in the USA.
Comment by jprairie | August 7, 2007
Why not be done with it and pass a law that extends ALL (and I mean ALL) of our society's benefits to all inhabitants of the earth?
Comment by sedonaman | August 8, 2007
Stealthy socialized healthcare
My son has a learning/cognizance disorder and is more than normally hard headed. Because of this, I’ve often had to ask him which part of “no” he is having difficulty understanding. We seem to be having the same problem with our politicians. First we resoundingly told them “No, we don’t want socialized medicine.” and, more recently, “No, we don’t want any kind of amnesty for illegal aliens. In both cases, they’ve behaved as though nothing was amiss or no objection made beyond the details of their propositions.
That’s how they act on the surface, because it gives them deniability when they do it anyway. We’re not fooled. We can see that whenever they don’t get their way they have a public hissy-fit. Then, the very next thing they do is carve their pet legislation up into digestible parts and pass it piecemeal. This is a perfect example, in which they are now forcing through free-but-with-strings-attached healthcare for most of our kids; whether or not they need it, whether or not we want it. They calculate that sooner or later we’ll grow tired of fighting them and will let slide the smaller, lower-profile legislation disguised to look like it only applies to ‘the poorest of poor children’.
Children have been used to push through all kinds of legislation that otherwise doesn’t measure up. Politicians and radicals know that anyone who fights a proposal tied to the wellbeing of children risks a merciless raking by the press as 'heedless of children'. What kind of monster is against children, they cry. Never mind that the agenda has nothing to do with a child’s wellbeing; so long as it can be made appear to protect children, dissent will be silenced. In this instance, it is easily shown the affect of this legislation on juvenile patients will be as negative as it would be on adult patients. Our choices and availability of services for our children will be restricted and denied when state monopolization and economization is the norm as it is everywhere else this has been done. Nor will healthcare cost any less. The cost just gets buried in our taxes and use fees where we will have a difficult time ferreting out how much it is costing us and absolutely no say. The cost of care is no lower just because the feds are handling it; and, given the performance of state run programs, will cost a good deal more to the average and higher taxpayer.
Worse, it is one more disincentive to perform. Everywhere this is done, the standard of care suffers: services stingily doled out, equipment and staffing cut to the bone, hospital sanitation and segregation goes to heck, cheaper drugs substituted for better, comforts that sometimes make a difference in surviving eliminated, and waiting times for life saving tests and procedures strung out for months to years. And, still the cost stays high, resisting all attempts to manage because a so-called 'free' service is a 'used to the max' service.
I am well within the financial bracket Hillary and Company proposes to help. I can assure her that, although I’m not rich, I am okay and would rather keep control of my own affairs and her out of my wallet, thank you very much.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | August 8, 2007
"Why not be done with it and pass a law that extends ALL (and I mean ALL) of our society’s benefits to all inhabitants of the earth?"
I think I got 5 good laughs out of that.
Comment by LI Mike | August 14, 2007