Children's Health Insurance Program Headed for Cuts

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/TheAg...tory?id=3525956&page=1

A major battle is brewing in Washington over children and health care.
Nine million children nationwide are without insurance. As high as that number is, it was much higher ten years ago. That's when the State Children's Health Insurance Program was launched.

It's nice to live in a country where providing health coverage to children is controversial because it conflicts with Republican small government ideology.
Of course, Children are healthier and cheap to insure and at an age when prevention can provide huge bang for the buck. But we wouldn't want to let facts and cost effectiveness come in the way of ideology. :roll:

I specifically loved this little tidbid
The move comes just as the Democratic-led Congress prepares to send the president a bill to dramatically increase funding for the program. Bush has already promised to veto the bill, and said in July that people have access to heath care in America: "After all, you can just go to an emergency room."

So the so called free market solution to this problem is to provide children with medical care via ER, where it's going to cost orders of magnitude more than it would at a doctor office.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Aren?t you one of the people always bitching about the deficit and debt?

Won?t cutting government programs help to balance the budget?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Good, it should be a state program if anything. The feds should also lower their abusive tax rates so states can afford to raise their taxes and provide it if they so choose.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Aren?t you one of the people always bitching about the deficit and debt?

Won?t cutting government programs help to balance the budget?

Not necessarily? How would having kids getting medical care through the ER balance the budget? But if you mean ending the war and cutting defense spending, then I am with you.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
So how much money are we talking about? $50B over 5 years, compared to the $100B/yr cost of the porkbarrel in Iraq and another $440+B/yr on other military expenses... not to mention DHS and NMD along with a host of other bloated repub spending...

PJ's usual rhetoric just shows how truly screwed up the usual rightwing headset really is, and how they're entirely willing to point out the mote in the other man's eye, discounting the log in their own...

Hell, the Bush faction let $9B in cash disappear from Iraq the first year of the occupation, about the cost of the program for a whole year... but that's different, right?

Relying on ER care as a substitute for preventive care is a large part of the reason healthcare is ridiculously expensive in this country, anyway. The cost of treating preventable illness is always much higher than preventing it.. but one wouldn't want to allow facts to interfere with the formulation of opinion, certainly not among bushfans, that's for sure...

--------------------------
You have a PM for you regarding trolling/attempted hi-jacking of this thread

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's nice to live in a country where providing health coverage to children is controversial because it conflicts with Republican small government ideology.
Of course, Children are healthier and cheap to insure and at an age when prevention can provide huge bang for the buck. But we wouldn't want to let facts and cost effectiveness come in the way of ideology.

Either your lazy in not reading whats been done with this bill or just too stupid to understand or just to irrational and suffer your typical knee-jerk reaction when Bush does something... I am not sure which it is.


The changes being made to this program are mocking the public. They are using class warfare, outright lies, lies by omission, and subterfuge, to pass a bill which is just bullshit vote buying.



Got to leave it to Jhhn to drag the war in this, to idiots on the left just mentioning Iraq in any coversation suddenly makes their boneheaded or deceit laden ideas valid. They had to find something other than their typically insipid responses.


Brainless thinks ERs are the reason for rising healthcare costs? hahahahaahahahahaha

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Aren?t you one of the people always bitching about shipping more soldiers off to die?

Won?t cutting funding for the Iraq invasion help to balance the budget?

You type one thing, we hear the above. See how it works. You have to ask yourself, what's more important, it is a priority thing. The war/fear mongers have made their priorities very clear by now.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
From CSG-

Liberals have been doing that to themselves for years. It's called Abortion.

That's it? That's all you've got? An OT dig?

How lame, and how typical...
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
From the article:

In New Jersey, for example, families earning nearly $73,000 qualify for the program. Cases like that have become a point of contention.

:confused:

Yes, a family of four with an income of 73,000 would qualify for the program if its 350% of the poverty level. However, health insurance is extremely expensive, and unless the work place provides it, most people won't be able to afford it. The people still need to pay monthly premiums, and co-pays, which rises with your income level . And, it covers children, so the adults don't get any health coverage at all. If you had to choose between a standard health care package that covers the family offered by your job, and health care only for children, which one would you choose?
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Is this the program that defines "children" as anyone 25 and under?
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
From the article:

In New Jersey, for example, families earning nearly $73,000 qualify for the program. Cases like that have become a point of contention.

:confused:

Yes, a family of four with an income of 73,000 would qualify for the program if its 350% of the poverty level. However, health insurance is extremely expensive, and unless the work place provides it, most people won't be able to afford it. The people still need to pay monthly premiums, and co-pays, which rises with your income level . And, it covers children, so the adults don't get any health coverage at all. If you had to choose between a standard health care package that covers the family offered by your job, and health care only for children, which one would you choose?

So in other words, we're talking about taking one more step toward universal coverage?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: XMan
Is this the program that defines "children" as anyone 25 and under?

Maybe if you listen to Hannity and/or Rush, support Fred Thompson and don't know what Google is, it just might be.

For those of us that don't fit the above description, we just just search and find links like this that breakdown each state's requirements and see that questions like yours are ill-founded.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
From the article:

In New Jersey, for example, families earning nearly $73,000 qualify for the program. Cases like that have become a point of contention.

:confused:

Yes, a family of four with an income of 73,000 would qualify for the program if its 350% of the poverty level. However, health insurance is extremely expensive, and unless the work place provides it, most people won't be able to afford it. The people still need to pay monthly premiums, and co-pays, which rises with your income level . And, it covers children, so the adults don't get any health coverage at all. If you had to choose between a standard health care package that covers the family offered by your job, and health care only for children, which one would you choose?

So in other words, we're talking about taking one more step toward universal coverage?

No, that is not the case. This is just a program to help the children of families who don't get health coverage from their jobs. I would hardly call this a step. True steps towards universal coverage will happen in 09.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
What the republican boo-birds are most concerned with, and the primary reason that DubCo has threatened the legislation with his veto pen is:

The House bill would begin to crack the Medicare Advantage program - DubCo's privatization of Medicare best identified with the infamous prescription drug program.

You remember. The drug program they said would cost $380 billion. The Big Pharma Giv-a-way. The one that actually costs $700 billion. The one where the Republican House illegally held the vote open nearly all night so they could twist arms to pass it . . .

That's what the right-wingers are really pissed about. A big giant rollback of corporate welfare - that provides health insurance for children!

 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: XMan
Is this the program that defines "children" as anyone 25 and under?

Maybe if you listen to Hannity and/or Rush, support Fred Thompson and don't know what Google is, it just might be.

For those of us that don't fit the above description, we just just search and find links like this that breakdown each state's requirements and see that questions like yours are ill-founded.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.everett.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=533">expand the program to include children whose household incomes reach $83,000 a year - going well beyond the intent of the program. Furthermore, the age limit of a qualifying "child" would be raised to 25. There are not many people age 25 who think of themselves as "children," and families earning $83,000 a year are hardly "low-income," yet these facts make no difference to the liberals who are only focused on ways to expand government health care. In fact, children with private insurance would be welcome to switch to government-provided benefits under the new program.
</a>

I figure he voted on the bill, he probably knows what's in it.

White House's Position

"For example, the legislation would permit States to subsidize coverage for all "children" up to 25 years of age, whether they are a citizen or not."

Emphasis mine. So yes, it expands the possible definition of children up to 25, and also allows non-citizens the right to get on the program.

It's H.R. 3162, and I don't have the time to waste sifting through it. So unless you have some other magic Google source, or want to provide the pertinent information from the bill, I'll await your apology.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: XMan

I figure he voted on the bill, he probably knows what's in it.

"For example, the legislation would permit States to subsidize coverage for all "children" up to 25 years of age, whether they are a citizen or not."

Emphasis mine. So yes, it expands the possible definition of children up to 25, and also allows non-citizens the right to get on the program.

It's H.R. 3162, and I don't have the time to waste sifting through it. So unless you have some other magic Google source, or want to provide the pertinent information from the bill, I'll await your apology.

Gosh - a republican congressman misleading his constituants - What a concept!

Subtitle D--Populations
SEC. 131. OPTIONAL COVERAGE OF CHILDREN UP TO AGE 21 UNDER CHIP

(a) In General Section 2110(c)(1) of the Social Security Act is amended inserting `(or, at the option of the State, under 20 or 21 years of age)' after `19 years of age'.

SEC. 132. OPTIONAL COVERAGE OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM AND CHIP

(4)(A) A State may elect . . . .
... for aliens who are lawfully residing in the United States
... `(i) PREGNANT WOMEN- Women during pregnancy (and during the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the pregnancy).

edit: Once again, I note:

What the republican boo-birds are most concerned with, and the primary reason that DubCo has threatened the legislation with his veto pen is:

The House bill would begin to crack the Medicare Advantage program - DubCo's privatization of Medicare best identified with the infamous prescription drug program.

You remember. The drug program they said would cost $380 billion. The Big Pharma Giv-a-way. The one that actually costs $700 billion. The one where the Republican House illegally held the vote open nearly all night so they could twist arms to pass it . . .

That's what the right-wingers are really pissed about. A big giant rollback of corporate welfare
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
Its a political game by the democrats. It has nothing to do with actually helping the children.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Good, it should be a state program if anything. The feds should also lower their abusive tax rates so states can afford to raise their taxes and provide it if they so choose.

x2.

Chuck
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: senseamp
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/TheAg...tory?id=3525956&page=1

A major battle is brewing in Washington over children and health care.
Nine million children nationwide are without insurance. As high as that number is, it was much higher ten years ago. That's when the State Children's Health Insurance Program was launched.

It's nice to live in a country where providing health coverage to children is controversial because it conflicts with Republican small government ideology.
Of course, Children are healthier and cheap to insure and at an age when prevention can provide huge bang for the buck. But we wouldn't want to let facts and cost effectiveness come in the way of ideology. :roll:

This is typical of many posts here - see a headline and without bothering to check, run to the forums and scream how Repub's wanna eat your babies etc.

I'd say you've just performed a wonderfully effective demonstration of not "let[ting] facts and cost effectiveness come in the way of ideology" (I.e, Repubs *bad*, Dems *good*)

From the Admin:

H.R. 3162 is objectionable on several fronts. First, as a general matter, the legislation is structured in a way that clearly favors government-run health care over private health insurance. The result of this approach would be a dramatic encroachment of government-run health care resulting in lower quality and fewer choices, which the American people have repeatedly rejected. Second, the legislation dramatically expands Federal spending far beyond what is necessary to reauthorize SCHIP responsibly. Third, it will result in the elimination of benefits and choices for millions of Medicare beneficiaries including both senior citizens and individuals with disabilities. Fourth, it would weaken scrutiny of Medicare?s unsustainable fiscal path by eliminating a current law provision that informs the American people when Medicare?s financial condition has deteriorated. Fifth, it weakens the ability of States to cover unborn children under their SCHIP programs. Finally, it imposes a massive, regressive tax increase.

It also appreas that there is concern that this bill roles back tax benefits (deduction) for those paying their health insurance. I strongly oppose that.

(More information on the above list of concerns can be found at the White House site the above poster linked.)

While I am strongly in favor of coverage for children (and have previously expressed that here many times) IMO one must keep a watchful on the details in a bill, instead of just reading the headlines, before deciding to support it.

There are many many valid concerns to this amendment to the original program. Given Congress's demonstarted sloppiness in drafting & passing bills how one could cry foul over closer scruntiny etc is partisan silliness.

Finally, and contrary to the assertions of many here, the Pres does support an increase of the program to the tune of $5 Billion IIRC. But feel free to continue on with your baseless *propoganda*.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: XMan

I figure he voted on the bill, he probably knows what's in it.

"For example, the legislation would permit States to subsidize coverage for all "children" up to 25 years of age, whether they are a citizen or not."

Emphasis mine. So yes, it expands the possible definition of children up to 25, and also allows non-citizens the right to get on the program.

It's H.R. 3162, and I don't have the time to waste sifting through it. So unless you have some other magic Google source, or want to provide the pertinent information from the bill, I'll await your apology.

Gosh - a republican congressman misleading his constituants - What a concept!

-snip-

There are too many places reporting the age at 25 to be dismissed so easily. You don't even link your source of info.

Fern