ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Denying Children Who Need Health Care

Updated on October 4, 2008

Denying Children Who Need Health Care

Here's the NYT's take on Bush's impending veto of the children's health care bill passed by the House of Representatives:Editorial Denying Children

Published: October 26, 2007

The House approved a revised bill to finance the children's health insurance program yesterday by a 265-to-142 margin - a strong mandate, but still not enough to overcome another promised veto by President Bush. Skip to next paragraph Times Topics: State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP)

If the president carries out this threat, we hope Congressional tacticians can find a way to enact this important measure over the adamant, ideologically driven opposition of Mr. Bush and House Republican leaders. The health of millions of children who lack insurance cannot be held hostage to the president's visceral distaste for government and its essential role to protect the weak, or his desire to protect the tobacco industry.

House Democrats tried hard to address the issues raised and relentlessly hyped by Republican critics. The bill would speed up the removal of childless adults who have been enrolled in the program in a handful of states, and would reduce the enrollment of parents, even though including parents is often the best way to reach their children.

Most important in the battle for public opinion, critics can no longer charge that the bill would cover children in families earning up to $83,000. That was always hype since the only state where that might have happened was New York - where health costs are especially high. The new bill would provide federal matching money to cover only children in families with incomes below 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or almost $62,000 for a family of four. The only exception is that New Jersey could continue to provide coverage to families who earn up to $72,000 - if the state ranks high in covering the poorest children.

Our own feeling is that states where the cost of living is high should be able to cover middle-class families. But if limiting the program to 300 percent of the poverty level is necessary to get this important legislation enacted, that would be a price worth paying.

The administration says it does not want to add $35 billion more to enlarge the program, known as S-chip, over the next five years. The House bill would pay for that largely by raising tobacco taxes, but that does not satisfy the White House. The president is also opposed to enlarging a government-financed insurance program that he says might compete with private insurance. To allay those fears , the new bill would encourage premium assistance to help families buy private policies and require all states to come up with policies to lessen the incentive to switch to S-chip.

House Republicans still wanted more. They sought to eliminate all adults from the program, except pregnant women, and to base eligibility on gross income - with no ability to discount spending on child care or other vital needs. The Republicans also wanted to impose arduous documentation requirements to ensure that no illegal immigrants are enrolled, even though there is little or no evidence that any ever have been.

The House bill also had the backing of many Senate Republicans, who strongly support expanding S-chip. But not a single House Republican who had supported the president's previous veto was willing to shift sides yesterday. Clearly these Republicans care more about protecting their party's ideology - they call it "principles" - than protecting America's children. ant measure over the adamant, ideologically driven opposition of Mr. Bush and House Republican leaders. The health of millions of children who lack insurance cannot be held hostage to the president's visceral distaste for government and its essential role to protect the weak, or his desire to protect the tobacco industry.

House Democrats tried hard to address the issues raised and relentlessly hyped by Republican critics. The bill would speed up the removal of childless adults who have been enrolled in the program in a handful of states, and would reduce the enrollment of parents, even though including parents is often the best way to reach their children.

Most important in the battle for public opinion, critics can no longer charge that the bill would cover children in families earning up to $83,000. That was always hype since the only state where that might have happened was New York - where health costs are especially high. The new bill would provide federal matching money to cover only children in families with incomes below 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or almost $62,000 for a family of four. The only exception is that New Jersey could continue to provide coverage to families who earn up to $72,000 - if the state ranks high in covering the poorest children.

Our own feeling is that states where the cost of living is high should be able to cover middle-class families. But if limiting the program to 300 percent of the poverty level is necessary to get this important legislation enacted, that would be a price worth paying.

The administration says it does not want to add $35 billion more to enlarge the program, known as S-chip, over the next five years. The House bill would pay for that largely by raising tobacco taxes, but that does not satisfy the White House. The president is also opposed to enlarging a government-financed insurance program that he says might compete with private insurance. To allay those fears , the new bill would encourage premium assistance to help families buy private policies and require all states to come up with policies to lessen the incentive to switch to S-chip.

House Republicans still wanted more. They sought to eliminate all adults from the program, except pregnant women, and to base eligibility on gross income - with no ability to discount spending on child care or other vital needs. The Republicans also wanted to impose arduous documentation requirements to ensure that no illegal immigrants are enrolled, even though there is little or no evidence that any ever have been.

The House bill also had the backing of many Senate Republicans, who strongly support expanding S-chip. But not a single House Republican who had supported the president's previous veto was willing to shift sides yesterday. Clearly these Republicans care more about protecting their party's ideology - they call it "principles" - than protecting America's children. Next Article in Opinion (2 of 18) » Tips To find reference informaEditorial since the only state where that might have happened was New York - where health costs are especially high. The new bill would provide federal matching money to cover only children in families with incomes below 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or almost $62,000 for a family of four. The only exception is that New Jersey could continue to provide coverage to families who earn up to $72,000 - if the state ranks high in covering the poorest children.

r the next five years. The House bill would pay for that largely by raising tobacco taxes, but that does not satisfy the White House. The president is also opposed to enlarging a government-financed insurance program that he says might compete with private insurance. To allay those fears , the new bill would encourage premium assistance to help families buy private policies and require all states to come up with policies to lessen the incentive to switch to S-chip.

House Republicans still wanted more. They sought to eliminate all adults from the program, except pregnant women, and to base eligibility on gross income - with no ability to discount spending on child care or other vital needs. The Republicans also wanted to impose arduous documentation requirements to ensure that no illegal immigrants are enrolled, even though there is little or no evidence that any ever have been.

The House bill also had the backing of many Senate Republicans, who strongly support expanding S-chip. But not a single House Republican who had supported the president's previous veto was willing to shift sides yesterday. Clearly these Republicans care more about protecting their party's ideology - they call it "principles" - than protecting America's children.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)