Please drop a line to my local editor-my friend's column on SChip-calling out our reps

[w8liftinglady]

it is critical that we keep progressive writers in the local papers-for so long,only one viewpoint has been seen.Please write Neal White [e-mail]


http://thedailylight.com/articles/2007/10/01/dailylight/opinion/editorials/column1.txt
Can anyone give me an answer?
Posted: Monday, October 1, 2007 10:21 AM CDT


OK, it’s time for me to come right out and ask a useful question here: As you know, I’ve spent some ink in this space in support of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program presently apparently headed for Presidential veto. And a host of Washington politicians have suggested that expanding that program would be the absolute end of everything we hold dear, or words to that effect.

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) last week stood up in front of Congress and made such outrageous statements that a couple of his fellow Republicans saw fit to chastise and correct him, right there in front of everyone.

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-6th District) has made it clear over and over again that he’s opposed to SCHIP. I won’t go into his interesting claims, having done so in the past. (I hear ’n’ tell he wasn’t too happy with that, but I also note he didn’t write to correct me.)

They both insist that expanding SCHIP would send us down the slippery slope to “government-run” health care or, worse, “socialized medicine.”

Well, given that at least they both seem to agree that there are lots of totally innocent children who are without health insurance (this is true, even though President Bush famously suggested a few weeks back that everyone has access to medical care because they can go to the emergency room), let’s just dissect that frog and see if we can understand what, exactly, is wrong with universal health care.

I defy any opponent of universal health care to answer honestly WITHOUT resting their argument on certain phrases, such as “government-run” or “socialized medicine;” if they feel they just can’t live without them, I demand that we agree on definitions. Global warming is only made worse by the red-button rhetoric of the Washington folks.


Remember, my goal here is to get an answer to the question.

Let’s just take a look at a couple of examples of government-run medical services.

Start with Medicare. Anyone out there want to give it up?


Here’s who I think might be willing to do that: A retired corporate executive whose benefits include lifetime medical coverage, for whom Medicare is only a nuisance that he doesn’t really need; with both Medicare and private coverage, he’s in the catbird seat.

You could say that about airline pilots and union members, except that you can’t because their former employers are forever going bankrupt or cutting their benefit packages in order to cut costs. So it’s not likely these folks will give up Medicare benefits because they might need them!

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Sen. Cornyn and Rep. Barton would likely be quite willing to give up Medicare, because they will retire with the excellent health insurance available to federal employees, said to be even better than Medicare. Like Medicare, it’s a government run program.

Both FEHBP and Medicare provide universal health care to their populations: Medicare to seniors, the federal employees’ insurance plan to former and present federal employees, in each case with the government picking up about 75 percent of the premium and the insured picking up the rest.

Now, how about the Veterans Health Administration? Here’s what Phillip Longman, author of Best Care Anywhere, wrote:

“And who do you suppose is the highest ranking health care system? Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the veterans health care system outperforms the highest-rated non-VHA hospitals.”


And here’s what Ezra Klein, writing for American Prospect, said:

“What makes this such an explosive story is that the VHA is a truly socialized medical system. The unquestioned leader in American health care is a government agency that employs 198,000 federal workers from five different unions, and nonetheless maintains short wait times and high consumer satisfaction.”

Anyone got a problem with the Veteran’s Health Administration?


So, you can see that the term “socialized medicine,” which simply means “the providers are government employees,” is SUCH a bugaboo!

So, if we do away with the terms “socialized medicine” and “government-run health care,” as I’ve shown they don’t describe something to be afraid of, what are we left with?

Oh, SCHIP opponents are also worried about the cost, they say. This is a red herring. Leaving children uninsured drives them to emergency rooms, as acknowledged by our President, where their care drives up the costs for the rest of us or, worse, leaves them without care, so their strep infection can go untreated and infect the whole class and from there their families, and from there their parents’ co-workers, all with lots of folks missing work because they are sick. NOW you can start counting the costs.

But you know what? You don’t make decisions about children’s health based on the cost. Do you?

And what about the assertion that some states would allow coverage to children of families with incomes up to three or four times the poverty level, causing some “rich” families to sign up instead of keeping their existing insurance. The poverty level is $20,650 for a family of four; you can do the math and see if the answer you get is “rich.”

Our own Sen. Cornyn told a fib when he said incomes as high as $82,000 a year could qualify (he was talking about New York’s application to the Bush administration for a waiver to allow that increase, and it was denied) thus allowing some people who don’t need it to drop their private insurance and join up.


But consider the cost of living in New York, and then the cost of private health insurance, and do the numbers again.

You know what? I think a few “rich” kids (define “rich” — have you looked at the cost of living in New York?) getting coverage, so that over 4 million uninsured children can, it’s not a bad tradeoff!

So, it’s not the cost, “socialized medicine” is not always bad, and “government-run health care” can work pretty well. So, what?


Would someone please offer a convincing, fact-filled argument against SCHIP - or, for that matter, universal health care for all Americans?

Nathalie Guyol is a contributing Monday columnist for the Daily Light. She is an essayist living in Waxahachie. She can be reached at [e-mail]

[rodeodance]

1. Sen. Pat Roberts really blasts the Bush Adm on S-chip

Pat Roberts, Sen, KS

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:6:./temp/~r110qD2Qui:e23471:



CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - September 27, 2007)

……..I appreciate the administration's passion and persistence on having a broader health care debate. However, holding a children's health insurance bill hostage is not the right way to achieve this goal. I support the goals of reforming the Tax Code to promote the purchase of private health insurance. Let me repeat that, Madam President. I support the goals of reforming the Tax Code to promote the purchase of private health insurance. But I have yet to see a plan from the administration that can actually pass the Congress.

In fact, I have yet to see an actual plan from the administration. I have yet to see bullet points from the administration. I have yet to see any plan that can be articulated in some fashion to sell to the American public or to the Members of this body. We don't even have an acronym for this plan. My word, you can't do anything around here without an acronym.

The administration has also raised concerns that this bill is a march toward the federalization of health care. I would argue that is simply not true. I would never support a bill to federalize health care. I remember that battle a decade ago. There is no way I want to go down that road again.

I think it is important to point out what I think is a paradox of enormous irony in regard to the claim that this bill is a step toward the federalization of health care. In reality, this administration has approved waivers--approved waivers--to cover adults under a children's health care insurance program. Let me repeat that. Under this administration's watch, we now have 14 States covering adults under the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Now, this administration and others expressed grave concern that SCHIP is the next step to universal health care. Yet this very same administration is approving waivers to cover adults under a children's health program. And, unfortunately, a number of these States are covering more adults through their SCHIP program than they do children, even while high rates of uninsured children still remain. This is not fair. This is not right. It is wrong.

I don't mean to pick on other States, but let's take a look at a few examples. New Jersey now covers individuals up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level and spends over 40 percent of its SCHIP funds on adults. This is even while over 100,000 low-income children in the State remain uninsured. This isn't right.

Earlier this year, Congress had to pass a stopgap funding measure to plug 14 State SCHIP shortfalls. Of the 14 States that got this emergency funding, five--five--cover adults. One of these States was Illinois, which spends over 50 percent of its SCHIP funds on adults. Wisconsin covers more adults than children under SCHIP--75 percent to be exact. And the administration just approved an extension of their waiver to cover adults. Minnesota covers more adults on their SCHIP program than they do children. The same is true for Michigan, and the same is true for Arizona.

Now, I am not trying to pick on these States. I can go on and on because, again, there are currently 14 that cover adults on a program that was meant for children. And how are these States able to cover adults under the Children's Health Insurance Program? Again, through waivers approved by this administration. This is certainly not fair to States such as Kansas that have been playing by the rules and targeting our programs to low-income children. I am beginning to wonder if we have the wrong name for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I don't think it was intended to be the adult health care insurance program.

The greatest paradox of enormous irony, however, is that this bill actually stops the waivers this administration has been so generously granting to States to cover adults by not allowing more adult waivers to be approved. Let me say that again. The greatest paradox of enormous irony is that this bill actually stops the waivers this administration has been so generously granting the States to cover adults by not allowing more adult waivers to be approved. This means future administrations that may want to use SCHIP as a means to expand government health care to adults will be prevented by law from doing so. As a result, this bill ensures that the Children's Health Insurance Program remains just that--a program for low-income children.

This bill also phases out childless adults currently being covered with SCHIP funds and lowers the Federal matching rate for States that currently have waivers to cover parents and now must meet certain benchmarks in covering low-income children. As a result, this bill brings excessive spending on adult populations in check.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that spending on adults would be over $1 billion higher under current law over the next 5 years than it would be under this compromise. This bill is more fiscally responsible than the administration's approach or an extension of this program by $1 billion.

Most importantly, this bill ensures that we are putting kids first and returns the program to its original purpose--providing health care coverage to low-income children.

Now, on the income eligibility front, the administration unfortunately is claiming this bill does things that the bill simply does not do. It is sort of an ``SCHIP In Wonderland.'' For example, the President claimed in a speech last week that this bill expands SCHIP coverage to families making over $80,000 a year.

I just have to ask the speech writer for the President, are you reading the same bill I am reading? Are you reading the same bill that we are discussing on the floor of the Senate? You can twist the facts, but facts are stubborn things, Madam President.

In fact, this bill reduces the matching payment incentives that States have had for so long to cover individuals at higher income levels. In addition, by the year 2010, this bill--this bill--denies Federal matching payments to States that cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level if the State cannot meet a certain target in covering low-income children in either public or private insurance plans. And let me emphasize private insurance plans.

I think it is important to remind the administration that a State can only cover children above 200 percent of the poverty level if the administration approves the State's application or waiver.

I repeat: A State can only cover children above 200 percent of the poverty level if the administration or any administration approves that State's application or waiver. This is current law and this bill does not change that.

GPO's PDF

More importantly, this bill actually provides incentives and bonus payments for States to cover children under 200 percent of the poverty level in order to truly put the focus of this program back on low-income children.

The bill also addresses the importance of including the private market in the SCHIP program. Let me repeat that for all those who want a private approach in regard to private markets, in regard to insurance: The bill addresses the importance of including the private market in the SCHIP program. In fact, the American Health Insurance Plans, also known as AHIP--that is their acronym--on Monday announced their support for this compromise bill. AHIP is the national trade organization which represents over 1,300 private health insurance companies.

The compromise makes it easier for States to provide premium assistance for children to get health care coverage through the private market--that is the goal of the administration and that should be our goal as well--rather than relying on SCHIP. That is in this bill. This is an important choice for families who would prefer a private choice in health care.

This bill also requires the GAO and the Institute of Medicine to produce analyses in the most accurate and reliable way to measure the rate of public and private insurance coverage and on best practices for States in addressing the issue of something called ``crowdout.'' That means children switching from private health insurance to SCHIP. So we have a study to determine exactly how we fix that.

In the ultimate paradox of enormous irony, it seems the administration is threatening to veto a bill which does exactly what they want us to do in focusing SCHIP on low-income children and making sure the program does not become the vehicle for universal health care.

This bill gets adults off the program. It targets it to low-income children. It ensures appropriate steps are taken to discourage crowdout and it encourages private market participation.
....more.........