Not caring for the health of children

Elizabeth Hartline Green

Not caring for the health of children

For anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the last few months, the news that President Bush has decided to make it much harder for states to expand eligibility for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program beyond 200 percent of the federal poverty level is unsurprising. Bush has been threatening to veto a bill that would increase funding and access to the program for a while now, claiming that it will encourage people to not use available private insurance options. The new policy will not allow states to extend coverage unless they enroll 95% of children who are eligible at 200% of the poverty level (something which no states have been able to do). If states do meet that eligibility percentage, they also must certify that every child whose family makes over 250% of the federal poverty level has been without insurance for at least a full year.

This leaves me with one question: why are we using the health of children as a pawn to make a political point about socialized medicine? Certainly, states should do everything they can to maximize enrollment, but that could be more easily done through easing the somewhat complicated process and increasing access to information. We probably aren't doing enough to reach all the children who are eligible for the program, and this group should be tapped out. But reaching all of these children will be exceedingly difficult to do without an increase in funding for the efforts (something Bush is not willing to allocate money towards). Should states who want to expand the program to cover more children really be banned from doing so? Besides this, there's the fact that several states, with federal approval, already cover children beyond the 200% line—this guideline is promising to wreak havoc on their current systems and on the families who will have coverage withdrawn.

Then there's the other factor that makes this policy change suspicious: the one-year requirement. So, if you recently switched to a job that doesn’t provide insurance from one that does, or for some reason lost your coverage through work, you would have to let your kids go without insurance for an entire year before they could be covered. It seems that President Bush wants so badly to make the point that he will not accept universal health care of any sort that he is willing to sacrifice the health of middle-class children to a principle.

This is bad policy at its finest, along with a subversive effort to undermine the legislative process by changing guidelines. New York and other states are promising to fight the new rules. Let’s hope that the states win this one, or we could see consequences in the well being of our children.

Posted at 2:00 PM, Aug 22, 2007 in Health Care | Permalink | Comments (5)

Comments

While I agree the new Bush rules are bad for uninsured children, they raise an interesting problem which needs to be addressed directly. The way in which states are barred from expanding coverage under the Bush rule is that they are required to enroll 95% of low income children first. State enrollment rates for poor children seem to have maxed out at around 70%. Why?

The NY Times' Kevin Sack has a sensitive, well written, well documented story addressing this important issue here . We do need to think this problem through even if the Bush rules are not an answer to it.

Give it a rest already; stop playing the emotions card.

Bush is, for a change, upholding his oath of office that he swore to uphold twice. While he has certainly been remiss in his commitment (or lack thereof) to said oath, he is doing the right thing here.

Simply put: there is no constitutional mandate for such a program at a federal level. If states want to pursue such programs, that is their business. I cannot be more unequivocal than to say that this is not a federal issue, so please stop trying to make it one. Either call up Ted Kennedy and have him propose a constitutional amendment that would authorize the federal government of these United States to take action in such matters, or get off your high horse and take your hand out of my pocket.

My children are covered because I work hard to make it so and make use of the recently improved Health Savings Accounts. My grandparents came to this country legally from Europe with nothing but the clothes on their backs in the earlier half of the last century, and they built up a life so that my parents could go to college and subsequently put me through college. So please, spare me the "Oh, you're some rich guy who was given a trust fund" rebuttal. I'm not rich, and I never have been.
I donate to charity and help out friends, neighbors, and perfect strangers when they are in need and I am able to assist. I'm not a hawkish neo-con, and I have opposed many of the policies of this administration, especially this malevolent foreign policy of imperialism. (And, uh, you cannot wage a war against a tactic.)

Frankly, I am sick and tired of you whiny socialist types trying to subvert our Constitution at every turn. We are a nation of laws, and it is time for you start recognizing the most basic and fundamental laws of our land: those laws which are enshrined in our Constitution.

The point I was making wasn't about the worthy or unworthy nature of SCHIP--I'm not sure that making all children eligible for SCHIP will even work. The bigger issue is the mandate that seemingly undermines the legislative process. Changing program rules instead of garnering votes in Congress or even waiting for the veto (which, if Bush actually goes through with it, would do essentially the same thing) just seems a sneaky thing to do.

The other interesting thing about your comment, Eric, is that you overlook the fact that Bush's new mandate actually decreases states' role in this program by making it illegal for them to expand the program, even with state money. I'm not sure that overarching federal mandates can increase states' rights, at least not in this situation.

Posted by: Elizabeth Hartline Green | August 22, 2007 08:15 PM

For another description of the problems posed by the Bush rules on SCHIP and efforts to fight them check this essay from Progressive States

I will concede that the tactics employed by Bush to bring down this bill are not, in my opinion, the best ways to go about it. I do believe that it would be more appropriate for him to simply veto the bill, as you point out...

However, my main issue was with you playing the emotions card to advance your socialist causes. I (and you all do this as well) rail against Bush and his cronies all the time for the playing the emotions card when it comes to this "war on terrorism" nonsense by utilizing fear tactics, etc. Yet, here you are trying to paint Bush as some heartless thug and the Democrats as stalwart paladins, swooping in to save the day and "protect the children." In fact, the Democrats are not supporting this program simply because they all "care for the health of children"; instead, they support this program because it makes a great talking point -- it can be exploited in the way that you did with this post.

So, really, how are you any different than the imperialists using scare tactics? If you want to advance a policy position, that is your right to do so, but I would ask that you do it without playing on people's emotions. And if you truly care about the children, you will work to ensure the vitality and integrity of our Constitution, for I tell you now: there is no greater threat to the future of our nation than the constant and continued subversion of our Constitution. Attacks on freedom of speech, which this President has levied, are disgusting and despicable, and this President (and Congress) has already done away with Habeas Corpus, the most fundamental of rights upon which all others stand, via the unconstitutional Military Commissions Act of 2006. And while those are both horrible developments and unforgivable offenses, so too are the marches toward socialism and corporatism, propagated by the New Democrats and New Neo-"Conservatives" respectively, that have gotten completely out of control over the last several decades.

Also, please tell me: do the same Democrats who voted for that bill--a bill which also condones torture--care for the children? If so, are these people truly of high moral standing? Or are they, as I am suggesting in this instance with SCHIP, simply coming down on the politically popular side of an emotionally charged and easily exploited issue? Are you seriously going to tell me that Hillary Clinton, the most opportunistic politician in the Presidential race, is some great savior of children? I wonder, how many children did she save by voting for the resolution to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq? I wonder how many children will be saved when she invades (or at least supports the invasion of) Iran.

I would suggest to you that if one truly cares about children, he or she would instead spend their time and money donating to NGOs that support children's causes and signing up to support and provide a home to foster children. Supporting a bill that further defiles our Constitution and takes us down a socialist path is not productive in the long run, and the legislation required is both illegal and unethical.

As for the new mandate decreasing states' abilities to raise their own funds for the program, if that is the case, I apologize for the oversight, and I would oppose that measure with you. I reject legislation that imposes such mandates on the states. We are a union of states above all else, and we must always bear that in mind.