Elana Levin

S-Chip Update

Written by The Daily Gotham's Daniel Millstone:

"Have you been following the fight to reauthorize and expand the State-Child Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP)? Tuesday, a large majority of Congress members voted for a House-Senate compromise which will make lower cost health insurance available to millions of children who are, at present, without any. Thursday night, the US Senate voted for S-CHIP 67-29; greater than the two-thirds majority needed to over-ride a veto. As the Washington Post explained every GOP Senator in a tight race for reelection in 2008 voted against Mr. Bush and for S-CHIP. President Bush, the politician whose policies I find it easy to deplore, has promised a veto.

Progressives proponents of S-CHIP need 24 votes for a veto over-riding two-thirds majority, even with 45 GOP House members voting in favor. NYC area GOP House members Peter King and Vito Fossella, perhaps with an eye to avoid political extinction, voted for the current bill They’d voted against earlier versions. (need to read an account of Rep. Fossella's reasons for opposing the earlier S-CHIP bills together with a good humored, but devastating rebuttal? Check out the Staten Island Advance ). Two other GOP Congress Members John "Randy" Kuhn and Thomas Reynolds supported Mr. Bush and voted against the Child Health bill.

The policy problem is than millions of children in the United States lack health insurance. The poorest of us are covered by federal-state programs like Medicaid. Older people are covered by Medicare. Many people get health insurance through their jobs, others buy it on the open market or through affinity groups like the Freelancers’ Union . However, tens of millions of us have no insurance whatsoever. (The guesstimates of the number of uninsured vary from 43-47 million.) The uninsured are largely low wage workers employed in non-union private-sector jobs. They do not earn enough, as a practical matter, to buy insurance on their own and so do without.

Among the 40-something million uninsured are, perhaps, 9 million children. If the House-Senate conference bill is enacted, the $35 Billion extra, funded largely from tobacco tax increases, (which has the extra virtue of diminishing cigarette purchases by young people) will pay for as many as 4,000,000 children.

President Bush tells us he opposes and will veto Congress’ expanded S-CHIP because it is too expensive (this week, by the way, Mr. Bush seeks almost $200 Billion more for his war in Iraq) –even though it is funded by the tobacco tax. He also opposes it on principle. What’s the principle? Protecting the profits of health insurers, I’m thrilled to tell you. As written, Congress intends to allow states of offer insurance to children who may already be insured through private carriers. Mr. Bush’s view is that it would be wrong to allow those children to get insurance from a cheaper, competing government insurance scheme. Perhaps he fears their parents will squander the savings on rent. For a devastating critique of Mr. Bush's "arguments" check out the point-by-point rebuttal by the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities here

Monique Morrisey of the Economic Policy Institute , a progressive, union-supported, DC-based think tank explained that "the money is sorely needed. The share of children covered under employer-based health insurance has dropped from 66% in 2000 to 60% in 2006, according to a recent issue brief by economist Elise Gould. Meanwhile, the share covered under government plans has leveled off, leaving a growing number of children without coverage.
Gould highlights the social and economic consequences of this trend: higher illness and mortality rates among children as well as an increase in avoidable hospitalizations. Uninsured children also don't do as well in school. But children aren't the only ones who pay the price: the social costs include higher personal bankruptcy rates, lower work productivity via increased absenteeism and turnover, and higher premiums for the insured.

The agreement represents an accomplishment in another respect as well — its costs over the next five years are fully paid for. This represents a sharp change from earlier bills that the President enthusiastically supported — from the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill to his tax cuts — which were financed by massive amounts of deficit spending.

The House-Senate bill is a compromise, of course. Missing from it were crucial Medicaid reforms which would have recaptured US over payments to private insurers. To get more bi-partisan support, S-CHIP proponents left in place the windfall to the insurance corporations.

Some progressive organizations are preparing to oppose Mr. Bush's threatened veto. For example: the Service Employees International Union plans a White House demonstration on Monday. MoveOn is organizing around the country in case the veto-threat becomes real. The Children’s Defense Fund which has been a key proponent of the expanded S-CHIP has been conducting a letter writing campaign in favor of the bill and against the veto. Indeed, CDF president Marian Wright Edelman sounded the first call for the expanded S=CHIP at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day meeting at Riverside Church in January, 2007 –a meeting attended by many friends of DMI.. The CDF site includes detailed technical guides to S-CHIP as well as publications for parents and grandparents. Click here for a links to their child health research and publications.
For general background on S-Chip click and for a NY Times editorial setting out the state of play as of Monday, click here."

*******************
Are you a glutton for detail? The bill itself is here and the roll-call vote is here.

Elana Levin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 4:47 PM, Sep 28, 2007 in Health Care
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (3)