From MSNBC.com
WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Congress moved a step closer to handing President Barack Obama an early health care victory Thursday as the Senate passed a bill extending government-sponsored health insurance coverage to about 4 million uninsured children.
The bill, which was approved 66-32, authorizes an additional $32.8 billion over the next 4 1/2 years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The House plans to take up the same measure next week.
Even with the added spending, an estimated 5 million children still would be without health insurance. During his election campaign, Obama called for requiring all children to have health coverage.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
"When President Obama signs this bill, the real victory will belong not to politicians, but to kids," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The bill pays for expanding SCHIP by increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 a pack. Opponents argued that the tax would hit the poor the hardest.
The Democratic majority turned back Republican amendments to limit expansion of the program. Among the failed amendments were a prohibition on using federal money to cover children of newly arrived legal immigrants and a stricter income limit in some states for participating families.
Current law requires a five-year waiting period before legal immigrants become eligible for coverage under Medicaid and SCHIP. Democrats said that removing the ban would help children before small health problems became big ones.
"It is likely many of these children are already U.S. citizens and many will become U.S citizens, and their being unhealthy doesn't make sense for that family, and it certainly does not make sense for our nation." said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
Support for expanding SCHIP has had bipartisan backing. In 2007, former President George W. Bush twice vetoed bills to expand the program. The Senate voted to override Bush, but the House fell about 15 votes short of an override.
Backing SCHIP
Scores of interest groups have lined up in support of more money for SCHIP, including trade groups representing insurers, hospitals, doctors, unions and the pharmaceutical industry.
Some Republican senators complained that Democrats had worked closely with many of them on SCHIP in the past but had ignored them this year when crafting the bill.
"I think we could have had 95 votes," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "That would have sent a tremendous, tremendous message that hasn't been sent around here for a long time.
Nine Republicans joined 57 Democrats in voting for the bill. No Democrat voted against it.
More than 7 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some point in 2008. The program was created more than a decade ago as a way to provide health care to children in families with incomes too high to quality for Medicaid but too low to afford private coverage. Federal funding for SCHIP is set to expire March 31 unless Congress acts.
The House already has approved a bill to expand SCHIP. It's comparable to the Senate bill, except it included a provision opposed by physicians and supported by the influential American Hospital Association. That provision would have prevented new physician-owned hospitals from opening, but it's not part of the Senate bill.
Click for related content
House backs kids’ health bill
Bush's letter to Congress on SCHIP veto
First Read: As promised, Bush vetoes SCHIP
The House will vote on the Senate bill and then send it on to the president for his signature.
Republicans said they are fearful that Democrats are using SCHIP to increase the government's role in providing health care. They said about 2.4 million children who otherwise could get private insurance will get government-sponsored coverage instead.
Democrats responded to those concerns by requiring any state covering families earning more than three times the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four, to be paid at Medicaid levels rather than the higher SCHIP level.
But the bill allowed an exception for New Jersey and New York. Lawmakers said a family of four in New York could potentially qualify for SCHIP even if the family's income came to about $88,000.
"These are certainly not low-income families," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., who unsuccessfully tried to remove the exemption for the two states.
My Personal Commentary:
This is truly amazing how current and future immigrants, even the illegal one's, are being planned for in the rush to provide everyone with insurance. So the next generation can have their backs weighted down in advance. Meantime, the politicos all have their respective agendas into play as more time goes by and our coffers empty out even more. What makes sense anymore, for when you go into your local hospital's emergency department, it is brimming with everyone using it as their doctor's office causing 5 hour waits!
Go Placidly,
Dan Miller
Friday, January 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dan, my husband is a physician who has worked in ERs and has also spent several years volunteering at a Free Health Clinic which provides medical care to the uninsured. The number of uinsured children he saw at both was staggering. Many children had routine illnesses (and sometimes more serious problems) that could have been and should have been followed by a regular pediatrician, had they had insurance. You bring up the fact that ERs tend to have long waits due to the number of uninsured ER patients, yet increasing insurance coverage would decrease the number of people who turn to the ER because they do not have health coverage and a regular physician. (As an aside, the uninsured are not the only factor causing the ER backlog. Any medical personnel working in an ER can tell you that understaffing is a huge problem, as is a host of other issues.)
More importantly, while people can debate whether or not we should have universal coverage for adults, it is reprehensible that any civilized society would even consider turning its back on the innocents who are at the mercy of their parents' ability or inability to provide coverage for them. How we take care of our young, immigrant or not, speaks volumes about our humanity, our mercy, and our sense of compassion. In my eyes, whether or not we do the best we can for children, as a society, has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with morality.
I have two young children and I would rather have their backs weighed down by the cost of this endeavor than have their souls weighed down by the knowledge that their parents' generation sat on their hands and did nothing.
Best regards,
Maureen Daniels
I want to thank you Moe for taking the time to comment.
I tend to see it another way though Moe. It seems to me that insurance coverage is the responsibility of the parents to provide for their offspring/themselves and not the rest of society. While I admire and support societal values of assisting members with needs, I wonder to what degree and the whole issue of dependency or social engineering comes into play, thereby exonerating personal responsibility. Obviously this is a complex issue, yet our current financial straights show a system being out of control and that the government will be the sole provider.
I do not see it as a case of turning the back on human needs but rather one of responsibility and motivation. I am 61 and have insured myself all my life and wonder why it is so difficult now. My bias is that this is the "age of entitlement", which is the root of the problem in my estimation. I would suggest that you think about the type of world your lovely child will inherit if we allow the promulgation of entitlement.
As I said, this is just my view and I respect yours as well.
Go Placidly,
Dan Miller
Hi Dan,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I agree with you that personal responsibility is key to having a functional society. I also agree with you that a certain sense of entitlement permeates society. So many people think of two cars and bi-yearly vacations and 3000-square-foot houses as necessities, when clearly they're not.
That being said, I do believe that not all of the reasons why people become uninsured have to do with irresponsibility. I am sure that there are people walking around who would rather pay for a new cell phone than an insurance premium, but when it comes to kids, I think most parents who are seeking help are choosing between food on the table and insurance, not a new cell phone or insurance. I get your point that people shouldn't have kids if they can't provide for them, but life is unpredictable and the reality is that many hard-working, responsible parents find themselves in financial crises they did not foresee. For most people, there is no greater motivator to work hard and be successful than having children and wanting to be able to provide for them adequately, but sometimes a willingness cannot overcome difficult circumstances.
Based on your post about internet pornography you clearly support governmental intervention to protect children's mental health, so why not their physical health? I believe in the necessity of parental responsibility as much as you, but what does that say about us if we are willing to essentially tell a child whose parents can't/won't provide for them, "Tough shit, kid. Bad luck of the draw with those parents."
As you suggested, I do think everyday about the sort of world we are building politically, economically, environmentally, and spiritually for my children. I hope that I am raising them to be hard-working adults who will take the reins of their destiny and will fulfill their personal responsibility to themselves, their families, and society. But I also hope that they grow to be people filled with compassion and will not ask, "Why should I help you?" but "How can I help you?"
Lest you think otherwise, I see and genuinely understand your worry that dependency is trumping responsibility. It is just my hope, no, my belief, that personal responsibility and compassion surely can co-exist.
All the best,
Maureen Daniels
Moe, I would submit that it has to do with degree of responsibility. While you and I have moral values, the vast multitude function at a wholly different level for a plethora of reasons.
The variable you mentioned of "circumstances" is not new and I think it goes much deeper with leading a certain life style that in essence precludes the avoidance of self-centeredness re their kids or neighbors.
You also raise the valid point of my advocating protecting kids from pornography versus medical needs of kids. The former to me is endemic for a child's emotional/spiritual development whereas the latter is for a child's very life and one assumes a parent would provide for the medical needs as well. Maybe I am missing the point of your correlating pornography with medical care for I see the former as unhealthy while the latter is a pre-requisite.
I too wish personal compassion and independence to co-exist but I see way too much of a "bail-out" mentality today with the government stepping constantly,not the least of which politicians are right behind wall street in draining our monetary policy.
Thanks for listening Moe.
Go Placidly,
Dan Miller
Post a Comment