Bio
Morra Aarons Mele is the founder of Women Online, a consulting firm for companies, not for profits and political campaigns seeking to mobilize women...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

SCHIP Childrens' Health Insurance: Bush uses Executive Power to Harm America’s Children

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

The New York Times has a front page story revealing new rules from the Bush Administration that would restrict access to the SCHIP program – which insures children in the absence of private coverage--the program Congressional Democrats are seeking to expand, while Bush is threatening to veto the bills. This is another example of Bush using executive power to kill popular legislation- and he did it when Congress was in recess, natch, in hopes no one would notice, I guess.

The new rules could result in making ineligible for coverage some children who are currently covered, while making it impossible for further expansions of the program. At the Nation, Ben Crair sums it up well:

When President Bush declares his "support" for the "initial intent" of SCHIP, one wonders what exactly he imagines that to be. Originally, he proposed to fund the program at such low levels that it would actually have resulted in more uninsured children. Now that Congress has shown its determination to flout that request--both houses have voted to fund the program much more generously--he seems intent on starving the program by using his executive authority to limit the states' ability to expand it.

When SCHIP was first created, states typically restricted eligibility to families making less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Since then, however, several states have increased that cap to 300 percent (and even 350 percent in the case of New Jersey). Now, according to The New York Times, Bush has announced new standards intended to stymie state efforts to expand eligibility. These standards, which HHS would enforce, include a provision requiring states to demonstrate that they have insured at least 95 percent of those children living below 200 percent of the poverty level before they can receive federal funding to insure children living above 250 percent--a benchmark the states say will be impossible to hurdle.

States that will lose under Bush's plan: here .

According to the NY Times, the Bush Administration is using the Congress’ recess to impose impossible demands on state health systems with the interest of limited children’s enrollment in SCHIP. The NY Times article is here:

In a memo, sent to state health officials about 7:30 p.m. on Friday, Dennis G. Smith, the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, set a high standard for states that want to raise eligibility for the child health program above 250 percent of the poverty level.

To minimize the risk of such substitution, Mr. Smith said in his letter, states should charge co-payments or premiums that approximate the cost of private coverage and should impose “waiting periods,” to make sure higher-income children do not go directly from a private health plan to a public program.

If a state wants to set its income limit above 250 percent of the poverty level ($51,625 for a family of four), Mr. Smith said, “the state must establish a minimum of a one-year period of uninsurance for individuals” before they can receive public coverage.

The poverty level for a family of four is $20,650 in annual income. New York now covers children in families with income up to 250 percent of the poverty level. The State Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level — $82,600 for a family of four — but the change is subject to federal approval.

California wants to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level, from 250 percent. Pennsylvania recently raised its limit to 300 percent, from 200 percent. New Jersey has had a limit of 350 percent for more than five years.

As on other issues like immigration, the White House is taking action on its own to advance policies that were not embraced by Congress.

So the Bush spin on children's health insurance is: SCHIP was meant for poor families. Now, families who aren’t poor enough are using this program. That’s cheating. They should have private insurance and not mooch off the Government.

The truth is this: health insurance is too expensive for too many Americans. Kids need health insurance. The Government can help provide this with minimal pain to the American people.

BTW: What is the federal poverty level? It’s the “estimate of the income necessary to purchase what society defines as a minimally acceptable standard of living; classification is based on the poverty index originated by the Social Security Administration in 1964 (revised in 1969 and 1980). In 2002

  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Nequals1 5 pts

Thank you for linking to my blog, Universal Health ( http://universalhealth.wordpress.com ). I hope you will visit often, read, participate and add it to your blogrolls. There is also a web ring called Progressive Healthcare Bloggers, and it would be terrific if more people would add the banner to their own blogs and web sites, as well as to join us if you are so inclined. Thanks!

Kim Pearson 5 pts

Hi Stephen,
Why should our tax dollars fund health care for other people's children? For one thing, those children will be part of the workforce you and I will depend upon in old age. Even if we assume that you and I, as self-supporting working people, make all the right financial moves and fund our own retirements, someone will have to sustain the communities in which we live. Demographic projections suggest we really can't afford for the millions of currently under- and uninsured children in this country not to be part of that group.

Similarly, I support public schools and colleges whether my children participate in them or not, because I understand that it is in my interest to live in a community in which children are literate, numerate and properly socialized, and I know that private schooling can't do the job alone. Yes, we can talk about all of the problems with public schooling, but that's a different question.

Aside from that, your argument proceeds from two false premises:

1. People who need help paying for children's health care are too stupid to know how much money it takes to raise a child.

We can agree that there are many people who have children without being financially prepared. I hope you will also recognize though, that stuff happens even when parents have done the best possible job of planning. Companies change their insurance coverages, or go out of business, or relocate to Bora Bora. People get sick before they've had a chance to build up their savings or insurance coverages.

And as for knowing how much it takes to raise a child -- I defy you to find a health care economist or personal finance adviser in 1984 who had a spot-on estimate of what health care was going to cost today. (A child born in 1984 could be carried on a parent's health insurance until age 23.) One of the reasons this is such an issue is because health care costs to industry have shot up in the last several years alone.

2. I'd like to know what you mean by a truly private system. Do you mean a system without taxpayer-subsidized pharmaceutical research? Without taxpayer-supported medical education? Without taxpayer-subsidized hospitals? Without tax breaks for employers who provide insurance coverage for their employees? Without taxpayer-supported emergency personnel (EMTs, etc?) and home health care services? How does that work?

If you have health coverage, even if you are self-insured, my tax dollars help you do it, just as your tax dollars help support my private health insurance. And chances are that both of us, or someone we love, will need the care of nurses, home health aides, nursing home staff, etc. at some point in our lives. Right now, the ratio of working adults to retirees is too low for comfort -- and baby boomers are just hitting retirement age. We need as many children as possible to grow up to be productive adults in order to sustain a society. Seeing to it that children get proper health care is not an unreasonable investment. What level of investment, how and by whom is a different discussion.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )|

Stephen 5 pts

Why should the government even provide the program? I don't have childeren and I get sick of everyone spending my money because some people decided to have childeren. I don't want me tax dollars to go to help your children. They are your responsibility, and if you can't take care of them then give them to someone who can. If the government would allow truly private health care then we would all be better off. The government (ie my tax money) should not be there to help people who are too stupid to not know how much money it takes to raise a child.

Morra Aarons Mele 5 pts

and call your reps!!!

And thank you for sharing it. Yes, it is disgusting.

(On a lighter note, my husband and I eloped because I couldn't afford health insurance once I became self-employed. But it was the best thing I ever did!)

The outcry on this issue continues in the media and on the blogs. Here are some more links:

Social Work, Social Action: Stopping SCHIP in its Tracks ( http://socialworkaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/stopp... )

Great story in the Des Moines Register ( http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article... ):
The Bush administration seems to regard SCHIP as "a communicable disease, imposing virtually impossible standards," said Kevin Concannon, director of the Iowa Department of Human Services. In reality, the program has cost-effectively provided health-care coverage for millions of American children.

Matt Stoller at OpenLeft ( http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=0F... ):

In 2006, Democrats won on a strong antiwar sentiment, yet today, we have more troops in a bloodier war in Iraq than we've ever had. Rather than concede to popular opinion while maintaining some of his mandate from 2000, 2002, and 2004, and withdraw some troops, Bush simply escalated the war. Democrats, because of the Bush Dogs, could do nothing about it.

This is not just a pattern with the war, or national security issues like the expansion of wiretapping. Bush is simply immune from legal accountability, since Democrats won't use tools at their disposal, like impeachment, so Gonzales lies with impunity under oath, and then goes biking. And it's also fairly standard with legislation itself, even really really popular stuff, like SCHIP, which is health care for poor kids.

Democrats sought a very popular expansion to this very popular program. Instead of tolerating some expansion in response to the 2006 election, Bush effectively cut SCHIP through administrative maneuvers. Hit hard are poor kids in mostly blue states that now cannot avail themselves of the Federal SCHIP program.

State Policy Network blog is pro-SCHIP retraction- they frame it as "SCHIP crowd-out ( http://blog.spn.org/id.560/detail.asp ).

DanaFiles 5 pts

The thing that really gets me is that there's this notion that some children "aren't poor enough".

Who decides that? How CAN someone really truly decide that?

My parents didn't have health insurance until 1999 when my father sold his business and took an outside job. This was only because my mother was going to need some medical procedures that she and my dad couldn't possibly afford without insurance.

From the day I was born until my wedding day, I didn't have health insurance.

We never went to the doctor unless we broke a bone or were oozing blood. My father couldn't afford the $1200 a month premiums for private insurance for his family of six because he was self-employed.

And I can remember listening to my parents discuss tax returns and which deductions they weren't eligible for because of the stipulations for small business owners.

1991 my father's salary was $20,000. It was a rough year for business and somehow he survived, and my mother was pregnant.

My father applied for state-funded health insurance for just us kids and he was denied because his income was $4,000 too high.

We weren't "poor enough".

I can only imagine, today, how many people are barely making a living, trying to raise healthy children but they are going to denied coverage.

It makes me angry and sick.