Now
Fair
64.0°
High
87°
Low
64°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Editorial
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

SCHIP needs Nebraska delegation

Comments 21 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Sunday, Oct 07, 2007 - 12:19:44 am CDT

The four Republicans in Nebraska’s congressional delegation need to return to our state’s fine tradition of responsible, pragmatic problem-solving when it comes to the controversial issue of providing health care for children.

That means standing up against President Bush’s veto of legislation that would have expanded the successful State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Bush has chosen this issue to draw a line in the sand against the program on the basis of ideology, saying, “I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system.”

Nebraskans should take a cue from fellow Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who said, “The bill is not a government takeover of health care. The bill is not socialized medicine. Screaming ‘socialized medicine’ during a health care debate is like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from looking at the facts. To those of you who make such outlandish accusations, I say, go shout ‘fire’ somewhere else. Serious people are trying to get real work done. Now’s the time to get this done.”

Both the House and the Senate approved the bill by wide margins, including significant support from Republicans. Eighteen Republican senators voted for the bill, enough to override Bush’s veto. Forty-five House Republicans voted for the bill. Fifteen more votes are needed to override the veto.

Admittedly, the measure isn’t perfect. But it’s a decent attempt to address a major health issue.

It is exasperating to remember that Bush was only too happy to embrace the monumental expansion of government into health care when he proposed the prescription drug coverage for the elderly.

Now he turns around and opposes better health coverage for children on the basis of ideology.

This makes no sense. Both programs have a similar basic approach. The prescription drug program subsidizes private insurance. So does SCHIP. Any society that takes better care of grandparents than it does kids has its priorities backward.

At least the legislation to expand SCHIP includes a plan to pay for it by raising the tax on cigarettes. The prescription drug program so far is just getting added to the $9 trillion-and-growing federal debt.

And the stark reality is that consumers are already paying for health coverage for uninsured children. Hospitals can’t turn away sick and injured children. They can’t. That’s the law.

So how do they pay for those costs? Insurance premiums for people who can afford insurance are jacked up to subsidize care to the indigent. If you pay health insurance premiums, you’re already subsidizing health care for uninsured children.

SCHIP is smarter and more efficient because parents could do a better job of providing preventive coverage with regular checkups instead of using emergency rooms or waiting until an illness grew so severe that hospitalization was required.

The Bush administration has made the attention-grabbing claim that it would expand federal coverage to families earning $83,000 a year. That claim is about a single hair short of bogus. Its only factual basis is a request by New York to expand coverage to 400 percent of poverty. In Nebraska the current guideline is 185 percent of poverty. In reality the bill contains disincentives for states that raise the eligibility limit above the federal minimum and incentives for reaching eligible families who are not enrolled.

One central point to remember is that SCHIP is aimed at the working poor; taxpayers already are paying for health care for kids whose parents are on welfare. Expansion of SCHIP is aimed at helping families in which the parents are working but can’t afford health insurance in an era in which health costs are spiraling out of reach.

The health care system in the United States becomes more dysfunctional every year. The Republicans in Nebraska’s congressional delegation need to stop being part of the problem and start working on solutions.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Editorial > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Ralph Thomas wrote on October 7, 2007 5:24 am:
" If this SCHIP money could be funneled through Haliburton, then the chimp would sign off on it. But alas, the chimp and cheney wouldn't get their cut and therefore the veto pen comes out. "
Thank you! wrote on October 7, 2007 6:39 am:
" Thank you Journal Star. The Nebraska Republicans are the problem and WE need to solve the problem by electing new representatives and replace them with reasonable, responsible representatives. This time is NOW. "
don't forget... wrote on October 7, 2007 7:26 am:
" You endorsed him twice. You will need a lot more than just an editorial to do away with all the garbage he has created.I hope you open your eyes a little more next time and provide better leadership to Lincoln and Nebraska. "
Edgar Pearlstein wrote on October 7, 2007 7:31 am:
" I expect to hear, in response to this editorial, the mantra "America has the best medical care in the world". Maybe so, if one looks only at dramatic things like heart transplants. Looking though at the bottom lines--life expectancy and infant mortality--we are at the bottom among developed countries. "
Less than 30K wrote on October 7, 2007 8:22 am:
" I confess that I have not read the most current edition of this bill. BUT, I make less than $30K per year. I pay for my own insurance thru my employer. Therefore, I do not think that I should have to pay for insurance for a 25 year old "child" of parents who may make up to $80,000 per year. A 25 year old is old enuf to vote, drink and go to war, and yes, even work. LJS should have addressed these parts of the bill when they wrote this editorial. The bill was vetoed so that a compromise that might be more equitable could be reached. "
Jeff wrote on October 7, 2007 9:39 am:
" Great Editorial. Thank You. Our health care system, which so many like to call the best in the world, is anything but. It is in fact dysfunctional. We can do better. And the cry of "socialized medicine" and "HillaryCare" is nothing but a smoke screen. How long can our non-profit hospitals continue to provide charity care while they try to compete with for-profit entities who are sifting off the profitable patients and leaving the rest to the community hospitals? How long do we want to continue to subsidize drug costs throughout the world by paying 5-10 times what other countries do? Do we really want to watch drug companies spend millions of dollars on direct to consumer advertising rather than invest it in research? Speaking of research - how many more sleep medications, gastric reflux treatments, and male erectile dysfunction medications do we need? That's where they are spending their research because it will make them more money. Free market capitalism doesn't work in health care, particularly when most citizens feel that access to the latest drug or technology is a right, whether it is a good "value" or not. "
David B. wrote on October 7, 2007 10:25 am:
" I think President Bush is trying to look like a fiscal conservative. However, the rest of presidency does not seem to reflect that of a fiscal conservative. He chose the wrong legislation for an attempt to make his point. "
bigred wrote on October 7, 2007 12:33 pm:
" This story is factually inaccurate. An SCHIP reauthorization bill submitted by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) earlier this year also expanded eligibility to 400 percent of the poverty level. Also, there are a list of states that want to file a lawsuit to force the federal government to spend more on SCHIP, thus an end-around on a constitutionally guaranteed provision of the executive branch in which to exercise veto power. Furthermore, Both the House and Senate bills fund their respective SCHIP expansions in part by increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes. Currently, the federal government taxes small cigarettes at a rate of $19.50 per thousand cigarettes and large cigarettes at a rate of $40.95 per thousand cigarettes. (Small cigarettes are ones weighing less than three pounds per thousand cigarettes, while large ones are those weighing more than three pounds per thousand.) Since there are about twenty cigarettes in the average pack, it amounts to a per-pack tax of 39 cents for small cigarettes and 82 cents for large cigarettes. The House bill increases the tax to on small cigarettes to $42.00 per thousand for small cigarettes and $88.50 per thousand for large cigarettes.15 The Senate bill increases the tax on small cigarettes $50.00 per thousand, and on large cigarettes to $104.99 per thousand.16 On a per pack basis, the House bill increases the tax to 84 cents per pack for small cigarettes and $1.77 for large cigarettes, while the Senate bill increases it to $1 per pack for small cigarettes and $2.10 for large cigarettes. But fairness has never been the primary concern of the political left on health care. The primary concern has been achieving a universal, government-run system. Providing near universal coverage for children, and funding it via cigarette taxes, is a big step toward achieving that goal. “Children” are an effective propaganda tool. Anyone who opposes providing coverage for children can be attacked as heartless and cruel. Cigarette taxes are one of the few types of taxes that the public will not oppose. Indeed, anyone who opposes cigarette taxes can be attacked as being “pro tobacco.” The thinking of the political left seems to be that if government covers enough children of enough people high up the income ladder, then eventually enough of the public will be supportive of extending such government insurance to everyone. Call it “socialized medicine on the installment plan.” Shame on you JOURNAL STAR! "
Zoomie wrote on October 8, 2007 12:42 am:
" Bigred-There is no "House bill" and "Senate bill". When Congress sends a bill to Bush to sign, there is only Congress' bill. Less Than 30K - the current, existing, Repuglican written bill from 1997 allows participation up to $82,000. But ONLY if a state specially requests it, and the White House appoves it (only one has asked, NY, and Bush said no). This new bill makes NO changes to that part of the existing law. And why shouldn't there be such an allowance? Per Gov't numbers, what costs $40,000 here in NE (the general top allowed earnings to participate in SCHIP in most states), costs $82,000 in NY. So unless you're descriminating against kids in NY, the level has to be set far higher there than here. Oh, and the 25yr old rule also has always been there, and follows standard private health insurance rules of covering dependents up to age 25 IF they are full-time students only. Nothing new here, so why the whining? And Bush didn't veto this to get a compromise, as its already a compromise bill (heck, it was written by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in the 1st place!) between Congressional Dems and GOPs. Bush was invited to participate, but refused. Now he claims he wants to compromise? "
Deeds wrote on October 8, 2007 5:35 am:
" Ralph, you've got to get past the Bush bashing and look at the real issues. No one wants to take health care away from children who need it. The problem with this bill is that it expanded the coverage too much. People who earn 400% above the poverty level rarely need help with health insurance. Also, coverage could be extended to illegal aliens through constraints placed on health care providers attempting to confirm a patient's legal status. Our congressional delegation did the right thing, pare the bill back, close the loophole and it will be signed. "
bigred wrote on October 8, 2007 6:37 am:
" Actually Zoomie, every bill starts in both Houses of Congress, so there are 2 bills and they meet in Conference committee to reconcil the differences and then send the bill up for vote in both Houses and then send it to the President. "
ted wrote on October 8, 2007 7:21 am:
" We are currently getting a taste of Democrat policies in congress. Notice that there is no farm bill. This is because Harry Reid knows nothing about agriculture, and the Democrats represent big city interests, not farm interests. Don't tell me that children cross all interests. the fastest growing expense for NE state govt is the Medicaid federal expenses, 10% per year and growing. Medical costs are not federal expenses, they pass on the cost to the states. Which taxes will they raise? "
Bottom Line wrote on October 8, 2007 7:23 am:
" If they expand the SCHIP program, then that takes money away from Bush and his own little game of RISK. Why would he approve anything that could possibly take away from his war funding? All he wants is more American blood and more Mid-East oil. "
kate wrote on October 8, 2007 7:24 am:
" What are they going to tax when all the smokers have quit or died?, to pay for all this crap?! "
bigred wrote on October 8, 2007 12:42 pm:
" After 2012, there is a budgetary "blackhole" in which there are only 2 solutions. 1.) Raise taxes to cover the cost. 2.) Push the children into Medicaid. SOUNDS LIKE GOVERNMENT-RUN Health Care to me. "
Scott wrote on October 8, 2007 12:54 pm:
" Both sides of this "debate" are so far from what I think the country should be doing on this and other issues that I fear I am completely out of step with politicians. I think that all kids in the US should be provided with comprehensive health care and free meals at school if they cannot afford them. Companies would embrace a nationwide system like this -- it would be cheaper for them than providing family health care, even if there were an additional business tax to fund it. "
Dave wrote on October 8, 2007 1:12 pm:
" Mr. Deeds that was a great post! This bill would add another 3-4 million children to SCHIP at a cost of around 35 billion dollars a year and yes illegal alien's children could get into SCHIP with the don't ask don't tell interview. "
Zoomie wrote on October 9, 2007 5:46 pm:
" Notice how people spout nonsense right next to conflicting facts? Guys, the SCHIP bill adds $35 billion to the current bill over FIVE years (so $7 billion more per year), not $35 billion per year!!! A bill that punishes states that raise the max allowed income limit too high, and rewards states that enroll as many QUALIFIED kids as possible (currently less than 70% of kids who qualify are actually enrolled, mostly because there isn't enough money to cover them). I never knew so many Americans cared so little if little kids get sick and die for lack of medical care (which happens literally to thousands of Americans kids annually)! But I guess that's what happens when you're a "compassionate conservative" and you claim to be "pro-life"...as I've always said, if the so-called pro-life crowd cared as much about those lives AFTER they're born as they do before, we wouldn't even be having this debate! "
Deeds wrote on October 10, 2007 10:42 am:
" Zoombie, I take offense at your accusation that the conservative right does not care about children after they are born, nothing could be further from the truth. Neither my husband or I have college degrees, we both work and make sure one of us has an employer who provides health insurance for our family. It may not be the job of our dreams, but we sacrifice for our children. Under the new guidelines, we would qualify for SCHIP, a program we don't need, read a waste of our tax dollars. We care enough about our children to make sure they are insured plus we take pride in the fact that we don't need government assistance/intervention to raise our family! What ever happened to self-reliance and personal responsiblity? It's what made our country great. I am tired of subsidizing the lives of people who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves but lack the self-motivation to do so! I know there are those who really need assistance and, by all means, they should receive it but the funds may not be there if families like ours are added to the program. Why can't you understand that it's not about being insensitive to the needs of children, it's about fiscal responsibility. We will find our country going down the slippery slope to socialism by adding so many middle class entitlements not to mention the huge tax burden it will create. "
Dave wrote on October 11, 2007 7:16 am:
" To enroll in SCHIP all that can be ask for is a Social Security number.Gee, could illegal aliens get a SSN to use? "
Neil Davis wrote on October 21, 2007 8:12 am:
" The program already works in it's present form. "Children" aged 25 of "poor" families up to $80,000? Give me a break. "

Ads by Yahoo!