The future of SCHIP may well come down to money. It always does. All this brought me back to my coverage of SCHIP in 2007 when the program was up for reauthorization, and Republicans and their allies in conservative think tanks tried to kill it. Congress reauthorized the program, only to have President Bush veto it twice. When President Obama finally signed the bill in January, much of the media missed the point: the bill leaves out about half of the kids who have no health insurance.
Those wanting to dive into this story should review the rhetoric of the 2007 debate, for it tells much about the reasons why the program may eventually be repealed. Writing for the Health Affairs blog, Grace-Marie Turner, who heads the conservative Galen Institute, argued that if families with higher incomes were allowed into the program, at least one child would lose private insurance for every two new kids enrolled in SCHIP. That would crowd out private coverage.
She also argued for keeping a cap on the SCHIP funding to avoid creating another entitlement program. “Entitlement programs pose a sizeable future threat to taxpayers,” Turner wrote. There you have it—SCHIP tangled up in all the old ideological arguments about preserving the market for private insurers that already stand to gain handsomely from health reform.
What part of "this whole exercise is just another way to fuck us" are you folks missing?
The bosses never let matters like this com up, unless it is to slip the chogie a little deeper up the collective community ass...
Chuy. There has not been an honest word written or spoken in this whole kabuke/bukkake HCR "debate."
#1 Posted by woody, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 01:58 PM
Hi, separate from the topic of this post but related to the issue, I just want to mention that BBC World News is running a very interesting series comparing US vs European healthcare (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005950f). For example, today's radio broadcast compared the experience of an American woman with breast cancer dx & tx in the US, followed by the experience of a British woman. The American story includes medical bankruptcy but the UK story describes full coverage of swift treatment and reconstructive surgery, although the British woman strongly criticizes the NHS because she had to push hard for screening under age 50 even though she was in a high risk category with breast cancer in a first degree relative. This is the only comparative story I have heard since last year's NPR series and TR Reid's Frontline documentary.
#2 Posted by MB, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 06:20 PM
This is new.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/reids-office-defends-nixing-of-key-consumer-protection-from-bill/
--------------------------------------------------------
The internet is buzzing today with the news that Harry Reid quietly inserted a loophole in the Senate health care bill that would let insurance companies put limits on medical care for folks struggling with costly illnesses — angering patient advocates, and in apparent violation of a promise made by Obama this fall.
But in an email to me, Reid’s spokesperson defended the move, arguing it was necessary to hold down premiums.
The news started making the rounds this morning after the Associated Press reported that a “tweak” to the Senate bill had been made, weakening a provision originally banning such limits. Advocates for patients protested that such a ban is a key consumer protection.
The current bill would allow insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care — provided those limits are not “unreasonable,” a term the legislation doesn’t define.
This seems at odds with Obama’s impassioned rhetoric on the issue. As Jane Hamsher notes, Obama vowed in August to stop insurance companies from placing “some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime,” because “no one should go broke because they get sick.”
---------------------------------------------------
They are really pushing to lose all their liberal support for the bill because they are assuming their support is a given.
It isn't. They shouldn't.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 04:32 AM
I just read that the states that administer SCHIP have learned through hard experience that IF they make the families of poor children pay more than around 5% of medical costs, the children don't get the care.
I know from my own experience when i was a child growing up with a single mom that if the amount something costs is even just a few dollars over budget, it doesn't get bought. No matter how much its needed.
Even if its very important,
THE MONEY JUST ISN'T THERE-
So, the Federal government is creating a profoundly inadequate "health reform" program that they already know can not work.
Even if they pay amounts higher than 90%, that's not enough for many people.
The Federal government MUST know this.
So what the hell is going on over in Washington that they PRETEND not to?
#4 Posted by Wesley, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 06:30 PM