September 22, 2009 11:14 AM
- Text
Legislating Towards Universal Health Care?
(National Review Online)
This column was written by David Freddoso.
Late last week, the Bush administration announced plans to curb the practice of states putting already-insured and non-needy children on the rolls of a federal program that subsidizes health insurance for uninsured and needy children.
Democrats were outraged.
"This is a political attempt by the administration to try to intimidate states," Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.) told the Washington Post.
The Democratic Congress had just passed two versions of a bill to let states expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to children in families making three and even four times the federal poverty level ($60,000 to $80,000 for a family of four). With his new rules and his veto threats against their bill, President Bush is spoiling their plans.
But aside from the feigned outrage always involved in politics, why are Democrats so unhappy about dedicating federal money only to those who need it, and not to those who don't? In most parts of the United States, a family of four making $60,000 is doing pretty well and doesn't need a handout or even a "hand up."
The answer is that Democrats in Congress do not just want the government to cover the needy and uninsured. They want to legislate incrementally until they have established universal or near-universal taxpayer-funded coverage, beginning with children.
This is not the paranoid idea of a few conservatives, but a plan outlined in an April 9, 1993, memo from Hillary Clinton's health-care task force. The memo, which became public later only thanks to lawsuits forcing sunshine rules on the task force, was previously mentioned in a Washington Times report ten years ago, when the SCHIP program was first created.
The memo describes three possible methods of implementing universal health coverage. The first two involve a state-by-state phase-in of plans that involve state and federal government funds and employer mandates for the working uninsured.
But "Option 3" would have implemented a similar program by population group, beginning with children and expanding from there. The proposed name for the program, Kids First, had deeper meaning than one might suspect: it was the front end of a plan that would later cover everyone.
Late last week, the Bush administration announced plans to curb the practice of states putting already-insured and non-needy children on the rolls of a federal program that subsidizes health insurance for uninsured and needy children.
Democrats were outraged.
"This is a political attempt by the administration to try to intimidate states," Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.) told the Washington Post.
The Democratic Congress had just passed two versions of a bill to let states expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to children in families making three and even four times the federal poverty level ($60,000 to $80,000 for a family of four). With his new rules and his veto threats against their bill, President Bush is spoiling their plans.
But aside from the feigned outrage always involved in politics, why are Democrats so unhappy about dedicating federal money only to those who need it, and not to those who don't? In most parts of the United States, a family of four making $60,000 is doing pretty well and doesn't need a handout or even a "hand up."
The answer is that Democrats in Congress do not just want the government to cover the needy and uninsured. They want to legislate incrementally until they have established universal or near-universal taxpayer-funded coverage, beginning with children.
This is not the paranoid idea of a few conservatives, but a plan outlined in an April 9, 1993, memo from Hillary Clinton's health-care task force. The memo, which became public later only thanks to lawsuits forcing sunshine rules on the task force, was previously mentioned in a Washington Times report ten years ago, when the SCHIP program was first created.
The memo describes three possible methods of implementing universal health coverage. The first two involve a state-by-state phase-in of plans that involve state and federal government funds and employer mandates for the working uninsured.
But "Option 3" would have implemented a similar program by population group, beginning with children and expanding from there. The proposed name for the program, Kids First, had deeper meaning than one might suspect: it was the front end of a plan that would later cover everyone.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
-
Brian Montopoli Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »
Popular Now in CBSNews.com
- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- Poll: Majority Believe In Ghosts
- Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent
- Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
- Time For Marijuana Legalization?
- Fake War Stories Exposed
- Make Marijuana Legal
- The Football Legacy Of Joe Namath
- The Best Health Care System in the World?
- Poll: Majority Reject Evolution
- The Trouble With Tall People
- Autoworkers Making $70 An Hour? Not Really
- America's Eighth Amendment Absurdity
- Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution
- How And Where America Eats
- Poll: Blacks See Improved Race Relations
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News
- Callahan scores again, helps Rangers top Caps 3-2
- Callahan scores again, helps Rangers top Caps 3-2
- NJ man who shot off-duty officer must pay $5.9M
- Whitney Houston's daughter rushed to hospital
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News
