Governors Want Kids' Insurance Expanded

3 Democrats Ask Lawmakers To Rescind Administration's Guidelines On Children's Health Insurance

(AP)  Three Democratic governors told Congress on Tuesday that the Bush administration has made it virtually impossible for them to expand health insurance coverage to more moderate-income children, and they asked lawmakers to intervene.

The governors said their states seek to enroll tens of thousands of children in government-subsidized health coverage because their families cannot afford private coverage. However, those efforts were threatened by an August directive from the Bush administration.

The directive said states must cover the vast majority of the poorest children already eligible for government coverage - 95 percent - before enrolling higher-income children. A few states have gone to court attempting to void it.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick accused the administration of essentially reneging on its commitment to let the state cover families with incomes up to $52,800 for a family of three. Under the guidelines, the income limit is $44,000 for new enrollees.

"Our success depends on the stability and reliability of the commitments the federal government has made to us," Patrick said. "A retreat in any of those commitments could have devastating effects on our progress."

Congress has tried unsuccessfully to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Last year, lawmakers failed to override two vetoes from President Bush that would have increased federal spending on the program by $35 billion over five years - bringing total spending to $60 billion.

The president said the expansion would have encouraged too many families to drop their private coverage so they could get coverage through the government.

At the hearing Tuesday, two Republican governors voiced concerns that expanding SCHIP to cover more middle-income families would take money from poorer states.

For example, Mississippi only covers children living in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty level - $35,200 for a family of three. But even at that conservative level, the formula used to set SCHIP payments leaves the state $50 million shy of what Congress originally intended, said Governor Haley Barbour.

"I cannot support a bill that shortchanges my state and shortchanges the children of my state," Barbour said.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said the South has been particularly successful in covering children through SCHIP, but because funding is based partially on the number of uninsured children, states such as Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina are penalized.

In all, about two dozen states will have to roll back coverage or stop planned expansions, said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Congress ended up passing a short-term extension that would let the program continue through March 2009, but Democratic leaders said Tuesday they plan to push for a longer-term reauthorization of SCHIP this year.

While the governors were divided about SCHIP, they were unanimous in asking Congress to stop changes the Bush administration is seeking for Medicaid. The regulatory changes would save about $13 billion over five years. For example, the administration has proposed eliminating payments for graduate medical education, which primarily affects teaching hospitals.

The changes would result in reduced reimbursement rates for providers or reduced services for patients, Barbour said. The administration says that even with the savings, Medicaid is expected to grow more than 7 percent a year.

[tomanyt]

Why is it necessary for the government to insure children? If you can''t afford to feed/cloth/insure your children, don''t have them. Its really that simple.

[hwy71so]

MCVet, we''re just reaping what JFK sowed. Bush, Kerry, Gore, Dan Quayle it doesn''t matter who''s been in the driver''s seat. The situation we''re in now took more than 7 short years to build. Don''t show your ignorance and blame it on ONE president when there were MANY involved and even more congressmen in this chaos we''re in now. It all started under JFK''s watch, and just continues to build. It''ll be another 10 or 15 years minimum before we see anykind of relief from it. Bush couldn''t have headed it off no more than John Wayne!

[hwy71so]

Why do the Democrats support all these handouts? These people can''t afford health coverage because they choose to waste their income on other things such as drugs, alcohol, and other luxury items that are just not pertinent to their existance.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies are making a killing! Democrats must have their fingers in the collection basket of these insurance companies is all I can figure.

[skyk-2009]

Nay, I say, RowdyTexan2 - Congress passes laws and mandates all the time and fails to fund them - that way it looks like they''''re doing something, but haven''''t spent any money.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by oleander8 at 07:33 AM : Feb 27, 2008
+ report abuse

That is not the case here and could we get away from the party talking points and addresss issues? I''d also like a response to the Sarges question to you. Given all the failure of this Administration and his Party why aren''t you angry?

[mcvet]

What an angry man you are - just an observation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by oleander8 at 07:35 AM : Feb 27, 2008
+ report abuse

7 YEARS of the WORST in our history and YOU aren''t angry? My question to you is WHY? When we live in a country where anyone who dares come out against the "party" faces attacks and being belittled and you aren''t angry? Why? When we are lied to 935 times by a Southern Fascist and nearly 4,000 of our best and brightest are now dead and you aren''t angry? Why? IF you love your Country right now YOU are angry PERIOD! Sieg Heil Bush!!

[oleander8]

To: MCVet

What an angry man you are - just an observation.

[oleander8]

''...When bills are passed the money is appropriated to fund it...''Posted by RowdyTexan2

Nay, I say, RowdyTexan2 - Congress passes laws and mandates all the time and fails to fund them - that way it looks like they''re doing something, but haven''t spent any money.

[mcvet]

The problem is, we''''re already sending them the money for it. When bills are passed the money is appropriated to fund it. The question is, where did the money go that we sent up there to pay for it?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 05:31 AM : Feb 27, 2008
+ report abuse


ARE you REALLY this stupid? I mean CAN''T you read? I have a feeling you are just another Bootlicker looking for a defense of that that can''t be defended. These Governors want to help the people that elected them... you know WE the PEOPLE not just the "party"... anyway they want to help their people and THEY say they can not do it because the fuhrer, that disgusting piece of human slime YOU call a President, is preventing them from doing it. Now can we get on with the business of getting that trash out of OUR White House? Sieg Heil Bush!!

[rowdytexan2]

Which is absolutely true. Why should we pay when we can get it free from the govt. How do the governors intend to pay for this free health insurance. Property taxes are already too high due to overzealous assessments. Foreclosures are all time high. Schools want more money. Now health care. How can we pay for all this. The middle class is being stretched to the point of financial failure. They''''re going to push us all into bankruptcy with all these govt. programs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by standlee5 at 12:47 AM : Feb 27, 2008

The problem is, we''re already sending them the money for it. When bills are passed the money is appropriated to fund it. The question is, where did the money go that we sent up there to pay for it?

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by standlee5

Your logic is "either or," which is overly simplistic. The problem with the health care system is one of collusion and corruption, which has replaced competition.

Subsidies will fail because the corrupt insurers will simply mark up their prices, absorb the subsidy money, and continue to offer BS in return.

What is needed is a multi point program to rebuild the public health care system, financed with various taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, firearms, gambling, polluting industries, and the world''s largest cash crop, marijuana.

Doctors can have med school subsidized in return for a four year bond to work in the public sector before going into private practice. Prices for services should be profit neutral, break even levels, and published, to prevent discrimination.

If private insurers wish to compete, they will have to offer better services than the public sector, to justify their higher prices.

It is proven impossible to even think of a vital infrastructure item like national health care service run by corrupt private concerns.

[standlee5]

The president said the expansion would have encouraged too many families to drop their private coverage so they could get coverage through the government.


Which is absolutely true. Why should we pay when we can get it free from the govt. How do the governors intend to pay for this free health insurance. Property taxes are already too high due to overzealous assessments. Foreclosures are all time high. Schools want more money. Now health care. How can we pay for all this. The middle class is being stretched to the point of financial failure. They''re going to push us all into bankruptcy with all these govt. programs.