prev
next
Children's Healthcare Bill Passes Senate
The Democratic-controlled Congress moved a step closer to handing President Barack Obama an early health care victory Thursday as the Senate passed a bill extending government-sponsored health insurance coverage to about 4 million uninsured children.
The bill, which was approved 66-32, authorizes an additional $32.8 billion over the next 4 1/2 years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
"As the worsening economy causes families to lose their jobs and health insurance, it is vital that we redouble our efforts to ensure that every child in America has access to affordable health care," said President Obama. "That is why I am pleased that the Senate has joined the House in passing bipartisan legislation to provide health insurance to children whose families have been hurt most by this downturn."
"Providing health care to more than ten million children through the Children's Health Insurance Program will serve as a down payment on my commitment to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care," he added.
Even with the added spending, an estimated 5 million children still would be without health insurance. During his election campaign, Obama called for requiring all children to have health coverage.
"When President Obama signs this bill, the real victory will belong not to politicians, but to kids," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The bill pays for expanding SCHIP by increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 a pack. Opponents argued that the tax would hit the poor the hardest.
The Democratic majority turned back Republican amendments to limit expansion of the program. Among the failed amendments were a prohibition on using federal money to cover children of newly arrived legal immigrants and a stricter income limit in some states for participating families.
Current law requires a five-year waiting period before legal immigrants become eligible for coverage under Medicaid and SCHIP. Democrats said that removing the ban would help children before small health problems became big ones.
"It is likely many of these children are already U.S. citizens and many will become U.S citizens, and their being unhealthy doesn't make sense for that family, and it certainly does not make sense for our nation." said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
Support for expanding SCHIP has had bipartisan backing. In 2007, former President George W. Bush twice vetoed bills to expand the program. The Senate voted to override Bush, but the House fell about 15 votes short of an override.
Scores of interest groups have lined up in support of more money for SCHIP, including trade groups representing insurers, hospitals, doctors, unions and the pharmaceutical industry.
"I think we could have had 95 votes," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "That would have sent a tremendous, tremendous message that hasn't been sent around here for a long time.
Nine Republicans joined 57 Democrats in voting for the bill. No Democrat voted against it.
More than 7 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some point in 2008. The program was created more than a decade ago as a way to provide health care to children in families with incomes too high to quality for Medicaid but too low to afford private coverage. Federal funding for SCHIP is set to expire March 31 unless Congress acts.
The House already has approved a bill to expand SCHIP. It's comparable to the Senate bill, except it included a provision opposed by physicians and supported by the influential American Hospital Association. That provision would have prevented new physician-owned hospitals from opening, but it's not part of the Senate bill.
The House will vote on the Senate bill and then send it on to the president for his signature.
Republicans said they are fearful that Democrats are using SCHIP to increase the government's role in providing health care. They said about 2.4 million children who otherwise could get private insurance will get government-sponsored coverage instead.
Democrats responded to those concerns by requiring any state covering families earning more than three times the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four, to be paid at Medicaid levels rather than the higher SCHIP level.
But the bill allowed an exception for New Jersey and New York. Lawmakers said a family of four in New York could potentially qualify for SCHIP even if the family's income came to about $88,000.
"These are certainly not low-income families," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., who unsuccessfully tried to remove the exemption for the two states.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. The bill, which was approved 66-32, authorizes an additional $32.8 billion over the next 4 1/2 years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
"As the worsening economy causes families to lose their jobs and health insurance, it is vital that we redouble our efforts to ensure that every child in America has access to affordable health care," said President Obama. "That is why I am pleased that the Senate has joined the House in passing bipartisan legislation to provide health insurance to children whose families have been hurt most by this downturn."
"Providing health care to more than ten million children through the Children's Health Insurance Program will serve as a down payment on my commitment to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care," he added.
Even with the added spending, an estimated 5 million children still would be without health insurance. During his election campaign, Obama called for requiring all children to have health coverage.
"When President Obama signs this bill, the real victory will belong not to politicians, but to kids," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The bill pays for expanding SCHIP by increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 a pack. Opponents argued that the tax would hit the poor the hardest.
The Democratic majority turned back Republican amendments to limit expansion of the program. Among the failed amendments were a prohibition on using federal money to cover children of newly arrived legal immigrants and a stricter income limit in some states for participating families.
Current law requires a five-year waiting period before legal immigrants become eligible for coverage under Medicaid and SCHIP. Democrats said that removing the ban would help children before small health problems became big ones.
"It is likely many of these children are already U.S. citizens and many will become U.S citizens, and their being unhealthy doesn't make sense for that family, and it certainly does not make sense for our nation." said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
Support for expanding SCHIP has had bipartisan backing. In 2007, former President George W. Bush twice vetoed bills to expand the program. The Senate voted to override Bush, but the House fell about 15 votes short of an override.
Scores of interest groups have lined up in support of more money for SCHIP, including trade groups representing insurers, hospitals, doctors, unions and the pharmaceutical industry.
Some Republican senators complained that Democrats had worked closely with many of them on SCHIP in the past but had ignored them this year when crafting the bill.
"I think we could have had 95 votes," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "That would have sent a tremendous, tremendous message that hasn't been sent around here for a long time.
Nine Republicans joined 57 Democrats in voting for the bill. No Democrat voted against it.
More than 7 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some point in 2008. The program was created more than a decade ago as a way to provide health care to children in families with incomes too high to quality for Medicaid but too low to afford private coverage. Federal funding for SCHIP is set to expire March 31 unless Congress acts.
The House already has approved a bill to expand SCHIP. It's comparable to the Senate bill, except it included a provision opposed by physicians and supported by the influential American Hospital Association. That provision would have prevented new physician-owned hospitals from opening, but it's not part of the Senate bill.
The House will vote on the Senate bill and then send it on to the president for his signature.
Republicans said they are fearful that Democrats are using SCHIP to increase the government's role in providing health care. They said about 2.4 million children who otherwise could get private insurance will get government-sponsored coverage instead.
Democrats responded to those concerns by requiring any state covering families earning more than three times the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four, to be paid at Medicaid levels rather than the higher SCHIP level.
But the bill allowed an exception for New Jersey and New York. Lawmakers said a family of four in New York could potentially qualify for SCHIP even if the family's income came to about $88,000.
"These are certainly not low-income families," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., who unsuccessfully tried to remove the exemption for the two states.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 126 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1200 Comments
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado 86 Comments
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 172 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
You are right-Another reward for people who enter, work, and stay in this country illegally paid, for the most part, by those who are legally in this country.
It doesn''t matter who they are or where they are from, illegal immigrants should not be entitled to this type of coverage.
The countries they come from need to offer this type of coverage to their own people for a change.
No, not everyone in this country should be entitled to this type of coverage, especially to those who break the law by being here illegally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by fsw3
Sounds great but can you show proof or evidence that your speculations are correct. Has the school drop-out rate decreased in states that provide "free" or taxpayer supported health care? Where is the proof?
Your comment is ridiculous.
From you that is high praise.
Posted by robert2237 at 01:08 AM : Jan 30, 2009
No hospital is supposed to refuse care, that is true. However, the bills still have to be paid and when a person is already drowning in medical bills, it is hard to add more. To get admitted to a hospital, you have to meet certain requirements. To be seen in the ER for a hangnail is one thing tying up our ERs. To use ERs for doctors'' offices is another. You probably raise Cain about that, but here you are telling me that I am pulling a victim''s SYNDROME because we DON''T use one for such. People like you are why people like me detest holier-than-thou jerks.
Posted by robert2237 at 12:58 AM : Jan 30, 2009
How in the devil do you think anyone is supposed to AFFORD to go to school to learn a new trade? Even study-at-home courses are expensive, moreso to those who have little or no extra funds.
Posted by rhs648 at 12:57 AM : Jan 30, 2009
Quite unlike some of you, we are not ealthy, well-to-do, or even comfortably well-off. We scrape to get by. I have this computer as my only means of contact to a world other than the people in my immediate family. I do not have TV, satellite or cable or even antenna. I had to choose which I preferred because I couldn''t afford both. My daughter isn''t even as well off as I am. She cannot afford to have a phone hooked up so that she can access the internet. Yet she and her husband are both hard workers.
Don''t assume that everyone has megabucks coming in. A lot of us are barely scraping by.
Health Care is not right, it''s a privilege. We live under a system we have the power to provide for ourselves. I have enough trouble supporting my own family, do i want to pay higher taxes to support other famalies - no. Several years ago I lost my job, i ended up working three job day, night, and weekend to get by - i didn''t ask for help as we live in a country where people can provide for themselves - are their certain exceptions to this rule, of course, the handicap for example and some people who have absolutely no other options on the table, but unfortunately many people in this country are just lazy and always looking for someone else to pay....