Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The bill was veto'd and is not going to get passed in its present form. It is inadequate. Some poor children don't get coverage while adults would get coverage. It is inadequate. The basis for funding is a regressive tax disproportionately burdening poor people. It is inadequate. The program is subject to individuale states to determine rules for eligibility, hence no consistency. It is inadequate. People currently with coverage through the private sector would have incentive to convert to a publically funded program. It is inadequate. Achild may lose coverage through no fault of his/her own. It is inadequate.
If you are satisfied with the inadequacies, that is your right. Just be honest and not pretend they don't exist.
|
The veto will probably be sustained, but its still not certain. We'll see later this week. The Senate will definetly override the veto; the House is still a few votes short. If it is vetoed, I suspect that Congress will craft a comprise with Bush, becaue both want the SCHIP program to continue.
Wow...a new set of complaints about SCHIP.
"Some poor children dont get covered while adults get covered"It is true that adults get covered in some states, but there is no evidence that I am aware of that eligible children have been left uncovered as a result. Thats just another conservative talking point.
The original program allowed states to request a waiver to cover some adults, mostly to provide neonatal care to pregnant women w/o insurance. Currently 12 states have recieved waivers (I may be wrong on the number) and most were granted in the last 6 years by the Bush Dept of HHS. (I think 9 out of 12 are Bush waivers). The new bill PROHIBITS any future waivers to states to cover adults. That provision is not included under the current language of the bill Bush supports.
"The basis for funding is a regressive tax disproportionately burdening poor people"There is nothing new here. The program has been funded by a regressive cigarette tax for 10 years and Bush and most Repubs didnt seem to mind. The issue is how large of a cigarette tax increase for the program to be reauthorized. On a personal level, I dont generally like regressive taxes for the reason you stated, but in this case, I dont mind that a low income person will pay a little more if they feel a need to continue smoking, knowing that the funds will pay for health care for their children.
"The program is subject to individuale states to determine rules for eligibility, hence no consistency"I honestly dont know what you mean here. There are federal regulations that provide the "consistency", whatever that means. States do have the flexibility to adapt the regulations to local conditions...which is what the Repubs in Congress wanted when the program was conceived. Most federal block grant programs to states have that same flexibility.
"People currently with coverage through the private sector would have incentive to convert to a publically funded program" Has this occured in the first ten years of the program? Its a nice theory for conservatives to toss out, but you have no evidence from this or other government programs that this type of "abuse" occurs.
"If you are satisfied with the inadequacies, that is your right. Just be honest and not pretend they don't exist"I dont agree with any of your "inadequacies" so I cant pretend they exist.
I do agree the program is not perfect. I would prefer a program of universal coverage for children with no restrictions. BUT, that is not an option at the present time.
Bush and the Republican Congress had six years to offer an alternative legislative proposal to SCHIP. They did nothing for six years.
So, for now, the choice reamins either SCHIP (at some funding level between Bush's $5 billion increase and Congress' $35 billion increase) or NOTHING. There are no other options on the table.
If you prefer NOTHING and putting 6+ million child back on the uninsured list until a better bill comes along, "just be honest" and say so
