Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
I haven't thought much about this bill until the recent veto and am trying to get a better understanding. As I understand it this program is meant to provide health care for children of the working poor. The following is a quote from the New York Times about the Frost family which is the example the supporters of the bill used recently.
It does not appear that this family should require taxpayer help to afford insurance. Couldn't they sell one of their three cars? Also dont they already qualify for SCHIP under the existing law without the new expanded bill that Bush just vetoed? Would they be able to have millions in assets and still qualify for SCHIP?
|
I dont know about the three cars (they only appear in right wing blogs and could all be junkers if they exist at all), but as the NY Times article noted, they were turned down by three private insurance companies because of the pre-existing conditions of the kids. The income from their commercial property contributes to theiR total income of about $50,000. They have one alternative to SCHIPs, until the father can get a full time job with employer coverage (which would likely still be denied because of pre-existing conditions)....sell their home.
I dont wish that on any working class family and that would include families with income marginally higher than this family of six who would be covered under the new bill.
As an aside, I dont like either party using kids as political props.
I didnt like it when Bush, on
vetoing the embryonic stem cell bill, surrounded himself with kids who were born from "adopted" frozen embryos and declared "These boys and girls are not spare parts....They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research."
And I dont like the way the Dems used the son in this family.