News
Home > News > Editorials

A cruel blow


Published: Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 3:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 11:00 p.m.

THE ISSUE

President Bush has twice vetoed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program even though it has support among many of his fellow Republicans, and the number of uninsured in the United States is growing.

It's not likely that more children will be covered by health insurance in the coming year under a federal-state partnership that President Bush and some of his congressional allies deem too expensive. In Alabama, there could be cuts in the number of children now covered because of state budget concerns.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program, commonly referred to as SCHIP, received just enough money from Congress recently to continue in a flat-funding mode for another year. Democrats and some Republicans had hoped to expand coverage through a tobacco tax that would create a $35 billion price tag for the expanded coverage. The reliance on a tobacco tax is part of the problem, but we have to wonder at the administration's resistance to providing health care to more children.

The usual flak about "socialized medicine" has surfaced in the course of the funding debate, though the Medicare health insurance most retired Americans rely upon certainly qualifies as such under that dubious moniker.

Critics say expanding SCHIP to families with incomes of $40,000 and more undermines the intent of the program, which is to provide medical coverage to poor children. But that argument doesn't hold water. The average cost of family health insurance has reached almost $11,000 a year, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. That is beyond the financial capabilities of most middle-income families. And the number of companies offering health insurance coverage to employees and their families is shirnking. Only 60 percent of U.S. companies offer coverage today, compared to 69 percent in 2000. Most of those offering coverage to employees have at least 200 or more workers, according to the bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care.

Relying solely on a tobacco tax to fund the expansion of SCHIP is politically naive and financially risky. Besides, if one of the goals of the federal government is to encourage people to stop smoking, this seems cynical. And if fewer people are using tobacco each year, well, funding will fall short.

But that doesn't mean expanding SCHIP should be abandoned. Some compromise on funding is in order, and some sobering reality checks about the affordability of health care in America are mandatory for lawmakers - especially Republican lawmakers.

The United States is becoming a nation of haves and have-nots where health care is concerned, and that's unacceptable.


Comments

  1. pnbaker says...
    December 27, 2007 5:01:37 pm

    RE: http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...270307/1015/OPINIONS

    good job! this administration does not want poor people to have health care nor an educatiopn- this administration wants to create a peasant citizeny that will gravel for pennies and do their biding.

  2. Jobe says...
    December 27, 2007 5:38:28 pm

    Your twisting the story just like the liberal media likes to do. The SCHIP program expanded coverage to families with incomes of $83,000, not $40,000. Not enough money would be available to cover the cost of the program. Bush has offered to expand the program to a level the program can handle financially.

  3. MattHUSSEINosborne says...
    December 27, 2007 6:37:04 pm

    YOU are the one twisting the story. The $83,000 limit was only proposed for ONE city, Manhattan, which happens to be the most expensive city on the planet. The program would have been paid with cigarette tax money -- it was an example of good, old-fashioned, pay-as-you-go spending Dave Ramsey would approve of. Bush's "compromise" was pure cynical politics.

    Of course, nothing would ever change your mind. No fact can ever outweigh the conviction of that last 26%. This is truly a "faith-based" presidency, and a true SOCIOPATH of a president.

  4. LMM says...
    December 27, 2007 6:58:15 pm

    Sorry, cigarette tax money will run out since the dems are pushing to close the tobacco industry and no back up plan for finance.

  5. excelman says...
    December 27, 2007 7:12:15 pm


    I doubt if the Dems would give up the tobacco money either. They don't get as much of it as Repubs, but they get plenty.

    An example is neighboring Miss. The Dems in their legislature passed a bill to increase cigarette tax to be on par with most of the rest of the country, and eliminate the sales tax on food. Barbour, being a tobacco lobbiest, vetoed the bill and there were enough Repubs in the legislature to insure no over ride of the veto.
    This is a bill that would have helped ALL people in Ms., especilly the poor. Hailey B. decided to protect the tobacco industry even if it hurt everybody in Miss. That is the kind of people they are.

  6. STOI says...
    December 27, 2007 7:50:05 pm

    Since when did Bush EVER consider the budget when approving a program??? ....

  7. STOI says...
    December 27, 2007 7:55:28 pm

    Exactly......But, you will hear Repub all day long yelling 83,000..........Talk about twisting a story

  8. bluesman blues says...
    December 27, 2007 7:55:59 pm

    Don't put all the blame on Bush for this, after all the state of Tennessee has this http://www.covertn.gov/ and thanks to some of the people in Alabama they also have $1,000,000,000 to help their education programs http://www.tnlottery.com/newsroom/newsitem.aspx?nid=746&yr=

  9. Jobe says...
    December 27, 2007 10:11:47 pm

    Even the opinion writer recognizes this as a financially risky program. Bush did the right thing because the money was not available to cover the cost of the program. For those of you yelling about the $83,000 income level, click on the link below. It's a great article about the program and details what should be done.http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1580.cfm

  10. nealmhughes says...
    December 28, 2007 1:39:32 am

    The Heritage Foundation is one of the most loathsome creatures to ever slither out of a cesspool and onto K St. I would not believe them if they said the sun would rise in the east tomorrow morning, I would have to go outside to see for myself.
    They are financed by Scaife, Coors, Koch, and other paragons of "heritage" (the heritage of Mellon and Frick, no doubt) as Exxon, Glaxo-Smith-Klein and Pfizer.

    Doubt me: try this on for size, since the previous is so fond of web sites: Source Watch has this to say about their funding in 2006: Source Watch

    "In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

    While corporations provided only $1.5 million - 4% of Heritage?s contributions in 2006 - they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There's defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giant Microsoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), Pfizer, PhRMA, and United Parcel Servive."

    The Heritage Foundation were amongst the ones who trumped up the necessity of funding death squads in Central America and the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s!

    I'd rather ask a kindergartner their opinion of an issue than the Heritage Foundation! Scaife and Koch are rotten to the core of their cold dark shrivelled hearts.

Next Article in Editorials

  • Packing heat

    A small Texas school district is allowing its teachers to carry handguns to class.
    Misbehaving in class in the Harrold, Texas, school district carries with it a question some students no doubt ask themselves: Is the teacher carrying a gun?...