Joe, You Didn’t Tell Us the Whole Story
The other day Congressman Joe Barton, of Arlington, Texas – whose District covers a good swath of north central Texas and includes Ellis County — had an article in our local paper about health care for low-income children.
It talked about the existing program that helps to fund medical insurance for low-income children and the upcoming vote to re-authorize that program. It appears he doesn’t like the way some States are using federal funds under the existing program, under “circumstances” he doesn’t define, and that he doesn’t care for the way others are using (similarly undefined) “waivers” to cover adults — all of which he naturally lumps under one of his favorite words: “abuses.”
And he objected to the bill to re-authorize and expand the program because, he said, a family with an income of $200,000 “could” qualify for help — but he doesn’t say how.
Still, the reader comes away with the impression that good ol’ Joe just loves to help poor kids get medical care and there are just a few tiny details to work out.
Well, last week he voted against it in the House.
I’ve been following this story for awhile, my interest in universal health care being one of the reasons — after all, if SCHIP (the acronym for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program) and Medicare both make folks so happy, can relief for folks in the middle become an idea worth looking at?
Another reason for my interest in the story is kind of contrarian: the President says he intends to veto the legislation. Yup, put the kibosh on it, stick a knife in it. And when the President is hot to kill legislation, I just can’t help wondering why.
Both bills would expand coverage to another 3.3 (Senate) to 5.5 (House) million children and some pregnant women. This would be done by allowing in families with twice the poverty level, around $43,000 per year for a family of four (which the Heritage Foundation sweetly calls “wealthier families”).
The proposal is to pay for the expansion by cutting excess payments to insurors and increasing taxes on cigarettes.
Now, anything that will help me quit smoking is fine by me! Anyone got any problem with that?
While the Congressman was all a-twitter worrying about how other States choose to treat their citizens, a whole gaggle of spinners hit the talk shows to inform us that the legislation included — gasp, horrors! — cuts to Medicare! “It will take from our senior citizens and probably send them to the poorhouse, or at least take away their insurance!”
Well, folks, then I received an email — addressed to me personally, since I am one of them — from AARP. You know, the organization that stands like a pitbull on behalf of the senior citizens of America. And y’know what? They LOVE this legislation!
“AARP applauds those Members of Congress who voted for the CHAMP Act. These lawmakers put the needs of older Americans and low–income children ahead of special interests.“
Seems that the Republicans who objected to the bill’s “cuts to Medicare” were in fact objecting to eliminating overpayments in the subsidies paid to insurance companies who cover Medicare recipients; it was discovered they had been paid 12% OVER what was due to them!
Between the tobacco companies and the insurance companies the pressure must have been unbearable.
And still another horror: This legislation will “expand government-run health care” and put us “on the path to socialized medicine”!
Oh, good grief! That old canard. Why would they haul that out? Because, sad to say, it still works with some people.
First of all, what government-run health care are they talking about? It’s help with INSURANCE, you idiots! Oh, sorry. I’m sure they are not idiots. But if they are not, and they are still saying this, what does that make them, exactly?
Likewise, the bit about “socialized” medicine. It’s not “socialized medicine.” What England has can be called “socialized medicine,” perhaps, because its hospitals are owned by the government and its doctors are government employees.
Whether it’s a single-payer system or Medicare, doctors in private practice and privately-owned hospitals send their bills to the government and get paid. Private. Choice. Not “government-run.”
In the case of SCHIP, just consider the name: State Childrens Health INSURANCE Program. We provide funds to help pay for insurance coverage for poor kids and in some cases their parents (a matter that obviously chafes the Congressman).
Why should we care? What if we don’t feel a twinge of pity for the poor, nor particularly care if they get to see a doctor, because we have other things to worry about? Well look at it this way: If your kid goes to school with a child who can’t afford to see a doctor for the preventive care that might have kept him from coming down with the flu, guess what he’ll bring home?
Of course, the “mark-up” meeting to work out differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill is still to come, so it’s not final yet. But since the Senate also passed a bipartisan version, I’m optimistic.
The fact that this legislation was passed with bipartisan support may not matter to the President, although when he counts the votes perhaps he’ll have an attack of reason. Protective reason. Other battles may become more important.
Meantime, if you have any thoughts about this, the Congressman will be in town this week, and I’m sure he’ll love to hear from you.
It talked about the existing program that helps to fund medical insurance for low-income children and the upcoming vote to re-authorize that program. It appears he doesn’t like the way some States are using federal funds under the existing program, under “circumstances” he doesn’t define, and that he doesn’t care for the way others are using (similarly undefined) “waivers” to cover adults — all of which he naturally lumps under one of his favorite words: “abuses.”
And he objected to the bill to re-authorize and expand the program because, he said, a family with an income of $200,000 “could” qualify for help — but he doesn’t say how.
Still, the reader comes away with the impression that good ol’ Joe just loves to help poor kids get medical care and there are just a few tiny details to work out.
Well, last week he voted against it in the House.
I’ve been following this story for awhile, my interest in universal health care being one of the reasons — after all, if SCHIP (the acronym for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program) and Medicare both make folks so happy, can relief for folks in the middle become an idea worth looking at?
Another reason for my interest in the story is kind of contrarian: the President says he intends to veto the legislation. Yup, put the kibosh on it, stick a knife in it. And when the President is hot to kill legislation, I just can’t help wondering why.
Both bills would expand coverage to another 3.3 (Senate) to 5.5 (House) million children and some pregnant women. This would be done by allowing in families with twice the poverty level, around $43,000 per year for a family of four (which the Heritage Foundation sweetly calls “wealthier families”).
The proposal is to pay for the expansion by cutting excess payments to insurors and increasing taxes on cigarettes.
Now, anything that will help me quit smoking is fine by me! Anyone got any problem with that?
While the Congressman was all a-twitter worrying about how other States choose to treat their citizens, a whole gaggle of spinners hit the talk shows to inform us that the legislation included — gasp, horrors! — cuts to Medicare! “It will take from our senior citizens and probably send them to the poorhouse, or at least take away their insurance!”
Well, folks, then I received an email — addressed to me personally, since I am one of them — from AARP. You know, the organization that stands like a pitbull on behalf of the senior citizens of America. And y’know what? They LOVE this legislation!
“AARP applauds those Members of Congress who voted for the CHAMP Act. These lawmakers put the needs of older Americans and low–income children ahead of special interests.“
Seems that the Republicans who objected to the bill’s “cuts to Medicare” were in fact objecting to eliminating overpayments in the subsidies paid to insurance companies who cover Medicare recipients; it was discovered they had been paid 12% OVER what was due to them!
Between the tobacco companies and the insurance companies the pressure must have been unbearable.
And still another horror: This legislation will “expand government-run health care” and put us “on the path to socialized medicine”!
Oh, good grief! That old canard. Why would they haul that out? Because, sad to say, it still works with some people.
First of all, what government-run health care are they talking about? It’s help with INSURANCE, you idiots! Oh, sorry. I’m sure they are not idiots. But if they are not, and they are still saying this, what does that make them, exactly?
Likewise, the bit about “socialized” medicine. It’s not “socialized medicine.” What England has can be called “socialized medicine,” perhaps, because its hospitals are owned by the government and its doctors are government employees.
Whether it’s a single-payer system or Medicare, doctors in private practice and privately-owned hospitals send their bills to the government and get paid. Private. Choice. Not “government-run.”
In the case of SCHIP, just consider the name: State Childrens Health INSURANCE Program. We provide funds to help pay for insurance coverage for poor kids and in some cases their parents (a matter that obviously chafes the Congressman).
Why should we care? What if we don’t feel a twinge of pity for the poor, nor particularly care if they get to see a doctor, because we have other things to worry about? Well look at it this way: If your kid goes to school with a child who can’t afford to see a doctor for the preventive care that might have kept him from coming down with the flu, guess what he’ll bring home?
Of course, the “mark-up” meeting to work out differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill is still to come, so it’s not final yet. But since the Senate also passed a bipartisan version, I’m optimistic.
The fact that this legislation was passed with bipartisan support may not matter to the President, although when he counts the votes perhaps he’ll have an attack of reason. Protective reason. Other battles may become more important.
Meantime, if you have any thoughts about this, the Congressman will be in town this week, and I’m sure he’ll love to hear from you.
posted by The Voice | 12:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home