PDA

View Full Version : Obama signs Bill extending kids health insurance


Stlrs4Life
02-04-2009, 09:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/children_s_health;_ylt=AjvK7B.A1hoKt03PrM_sHkvZn41 4



WASHINGTON Ė President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a bill extending health coverage to 4 million uninsured children, a move he called a first step toward fulfilling a campaign pledge to provide insurance for all Americans. It was a victory for Obama a day after his nominee to shepherd his broad health care agenda stepped aside amid tax problems.
Obama used an ebullient East Room signing ceremony to continue his push for his plan that would provide universal health insurance, even as he spent much of the previous day admitting he "screwed up" in naming former Sen. Tom Daschle to spearhead the health care overhaul. He wrapped the signing event in another pitch for his separate $819 billion economic plan that now is under consideration in the Senate and faces Republican opposition.
"As I think everybody here will agree, this is only the first step," Obama said of the bill that reauthorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
"Because the way I see it, providing coverage to 11 million children through CHIP is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American," he said to applause before turning to the economic recovery bill.
"It won't be easy; it won't happen all at once," Obama said. "But this bill that I'm about to sign, that wasn't easy either."
Obama and his advisers see the economic crisis as his window to push through many of his campaign pledges. Renewable energy, financial regulation and even rural Internet access all have been tied to repairing the nation's fractured economy. In the process, Obama has exposed his plan to criticism and questions that threaten to jettison the first major legislation his team has assembled.
"I refuse to accept that millions of our children fail to reach their full potential because we fail to meet their basic needs. In a decent society, there are certain obligations that are not subject to trade-offs or negotiations, and health care for our children is one of those obligations," Obama said, signaling he was readying for a fight.
Obama has faced a difficult week, his second full one in office. Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, withdrew his nomination as secretary of health and human services after acknowledging he failed to pay taxes on a car and driver provided by a Democratic fundraiser. His departure also left in the president's team a large gap for someone to usher through sweeping reform Obama has promised.
The children's health bill calls for spending an additional $32.8 billion on SCHIPI, which now enrolls an estimated 7 million children. Lawmakers generated that revenue by raising the federal tobacco tax.
Health officials project that there are about 8 million to 9 million uninsured children in the United States.
The bill went to the White House fresh from passage in the Democratic-controlled House, on a vote of 290-135. Forty Republicans joined in approval.
Most Republicans, though, criticized the cost of the legislation. They also said it will mean an estimated 2.4 million children who otherwise would have access to private insurance will join the State Children's Health Insurance Program instead.
"The Democrats continue to push their government-run health care agenda ó universal coverage, as they call it," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas.
The bill's passages has long been a top priority of Democratic lawmakers. In late 2007, President George W. Bush twice vetoed similar bills. The Senate passed the same bill last week. Obama made it a top priority in his first 100 days and one step in his push for universal coverage by the end of his first term.
"President Obama and Congress are demonstrating that change has come to Washington, and we are moving forward to improve the quality of life for American families struggling during these hard times," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
SCHIP was created more than a decade ago to help children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford private coverage.
Federal money for the program was set to expire March 31, barring action by Congress. To cover the increase in spending, the bill would boost the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack.
Opponents of the bill complained that the tobacco tax increase hits the poor the hardest, because they are more likely to smoke than wealthier people. Many also took exception to expanding the program and Medicaid to children of newly arrived legal immigrants.
Republicans said that they supported SCHIP and providing additional money for the program. However, they argued that Democrats were taking the program beyond its original intent and encouraging states to cover middle-class families who otherwise could get private insurance.
"This debate is about, do we want a children's health insurance program that covers every child in America with state and federal dollars regardless of their ability to pay?" said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "Do we want to freeze out the private sector for health insurance?"
But supporters said that ensuring children had access to adequate health care was a matter of priorities. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said an estimated 4 million people have lost employer-sponsored insurance in the past year.
"Do they keep their families' health insurance or do they put food on the table at night? During this economic recession, these kinds of decisions are unfortunately becoming more common," Pallone said.

The Patriot
02-04-2009, 10:29 PM
WASHINGTON Ė President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a bill extending health coverage to 4 million uninsured children, a move he called a first step toward fulfilling a campaign pledge to provide insurance for all Americans.

He's gone mad with power.

revefsreleets
02-05-2009, 08:53 AM
This bill moves an awful lot of kids off private insurance and onto the government teat. I know that's what many liberals want, so you'll argue that it's a good thing, but let's call an ace an ace and a spade a spade: This is socialized medicine.

IronFan
02-05-2009, 11:10 AM
I’m usually against anything that even resembles socialist ideals but in healthcare I tend to differ. We’re talking about survival and I think that should be an even playing ground regardless of income, choices, or personal mistakes. Is it perfect? No. Far from it. There are a host of problems with anything government run. One being that you’re going to catch some dolphins in your tuna net. It will displace some from the private sector and place them on the government’s lap but the alternative is much worse.

Not an Obama fan, not a fan of the Democratic party, but I can’t help but think that this is a move in the right direction.

revefsreleets
02-05-2009, 11:44 AM
My one and only concern was, is and will remain cost. 35 billion doesn't seem like much when the government is busy shoveling buckets of cash at AIG and the like, but it's still a TON of dough. If we HAVE to go this route I'd prefer a happy medium, maybe cover up to 200% of the poverty rate. 400% is too high. You could, concievably, find families making over 120k a year insuring their kids through the government for free. That's not cool.

IronFan
02-05-2009, 11:53 AM
120K and getting free insurance? I wasn't aware of that. I guess I need to look a little deeper into the bill....

GBMelBlount
02-05-2009, 12:01 PM
I’m usually against anything that even resembles socialist ideals but in healthcare I tend to differ. We’re talking about survival and I think that should be an even playing ground regardless of income, choices, or personal mistakes. Is it perfect? No. Far from it. There are a host of problems with anything government run.

Are people being turned away from emergency rooms and not being given critical care? Couldn't you also argue to socialize attorneys? After all, if you can't afford a good attorney you could go to the slammer for 20 years where a better attorney might have gotten you six months, or off completely, is that fair? Can't you also argue that everyone should have a right to housing?

The problem, as you stated is that anything the government takes control of, it usually ruins. If they get their filthy, greedy hands on healthcare, I am afraid they are going to give us a worse overall product at an astronomical price as happens with most everything the government touches.

This is what Atlanta Dan and I use to argue about. ONCE THE GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY GETS CONTROL OF SOMETHING, THEY NEVER LET GO, USUALLY RUIN IT, AND WE (and future generations) ARE STUCK FOREVER PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE FOR A SHITTY PRODUCT.

I care about the welfare of children as well. Just saying that we need to be careful about handing the government control of another 1/7th of our gnp.

revefsreleets
02-05-2009, 12:05 PM
120K and getting free insurance? I wasn't aware of that. I guess I need to look a little deeper into the bill....

The poverty line for a family of 8 is around 40k a year. If the government funds this at 400% of the poverty threshold, a family could be making 160k a year and still be on the dole.

This bill is a clunker.

That, by the way, is why Bush vetoed it. The left made him out to be satanic and evil (as usual) but the bill sucks as it stands, and he was right to veto it.

IronFan
02-05-2009, 01:04 PM
Are people being turned away from emergency rooms and not being given critical care? Couldn't you also argue to socialize attorneys? After all, if you can't afford a good attorney you could go to the slammer for 20 years where a better attorney might have gotten you six months, or off completely, is that fair? Can't you also argue that everyone should have a right to housing?

The problem, as you stated is that anything the government takes control of, it usually ruins. If they get their filthy, greedy hands on healthcare, I am afraid they are going to give us a worse overall product at an astronomical price as happens with most everything the government touches.

This is what Atlanta Dan and I use to argue about. ONCE THE GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY GETS CONTROL OF SOMETHING, THEY NEVER LET GO, USUALLY RUIN IT, AND WE (and future generations) ARE STUCK FOREVER PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE FOR A SHITTY PRODUCT.

I care about the welfare of children as well. Just saying that we need to be careful about handing the government control of another 1/7th of our gnp.

Are people being turned away in regards to care? I believe they are. I believe there are a host of procedures that a hospital wonít run without insurance/payment. Emergency room is a little different.

I think you could argue what you stated, but at some point you have to draw the line.

I agree 100% that itís a slippery slope that I donít at all feel good about. I just see the alternative as much, much, worse.

IronFan
02-05-2009, 01:05 PM
The poverty line for a family of 8 is around 40k a year. If the government funds this at 400% of the poverty threshold, a family could be making 160k a year and still be on the dole.

This bill is a clunker.

That, by the way, is why Bush vetoed it. The left made him out to be satanic and evil (as usual) but the bill sucks as it stands, and he was right to veto it.

Like everything else the government touches, its far from perfect.

GBMelBlount
02-05-2009, 01:07 PM
I agree 100% that itís a slippery slope that I donít at all feel good about. I just see the alternative as much, much, worse.

I can respect that Iron, and yes, it is sad and unfortunate that some children may not get the medical attention they need.

Dino 6 Rings
02-05-2009, 01:15 PM
The $32.8-billion boost will be funded mostly by a 62-cent-per-pack increase in federal taxes on cigarettes, which the bill's backers say will discourage more than one million children from taking up smoking.

"The way I see it, providing coverage to 11 million children ... is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American," Obama said.

First off, Who Smokes? The Wealthy or the Lower Class? Studies show, the Lower Class, so he's taxing the same people he says he's going to help.

Second. What is the age limit on "children" that this bill covers? My understanding is that it allows "children" up to the age of 27 to be covered.

This is a sad day.

In a major change, the bill allows states to cover certain legal immigrants ó namely, children under 21 and pregnant women ó as well as citizens.

"This debate is about, do we want a children's health insurance program that covers every child in America with state and federal dollars regardless of their ability to pay?" said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "Do we want to freeze out the private sector for health insurance?"

Opponents of the bill also complained that the tobacco tax increase hits the poor the hardest, because they are more likely to smoke than wealthier people. Many also took exception to expanding the program and Medicaid to children of newly arrived legal immigrants.

IronFan
02-05-2009, 02:04 PM
I can respect that Iron, and yes, it is sad and unfortunate that some children may not get the medical attention they need.

I donít have the answers brother. Iím just a local-yokel wasting company time on an internet message board. I know I think there is an issue and I donít like any of the solutions. I always feel dirty after talking about healthcare. Like itís the first step in falling into the eternally unproductive abyss that we know as the left. I always wait for the other shoe to drop. You know, like the next thing I type will one day be ďwe need to share the wealthĒ.

Thankfully, I have more than enough firepower at my disposal to deal with any such digressions swiftly before I can become a liability. lol

Stlrs4Life
02-05-2009, 07:22 PM
This bill moves an awful lot of kids off private insurance and onto the government teat. I know that's what many liberals want, so you'll argue that it's a good thing, but let's call an ace an ace and a spade a spade: This is socialized medicine.



BS, this enables Children presently without health coverage due to the many families who have lost there jobs, and unemployment. That leave children with out health coverage.

SteelersinCA
02-05-2009, 11:38 PM
If attorneys get socialized I'm going to be pissed! I'd rather the government cap price gouging for health care providers. Make it affordable for people instead of wasting tax payers money on insuring people at ridiculous rates.

revefsreleets
02-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Not BS. This is the government paying for healthcare, the very DEFINITION of socialized medicine.

Anyway, the bill has some merits UNTIL we get into the 200-300-400% of the poverty line being covered. NOBODY has a problem covering uninsured children, but why should the taxpayers be asked to pay for the healthcare of families who make $160,000 a year?

This is poorly written legislation, plain and simple.

HometownGal
02-06-2009, 10:51 AM
This bill moves an awful lot of kids off private insurance and onto the government teat. I know that's what many liberals want, so you'll argue that it's a good thing, but let's call an ace an ace and a spade a spade: This is socialized medicine.

You hit the nail on the head, revs. BINGO.