The Democrats Hate Pregnant Women, Infants, and Mothers
Posted by Adam Graham in : Pork The Democrats Hate Pregnant Women, Infants, and Mothers
By Adam Graham
My title is harsh, demagogic, and unkind. It fits perfectly with the conversation that’s been started by National Democrats over SCHIP, and I do have an actual reason for this audacious title.
As has been reported by the Washington Times and other outlets, an anti-pork Amendment was actually passed by the US Senate. The Amendment (passed on Roll Call vote 377) eliminated $1 million that was supposed to fund a Woodstock museum in New York State. This greatly disappointed backers of the earmark who gave $29,000 in campaign contributions to New York Senators Clinton and Schumer and still failed to get the million dollar return on their money
The Amendment, authored by Senators Coburn (R-OK) and Kyl (R-AZ), was supported by 47 Republicans and 5 Democrats. What has not been covered anywhere is what the money goes to. The Coburn Amendment proposed taking this million dollars and redirecting it to “additional care for pregnant women, mothers, and infants” While their House colleagues pontificated and demogoged, given the choice between supporting health care for women, mothers, and infants, or preserving parochial pork that celebrated the self-indulgence of the ‘60s, the vast majority of Democrats chose the pork.
This is an accurate description of the Democrats’ vote unlike the constant harping we’ve heard on the SCHIP veto from liberals, who pretend the SCHIP vote was against health care for America’s poorest children. The truth of the matter is that had Democrats reauthorized the program as it was, America’s poorest children would be covered and Republicans would have supported the bill.
The bill vetoed by President Bush is about extending coverage to children whose parents can afford health insurance, as well as adults into their 20s. In addition, while the program’s initial outlays will be covered by a cigarette tax increase, this revenue will be insufficient to continue to pay for the program, unless there are 22 million new smokers in the next ten years, so either higher taxes or more deficit spending will be required to make up the shortfall.
Instead of having a debate about the Democrats’ desire to expand the program, we’ve had an utterly dishonest spectacle, based on hurling personal attacks at principled Republicans and the President. We’ve had the bogus allegation that this is about serving the best interest of big tobacco, when cigarette taxes are not paid by the tobacco companies, but by smokers (who are far more likely to be poor than the general population.)
The truth of the matter is that the health care industry, particularly Big HMOs—which administer SCHIP in the states and would reap the benefits of millions of new enrollees—spent $227 million on lobbying the first half of this year, much of it for this legislation. And why not? If you can reap billions in benefits from the government, a $227 million investment is not a bad deal.
It’s time to tell the truth about the charlatans in Washington who preach to us about the need to take care of children, while voting to put the needs of children and their mothers second to the needs of big campaign contributions.
Comment by John Rusche
OK, Adam, lets get real about life and the cost of health insurance in Idaho.
In our state,SCHIP covers kids up to 185% of the federal poverty level. For a family of four (2 kids and two working parents) that is less than $39,000. But the cost to the family for insurance to cover them is about $10,000 per year ($850/month). In addition, the family has the deductible (likely $2000)and co-pays (another $50-75/month). and remember, the average household income in Idaho is about $43,000. So for a family that doesn’t have employer sponsored health insurance, they are supposed to pay $14,000 for health care services (out of pocket plus insurance premiums) with an income of $43,000? One third of the family revenue should be paid out for healthcare? What are they to do for rent, heat, food, college savings, car and gasoline and other costs of american life?
So when you say the expansion of SCHIP is for families that can afford health insurance, look at the facts and the logic of your statement. The data shows that in Idaho there are tens of thousands of kids in working families that cannot afford health insurance. The legislative study from this summer documented it. (http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/ope/publications/reports/r0707.htm) And logic doesn not support requirements for paying 30-35% of the family revenue for health insurance.
I do not care if you are a liberal or a conservative blogger. Just try to be honest with yourself and with your readers.
John Rusche, MD
Idaho House, District 7
Comment by Adam Graham
Thanks for stopping by. A couple things. First, I do take issue with the numbers. It really depends on how you price out to get this $10,000 figure. As they say, “your milelage may vary.”
Certainly, there are some answers other than the SCHIP expansion and putting (probably) half of Idaho on the dole. There are health savings accounts. There’s the Mel Martinez alternative that gives tax credits. There’s the expansion of health savings accounts with catastrophic insurance attached. Insurance should be there to cover things you can’t cover yourself and part of the problem is we’re using it to cover everything which drives the cost up.
Comment by John Rusche
Adam,
I used the low end of the national average for health insurance for a family of four and what a couple of our school districts charge to an employee for their family (BTW, school districts cover only the employee, usually nothing for spouse and dependents). If you look at OPE report, you will see a similar number.
I spent 15 yers in practice and 11 years as a senior executive for BlueShield. I’m pretty sure of this stuff.
As far as alternatives, yes I think there are some, but not many that you mentioned. To make an HSA work you have to have money for the catastrophic health care premium and excess cash to put into the account. That type of policy works for more affluent. Refundable tax credits might work for some. The thing is that with SCHIP states were able to design a program that works for their population. Here in Idaho we have some SCIP beneficiaries on Medicaid, but we also have some that have permium assistance when their parents have access to a private policy. “Crowd-out” is not happening, in spite of what the SCHIPS opponents are saying. The AHIP, the industry group for health insurers, supported the vetoed bill. Doesn’t make sense if they were to loose business.
The real fact is that there are lower income families that can not afford the american health system. We have taken care of all seniors with Medicare. But it is too expensive to pay for SCHIP expansion.
How much of one’s household income should a family use for healthcare? And if your income is below the median, does that mean that your children should do without?
Comment by Adam Graham
This calls for a restoration of our community (you know neighbors helping one another in real emergencies), an emphasis on preventive health and savings. Health Savings Accounts can work. I am able to save money through my work in an HSA-like program and have money put aside for emergencies and I make less than those who qualify for SCHIP. I believe HSAs are a much bigger part of this than you say.
As for AHIP, of course they support it. The Big HMOs will be the big winners under SCHIP, because the state’s have private HMos administer the program, so they’ll be set for a multi-billion dollar annual windfall if this goes through.