This AP article goes over the facts that ended in the original SCHIP program in 1997. While there leaves little doubt that Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind this legislation, it also shows her ability to disregard any concept of responsible government spending. This article corroborates her claim that she was responsible for extending health insurance to 6 million children, but at what cost? Surely we would never have an airplane crash if we just stopped flying airplanes. That same rationale would be used for giving everyone health insurance if we taxed our economy into submission. Anyway, it is a favorable and factual AP article about Hillary Clinton. Enjoy:
By BETH FOUHY
NEW YORK (AP) — When she talks about health care reform on the campaign trail, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton points to a multibillion-dollar health insurance program for children as one of her signature accomplishments.
The program, enacted in 1997, has provided $24 billion over 10 years to states to cover more than 6 million children whose families earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid but cannot afford private health insurance.
While it has enjoyed broad support on Capitol Hill, President Bush this week vetoed legislation that would have vastly expanded the program's reach.
THE CLAIM:
Clinton claims significant credit for helping launch the effort — formally the state Children's Health Care Insurance Program — as first lady during her husband's second term. Her new television ads prominently mention it as evidence of her long-term commitment to health care and children.
"She changed the lives of 6 million kids when she championed the bill that gave them health insurance," says one ad. "Hillary stood up for universal health care when almost no one else would, and kept standing until 6 million kids had coverage," says another.
Is she justified in claiming so much credit?
FACT CHECK:
After the first lady's effort to enact universal health insurance went down to calamitous defeat in late 1994, she and other White House officials began looking for smaller changes that could win bipartisan support. Republicans had taken control of both the House and Senate that year.
A similar effort was taking place on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Edward Kennedy playing a lead role. One area he and the Clintons explored involved expanding health insurance coverage to children who had none.
On Dec. 9, 1996, senior White House health adviser Chris Jennings sent a memo to the first lady outlining several options — and recommending ways for her to increase her visibility on the issue.
To continue this article click here
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Clinton Airs Health Care Ads
Here is a case of why a Clinton presidency would be bad. She doesn't talk about the Bush veto of the recent SCHIP program in her ad. But she does indicate that she 'stood up for Universal Health Care for children'. The reason this is a bad thing is that she doesn't mention that she was going to pay for it by taxing the poor. The only thing that Hillary Clinton is interested in is raising taxes. If she can't raise taxes or make the federal government bigger, she can't put her programs in place like this one. This one she says is 'good'. Enjoy the article, but keep an eye on your wallet becasue Hillary wants ALL your money to prove how 'good' she is.
By JIM KUHNHENN –
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton seized on public attention over President Bush's veto of child health insurance legislation to launch a new ad Thursday that casts her as the candidate best able to provide universal health care.
The ad, which will air statewide in Iowa and New Hampshire, makes no mention of Bush's rejection of a $35 billion expansion of child health coverage. But the imagery is clear. The camera scans black and white pictures of children as an announcer says: "Hillary stood up for universal health care when almost no one else would, and kept standing until six million kids had coverage."
The reference is to Clinton's role as first lady to President Bill Clinton. In 1993-1994, she headed the administration's failed effort to overhaul the nation's health care system. The bill Bush vetoed Wednesday would have broadened the reach of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, created during President Clinton's second term.
The 30-second spot, titled "Stand By Us," also provides an implicit contrast with Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who has built his candidacy on his reputation as the in-charge mayor of New York during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Lately, Giuliani has been portraying himself as a foil of Clinton, arguing he is the Republican best able to beat her in a general election.
"She stood by ground zero workers who sacrificed their health after so many sacrificed their lives, and kept standing until this administration took action," the ad's announcer says as a photograph of Clinton, wearing a face mask at the World Trade Center cite, appears on the screen.
Click here to continue reading the article
By JIM KUHNHENN –
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton seized on public attention over President Bush's veto of child health insurance legislation to launch a new ad Thursday that casts her as the candidate best able to provide universal health care.
The ad, which will air statewide in Iowa and New Hampshire, makes no mention of Bush's rejection of a $35 billion expansion of child health coverage. But the imagery is clear. The camera scans black and white pictures of children as an announcer says: "Hillary stood up for universal health care when almost no one else would, and kept standing until six million kids had coverage."
The reference is to Clinton's role as first lady to President Bill Clinton. In 1993-1994, she headed the administration's failed effort to overhaul the nation's health care system. The bill Bush vetoed Wednesday would have broadened the reach of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, created during President Clinton's second term.
The 30-second spot, titled "Stand By Us," also provides an implicit contrast with Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who has built his candidacy on his reputation as the in-charge mayor of New York during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Lately, Giuliani has been portraying himself as a foil of Clinton, arguing he is the Republican best able to beat her in a general election.
"She stood by ground zero workers who sacrificed their health after so many sacrificed their lives, and kept standing until this administration took action," the ad's announcer says as a photograph of Clinton, wearing a face mask at the World Trade Center cite, appears on the screen.
Click here to continue reading the article
Need for a Hillary-like health-care plan
This letter to the editor is from a former Insurance Broker who says we need the government to pay for health insurance for everyone. I guess he figures it would be less expensive. Again this blog is for both sides of the debate. I disagree with the article, but enjoy it anyway:
Taft Lowell
October 4, 2007
Arlington Heights - Before retiring I was an insurance broker for 42 years and one of the products I sold was health insurance. If you could afford the premiums, and if you were healthy enough to be accepted by the insurance company, for the most part that insurance would meet your needs.
Through that long personal experience I also learned that all those whom I came in contact with and who opposed any kind of universal health insurance had good insurance of their own or plentiful financial means to cover their medical expenses. If millions of their fellow citizens were suffering because of their inability to get proper medical coverage, they couldn't care less.
One recent letter writer said people should be responsible for maintaining a healthy lifestyle and she is correct, but that in no way assures you that you will qualify for health insurance. Perhaps you suffer from cancer, or have a seizure problem, even diabetes; none of these is caused by poor living habits, yet if you have one of them, you aren't going to qualify for health insurance.
To continue with this article, click here.
Taft Lowell
October 4, 2007
Arlington Heights - Before retiring I was an insurance broker for 42 years and one of the products I sold was health insurance. If you could afford the premiums, and if you were healthy enough to be accepted by the insurance company, for the most part that insurance would meet your needs.
Through that long personal experience I also learned that all those whom I came in contact with and who opposed any kind of universal health insurance had good insurance of their own or plentiful financial means to cover their medical expenses. If millions of their fellow citizens were suffering because of their inability to get proper medical coverage, they couldn't care less.
One recent letter writer said people should be responsible for maintaining a healthy lifestyle and she is correct, but that in no way assures you that you will qualify for health insurance. Perhaps you suffer from cancer, or have a seizure problem, even diabetes; none of these is caused by poor living habits, yet if you have one of them, you aren't going to qualify for health insurance.
To continue with this article, click here.
McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
John McCain shows he has appropriate conservative leadership qualities on this debate. The Democratic side of the debate will paint this veto as taking money away from children. That argument has worked by generating Republican votes in the house and senate. However, it is poor policy for a fiscal conservative because it raises taxes on the poor and middle class to give to rich kids. Enjoy the article:
CAMDEN, South Carolina (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told CNN Wednesday he agrees with President Bush's veto of legislation expanding a children's health insurance program, saying the bill provided a "phony smoke and mirrors way of paying for it."
"Right call by the president," the Republican White House hopeful told CNN's John King. "We've laid a debt on these same children ... that we're saying we're going to give health insurance to."
The bill, which would cost $35 billion over five years, is meant to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to provide coverage to an additional 10 million children.
Bush said he vetoed the bill because he considered it a step towards "federalizing" medicine and an inappropriately expanding the program's goal beyond its original focus on helping poor children.
During an interview onboard the CNN Election Express in South Carolina, McCain said he agreed with the president's decision.
"The American people have rebelled against out-of-control spending. If they can find a legitimate way to pay for it, I would consider it," he said.
Expanding the program to cover children in families up to 400 percent of the poverty line would an "unfunded liability," the Arizona Republican said. "Just like the Medicare prescription drug program."
To continue reading the full article click here.
CAMDEN, South Carolina (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told CNN Wednesday he agrees with President Bush's veto of legislation expanding a children's health insurance program, saying the bill provided a "phony smoke and mirrors way of paying for it."
"Right call by the president," the Republican White House hopeful told CNN's John King. "We've laid a debt on these same children ... that we're saying we're going to give health insurance to."
The bill, which would cost $35 billion over five years, is meant to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to provide coverage to an additional 10 million children.
Bush said he vetoed the bill because he considered it a step towards "federalizing" medicine and an inappropriately expanding the program's goal beyond its original focus on helping poor children.
During an interview onboard the CNN Election Express in South Carolina, McCain said he agreed with the president's decision.
"The American people have rebelled against out-of-control spending. If they can find a legitimate way to pay for it, I would consider it," he said.
Expanding the program to cover children in families up to 400 percent of the poverty line would an "unfunded liability," the Arizona Republican said. "Just like the Medicare prescription drug program."
To continue reading the full article click here.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Preventable Illness at Core of U.S. Health Costs
Finally we have an article that gets to the core of the problem with health care. The problem with health care is not the cost of insurance or the number of uninsured. The problem with health care is the cost of health care. The reason health care costs so much according to this ABC article is because of lifestyle choices that make Americans fatter and lazier than their European counterparts. This is a good article that I hope you enjoy:
By RAJA JAGADEESAN, M.D.
ABC News Medical Unit
Oct. 3, 2007
Fat, Lazy Americans Account for Part of U.S.-Europe Health Care Cost Gap
John Smith, from a health care perspective, is a typical American.
He is a 56-year-old white male living in a suburban city in the United States. He has been an on-again, off-again smoker throughout his life but recently quit -- something he is proud of.
He is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs 190 pounds, and he knows he could probably stand to lose a few pounds. Scientists would calculate his body mass index at 28, a classification that qualifies him as overweight.
As John Smith prepares for retirement, he also realizes that 18 percent of his income goes toward health care costs, and he wonders why he is paying so much.
John Smith is not real. But he does represent the type of average American over age 50 examined in a study published this week by researchers at Emory University's School of Public Health.
And according to the study, it may be Americans' own habits that are driving health care costs in the United States.
Continue reading the full article here
By RAJA JAGADEESAN, M.D.
ABC News Medical Unit
Oct. 3, 2007
Fat, Lazy Americans Account for Part of U.S.-Europe Health Care Cost Gap
John Smith, from a health care perspective, is a typical American.
He is a 56-year-old white male living in a suburban city in the United States. He has been an on-again, off-again smoker throughout his life but recently quit -- something he is proud of.
He is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs 190 pounds, and he knows he could probably stand to lose a few pounds. Scientists would calculate his body mass index at 28, a classification that qualifies him as overweight.
As John Smith prepares for retirement, he also realizes that 18 percent of his income goes toward health care costs, and he wonders why he is paying so much.
John Smith is not real. But he does represent the type of average American over age 50 examined in a study published this week by researchers at Emory University's School of Public Health.
And according to the study, it may be Americans' own habits that are driving health care costs in the United States.
Continue reading the full article here
Health insurance for kids: Who should get aid?
Here is another article concerning the lawsuit from the states against the federal government for funding the SCHIP program. Enjoy the article:
By Kyung M. Song
Seattle Times health reporter
Should parents who earn nearly $62,000 a year and have two kids qualify for steeply discounted children's health insurance that's subsidized by the public?
That's the crux of a standoff between two dozen states, including Washington, and the Bush administration over how far to stretch tax dollars to cover kids from "middle-income" families.
The battle is partly an ideological one over how large a role government should take in providing health care.
But it's taken on a practical urgency as more working Americans lose employer-sponsored health insurance and can't afford the full cost of premiums, which now can rival second-mortgage payments.
On Monday, Gov. Christine Gregoire and her counterparts in New York, New Jersey and five other states said they are suing or will sue the federal government for having frustrated efforts to raise the income limit for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SHIP).
On Tuesday, Gregoire and 28 other governors sent a letter to President Bush urging him to sign a bill authorizing more money for SCHIP and loosening new restrictions.
SCHIP is a joint federal-state program that provides health coverage for children who don't qualify for Medicaid.
Bush has opposed using federal money to subsidize coverage for children in families earning more than 250 percent of the poverty level, or $51,600 for a family of four, unless 95 percent of Medicaid- or SCHIP-eligible children in lower-income brackets enroll first.
No state apparently now meets that benchmark. And that could stymie plans by Washington and other states to expand SCHIP into higher-income families — in the case of New York up to four times the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four.
By Kyung M. Song
Seattle Times health reporter
Should parents who earn nearly $62,000 a year and have two kids qualify for steeply discounted children's health insurance that's subsidized by the public?
That's the crux of a standoff between two dozen states, including Washington, and the Bush administration over how far to stretch tax dollars to cover kids from "middle-income" families.
The battle is partly an ideological one over how large a role government should take in providing health care.
But it's taken on a practical urgency as more working Americans lose employer-sponsored health insurance and can't afford the full cost of premiums, which now can rival second-mortgage payments.
On Monday, Gov. Christine Gregoire and her counterparts in New York, New Jersey and five other states said they are suing or will sue the federal government for having frustrated efforts to raise the income limit for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SHIP).
On Tuesday, Gregoire and 28 other governors sent a letter to President Bush urging him to sign a bill authorizing more money for SCHIP and loosening new restrictions.
SCHIP is a joint federal-state program that provides health coverage for children who don't qualify for Medicaid.
Bush has opposed using federal money to subsidize coverage for children in families earning more than 250 percent of the poverty level, or $51,600 for a family of four, unless 95 percent of Medicaid- or SCHIP-eligible children in lower-income brackets enroll first.
No state apparently now meets that benchmark. And that could stymie plans by Washington and other states to expand SCHIP into higher-income families — in the case of New York up to four times the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four.
Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program
This is the inevitable. I agree with this veto because they should not tax the poor to give to the rich. Enjoy the article.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years.
Bush quietly exercised the veto at 10 a.m. before leaving the White House for a trip to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to discuss the federal budget and taxes.
Congress sent the legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to the White House on Tuesday.
"It is our hope and the will of the American people that the president will sign the bill into law on behalf of the future. It is right for no less than 10 million reasons -- our children," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a joint statement.
The Senate voted 67-29 Thursday to expand the program. Bush has said it's a step toward universal coverage, which he opposes on philosophical grounds.
The program would double -- from 4 million to 8 million -- the number of children covered.
Eighteen Republicans joined all of the Democrats in voting to expand the program from its annual budget of $5 billion to $12 billion for the next five years.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years.
Bush quietly exercised the veto at 10 a.m. before leaving the White House for a trip to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to discuss the federal budget and taxes.
Congress sent the legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to the White House on Tuesday.
"It is our hope and the will of the American people that the president will sign the bill into law on behalf of the future. It is right for no less than 10 million reasons -- our children," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a joint statement.
The Senate voted 67-29 Thursday to expand the program. Bush has said it's a step toward universal coverage, which he opposes on philosophical grounds.
The program would double -- from 4 million to 8 million -- the number of children covered.
Eighteen Republicans joined all of the Democrats in voting to expand the program from its annual budget of $5 billion to $12 billion for the next five years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)