No Child Left Behind!

[Cancel7]

New Rules May Limit Health Care Program Aiding Children
By ROBERT PEAR
The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.

Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a monthlong Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were intended to return the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.

After learning of the new policy, some state officials said yesterday that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children and would impose standards that could not be met.

“We are horrified at the new federal policy,” said Ann Clemency Kohler, deputy commissioner of human services in New Jersey. “It will cause havoc with our program and could jeopardize coverage for thousands of children.”

Stan Rosenstein, the Medicaid director in California, said the new policy was “highly restrictive, much more restrictive than what we want to do.”

The poverty level for a family of four is set by the federal government at $20,650 in annual income. Many states have received federal permission to cover children with family incomes exceeding twice the poverty level — $41,300 for a family of four. In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent— $82,600 for a family of four — but the change is subject to federal approval.

California wants to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level, from 250 percent. Pennsylvania recently raised its limit to 300 percent, from 200 percent. New Jersey has had a limit of 350 percent for more than five years.

As with issues like immigration, the White House is taking action on its own to advance policies that have not been embraced by Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/washington/21health.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

 

[uscitizen]

figures...
just more fodder for the Dems to run with.
The republicans just don't think their hole is deep enough yet.

 

[Bonestorm]

So, not only is Bush threatening to veto the expansion of the extremely successful and popular S-Chip program to cover more uninsured kids, he's actually making it more difficult for those already qualifying for the program to actually get health insurance?

Typical.

This presidency can't end soon enough.

 

[evince]

Bush fighting Americans children, No child left covered.

 

[Jarod]

No wealthy child left behind.

 

[TheDanold]

New Rules May Limit Health Care Program Aiding Children
By ROBERT PEAR
The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.

Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a monthlong Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were intended to return the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.

After learning of the new policy, some state officials said yesterday that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children and would impose standards that could not be met.

“We are horrified at the new federal policy,” said Ann Clemency Kohler, deputy commissioner of human services in New Jersey. “It will cause havoc with our program and could jeopardize coverage for thousands of children.”

Stan Rosenstein, the Medicaid director in California, said the new policy was “highly restrictive, much more restrictive than what we want to do.”

The poverty level for a family of four is set by the federal government at $20,650 in annual income. Many states have received federal permission to cover children with family incomes exceeding twice the poverty level — $41,300 for a family of four. In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent— $82,600 for a family of four — but the change is subject to federal approval.

California wants to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level, from 250 percent. Pennsylvania recently raised its limit to 300 percent, from 200 percent. New Jersey has had a limit of 350 percent for more than five years.

As with issues like immigration, the White House is taking action on its own to advance policies that have not been embraced by Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/washington/21health.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

Just curious, I thought Liberals favored social welfare programs aimed at the poor, now they want the middle class dependent on government too?

Also, if you don't like this then push to get the federal government out of the role of health care entirely and let states handle it (as per the 10th amendment which it should be legally done by anyway). It's the left under LBJ and Dems since that have tried to federalize healthcare, so do you really have any right to complain when the system you set up to have oversight over the states does exactly that?

 

[TheDanold]

No wealthy child left behind.

LOL, did you even read it?
It's the Liberals in Liberal states like New York, Jersey and Cali that are expanding healthcare to wealthier children. Read what Darla posted.

And that's pretty silly coming from a dude who just became a multi-millionaire with ONE single case that he won, a few months work for that many millions, I don't know too many of the highest CEO's getting that kind of deal.

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh the myth that anyone with money cannot be sympathetic to and support those less fortunate....
It is known as the Edwards syndrome.

 

[TheDanold]

Ahh the myth that anyone with money cannot be sympathetic to and support those less fortunate....
It is known as the Edwards syndrome.

They are not talking about the less fortunate, they are talking about expanding healthcare to richer middle class kids.
I guess you, nor Alex can read, probably why I designated you twin idiots so long ago.

 

[uscitizen]

Rich is a relative term, also with fewer employees providing health ins. I pay about $900 per month for stand alone ins that is worth a darn. and it is just for myself.
I am an independent contractor.

 

[TheDanold]

Rich is a relative term, also with fewer employees providing health ins. I pay about $900 per month for stand alone ins that is worth a darn. and it is just for myself.
I am an independent contractor.

Well, repeal regulations which make healthcare cost more with more paperwork, set limits on lawsuits. You'll note that Alex the trial lawyer made millions off a few months work on one single lawsuit.
You can't expect to ravage an industry for all it's worth with regulations, taxes and lawsuits and then blame "profit" or "greed" as the reason for why prices have risen so much in recent years. Profit has been around in healthcare forever.

 

[uscitizen]

All malpractice lawsuits combined add up to less that 3% of the total cost of health care. think we would see any gain from that or would the companies just make 3% more profit ?
And the paperwork is required because of companies ripping off govt programs....
also for DEA stuff.


do a search on medicare/medicaid fraud....

 

[Cancel7]

Just curious, I thought Liberals favored social welfare programs aimed at the poor, now they want the middle class dependent on government too?

Also, if you don't like this then push to get the federal government out of the role of health care entirely and let states handle it (as per the 10th amendment which it should be legally done by anyway). It's the left under LBJ and Dems since that have tried to federalize healthcare, so do you really have any right to complain when the system you set up to have oversight over the states does exactly that?

The federal poverty level is 20k for a family of 4, which is ludicrous in NY State. So many of the families this will harm are poor.

And also, many so-called middle class families, though not poor, cannot afford health insurance. These are the people who fall through the cracks. Those not poor enough to get assistance, but who don't make enough to purchase insurance on their own. They make up a decent part of our uninsured I think. It's why you see polls showing such large majorities of Americans wanting universal health care. That's not because "the poor" don't have health insurance you know. Nobody gives a crap about the poor Dano, least of all the middle class. Those majorities exist because enough of the middle class is uninsured, has been uninsured at times, and/or, fears being uninsured if they lose their jobs.

It is not just the poor who cannot afford health insurance. Now, we want to put a poor face on the uninsured, because as soon was we do that, we can then put a black face on the uninsured, and that's how we get rid of any talk of universal health care. However, though this tactic has worked wonders in the past, I don't see it working here, with the middle class so antsy about their own health insurance, in the cases where they even have it.

 

[Damocles]

The federal poverty level is 20k for a family of 4, which is ludicrous in NY State. So many of the families this will harm are poor.

And also, many so-called middle class families, though not poor, cannot afford health insurance. These are the people who fall through the cracks. Those not poor enough to get assistance, but who don't make enough to purchase insurance on their own. They make up a decent part of our uninsured I think. It's why you see polls showing such large majorities of Americans wanting universal health care. That's not because "the poor" don't have health insurance you know. Nobody gives a crap about the poor Dano, least of all the middle class. Those majorities exist because enough of the middle class is uninsured, has been uninsured at times, and/or, fears being uninsured if they lose their jobs.

It is not just the poor who cannot afford health insurance. Now, we want to put a poor face on the uninsured, because as soon was we do that, we can then put a black face on the uninsured, and that's how we get rid of any talk of universal health care. However, though this tactic has worked wonders in the past, I don't see it working here, with the middle class so antsy about their own health insurance, in the cases where they even have it.

Seriously, it should be applied on a cost of living basis if we give it away at all.

 

[uscitizen]

Seriously, it should be applied on a cost of living basis if we give it away at all.

But that promotes people living in high cost of living areas. Why should I support someone living in a high cost of living area when they could live in KY ?

Umm strike all that, let them stay in the big city zones
It is worth sometihing to me to keep the city folks out of my hair.
what little is left....

 

[TheDanold]

The federal poverty level is 20k for a family of 4, which is ludicrous in NY State. So many of the families this will harm are poor.

Which really just supports my case of pushing for the federal government to get out of healthcare and let the states handle it. The cost of living in New York state is obviously much higher than Alabama, the states could do the job better.
And this doesn't "harm" anyone, harming implies proactively hurting someone, what you are talking about here is lack of action.

And also, many so-called middle class families, though not poor, cannot afford health insurance. These are the people who fall through the cracks. Those not poor enough to get assistance, but who don't make enough to purchase insurance on their own. They make up a decent part of our uninsured I think. It's why you see polls showing such large majorities of Americans wanting universal health care. That's not because "the poor" don't have health insurance you know. Nobody gives a crap about the poor Dano, least of all the middle class. Those majorities exist because enough of the middle class is uninsured, has been uninsured at times, and/or, fears being uninsured if they lose their jobs.
It is not just the poor who cannot afford health insurance. Now, we want to put a poor face on the uninsured, because as soon was we do that, we can then put a black face on the uninsured, and that's how we get rid of any talk of universal health care. However, though this tactic has worked wonders in the past, I don't see it working here, with the middle class so antsy about their own health insurance, in the cases where they even have it.

People are more in favor of universal healthcare because after a decade of more regulation (e.g.: the dubious named Patients Rights Act), more paperwork (now up to 25% of the time healthcare providers spend their time doing), more lawsuits (malpractice insurance rates through the roof, ask any doctor) the system is so poisoned with government overaction that people are just giving up and a lot have bought the left's disgusting lies that profit (which has been around in healthcare forever) is to blame.

"When democratic governments create economic calamity, free markets get the blame." – Jack Kemp

 

[uscitizen]

But the truth is that the states cannot handle it by themselves, at least many cannot.

 

[TheDanold]

But the truth is that the states cannot handle it by themselves, at least many cannot.

And the federal government can? Let's compare debt records, the states (usually Conservative Republican ones) are doing better than the feds.

 

[uscitizen]

And the federal government can? Let's compare debt records, the states (usually Conservative Republican ones) are doing better than the feds.

but not if the feds cut them off. And should a child in AL not have the same health care as one in TX or UT ?

 

[Cancel7]

Which really just supports my case of pushing for the federal government to get out of healthcare and let the states handle it. The cost of living in New York state is obviously much higher than Alabama, the states could do the job better.
And this doesn't "harm" anyone, harming implies proactively hurting someone, what you are talking about here is lack of action.

I snipped out your regulation rant, because I get so tired of arguing about that, and it's the same old same old. You make a statement blaming any little regulation for all of the world's ills.

The states cannot afford to "handle it' least of all a red state like Alabama who desperately needs the federal dollars in order to be able to insure poor children health care. Rather than saying we need to "leave it to the states" to solve the problem, we could just admit that no problem would exist if it weren't for bush trying to get something into law he KNOWS will not be passed by Congress, and even the Republicans balked at passing.