G
Go Mavs
Guest
This story is a slam dunk... It shows how you Democrats are willing to stand
in front of 2 year olds and 12 year olds while trying to cause a fight. Many
of these people are sick f ckers.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon..._18edi.ART.State.Edition1.4200d6b.htmlMichael Cannon: You can love kids and still oppose SCHIPDoubling spending on this program is not the best way to keep kids healthy09:14 AM CDT on Thursday, October 18, 2007The House is set to vote today to override President Bush's veto onlegislation that would double the size of the State Children's HealthInsurance Program. Because that attempt probably will fail, the question nowis whether the president and the Democratic Congress will find some middleground. Mr. Bush rightly complains that some states spend more than halftheir SCHIP funding on care for adults instead of children. In reaching acompromise, congressional Democrats may cave on adult care, and Mr. Bush mayaccede to allowing more middle-class families - most of whom already haveprivate coverage - to enroll in the program.But both Democrats and Republicans continue to skirt the most importantquestions about SCHIP. When Congress created the program in 1997, its statedpurpose was to provide health insurance to children in families earning toomuch to be eligible for Medicaid but too little to afford private coverage.So why is the program so poorly targeted? According to Genevieve Kenney andAllison Cook of the Urban Institute, almost 60 percent of children eligiblefor SCHIP already have private coverage; the Congressional Budget Officereports the figure is 77 percent for children targeted by Congress' proposedexpansion.Health insurance may not even be the best strategy for protecting children'shealth. Economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and DavidMeltzer of the University of Chicago surveyed the economic literature andfound "no evidence" that expanding health insurance is cost-effectivecompared with other strategies, such as health screening and educationprograms or improving incomes and education.And few have acknowledged SCHIP's effect on work incentives. According tothe Urban Institute, if a single mother of two earning minimum wage in NewMexico managed to increase her earnings by $30,000, her total incomewouldn't change, because she'd pay $4,000 more in taxes and lose $26,000 inSCHIP and other government benefits.SCHIP supporters are using their self-professed compassion for children as abludgeon to suppress perfectly reasonable questions.Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., remarks that without SCHIP, "so help me, childrenwill die, and some will end up with permanent disabilities." Yet there is noevidence that SCHIP saves more children's lives than efforts to improvepre-natal care, for example.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declares that the Bush veto wouldprevent 10 million children from obtaining any health care at all. YetHarvard economist George Borjas found that when Congress cut noncitizenimmigrants from the Medicaid rolls in 1996, so many of them subsequentlysought jobs with health benefits that their insurance levels actuallyincreased. Why would SCHIP families, who are far wealthier, fare worse?The media have yet to challenge these lawmakers or their amen chorus ofpharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospitals and physicians, who stand togain by doubling SCHIP spending.But neither have Republicans put forward a viable alternative for helpinglow-income families afford coverage, such as greater choice and competition.For instance, the CBO estimates that state regulations increase healthpremiums by as much as 15 percent. That hits low-income families hardest.Congress could allow consumers and employers to avoid that mark-up byshopping for health insurance nationwide. That would enable millions oflow-income families to find more affordable coverage - without raisingtaxes, subsidizing people who don't need subsidies, or trapping families inlow-wage jobs.Pelosi & Co. would have us believe that if we care about children's health,we must support SCHIP. That's little different than the GOP claim, "If yousupport the troops, you must support the war." Both remarks are intended tocut off debate before people start asking crucial questions.
in front of 2 year olds and 12 year olds while trying to cause a fight. Many
of these people are sick f ckers.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon..._18edi.ART.State.Edition1.4200d6b.htmlMichael Cannon: You can love kids and still oppose SCHIPDoubling spending on this program is not the best way to keep kids healthy09:14 AM CDT on Thursday, October 18, 2007The House is set to vote today to override President Bush's veto onlegislation that would double the size of the State Children's HealthInsurance Program. Because that attempt probably will fail, the question nowis whether the president and the Democratic Congress will find some middleground. Mr. Bush rightly complains that some states spend more than halftheir SCHIP funding on care for adults instead of children. In reaching acompromise, congressional Democrats may cave on adult care, and Mr. Bush mayaccede to allowing more middle-class families - most of whom already haveprivate coverage - to enroll in the program.But both Democrats and Republicans continue to skirt the most importantquestions about SCHIP. When Congress created the program in 1997, its statedpurpose was to provide health insurance to children in families earning toomuch to be eligible for Medicaid but too little to afford private coverage.So why is the program so poorly targeted? According to Genevieve Kenney andAllison Cook of the Urban Institute, almost 60 percent of children eligiblefor SCHIP already have private coverage; the Congressional Budget Officereports the figure is 77 percent for children targeted by Congress' proposedexpansion.Health insurance may not even be the best strategy for protecting children'shealth. Economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and DavidMeltzer of the University of Chicago surveyed the economic literature andfound "no evidence" that expanding health insurance is cost-effectivecompared with other strategies, such as health screening and educationprograms or improving incomes and education.And few have acknowledged SCHIP's effect on work incentives. According tothe Urban Institute, if a single mother of two earning minimum wage in NewMexico managed to increase her earnings by $30,000, her total incomewouldn't change, because she'd pay $4,000 more in taxes and lose $26,000 inSCHIP and other government benefits.SCHIP supporters are using their self-professed compassion for children as abludgeon to suppress perfectly reasonable questions.Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., remarks that without SCHIP, "so help me, childrenwill die, and some will end up with permanent disabilities." Yet there is noevidence that SCHIP saves more children's lives than efforts to improvepre-natal care, for example.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declares that the Bush veto wouldprevent 10 million children from obtaining any health care at all. YetHarvard economist George Borjas found that when Congress cut noncitizenimmigrants from the Medicaid rolls in 1996, so many of them subsequentlysought jobs with health benefits that their insurance levels actuallyincreased. Why would SCHIP families, who are far wealthier, fare worse?The media have yet to challenge these lawmakers or their amen chorus ofpharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospitals and physicians, who stand togain by doubling SCHIP spending.But neither have Republicans put forward a viable alternative for helpinglow-income families afford coverage, such as greater choice and competition.For instance, the CBO estimates that state regulations increase healthpremiums by as much as 15 percent. That hits low-income families hardest.Congress could allow consumers and employers to avoid that mark-up byshopping for health insurance nationwide. That would enable millions oflow-income families to find more affordable coverage - without raisingtaxes, subsidizing people who don't need subsidies, or trapping families inlow-wage jobs.Pelosi & Co. would have us believe that if we care about children's health,we must support SCHIP. That's little different than the GOP claim, "If yousupport the troops, you must support the war." Both remarks are intended tocut off debate before people start asking crucial questions.
