The bill could have been read at www.thomas.gov .
The income level was limited to those making under $61000 for a family of four, the coverage was limited to people who could PROVE citizenship, and those UNDER 19 years of age.
YES, there were sections in the bill that allow states to APPLY to have people above this range qualify, IF the state has an unusually high cost of living, BUT the state forfeits money from future allotments if they do.
$61000 a year goes a lot farther in this area than it does in New Jersery or Hawaii, and even those states have only applied for up to $72000 a year exemptions.
Sure, that sounds like a lot of money to me. I could live high on the hog for that.
The President in his State of the Union address said that he wanted to provide coverage for children. So perhaps there will be changed made to the point that a consensus could be reached.
As it stands now, IMO, people who are insured are already paying for those who are not.
Why the simple facts of why the SCHIP Bill was vetoed are not more clearly explained, totally escapes me.
As I understand it, the bill was initially designed to fund health care for children whose parents earned less than twice the amount of the current poverty level.
Something like this: 2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Number of Persons 48 Contiguous States Alaska Hawaii
1 $ 10,210 $ 12,770 $ 11,750
2 13,690 17,120 15,750
3 17,170 21,470 19,750
4 18,850 23,570 25,340
5 24,130 30,170 27,750
6 27,610 34,520 31,750
7 31,090 38,870 35,750
8 34,570 43,220 39,750
For each additional person, add 3,480 4,350 4,000
(Source: Federal Register, Vol 72, No 15, January 24, 2007, pp 3147 - 3148)
The President, and supporting members of Congress, favored that level of funding for the health care of little children.
Then the bill was larded up by about $35 billion to provide the same coverage to children of wealthier families with annual incomes of about $80,000.
It is no secret that socialized medicine in the USofA is not a lost cause for some in Congress. IMO, socialized medicine represents a ?free? service. If anything is free, the demand naturally rises. An ability to provide ?service? is relatively fixed, and aside from deplorable inefficiencies of any Government provided service, the net effect is that the level of care has to go down.
I have read reports of the ?socialized? medical care in Britain, where general medical practitioners see 70 or more patients daily. The service is free, consequently a child with the sniffles is taken to the doctor. The doctor makes the briefest of examinations and dispenses a few pills. Most of these children would probably get over the sniffles without the doctor?s efforts. But among the many children seen that day, are probably the one or two whose sniffles are the first symptoms of a more serious condition, and probably needs serious treatment. The overworked doctor misses those symptoms that a more thorough examination would disclose, if he/she just had the time to do it.
A family with an actual income of $25,000 certainly needs help with respect to the health of their children. But $80,000 ?
Let?s watch campaign propaganda that uses ?children? is a slogan, and puts the health of poor children at risk while playing political games during an election year.