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.
formatting link
You can love kids and still oppose SCHIPDoubling spending on thisprogram 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 vetoonlegislation that would double the size of the State Children's HealthInsuranceProgram. Because that attempt probably will fail, the question nowis whether thepresident and the Democratic Congress will find some middleground. Mr. Bushrightly complains that some states spend more than halftheir SCHIP funding oncare for adults instead of children. In reaching acompromise, congressionalDemocrats may cave on adult care, and Mr. Bush mayaccede to allowing moremiddle-class families - most of whom already haveprivate coverage - to enroll inthe program.But both Democrats and Republicans continue to skirt the mostimportantquestions about SCHIP. When Congress created the program in 1997, itsstatedpurpose was to provide health insurance to children in families earningtoomuch to be eligible for Medicaid but too little to afford private coverage.Sowhy is the program so poorly targeted? According to Genevieve Kenney andAllisonCook of the Urban Institute, almost 60 percent of children eligiblefor SCHIPalready have private coverage; the Congressional Budget Officereports the figureis 77 percent for children targeted by Congress' proposedexpansion.Healthinsurance may not even be the best strategy for protecting children'shealth.Economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and DavidMeltzer of theUniversity 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 andeducation.And few have acknowledged SCHIP's effect on work incentives. Accordingtothe Urban Institute, if a single mother of two earning minimum wage inNewMexico managed to increase her earnings by $30,000, her total incomewouldn'tchange, because she'd pay $4,000 more in taxes and lose $26,000 inSCHIP andother government benefits.SCHIP supporters are using their self-professedcompassion for children as abludgeon to suppress perfectly reasonablequestions.Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., remarks that without SCHIP, "so help me,childrenwill die, and some will end up with permanent disabilities." Yet thereis noevidence that SCHIP saves more children's lives than efforts toimprovepre-natal care, for example.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,declares that the Bush veto wouldprevent 10 million children from obtaining anyhealth care at all. YetHarvard economist George Borjas found that when Congresscut noncitizenimmigrants from the Medicaid rolls in 1996, so many of themsubsequentlysought jobs with health benefits that their insurance levelsactuallyincreased. Why would SCHIP families, who are far wealthier, fareworse?The media have yet to challenge these lawmakers or their amen chorusofpharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospitals and physicians, who stand togainby doubling SCHIP spending.But neither have Republicans put forward a viablealternative for helpinglow-income families afford coverage, such as greaterchoice and competition.For instance, the CBO estimates that state regulationsincrease healthpremiums by as much as 15 percent. That hits low-income familieshardest.Congress could allow consumers and employers to avoid that mark-upbyshopping for health insurance nationwide. That would enable millionsoflow-income families to find more affordable coverage - without raisingtaxes,subsidizing people who don't need subsidies, or trapping families inlow-wagejobs.Pelosi & Co. would have us believe that if we care about children'shealth,we must support SCHIP. That's little different than the GOP claim, "Ifyousupport the troops, you must support the war." Both remarks are intendedtocut off debate before people start asking crucial questions.