Friday, October 19, 2007

S-CHIP, the Sequel

According to a CBS News poll, 81% of Americans favor expanding S-CHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which covers children in working class families, those too rich to qualify for Medicaid and too poor to be able to afford private insurance. Further, 74% of those favoring expansion are willing to pay higher taxes to finance the expansion. Those numbers include sizable majorities of Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans. It's that important.

If you remember, Congress passed an S-CHIP expansion program that the president vetoed. There are enough votes to override the veto in the Senate, but the House vote stayed the same. Not a single Repub who voted against the original bill changed their vote this time around. Billions for an inane war, but working-class children without health insurance can go to hell.

These are the bastards (all Repubs) who don't give a damn about your families, your finances, and most importantly, your children. Please remember them when they come to you next year begging for your vote.

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)

Included in this list and highlighted are my representative, who "serves" northwest Georgia, and the Tennessee congressman whose district includes Chattanooga.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Let's keep in mind that in some states more than 80% of SCHIP recipients are adults, many of whom are in college. In Wisconsin, 86% are adults.

More than one-half state states allow illegals in SCHIP.

Most states do not check income eligibility - they accept blindly statements from six-figure parents that they make too little to afford private insurance, simply because their state revenue departments will not turn over income data. Yet, even the CBO report concedes that one half the new eligibles will ditch their private plans to become enrolled, under the new bill. That “crowd out effect” that so many economists mention has historically resulted in higher private insurance premiums to cover the exodus.

The annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the Senate’s expansion plan would increase from $1,418 to between $2,508 and $2,859. This is 1.8 to 2 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 2.5 times the average cost of private insurance.

The Senate bill (basically the one that was vetoed) costs more than $1,100 above what a top-of-the-line Blue Cross / Blue Shield plan would cost, while the House plan would have cost almost 3.5 times the price of private health insurance. You’d rather they have a red tape-laden, inefficient, government program for a thousand dollars more per person, than Aetna, or Blue Cross? It would be far cheaper to simply hand out money for private insurance reimbursement, or give a tax credit to those at or below 200% of the FPL.

Finally, not even half the additional costs would be “paid for with tobacco taxes,” as the CBO report points out, because of price elasticity — you’d need to create 22 million additional smokers in less than 5 years, while the smoking rate continues to decline each year. It’s impossible to pay for the Senate or House bill using tobacco taxes alone.

It ain’t about the kids; it’s about elections.

It’s always about elections.