Yesterday the President vetoed the renewal of the State Children's Health Insurance Program on the grounds that expanding the program by five billion dollars a year would threaten private health insurance and would be the first step on the road to public health care. Bob Novak agreed this week in the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Others countered that helping nine million uninsured children is not a threat to the health insurance industry.
Expanding the program would help enroll another four million children. The evidence from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that two million children will be enrolled in the program who may have previously been privately insured. So while the private insurers may lose two million customers, another two million uninsured children may gain health insurance.
Is private health coverage worth protecting, at the risk of leaving two million kids uninsured?
The majority of Congress felt children's access to health care was important; the SCHIP bill passed with bipartisan support. However, Rep. Sam Graves, of Missouri, believes defending the private system should be a priority. http://www.kansascity.com/273...
Medicaid exists for the poor so that all U.S. citizens have access to health care. In the case of this program, instead of helping the most needy, two million children will be taken off the rolls of private insurance system to help another two million get access to health care. There is an element of trade off, however who could deny that this is a trade off worth making.
The President's veto had nothing to do with defending private insurance. It has to do with expanding the welfare state, adding families making up to $80K per year, and covering so called "children" into their adulthood. The President would gladly approve an extension of the bill that would provide the status quo.
Post new comment