Wyoming Congressional Opposition to SCHIP
Aug 2nd 2007ScottWyoming & conservatism & pro-life issues & socialized healthcare & taxes
Amidst pro-life concerns, Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) voted against the State Children’s’ Health Insurance Program yesterday:
In 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation to allow states to cover mothers and their unborn babies under the SCHIP program for poor residents.
Pro-life groups applauded the decision by the Bush administration because it recognized both mother and unborn child as patients in a pregnancy and helped remove financial incentives that lead some women to consider abortions.
The Democrat-controlled House is considering the CHAMP/SCHIP bill (HR 3162) today, which overturns the Unborn Child Rule and makes it so only the mother receives coverage — not the unborn child.
Democrats criticized the mostly Republican opposition on the grounds of not caring for the children. WVT fully supports Rep. Cubin in this vote
Over in the Senate, Wyoming’s junior Senator, John Barrasso (R) made a speech against the SCHIP legislation under consideration:
I have concerns with the bill that is in front of us. This bill, this piece of legislation, reported out of the Finance Committee, takes a successful spending program and uses it as a vehicle to create a new entitlement. The bill that I look at today covers high-income people, covers people who already have insurance, and covers adults. To me, this bill should be all about children.
The Senator went on to discuss concerns about covering high-income families, families that are already insured, and coverage for adults:
High-income people: This bill allows families at 400 percent of the poverty level to be covered. In New York State, that is an income of $82,600 a year. In New Jersey, 350 percent of the poverty level is an income of over $72,000 a year. At home in Wyoming, we play by the rules. It is 200 percent of the poverty level. That is what we need. That is what works.
Are there kids in New York and New Jersey who need to be covered? Of course. There are kids everywhere who need to be covered. But why the different rules for different States? And why so many high-income people as part of the program?
So that is No. 1.
No. 2, people who already have health insurance: When you start to cover children in families above that 200 percent of the poverty level, many of those children are in families where they already have insurance. Madam President, 77 percent of the children in families between 200 and 300 percent of the poverty level have private health insurance. When you go above that, above the 300 percent level, between 300 and 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, 89 percent of those children are in families where they have private health insurance.
When you do the math and look at the numbers, people in those categories will be financially compelled to take their children off of the private, usually employer-sponsored health care plans, and put them on the taxpayer-supported plans.
The Congressional Budget Office looked at this, and they think, with this plan, 2.1 million people will move from private coverage to Government dependency, if this legislation is enacted.
This is supposed to be a program to help children, children who do not have health insurance. It seems as if some in this body may be trying to use this plan to nationalize health insurance.
The third thing I see that is a concern with this plan is in some places it covers adults, not just children. It covers the parents of children. Nowhere–nowhere–in the word “SCHIP” is there the letter “A” for adults. The “C” stands for children.
While the Senator agrees that there needs to be a debate about health care, he believes legislation intended to help children is not the place to do so. There are a number of avenues to cover in most Democrat-pushed legislation, so though it would have been nice to see an aspect of the pro-life argument against this particular bill, WVT applauds Sen. Barrasso’s monologue opposing the Senate SCHIP proposal.
Not to get side-tracked by the same old ugly debate, but the Senate version of the SCHIP program would be funded by an increase in tobacco taxes.
No Comments »
