Bush's new plan for children's health: Punish the kids, save the insurance companies

Just like "clean air" or "no child left behind" Bush's programs mean the opposite.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mochila.php?articleId=5886197&channelId=73&buyerId=talkingpointsmemo_com400732&buid=

(snip)

Many children who attempt to enroll in a popular children's health insurance program will have to be uninsured for at least a year before they'll be allowed to participate, the Bush administration has informed state health officials.

The administration has repeatedly voiced concerns that some states were expanding their Children's Health Insurance Programs to the point that families were dropping private coverage for public coverage. Its latest directive is designed to prevent such crowding out from occurring.

In a letter to state health officials, Dennis Smith, the administration's point man for the SCHIP program, laid out certain criteria that states much meet before they expand insurance coverage to those families above 250 percent of the poverty level _ or $42,900 for a family of three.

For example, states must establish that a child has been without insurance for a minimum of one year before the child can get coverage through SCHIP. States will also have to assure the federal government that at least 95 percent of the children eligible for the program or for Medicaid are enrolled in either of those two programs.

But, currently, no state can make such an assurance for their participation rates. The best that any state is doing is Vermont, with about 92 percent participation. So, essentially, eligibility for states' SCHIP programs would be capped at 250 percent of poverty, said health officials who examined the administration's new policy. The policy went out in the form of a letter to state health officials late Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office has said that the president’s budget, which seeks $30 billion for the program from 2008 to 2012, is not enough to pay for current levels of enrollment, much less to cover children who are eligible but not enrolled.

When Congress created the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997, it said the purpose was to cover “uninsured low-income children.” Under the law, states are supposed to make sure public coverage “does not substitute for coverage under group health plans.”

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Smith said, “The program was always meant for children in lower-income families.” As a state increases its income limits, he said, “it’s more likely to substitute for private coverage.”

* 1
* 2

To minimize the risk of such substitution, Mr. Smith said in his letter, states should charge co-payments or premiums that approximate the cost of private coverage and should impose “waiting periods” to make sure middle-income children do not go directly from a private health plan to a public program.

If a state wants to set its income limit above 250 percent of the poverty level — $51,625 for a family of four — Mr. Smith said, “the state must establish a minimum of a one-year period of uninsurance for individuals” before they can receive public coverage.

That is considerably stricter than past requirements. In February, for example, the Bush administration allowed Pennsylvania to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level after the state agreed to a six-month waiting period for children who were 2 and older with family incomes exceeding 200 percent of the poverty leve

GWB came right out and said that he's not supporting putting more children into this program because it will mean fewer people paying insurance companies. Protecting the powerful against the weak...that's our Georgie!

the culture of death as practiced by both parties...i`m proud to be an american.:cry: