Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: Healthcare for kids important
Program worth supporting
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion
President Bush disagrees, on philosophical grounds, with legislation to increase funding for a 10-year-old program that provides healthcare coverage to poor children.
Many Republicans and Democrats in Congress disagree with the president, based on the reality of millions of uninsured children throughout our country. The Star supports the bipartisan Senate legislation to boost the State Children's Health Initiative Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years to help insure at least 3 million more children.
Since 1997, 6.6 million low-income children have been medically insured through the program — nearly 1.4 million in California. It is for families that make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but still cannot afford private insurance.
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, said some 18,130 children in Ventura County are enrolled in the California Healthy Families program and that an estimated 11,600 additional local children are uninsured and eligible for it.
President Bush proposes increasing funding of $5 billion over five years. That adds up to a five-year funding total of $30 billion, under President Bush's plan compared with $60 billion, under the Senate Finance Committee proposal.
The program, in which the federal and state governments split the cost of insuring children whose families are near the poverty line, is set to expire Sept. 30.
Generally, families that earn 200 percent of the federal poverty level can qualify for the program. In California, it is 250 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four, or $51,400.
Because there are enough votes in the Senate to override a threatened presidential veto of the increase, President Bush is trying to thwart it by sending a letter to state health officials to "clarify" existing policy.
The letter stated that until states show they have enrolled 95 percent of all eligible children — an unrealistic goal — they cannot raise the qualifying income level, and imposed a waiting period of one year for families seeking the SCHIP coverage. By doing so, the president assumes private insurance is both affordable and available. If that were the case, there would not be 47 million Americans without health insurance today.
Surely, President Bush could find a less important popular program to oppose philosophically.
Posted by chair on August 29, 2007 at 1:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taxing one group of people to inance support for another group of people is unethical. While popular, programs such as this only delay more reasonable, more comprehensive solutions to our many health care problems. So I differ with your endorsement of our legislature's continuing reliance upon stop-gap methods rather than real solutions.
Posted by cassandra on August 29, 2007 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Or taxing people to support oppressive regimes like that of Columbia. (Chiquita banana was not the only entity financing death squads.)
US money too often is used to bolster bad guys in other countries including the late, unlamented Saddam when he was our buddy. Sigh, we used to do our killing, torture, etc. by proxy using native rogues.
Why not a little put aside for healthier kids?
Posted by cassandra on August 29, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My mental health advisor wants me to be more positive to elevate my mood. Okay, this is a good editorial. Right on, VCStar.
Posted by shaver_one on August 29, 2007 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If taxing one group to enhance support for another group is unethical, I expect you to always vote against additional taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products, and alcohol. These taxes go to groups other than smokers and drinkers.
I also expect you to vote against all school related bond issues that raise property taxes. Not every home owner has school-aged children.
Let's defeat all bond issues that are veteran related. The vast majority of Californians are not and have never been in the military.
For that matter, defeat all state bond issues.
Taxing one group, to support another group is unethical.
Posted by Nosmo_King on August 29, 2007 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
shaver_one you are exactly right! and the Constitution backs you up.
Posted by shaver_one on August 29, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have NEVER voted for Elton!
Posted by sslocal on August 29, 2007 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Damn, you people can't stay on topic to save your lives. We all understand that the liberal mindset does not allow you do go through your day without b----ing about Bush or some other republican but why, oh why must you do it in public.
If I might so boldly offer forth an idea, if you can't say something nice don't say anything. Or at least stay on topic.
Oh, BTW I do not go along with being taxed to support other people.
Posted by allblacks on August 29, 2007 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
J-Dub (I like that) I'm with you. We need to vote out every single person who voted to support the war, right?
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.