GOP fights expanded healthcare coverage for children
House Republicans are fighting House and Senate bills that would extend healthcare coverage to more uninsured children:
WASHINGTON, July 24 — Republican leaders of the House and Senate on Tuesday attacked proposals that call for a major expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, to be financed with higher tobacco taxes.
“Republicans will fight these proposals,” said the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.
In an unexpected turn of events, the top two Republicans in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Trent Lott of Mississippi, said they opposed a bipartisan bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved last week and would offer an alternative on the Senate floor.
House Democrats announced their proposals on Tuesday night and estimated that they would provide coverage for five million children who are now uninsured. The Senate bill is expected to cover 3.2 million children.
Top House Republicans objected to the House Democrats’ plan to finance their proposals, with increases in tobacco taxes and cuts in subsidies for private health plans serving older Americans on Medicare. Republicans say public coverage would in some cases replace private insurance. [NYT]
The Wall Street Journal has a good discussion of the House and Senate versions of the bill.
In essence, the Democrats are offering plans that would give states more money from cigarette taxes to spend on their preexisting, successful child health care programs.
This infusion of cash would help states fund coverage for a total of 11 million children. Six million of these children are already in CHIP or Medicaid, and another five million are eligible but not yet enrolled.
Republicans have great values. No wonder "values voters" vote Republican. (sarcasm)
Posted by: Eric Jaffa | July 25, 2007 at 02:06 PM
Why, oh why, do Republicans hate poor sick children so? Oh yeah, they don't vote and they don't donate to the great 'right' cause.
Posted by: Hawise | July 25, 2007 at 02:08 PM
First let me ask you Lindsay, what else was attached to this?
Posted by: Dave | July 25, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Mark Kleiman commented on this; his take is that the funding mechanism is problematic.
Mark Kleiman's take
Posted by: SamChevre | July 25, 2007 at 02:54 PM
Two things to hate about this:
a) It's just more of the same namby pamby incrementalism that never gets us anywhere. Everyone wants to provide universal coverage for children because it's easy: children don't get expensive, chronic diseases in the same proportions as adults. I'm afraid that we're going to develop a system that insures 100 percent of children and stops there. Because a lot of people just don't care if uninsured adults are left twisting in the wind. Call it the cult of Personal Responsibility. Never mind that it is uninsured adults who are the main burden on the health care system.
b) Cigarette taxes? Feh. If we really want to reduce smoking, then it's a bad idea to make government dependent on it for revenue. Moreover it's a regressive tax.
We need coverage for everybody, funded by some sort of progressive taxation. Nothing less.
Posted by: superdude | July 25, 2007 at 06:29 PM
The Republicans are terrified that this is the slippery slope towards single-payer universal health care. They're not always wrong. There are so many entrenched interests that anything less than incrementalism is like sending your troops over the top at Galipoli. We can't wait for the One Big Push that will deliver us the healthcare system of our dreams.
The way we're going to get to the system that superdude envisions is to expand the existing, effective public programs to cover the cheapest (and cutest) population to insure: kids. Then, move up the next age bracket, the twenty-somethings who are in that uncomfortable gap period between being covered under their parents' plans and having a good enough job to have their own health insurance.
I wouldn't have chosen the tobacco tax to fund this initiative. Kleiman's right about the downside of taxing tobacco. But the perfect is the enemy of the good.
I think the country will be a better place if this measure passes than if it fails.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | July 25, 2007 at 06:48 PM
Tobacco and health care are profitable businesses. Get ‘em hooked and get ‘em sick, I say.
A longitudinal study predicting patterns of cigarette smoking in late childhood
Teen Smoking, Field Cancerization, and a" Critical Period" Hypothesis for Lung Cancer Susceptibility
Posted by: cfrost | July 25, 2007 at 08:49 PM
The way we're going to get to the system that superdude envisions is to expand the existing, effective public programs to cover the cheapest (and cutest) population to insure: kids. Then, move up the next age bracket, the twenty-somethings who are in that uncomfortable gap period between being covered under their parents' plans and having a good enough job to have their own health insurance.
What makes you think things will proceed from there?
Incrementalism is just divide-and-conquer. When we provided Medicare for senior citizens, it reduced the constituency for universal coverage by such a catastrophic degree that we still haven't recovered. When we insure only children, the constituency will be whittled down further. Further still if we cover only young adults. Means testing cuts it down further. Eventually, we end up with a system where many people are without coverage, but not enough to gain any political traction. Which is pretty much where we've been for the past 40 years.
I know it's blackhearted to hold the children and the 20-somethings hostage so we can keep the votes they bring for universal coverage, but I don't feel bad about it because I know they're the groups least in need of coverage. The people who need it most are the 35-65 year olds who are more expensive to insure, and have something to lose if they file for bankruptcy. Anything that doesn't help these people can be sacrificed. Nothing I've seen over the past several decades convinces me that taking baby steps in the right direction will eventually lead to more substantial reform.
Posted by: superdude | July 25, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Yeah, so when your kid gets sick, fuck 'em. They don't need help as much as 35 to 60 year olds
Posted by: Summerisle | July 26, 2007 at 04:25 AM
I’m not holding my breath for health care reform incremental or otherwise. The wealthy, who, after all, own this country, will never share a waiting room, much less a hospital room with us trailer trash, be we young or old, cute or ugly.
Posted by: cfrost | July 26, 2007 at 05:33 AM