Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Through the back door

If you ever saw George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" or any of its many sequels, you know that it's not enough merely to nail some boards across the front door. The zombies will break in through the windows! Through the cellar! Anywhere! Like Democrats trying to bring in nationalized health insurance through the back door!

In this case, by "expanding eligibility" for a program which they swore up and down would be "only for poor kids, honest."

In Washington, three Democratic governors told Congress on Tuesday that the Bush administration has made it virtually impossible for them to expand coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to more moderate-income children, as they want to.

The governors said their states seek to enroll tens of thousands of children in the government-subsidized program because families earning $44,000 to $52,800 cannot afford private health insurance, but those efforts are threatened by an August directive from the Bush administration.


Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Ignoring the court
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'You've a gun on your T-shirt'
  • LETTERS: An incredible imbalance in salaries
  • ERIN NEFF: Gibbons and the sweetheart deal
  • LETTERS: Blame the doctor, not the messenger
  • LETTERS: No free lunch with green solutions
  • EDITORIAL: The death of common sense
  • FROM OUR READERS: Is it too late to make a deal?
  • LETTERS: Give up your car and ride a bike
  • EDITORIAL: It's satire, ladies and gentlemen



  • The directive said states must cover the vast majority of the poorest children already eligible for government coverage -- 95 percent -- before moving on to enroll higher-income children. That only makes sense.

    But Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick accused the administration of reneging on its commitment to let the state cover families with incomes up to $52,800 for a family of three. Under the guidelines, the income limit is $44,000 for new enrollees.

    Congress has tried unsuccessfully to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Last year, lawmakers failed to override two vetoes from President Bush. The vetoes blocked a $35 billion expansion of federal spending on the program over five years, which would have brought total spending to at least $60 billion.

    The president said the expansion would have encouraged too many families to drop their existing private coverage so they could get free coverage from the government.

    Duh. That's precisely what many redistributionist Democrats want.

    To say families declaring $44,000 to $52,800 in taxable income can't afford medical care or private health insurance -- regardless of the fact such coverage is often offered by employers -- means one of two things: Either the congressmen disagree with these families' spending priorities, or the very state governments now protesting in Washington have indeed eliminated low-cost insurance options by enacting so many "coverage mandates" that consumers are no longer allowed to buy a high-deductible Christmas tree without all the lights and tinsel.

    Let's keep this simple. SCHIP was supposed to be for poor children. Now many Democrats want to re-define a family earning up to $52,800 as "poor" -- while Democrats already contend anyone earning $75,000 is too "rich" to get a tax rebate.

    Pretty soon the only people not covered by this program will be Rotary Club members between the ages of 45 and 50 in Kansas, Nebraska and portions of South Dakota.

    Watch out! There! The kitchen window!



    Leave Your Comment 15 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    David Johann wrote on February 28, 2008 09:33 PM: Herb, below, is in the minority. Many presidential scholars believe W. Bush is, if not THE worst, among the handful of worst US presidents of all time:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history


    David Johann wrote on February 28, 2008 09:08 PM: Health Care
    Poll: Broad Support for Requiring Health Coverage

    by Richard Knox

    Morning Edition, February 29, 2008 · A new poll on health care from NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health finds that a majority of Americans are backing key elements in the health reform proposals of Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

    The poll also found very strong support for doing something about the problem of 50 million Americans being uninsured — 93 percent call it a serious problem, with 74 percent saying it's a very serious problem.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87783148


    Herb wrote on February 28, 2008 06:08 PM: This is why I am a Republican and approve of our great President George W Bush. I am against SCHIPP. Middle income parents should pay for their own families health insurance. Poor people shouldn't reproduce unless they can afford to raise their children. The tax payers owe other people's children nothing. It's bad enough we pay for the awful, crime infested public schools.


    Warren Clark wrote on February 28, 2008 12:02 PM: We have now defined middle class as earning between $42.000 and $75000 for a family of four. God only can help any family with one making $20,00/hour and the other one making earing 15.00 /hour without overtime they will never be able to save. pay taxes and retire at 66 to 69.


    John F wrote on February 28, 2008 08:41 AM: Jeez, I don't know where to begin. Private insurance is not available to everyone even if they have the money to pay for it. If you are not profitable to insure (i.e., you're elderly, have a chronic or catastrophic illness, or have simply outspent your limited benefits), you're not getting insured. It's that simple. That's why Medicare was created; because the private sector wouldn't insure the elderly.

    Second, if you have insurance, you're already paying for the health care of those who don't have insurance either through taxes (Medicare and Medicaid) or through higher premiums and deductibles to cover the cost of the uninsured or delinquent. The actual cosy of covering those without insurance is probably higher than it would be if we picked up the cost of insurance for them, as these people generally wait until their problems are acute before seeing doctors. Preventive care (which they could get if they had insurance) is much less expensive.

    Third, putting everyone on to Medicare would only change the way our money is funneled to our medical care providers. Instead of going through a private insurance company (which takes a cut), it would go through the government (which would not).

    Fourth, there are about 300 million people in the US and nearly 50 million of them have no medical coverage, and many more have coverage that is woefully inadequate. How can anyone look at those numbers and say our current system works?

    Finally, to those who say just get another job to cover the cost of your insurance: let's assume that the 50 million without insurance are made up of about 12 million families of four. When was the last time the economy created 12 million new jobs? World War II?


    Tim wrote on February 28, 2008 08:26 AM: This country has always been a headache and a bore.

    Wow, BJ (AKA br)you have lived overseas. So have I. Big deal.

    We are not perfect but we are working on it.

    What exactly is being done? Depriving citizens access to health care? Arming school kids so they can shoot one another?

    Waylon Bilter, I make a damn good living and can take care of myself with LVRJ idiot readers or the fascist Bush regime.

    I bet I make more than YOU....ha....ha...ha.....


    Willard Roker wrote on February 28, 2008 08:14 AM: I am amazed at how many people think a for profit Insurance company is more concerned for your health than your government. Might I suggest that you talk with people from Florida or the areas Katrina hit and see how well insurance companies took care of them.

    Some things are too important to national security to be left to the mercy of the market.


    br wrote on February 28, 2008 08:06 AM: Here you go again, Tim. I have noted your pathetic rantings about how lousy our country is. You seem to think other nations are wonderful. I have lived in Europe, the Far East and the Middle East for a total of 7 years. I have traveled extensively in many countries. I've also covered almost all of the US. America puts all those other countries to shame. No, we are not perfect, but we are working on it. It's too bad we have to endure idiot politicians and people like you. I guess it's just part of the price of freedom.


    helen weils wrote on February 28, 2008 07:34 AM: I am far from rich, within the so called income cap which the Democrats seek to expand this insurance program too. Our health insurance costs $765 per month with a $5,000 deductible.
    Yet, I don't expect the government to
    pay my bills. I'm sick of the entitlement society that the Democrats
    espouse. It's time to kick these people off of the government dole.
    While we're at it, WE SHOULD NOT BE
    SENDING $30BILLION TO AFRICA, WE SHOULD
    NOT GIVE ANY GOVERNMENT BENEFITS TO ILLEGALS AND WE SHOULD PULL OUR TROOPS FROM 136 COUNTRIES. I'M SICK OF THE GOVERNMENT GIVING MY HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS AWAY!!! REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!


    Waylon Bilter wrote on February 28, 2008 07:20 AM: Hey Tim,
    Is that the best you can do. You have a job you chose that does not pay you enough money. So...........instead of you doing something about it, usually called harder work, you want the government to do something about it so you can have what the rich have. The point you miss is "You didn't earn enough to take care of your own health insurance." So why shoud I pay for your laziness via more taxes. Get another job and go to work like I do.


    Read All Comments