but even if schip is fully funded, millions of children will still be excluded from health care coverage.
up until now, medicaid and the schip program have made great strides in providing children with health insurance. but even with their successes, one out of every nine of our children is still without health insurance and millions more are underinsured. as congress considers reauthorization of schip this year, we have a unique opportunity to take the next logical, achievable and moral step that would guarantee comprehensive health and mental health care to all children and pregnant women. we at the children's defense fund propose a plan whereby children’s health coverage under medicaid and schip would be consolidated into a single program. this will include a guaranteed, comprehensive benefits package nationwide for children whose family incomes are at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (topping at about $62,000 a year for a family of four).
under the proposal, children currently enrolled in medicaid, schip and means-tested federal programs like school lunch and food stamps would be enrolled automatically, with an opportunity for parents to opt out. uninsured children could also be automatically enrolled when they are born, enter school or get a social security card, again with the opportunity to opt out.
another element of the proposal would substantially increase reimbursements to health care providers so children can actually get health services when they need them. and there would be no additional cost to states for child coverage expansion or enhanced benefits.
health coverage can be provided to every child in america in 2007. the funding necessary to expand coverage to all children and pregnant women would be the equivalent to just nine days of defense department spending in 2007, and three months of the tax cuts to the richest one percent of americans this year.
which is of the greater moral value? 20,000 plus in tax cuts for dick cheney and his family or health care for poor children in your community?
Mar 3, '07
the analysis found that even within this select group of sixteen officials, which includes at least twelve millionaires, the income tax cut would mean vastly different levels of savings. while several cabinet members would have saved about as much as one of bush's family examples, the wealthiest seven officials would each have saved more than $16,000 from the income tax cut. and as with the nation as a whole, the biggest windfalls would go to the wealthy few.
it is clear, however, that the hagen family of south dakota, eager for a $1,500 tax break, will reap far less than those running the government. at last year's income levels, rumsfeld would have saved at least 393 times as much as the hagens, and bush would have saved about fifteen times as much, or $23,000. meanwhile, the median american family with children will get by this year on an estimated before-tax income of $45,600. at the rally in south dakota, bush did his best to minimize this divide with a scripted expression of empathy. "$1,500 may not be a lot to some," he told the crowd. "it means a lot to the hagens." one can only guess what a total tax savings of at least $88.3 million would mean to bush and fifteen of his closest advisers.
this proposal was citing the cost for a selected subset of the population (pregnant women and children). we need to work for a society where work pays and people have access to the middle class. current tax/spending policies actually work against that broad societal goal.
Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Mar 3, '07
Mar 3, '07
In case you haven't noticed, even factoring in Iraq, the 'military industrial complex' gets such a smaller percentage of both the budget and GDP these days that it isn't even fashionable anymore to refer to them as the 'military industrial complex'.
Besides, I happen to think that defense spending is pretty important. It also happens to be one of the few Constitutionally ordained powers of the Gov't. Healthcare - is not.
Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 3, '07
Mar 3, '07
Last edit by Uberman5000 on Mar 3, '07
: Reason: because i wanted to