"From what I have read this would cover many people that are already covered by private insurance."

Alright, let's settle this once and for all. I have chosen some other sources that you might be more inclined to believe than me. There is even a picture in there for those of you who obviously haven't read all the other junk I posted.

1. The Associated Press
"At a cost of $35 billion over five years, the vetoed measure would have added nearly 4 million uninsured children to the insurance program. It provides coverage for those who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, but whose families cannot afford private health care.

2. The Catholic Health Association

"MYTH: Children currently covered by other private insurance plans will be moved into SCHIP under the reauthorization proposals in Congress.
FACT: According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, about two-thirds of the children who stand to gain coverage under the bills in Congress are currently uninsured."

3. Georgetown University Health Policy Institute Center for Children and Families
"Perhaps most notable, CBO estimates that most of the children (84 percent) who would gain coverage under CHIPRA would be low-income children—children who already are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid under existing guidelines (Figure 1). Research shows that nearly seven out of ten of all uninsured children are already eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but are not enrolled. The bill targets the newly available resources to reach this group of low-income children.





Income Rules. Since SCHIP was first enacted, federal law has accorded states the flexibility to set the income levels for the children they will cover subject to available federal and state resources. CHIPRA imposes new constraints on that flexibility. If a state decides in the future to cover children with family incomes above 300 percent of the federal poverty level, the state may only receive the lower Medicaid matching rate. In addition, by 2010 any state that covers children in that income range will have to show that they are implementing “best practices” designed to limit crowd out and meeting ambitious standards for coverage rates of low-income children. In the interim, the bill directs the General Accounting Office and the Institute of Medicine to develop best practice guidelines and measures of crowd out and coverage rates. These new rules would replace the August 17, 2007 directive issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Coordination between Public and Private Coverage. The bill allows states to operate
premium assistance programs for families through Medicaid and SCHIP that are cost-effective and ensure that children retain access to the full Medicaid and SCHIP benefits package. CHIPRA also includes changes to other federal laws designed to improve coordination between public and private coverage, including making the gaining or loss of eligibility for Medicaid or SCHIP a “qualifying event” for the purposes of eligibility for employer-sponsored coverage; requiring employers to share information about their benefits package with states so that states can assess cost-effectiveness and the need for “wraparound” services; and requiring employers to notify families of their potential eligibility for premium assistance. The General Accountability Office (GAO) will also conduct a study on premium assistance. "

This article is one-sided.

But it's the side I agree with, so read, digest and enjoy, kids!

Poverty, after all, is not so much the absence of money as it is the absence of choices.

"But Marty and I, Ric and Karen, Donna and Jeff, we all could go if we chose to, which is probably the most important thing that sets us apart in this neighborhood, for better and for worse. We’re educated and connected in ways that mean we can never really be poor, no matter how little we may make or live on. Poverty, after all, is not so much the absence of money as it is the absence of choices." ~Bart Campolo

Where have all the liberals gone?

“It was one of those tortured, blame-filled, wounded conversations I associate with old boyfriends, where they get to come across as very calm and centered, while I sound ten minutes away from being institutionalized.” ~Anne Lamott, Plan B

I’m thinking that I must not come off as liberal enough, because I just had yet another experience of being “courted” by a conservative. He was a very good guy, and astonishingly honest, but it was not going to happen. (Okay, so there were some other reasons it was not going to work, but I'm still chalking this one up to his conservativism.)

Don’t get me wrong--conservatives are fine, and swell people, I’m sure, but I don’t want to date one. My theology and my political beliefs are more liberal than conservative, and I want to end up with someone who feels the same way, who gets what I’m saying, y’know?

I’m going to start wearing Birkenstocks and quit shaving my legs. Maybe that will convey the fact that I’m out to attract a liberal feminist. Or a feminist liberal. I'm fine with either one.

Proof that my desire to marry a feminist is a good idea

Feminists Have More Fun

This is beyond ridiculous

Every single American should be outraged. President Bush has just vetoed one of the most necessary pieces of legislation this year from his nice, comfortable chair in the White House (see post below). Meanwhile, around the country, nine million children lack the health care coverage that keeps them healthy now and does a great deal to ensure their health in the future.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, SCHIP is a state-federal partnership that basically acts as Medicaid for our youngest citizens (and therefore provides them with preventative and other types of much-needed health insurance). It has drastically reduced the number of uninsured children since its inception, and is a very necessary piece of the puzzle to ensure that the children of our country can receive the health care they need when they need it.

“Why would Dubya do something this heinous,” you ask, “especially when so many Republicans and state governors have asked him not to?”

Great question. Bush’s camp says that this bill costs too much.

Meanwhile, experts estimate that the Iraq war is costing us somewhere between $300 and $720 million every single day.

Bush’s people have also woven something into their messaging that I don’t understand: “Administration officials have argued that the bill would have moved children from families earning up to $83,000 per year into government insurance. . .”

First of all, it is my understanding that the $83,000 figure only applied to New York state, as the cost of living is so much higher there. It is also my understanding that this exception to the bill was not passed/included in the bipartisan bill, anyway, so the point is moot.

I agree that SCHIP is not a permanent fix to a huge and complex problem, but the fact remains that American children without health insurance need it NOW, to meet their health care needs right now, today. So while y’all fight over a permanent fix, please make sure our children are covered in the interim. It’s something that almost everyone in our country agrees on. . .except you, Dubya.

This had better be on the front page of every U.S. newspaper tomorrow

From Modern Healthcare Online

Bush vetoes SCHIP legislation
Story posted: October 3, 2007 - 11:30 am EDT

President Bush has vetoed the House-Senate compromise bill to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The bill would have provided an additional $34.7 billion over five years funded by federal tobacco tax money, and it would have extended coverage to about 10 million children. The measure cleared the Senate—but not the House—with enough votes to override a presidential veto.

“The president’s veto is a slap in the face to America’s children. For millions of children in working families, it says, ‘No healthcare for you,’ ” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA in a written statement.

Administration officials have argued that the bill would have moved children from families earning up to $83,000 per year into government insurance, and promoted socialized medicine.

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said last week that a compromise between the White House and Congress to reauthorize the 10-year-old program was still possible. Bush on Sept. 29 signed a budget resolution that would temporarily extend funding for the program, specifically helping 13 states whose SCHIP allotments have dried up.

In a written statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) vowed that Congress would continue to work on overriding the veto. “In the coming days, we will do what the president has not done: We will stand up for American children in need,” Baucus said.

-- by Jennifer Lubell