Family Forum / Parenting / Children's Health / January 2009

Your White House War Criminal emeritus wanted to "protect" private
providers rather than poor and sick children.

Part of the Bush legacy ... to his and America's shame.

------------------
"Senate Passes Health Insurance Bill for Children"

"Immigrant Clause Opens Rift"

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 30, 2009; 9:24 AM

The Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation yesterday to provide
health insurance to 11 million low-income children, a bill that would
for the first time spend federal money to cover children and pregnant
women who are legal immigrants.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is aimed at
families earning too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough
to afford private insurance, currently covers close to 7 million
youngsters at a cost of $25 billion.

Lawmakers voted 66 to 32, largely along party lines, to renew the
joint state-federal program and spend an additional $32.8 billion to
expand coverage to 4 million more children. The expansion would be
paid for by raising the cigarette tax from 39 cents a pack to $1.

The House approved similar legislation on Jan. 14, and President Obama
is expected to sign a final version as early as next week.

During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to provide coverage to
every American child. Experts estimate that once the program is fully
implemented about 5 million youngsters will remain uninsured.

In a statement released this morning, Obama praised the Senate's
action as the "worsening economy causes families to lose their jobs
and health insurance." He added, "Providing health care to more than
ten million children through the Children's Health Insurance Program
will serve as a down payment on my commitment to ensure that every
American has access to quality, affordable health care."

Democratic lawmakers, noting that President George W. Bush twice
vetoed similar legislation, praised the vote as evidence of the
changing Washington landscape.

"Low-income, uninsured kids all across America have been waiting for
Congress to fulfill the promise of the Children's Health Insurance
Program for them," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
(Mont.). The program "works to get low-income, uninsured kids the
doctor's visits and medicines they need to stay healthy, and approval
of this bill opens the door of the doctor's office to millions of
children who live without proper health care today."

But the political victory may come at a price. The rancorous debate --
on a program that once basked in bipartisan popularity -- raised
doubts about whether the two parties can unite to pass broader health
reform later this year, several moderate Republicans said.

"This is a very unfortunate beginning," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley
(Iowa). The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, a stalwart
supporter of the program, said he was "disgusted" by the way
Democratic leaders handled the debate. "It does not bode well for
cooperative work in the coming months," he said. But Grassley
emphasized that he did not blame Baucus for the change in substance
and style.

As the vote came just one day after the House passed an $819 billion
economic stimulus package without a single Republican vote, some
longtime lawmakers questioned the president's ability to forge a new
era of cooperation in the capital.

"If they wanted a nice signing ceremony that showed bipartisanship and
carried through on the president's language, this would have been a
good vehicle to do it on," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

Since its creation in 1997 under a Republican-led Senate, the
children's health program has received broad bipartisan support.

"Few government programs in our time have enjoyed such great success,
as acknowledged by members of both parties and all bipartisan health-
care experts," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Governors, business executives and consumer advocates lobbied for the
expansion, arguing that more and more families have sought the
assistance in this weakened economy.

"During this economic turmoil, it is critical that we maintain and
strengthen this important lifeline to our nation's children and that
we help financially strapped states respond to the growing need for
affordable health-care coverage," said Cindy Mann, executive director
of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families.

In 2007, prominent Republicans such as Grassley and Sen. Orrin G.
Hatch (Utah) bucked Bush to support renewal of the program.

"We carried a lot of water and took a lot of flak" for that stand,
Hatch said. To push through a different version now is "not only
unfair," he said, "but a slap in the face to those of us who worked so
strongly with our friends on the other side."

The bill approved last night closely resembles the versions many
Republicans supported in the past, countered Democrats.

GOP lawmakers objected to the new provision allowing states to enroll
certain legal immigrants. Until now, many immigrants' families have
been forced to wait five years for coverage.

"The bottom line is: This is a debate about children's health
coverage," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). "This is not a debate
about immigration."

In more than two days of debate -- in unusually personal and emotional
language -- Republicans expressed a sense of betrayal that Democrats
had dropped the 2007 compromise.

"We could have had 95 votes," Hatch said. "That would have sent a
tremendous, tremendous message that hasn't been sent around here for a
long time."

Both sides had hoped, and even predicted, that early bipartisan action
on children's coverage would demonstrate that Washington's elected
officials can cooperate on critical issues such as health care.

"This is on something for which there is so much agreement and
something that almost no one argues about," said Helen Darling,
president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents
300 large employers. "For the tough things like real national health-
care reform, it unfortunately portends a really rocky road."

Compared to the daunting task of overhauling the entire U.S. health
system, the debate on the children's health program should have been
easy, said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine).

"You would have thought this issue would have been clear sailing on
both sides," she said.

Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, agreed
that "we're not seeing bipartisanship" but said she is optimistic that
the public's overwhelming desire for improvement in the health system
will force the two parties to the bargaining table. "People are
talking about how to do it as opposed to whether to do it," she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013001155.html