Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Assessment cap; Cook County; Jacobs; Early voting; Black; Bills (Use all caps in password)
Next Post: This just in… *** 7% override *** Another lawsuit possible ***
Posted in:
* From a press release…
Statement from Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich On President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
SPRINGFIELD – “Government has a wide-range of responsibilities to the public; but nothing is more important than the responsibility to protect the young and most vulnerable members of our society. And nothing is more vital to protecting children than making sure they have access to the healthcare they need, when they need it. By vetoing the bill that reauthorizes SCHIP, President Bush today turned his back on millions of our nation’s children. Despite Congress’ overwhelming bi-partisan support for an expanded and flexible SCHIP, with a single stroke of his pen President Bush has wiped out healthcare for children whose families can’t afford private coverage. I urge Congress, and specifically the Illinois delegation, to override the President’s veto and make sure SCHIP continues to provide the reliable and flexible federal support that states and the children they serve have counted on for ten years.
“Earlier this week, I joined with seven other states in asking the courts to intervene on behalf of our nation’s children. We are prepared to take action and ask the Court to stop the Bush Administration’s attempt to further limit health coverage for children through restrictive new eligibility guidelines. I pledge to continue Illinois’ leadership in caring for our children and will push the federal government to contribute their fair share.”
* The Tribune looked at this topic yesterday in a story entitled: Illinois in bind on health care - State could lose funds if insurance deal isn’t reached…
The bitter battle over children’s health care in Washington is threatening to punch a hole in the state’s budget and calling into question medical coverage for 130,000 Illinois adults. […]
Illinois has a lot at stake, as 170,000 children and 130,000 adult residents currently get health insurance through SCHIP. Last year, the federal government paid more than $400 million to the state for those services. […]
In Illinois, the issue is hitting home this week: On Monday, a federal agreement allowing the state to enroll adults in SCHIP expired. Most of these adults are parents who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid — the government’s health program for the very poor — but too little to buy insurance on their own or through employers.
Illinois has been more aggressive than any other state in signing up low-income parents for SCHIP. The program has become a crucial component of Family Care, Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s initiative to extend medical care to needy families. But this arrangement, which has pulled extra federal funds into the state, doesn’t look like it will continue.
Even if everything goes according to plan, Illinois will end up getting significantly less money from the federal government than it has until now for these needy adults. That’s because the federal government pays only 50 percent of medical bills for Medicaid members, compared with 65 percent for SCHIP members. The difference will cost the state at least $75 million a year, Eagleson estimated.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 10:39 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Assessment cap; Cook County; Jacobs; Early voting; Black; Bills (Use all caps in password)
Next Post: This just in… *** 7% override *** Another lawsuit possible ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I noticed Gov. B vetoed some of the funds for All Kids…
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 10:57 am
I suspect what will happen ultimately is that either this will get overridden in Congress or we’ll have to wait until Hillary becomes Prez and she will put in some kind of universal health care. Or both.
What to do in the meantime. Well, there is so much money sloshing around in state government that
I don’t think it would be difficult to come up with enough money to tide these folks over.
Politicans always manage to find money when it’s important. And this is important.
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 10:58 am
The SCHIP debate is going to kill the national GOP next year. The RNC, NRCC and RSCC already look bad enough with the Iraqi War and overspending. Arguing this ardently against children’s healthcare, no matter how many thinktanks and statisticians they have consulted, will resonate poorly with most swing voters.
To me, Bush has already spent his political capital. As such, he wasted a lot of what mojo he had left on this issue. After years of out-of-control spending, he is worried sick over $30 billion to provide health insurance for a slice of the populous that CANNOT provide for themselves. Yet he stands up for private security contractors and expanded war funding. Either he is trying to tank the eventual GOP nominee’s changes or he has lost it (no jokes, please).
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 11:03 am
Team Sleep,
The White House is trying to give a much-belated gift to the libertarian/fiscal conservative wing of the GOP. Obviously Bush isn’t going to win over any Democrats on this issue; that’s not his goal…just trying to minimize the GOP/business issues that the WSJ highlighted this week.
The constant WSJ editorials about the 4 X poverty level cap that SCHIP expands created a lot of outcry for a veto.
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 11:21 am
So, does this start the guv’s healthcare house of cards a tumbling?
Cassandra, with “so much money sloshing around in state government”, why did we just go through the garbage we did when it took them so long to get a budget together.
It looks like they don’t have money to throw around, unless you are related to some higher ups or make the right conrtributions.
Comment by Concerned Voter Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 11:26 am
If Billary gets in we will have the same kind of melt down national that we have in this state.No matter what these people tell you we can not afford to take care of you from cradle to grave.Look at some of the countries that have tried it.If you want something messed up get the Feds involved.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 11:35 am
DOWNSTATE: Yeah, Europe, Canada, and Japan are really in the tank! Oh, wait, it’s the U.S that’s in a freefall. Go figure.
The way we pay for healthcare today is nuts, it’s a huge burden on responsible businesses that is spread around more evenly in the rest of the developed world. And a 2001 Harvard study indicated that 1/2 of all personal bankruptcies in the US were caused by medical bills. That’s good for the economy.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 12:08 pm
I don’t appreciate my tax $$ going paying for illegal alien non-emergency health care while I pay for my own + daughters’ health insurance…. Wasn’t looking forward to paying for ALL health care for illegal alien children either… Nor for giving $5000 for each baby born here.
Comment by North of I-80 Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 12:09 pm
If they didn’t try to sneak in SCHIP eligibility to people that have no business getting that free government handout, there probably would be absolutely no controversy here. It’s a good veto and any honest politician would see that they tried to expand it too far to people that don’t deserve it.
It won’t kill the GOP if the GOP is able to show the public exactly what income levels on the high end this includes. If they can do that, it will totally backfire on the Democrats for not being honest with the American people, as evidenced in how Blago is trying to frame the issue. Protecting “the young and most vulnerable” doesn’t include people making $80,000/year in most opinions and just makes Blago look like more of a liar.
Comment by taxactivist Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 12:10 pm
Pot,
Not trying to argue your healthcare conclusions, but I need to correct your “freefall” classifications.
Japan’s GDP has been shrinking all decade. “Europe” is too broad: Ireland’s great but most of Europe isn’t.
I assume you’re probably referring to the dollar being in free fall. That’s only related to healthcare to the extent that supply of treasuries is likely to be huge mid-century as SS and Medicare weaken. Otherwise, the weakening dollar is mostly a function of energy imports and lower treasury yields.
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 12:14 pm
Cassandra,
Socialized medicine is not the answer. Part of the problem now is that the government is too involved in health care via SCHIP, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs only reimburse a fraction of what the private payers reimburse for services.
Universal Healthcare ultimately results in a two tiered system: low level of care for the underclass (you and I) and an excellent level of care for elites (Hollywood, politicians, professional athletes and Hillary Clinton). Look forward to some long lines for healthcare. Currently, the wait in Canada for a hip replacement is over a year!! That is a long time to be disabled and in pain…
The SCHIP expansion needed to be vetoed because it is a trojan horse for universal health care. Start with children, then expand. Next, expand Medicare and Medicaid until… we wait for the hip replacement.
If you are such a strong advocate for universal health care I suggest you seek your medical attention from a VA, try Walter Reed Medical Center.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 12:19 pm
I should clarify my Japan remark to mean true economic growth, not nominal GDP growth.
Point is, don’t look for correlations between international economies and their health coverage.
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 12:20 pm
(Greg: Just felt like demagoguing a bit.)
I do think that a healthcare system that covers everyone would help the overall economy. We ought to be clever enough as a society to develop a public-private system that reduces inefficiencies by moving the uninsured into standard (and less expensive) care.
Anon (12:19): In what way is our current system not like the two-tiered approach you describe? Many patients in the U.S. don’t have to wait for procedures because they can’t even afford to go to the doctor for the exam.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 12:39 pm
[…] Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007 in “Grassroots” Conservatives, President George W. Bush, Republicans by robnesvacil Pres. Bush has decided to veto the expansion of poor children’s healthcare in our country — getting out the rubber stamp to reject the bipartisan SCHIP legislation that Congress sent to his desk and comingthisclose to cutting off insurance (PDF) for millions of American kids. […]
Pingback by Why do Repub leaders hate kids? « Illinois Reason Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 12:49 pm
North of I-80 and Anon,
You guys might want to double-check your stats about SCHIP costs and where the funds are coming from, etc.
As for “reimbursements” — have you ever actually dealt with an HMO? Your comments are laughable.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:05 pm
It’s not government’s responsibility to provide health care, that’s a farce.
This program is already fully funded, the new bill would have expanded it, it was all cosmetic for the Dems who played this well and will win the PR war.
Comment by JByrd Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:20 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that Republicans always claim to be the ones demanding accountability, yet expect none from their health care system.
The U.S. pays the most both per capita and as a percentage of GDP for health care yet ranks 38th in life expectancy and 33rd in infant mortality.
Ask which health care plan has the lowest spending on administration of either private or public insurers and watch them recall in horror when they find out the answer is Medicare. They just chant the mantra “no socialized medicine” and then run screaming to their Ronald Reagan statues for protection.
Face it, the current system is broken and its bankrupting not only individuals but our major companies as well. Just ask the CEOs of the big three what’s killing them and it’s health care costs.
I’m not comfortable with a conventional single payer system, but dramatic change is definitely needed.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:24 pm
Universal health care doesn’t mean government, single-payer health care. It means affordable health care for all. Americans revere choice in health care and I’m fine with that. I’d actually prefer a system in which everybody gets income-pegged financial
assistance so as to enable them to purchase comprehensive health insurance, whether HMO or fee-for-service. And they should be able to retain this insurance if they change jobs, suffer a loss of employment, or whatever.
If we can pay $800 billion for the war in Iraq (to
date) we can afford at least that.
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:38 pm
There are no “monsters” here. What we have is a differing of opinions as to how we should help people regarding health care.
There is no “right or wrong” here. There are so many different health care plans flopping around in both the public and private sectors that anyone claiming to understand it all is delusional.
There are good reasons why SCHIP was vetoed. If there is enough support to over ride the President’s veto than it will be over ridden. But what we are seeing from Blagojevich is utter nonsense. We no longer have enough wiggle room in our state to handle any more social costs. When Democrats promise freebies and find out that they cannot pay for them, they get anxious. When they discover that Republicans caused these freebie programs to lose funding they get over emotional.
There are so many health care programs out there right now it is unrealistic to believe that sick people cannot get help in some way. So much of our tax money is going towards social programs you can even be an illegal alien and get help.
When you have a supposed governor claiming that this is the end of the world for millions of people, that governor is talking out the wrong orifice and not using common sense. I liked it better when our leaders didn’t do public meltdowns and instead behaved like adults, don’t you?
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:43 pm
Also universal health care is a complete disaster. If you don’t like how our current system works, spend some time in a country that has “free” health care. The universal health care promoters are breaking the law - economic ones, but laws with real negative consequences. Health care cannot be free, paid for by some government entity or donated by some charity without it falling into complete ruin.
Good lord people, take a look at the United Kingdom, Germany or Canada if you want to have universal health care and wonder if it works. Take a look! It doesn’t work at all! Hoping doesn’t make it so.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:47 pm
VM, “complete ruin”? Please.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:52 pm
I have been reading Henry James recently. So pardon my hyperbol.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:55 pm
it costs us 75 million more “Even if everything goes according to plan…” So what is the cost/shortfall if everything does not go as palnned? Will the State be picking up the 400million the feds had been kicking in before the program died?
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 1:56 pm
VM,
It doesn’t work, yet all those countries have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality while they pay less than we do. I’m not saying those systems are ideal - they have problems that need to be addressed. Hopefully we’ll be smart enough to learn from others. But for ordinary people without extraordinary problems, the data suggest they are better off.
And as to your claim that “it is unrealistic to believe that sick people cannot get help in some way”, you obviously don’t know very many poor folks. Get out more - you may learn something.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 2:05 pm
I’m sorry to keep jumping in here, but economics and stats is my thing…
There are serious drawbacks with evaluating health case quality by life expectancy and infant mortality rankings. With the former, most of the countries that lead the US are either tiny (eg, Monaco and Cayman Islands) or have smaller populations with a wealth of natural resources (eg, Norway) that can hardly be compared to the US. In the latter case, the US generally includes in its infant mortality stats premature babies, while most other countries don’t. These are both common stats-related discussions.
If we’re looking for arbitrary correlations, we ought to at least cite “drug innovations per capita,” or “number of heart surgeons.”
These measurements can be useful, but I wouldn’t keep quoting them for purposes of establishing US inferiority.
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 2:12 pm
Ghost-the plan is to shift with federal permission, the ones on adult heathcare (All Families or whatever it is) to Medicaid. But because of the difference in rate payback this will cost $75 million in loss. This does not have anything yet to do with all the new additional people Blago has been wanting to put on all his expansions–this is just what who is now enrolled is going to now cost compared to what it did cost—and he has to get permission before he can try and shift them
Anybody else hoping that Blago and team did not write the plea to the Fed. Courts to intervene with Bush’s veto? I really hope it didn’t read like the case he sent to IL on Madigan. I doubt the federal level people will be willingto take our gov with the grain of salt and humor that IL affords him.
Comment by Princeville Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 2:23 pm
Mr. Cynic:
Longer life expectancy? Lower infant mortality?
Not when you compare apples to apples, they don’t.
But you don’t want your freedom of choice, is that it? You’d rather have a bunch of bureaucrats who never met you, know nothing about you, take 51% of your income so that they can tell you when you can get medical care, which doctor to see, when to see a specialist, whether you can have surgery, if you need real medicine, and whether you are important enough in society to get on the list for those needing medical care - right?
If you don’t want your freedom to choose what is best for you, why don’t we solve our housing crisis, our transporation crisis, and our elderly care crisis by taking your income and mandating the house you live in, the car you drive and the nursing home you end up in too - OK?
Sorry, but most of us believe in freedom. And that we should keep what we earn. And believe that we make better choices for ourselves and our families than an elitist bureaucrat can. And for the past 200 some years, we’ve been right - right?
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 2:25 pm
VM,
Everything you described is essentially happenning now under HMOs, PPOs, etc…
You wrote: “But you don’t want your freedom of choice, is that it? You’d rather have a bunch of bureaucrats who never met you, know nothing about you, take 51% of your income so that they can tell you when you can get medical care, which doctor to see, when to see a specialist, whether you can have surgery, if you need real medicine, and whether you are important enough in society to get on the list for those needing medical care - right?”
…You were talking about our current overpriced, underperforming for-profit system, right?
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 2:46 pm
The biggest problem with the US medical system, such as it is, is the economic problem. US businesses have to provide healthcare to their employees, their employees families and in many cases, their retirees. This puts them at a significant handicap in competing against businesses that don’t have to provide these things. Because employees rely on their employer to provide their healthcare, they may stay at a current job rather than providing more output in the economy by starting their own business or jumping to a more nimble competitor. That dynamic also hurts the economy, though in a difficult to quantify manner. As has been mentioned, many bankrupcies are caused by healthcare related issues, as are, at least historically, many foreclosures.
There are a lot of ways of solving this issue, single payer is only one of them, but for the US economy’s health, it should be solved.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 3:06 pm
VM, It’s hard to see how anyone can say the current system in the U.S. works well. It seems to me we ought to be able to develop a system that allows some choice and covers everyone for a reasonable price. We are already shoveling big bucks into the health care system, we should be able to take care of everyone.
As a side, I just heard W say he doesn’t want the government making medical decisions. He forgot to list his exceptions for reproduction, end of life, and anything else that he doesn’t like.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 3:10 pm
Lifespan is not simply an indication of healthcare but preventive and personal care. Most European cultures are, as a whole, much more healthy than American culture. We truly are a fast food nation filled with people who never exercise, eat poorly and routinely pay for these gaffes. We also tend to work longer hours, have longer daily commutes and tend to involve ourselves in stressful, lenghty, post-work events. As such, Americans are less healthy and we should not expected to live longer. Even when preventive care is available, many people don’t take advantage of these services. And some people don’t listen to their doctors.
HMOs are no better than government-run institutions - at least in terms of defining your coverage “area” and which doctors you can visit. My mother was forced to switch doctors at age 57 because my dad, who was a corporate exec and paid out the yin-yang for coverage, worked for a company that thought an HMO would be better for its employees than a traditional insurance company. His company also switched to a “prescription negotiating” agency which actually bargained the cost of medications UP instead of DOWN. The union at his plant was furious and management thumbed their nose at everyone who was below the board and the upper, upper management. After all, why worry about your workforce and management?
But rationed care won’t work either. Viral infections and emergencies must be treated immediately, and rationed care would not help the population as much as talking heads would admit. Yet a single-payer option would work in a fashion that could allow its recipients to select a provider and not be forced to drive out of one’s area while also not having to pay extra $$$ for the added “convenience” of staying in town.
To me, preventive care and the option to buy into a Medicare Part D style of coverage would do wonders in this country. And if Americans would actually listen to their physicians and work towards being healthy, our lives might be improved while also lasting longer.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 4:12 pm
The reason Medicare works well is simple. They tell the provider what they are going to pay. Transparency on cost and billing would open everyones eyes to what drives the cost of health care. The true lack of competition in pricing by providers is what’s costing the US extra. What else do you pay 50K for aka heart attack without shopping. Americans shop for everything except the cost of health care.
Comment by Southern Right Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 4:37 pm
Have any of you pro-universal health care people actually lived within such a system?
I have!
It doesn’t work. You are triaged to a nurse who takes your vitals. If nothing shows up, you are sent home. It doesn’t matter how you feel, or what you believe - under universal health care it is all about getting you out the door and not costing the overburdened system another dime.
When medicine is “free” it is medicine that has no value. In Germany it is folk medicines and over the counter crap lacking in any pharmaceutical chemistry. You don’t get real medicine because real medicine costs too much to give away.
You don’t get free surgeries, you get surgeries when the System decides you are worthy of being saved and have lived long enough on the waiting list for your surgery. Thousands die waiting for medical care under universal health care.
The UK passed a bill that mandated that patients diagnosed with cancer have chemotherapy within NINE months! And after passing the bill it was noted recently that investigations into the ability of their health care system has FAILED to meet that nine month mandate!
No way would anyone in the US, even those who are illegal aliens accept a waiting list nine months long or longer just to get their first therapy of chemo. And this is only one example of how universal health care fails in the real world.
The countries with universal health care are also having problem with few students willing to study and become doctors. Complain all you want about how much doctors earn, the fact is that when you remove the earning ability of doctors, you get fewer graduates from medical schools. Or do you suppose we will force people to start studying medicine even if they don’t want to? If it wasn’t for foreign exchange medical students, there would be a huge doctor shortage in the UK right now. You pro-universal health care people don’t realize the consequences of your own ideas, do you?
When our students became ill or were injured in Germany, WE SENT THEM HOME where they could get treatment. It wasn’t because of any other reason. The health care in Germany is ridiculous. You would not want to get sick there.
What gets me about these pro-universal health care people is how naive they are. They actually believe that when we offer free health care to everyone that somehow it can be done. Even disregarding the staggering blow to our economy, it is simply nonsensical. All these people who believe that somehow we can give health care away and have mysterious rich people pay for it all without consequences are believing in utter nonsense.
Stop it!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 4:49 pm
Medicare WORKS?!
Since when?
We are BILLIONS in the hole with Medicare!!
It is so screwed up and such a disaster, exactly in what way does this WORK?
Nonsense!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 3, 07 @ 4:51 pm
Could all the folks claiming SCHIP helps illegal immigrants please stop lying.
It is illegal for illegal immigrants to sign up for the system. (On the other hand, it is legal for legal immigrants to sign up if they qualify.)
Yet more conservative lies in the face of defeat.
–
VM,
Nobody said the healthcare would be free. We would simply be paying for it through other means.
And we are near our own doctor shortage in this country. In fact, we’ve been going through a nursing shortage for years.
Comment by Rob_N Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 8:59 am