The Children’s Health Insurance Program is important legislation is a program aimed at increasing health insurance coverage for children. President Bush is promising to veto it. Strong Congressional support is needed to make this bill veto proof.
I was shocked and appalled that Baron Hill has voted against this legislation. He is going to be at IUS from 9 - 11:45 to have a town hall meeting discussing economic issues in Indiana. I personally think that this is important legislation as children's health care is getting worse and worse. I'm planning on attending that meeting. If you think that this is important, please plan to attend as well.
1 comment:
Mr Manzo. You miss am important issue that is also missed by the mainstream media. That is COST.
Currently, Medicaid in the State of Indiana (of which CHPS is a part), costs $5.2 billion annually (Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning).
The state has 6.3 million residents.
That means the average person in the state is paying $826 per year, or $3300 per family of four, to support Medicaid and CHPS.
Now, that means that the average family, in addition to paying for their own costs of healthcare, are also paying $3300 to provide coverage to those on Medicaid.
Now, since no government entitlement, once given, can ever seem to be taken away, I would ask that Congress look at a better, longer term answer to the problem, (which I agree is a problem) before throwing more billions of dollars at it.
Surely, some savings can be found in the bloated budget to fund these additional services. For example, the government provides free transportation (i.e. taxis) to many Medicaid beneficiaries. Could we cut down on the free taxi's?
In fact, this new law even includes provisions that prevent states from trying to become efficient. Apparently, it will prohibit the State of Indiana from proceding with its privatization movement and even will cost the state something like $100 million to get out of contracts already signed.
I don't disagree that something needs to be done about healthcare at many levels, but adding billions to a federal program while at the same time stifling state initiatives for efficiency should not be the first alternative.
Post a Comment