« Best wishes to Sebelius | Main | Leave MAST as it is »

March 03, 2009

Brownback’s vote on children’s health bill

Shame on Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas for voting against the bill that authorizes expansion of Kansas’ HealthWave program providing health care to uninsured children.

A letter I recently received explained that Brownback’s main concern was the number of childless adults included in the bill. Upon further investigation, I learned that this bill allows but does not mandate states to include pregnant women. Is there a better way to “protect the unborn” (one of Brownback’s main campaign goals) than to provide health care to their pregnant mothers?

Brownback expressed concern that coverage would be expanded to families earning $88,000 per year. The federal bill leaves income guidelines up to the states. HealthWave takes into account the number of children along with family income. Does Brownback object to large families being eligible?

Sen. Brownback, as you begin your campaign for Kansas governor, please rethink your commitment to Kansas children. Your vote against this bill raises huge concerns.

Kay Heley
Overland Park

Comments

GCYL

“I listen to the NEWS, and this story was on all the news broadcasts from CNN and MSMBC…”

I’ve found MSNBC to no better or no worse than FOX, to each his own I guess.

“I don't see anything wrong with a means test that demonstrates parents making their kids' health care a top priority.” – TinaMcG

The mantra of Socialism. To accept this statement one must give the state the authority to determine what should be a “top priority” and at what level of effort the citizen becomes successful at achieving the “top priority”. I’m appalled at the socialistic mindset of “Citizens are stupid so I must relieve of their freedom to be stupid”.

Engineer

Jim
No actual income figures are given in the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2009. As such acts do it deals with multiples of the Poverty Level. The standard is 200%, but the bill does permit States to go to 300% with some consequences. At 200% a family of 8 with an income of $74,020 would be eligible; under the 300% limit a family of 6 with an income of $88,590 would be eligible. If NY gets its 400% limit a family of 3 with an income of $72,340 would be eligible and a family of 4 with an income of $88,200 would be eligible.

Engineer

Jim
"possibilities" You haven't denied that. And in fact the "possibilities" do exist.

Jim

"It does seem to me that this SCHIPS bill, with eligibility possibilities running up to an $80,000 income..."

*sigh*

We've been over this before, Eng. Among the other things SCHIP doesn't do (cover illegals, cover people up to age 25, etc), it doesn't mandate eligibility up to $80k per year. SCHIP is administered by states. There are federal income limits for eligibility which are WAY below 80k. Each state has to request a federal waiver based on the cost of living. $40k per year will get you a lot farther in Missouri than it will in (say) California or NY. The $80k per year lie came from the fact that, when this bill came up during the Bush Administration, New York had asked for a waiver to set the eligibility at no more than $80k per year. First of all, that waiver wasn't granted. Second, if you read the SCHIP bill, which I really doubt you have, you won't find that $80k number for eligibility. If it's there, show it to me.

Engineer

Jim
First of all, I did not get anything on this from Rush. I got my information from reading bills, or extracts of bills. Apparently in reading an extract of the SCHIPS bill I mistakenly thought it was an extract of the stimulus bill although I had read the "medical" portion of the House bill. It does seem to me that this SCHIPS bill, with eligibility possibilities running up to an $80,000 income, is just another step toward universal health care.

Jim

Eng,

Any response to the posts below?

TinaMcG

"TinaMcG has demonstrated that once again, you've stated something not only untrue about the stimulus bill, but something that is easily verified as untrue."

That's because I don't get my news from Rush or any other pundit. I listen to the NEWS, and this story was on all the news broadcasts from CNN and MSMBC to the (gawdawfully horrible) local KC news broadcasts.

TinaMcG

"The problem remains that only SOME people "qualify". If you are going to implement socialism at least do it correctly."

I don't see anything wrong with a means test that demonstrates parents making their kids' health care a top priority.

Jim

Eng,

TinaMcG has demonstrated that once again, you've stated something not only untrue about the stimulus bill, but something that is easily verified as untrue. It appears that you believe your talk-radio inspired hatred of the bill has excused you from actually knowing what's in it and what isn't. Opposing it, no matter how dishonestly, seems to be your only concern.

If you can't get a basic thing like this right, how are we to believe all your other oft-repeated talking points about the stimulus bill?

Stifled Freedom

Brownbacks real job is not a representative.....it's partisan politicians. With a Democratic president that means he is nothing but an obstructionist to everything Obama tries to do. Likewise, he voted for everything Bush supported.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

SCHIP. Funded by a cigarette tax but abstaining from smoking is encouraged. It shows just how backwards Obama is when it comes to finance and math.
The problem remains that only SOME people "qualify". If you are going to implement socialism at least do it correctly. The majority of children are covered by their RESPONSIBLE parents. Don't make enough money? Too bad, get a better job or don't have children. How much that manicure cost? What about the hair coloring? What about that Coach purse? How many months of health insurance premiums would that have covered? personal responsibility. Anyone not retired or disabled that recieves welfare or Medicaid should be drug screened randonmly and there financials reviewed regularly, spot chekcs on their living arrangements as well. Got a big screen and on welfare, you automatically get disqualified.

BudRog

OMG, you think Sam, OMG, OMG, expects folks to take care of their own children, OMG. OMG! How evil and uncaring! OMG!

TinaMcG

Obama signed the new SCHIP bill into law on February 4th, before the stim package was completed. SCHIP was not 'pork' rolled into the bigger recovery package.

Marctnts

"But what about the children? But what about the children?"

The merits of the bill aside, I'm always amazed that all you need to do to rally people to your cause is to figure out how it affects kids.

Engineer

The bill was supposed to be a "stimulus" bill and was a mish-mash cobbled together in a hurry. One would think anyone serious about what they passed would have voted against it. If a bill on SCHIPS was desired it should have been a "stand alone" bill that everyone had read or at least that everyone understood. Nice try, but Sam's our next governor

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright