Posted on 08/22/2007 9:11:59 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle
New US rules, state plan linked
Thousands of Massachusetts children from low-income families could be denied health insurance under new rules imposed by the Bush administration late last week. The rules could cut federal matching funds for a state-run program that is a key component of the state's health insurance initiative.
But congressional leaders, including Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said yesterday that they would fight the changes, which are the latest volley in the national battle over the future of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.
Using a combination of state and federal funds, the program covers some 6.6 million children nationally and 90,500 in Massachusetts in low-income families.
As part of its health insurance reform, Massachusetts expanded eligibility to children in families earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or $61,950 for a family of four. The change was made last year with federal approval and brought coverage to about 14,000 more Massachusetts children.
In Massachusetts, the program is the main means of insuring children in families above the poverty level who do not qualify for Medicaid and who frequently cannot afford private insurance. The state's health insurance initiative did not include any other effort to cover children.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It wouldn’t be so bad going without insurance if the uninsured weren’t charged three or four times what the insured were.
A family where the breadwinner lost his job could be looking at 1500 a month in COBRA payments to keep insurance.
Or they could take their chances that no one will get seriously hurt and sick and risk losing their home if someone does.
Mrs VS
$61,950 is “low income”? I thought that was The Rich? Oh, that’s right, you’re not Rich until you make $62,000. That $50 sure makes a difference. There’s such a fine line between genius and stupidity.
The “article” is dripping with bias.
Teddy sure loves his pork.
This is nothing but corporate welfare for politically-connected insurance companies and their lobbyists, paid for by taxpayers who lead semi-responsible lives.
That’s what he’s made of!
SHHHH!! How are people supposed to feeeeeeeeel good about themselves for supporting this "progressive" "enlightened" garbage if they know the truth?
Yup, disguised as “help for poor children.”
Or get a high deductible policy that runs far less than your $1500 price tag. My soon-to-be-wife's job offers really lousy health insurance, so she bought her own high deductible policy. It's something like $250 for the year. Cheap.
Hillarys 15 minutes of fame .Universal Health Care ..from behind closed doors.
Veto this Mr. President!
I’d love to hear about what policy that is, and what state, and what the deductible is exactly, because we’ve looked for such things in NJ and not found them.
Anyway, what really ticks me, as I said, is that the uninsured are supposed to pay three or four times as much as the insurance companies pay for the insured. That’s just wrong. If I pay out of pocket, the provider has lower overhead than if he/she/it is dealing with the insurance company.
Mrs VS
Well, you can thank your legislators for that. New Jersey is one of a few states that significantly restrict inexpensive and short-term health insurance. Move out of New Jersey.
“$61,950 is low income?”
I wonder what the limit is for a Parent and child only?
I wish I made $60000 year! I own a home, put one child through 9 years of private school and now helping pay for community college. ALL on LESS than 60 grand!
Almost everything else, including taking time and money from others (by implied threat of force) to give to the "needy" is just plain stealing. It's even worse because Ted Kennedy et al. has ulterior motivation...buying votes to stay in power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.