Undaunted by the facts, John Cheves and the Lexington Herald-Leader have once again taken Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell to task regarding SCHIP, the state child health insurance program. One would think, from reading the piece, that our senior senator grinds the bones of children to make his bread.
First, Cheves asserts that "Bush and congressional Republicans -- led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky -- have blocked expansion of the SCHIP program."
That is not the case. McConnell (unlike Wendell Ford) voted in favor of the original SCHIP bill in 1997. And McConnell has authored legislation, the Kids First Act, to expand SCHIP to cover additional poor children. In fact, the McConnell bill would insure more poor children than the bill supported by the Lexington-Herald and vetoed by the president.
But McConnell and the President correctly recognize that any expansion of SCHIP must be carefully drafted, because not all states use the program to fund insurance for poor children. To the contrary, New York sought to insure families with annual incomes of $82,000. New Jersey, likewise, wants to insure families with incomes of $70,000. And though the program was intended to protect children -- thus the "c" in "SCHIP" -- New Jersey spends half of its SCHIP funds on adults.
As a consequence of abuses by states like New York and New Jersey, the President vetoed legislation that failed to close a number of loopholes.
A point on the numbers: Cheves states that "[i]n 2006, Kentucky's SCHIP program spent $90 million to cover 51,000 children."
McConnell's Kids First Act would provide $161 million to Kentucky children in the SCHIP program (K-CHIP), according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill which the president vetoed, in contrast, would have provided $158 million. So the McConnell bill is actually more generous to Kentucky children than the bill that the Herald-Leader supported.
But the McConnell bill stays true to the original intent of SCHIP -- to provide health insurance for children from families too poor to buy private insurance, but with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid -- and still closes the loopholes exploited by middle-class adults in other states.
Cheves' fallacy is that he confused the intent of SCHIP, which McConnell supports, with the program's actual consequences, particularly the way in which it has been abused. McConnell and the President simply wanted to end the abuse and give the savings to the poor children who legitimately need the insurance.
McConnell's Kids First Act shows that he cares about and wants to help the poor children of Kentucky, but as for those middle-class adults in New Jersey trying to scam the tax-payers, not so much.
Showing posts with label schip. Show all posts
Showing posts with label schip. Show all posts
Friday, January 4, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Rambo and the Comeback Congress
Check out the Washington Times' piece on how all the Democrats' predictions of doom -- on the economy and Iraq, in particular -- came to naught.
As David Lambro writes, "rarely has a minority party shown so much unity or beaten an incoming majority so soundly, or a lame-duck president shown more resilience on so many big showdown battles."
Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell deserves considerable credit for the GOP's strategy and unity, and for keeping the party focused despite a slew of ugly TV ads.
It was a remarkable record of achievement by a president who was all but written off by the pundits as an irrelevant chief executive in the twilight of his last term. But Mr. Bush reinvented himself as a veto-happy gunslinger who was not going to be pushed around by Congress — mounting a nonstop counteroffensive that kept the Democrats in retreat.
Based on their inability to govern, and relentless attempts to increase taxes and nationalize health care, Democrats' prospects for '08 look increasingly bleak.
As David Lambro writes, "rarely has a minority party shown so much unity or beaten an incoming majority so soundly, or a lame-duck president shown more resilience on so many big showdown battles."
Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell deserves considerable credit for the GOP's strategy and unity, and for keeping the party focused despite a slew of ugly TV ads.
It was a remarkable record of achievement by a president who was all but written off by the pundits as an irrelevant chief executive in the twilight of his last term. But Mr. Bush reinvented himself as a veto-happy gunslinger who was not going to be pushed around by Congress — mounting a nonstop counteroffensive that kept the Democrats in retreat.
Based on their inability to govern, and relentless attempts to increase taxes and nationalize health care, Democrats' prospects for '08 look increasingly bleak.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Doctor-Lawyer Opposes McConnell
Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has an actual opponent, undoubtedly the first of several. Dr. Michael G. Cassaro, Esq. of Prospect, announced that he will run for McConnell's seat. (If elected, would we call him the Honorable Senator Dr. Cassaro, Esq.? Good thing we colonists renounced titles.)
Cassaro, according to WHAS 11 Mark Hebert, practices medicine with a specialty in pain management, but was also educated as an engineer and an attorney (though he is not listed in the Louisville Bar Association 2007 Directory).
Perhaps, given that he is a physician, Cassaro can discuss the issue of healthcare with a little more thoughtfulness than the left has shown in the senate race thus far.
Take the issue of the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Republicans, including McConnell, agreed to renew the program to give free health insurance for poor children who don't qualify for Medicaid.
The Democrats insisted that the program be increased to cover more children -- those whose family income is well above the poverty line. Under the Democrats' proposed expansion, for example, a family of four with an $84,000 income in New York would qualify for SCHIP. The president correctly vetoed the program as expanded, and McConnell supported the president when the Democrats tried to override the veto.
In response, the Democrats ran ads against McConnell, asserting, in essence, that he hates children (even though he is the father of three girls).
It's the same logic that we saw with the proposed Louisville Library Tax: if you oppose the tax, that means you hate books. But the voters didn't fall for it.
Republicans don't hate small children (or books). To the contrary, as Susan Estrich complained, while promoting her book on the Laura Ingraham show, conservatives buy more books than liberals. And one of the unintended consequences of the Democrats' assault on families and fetuses is that Republicans bear more children than Democrats.
No, McConnell and Republicans agree that poor children need access to affordable healthcare. The issue, however, is how best to accomplish that goal. That's why the Republican leader has urged the Democrats to renew the coverage for those children previously covered -- for whom there is bipartisan support. Instead, the Democrats risk coverage for the neediest children while trying to expand the program.
Legislators draw lines to allocate scarce resources. So the real issue in the SCHIP debate is how far up from the poverty line we draw the line -- three hundred percent, or as the Democrats have demanded, four hundred percent above the poverty line -- or further?
Truthfully, many Democrats don't want to draw a line, any line, because that necessarily means leaving children out, thereby forcing their parents to hold down jobs and buy health insurance. That's why the SCHIP debate, at its core, is about universal health insurance.
Oregon voters recently confronted a ballot initiative that would have imposed universal health care for children, to be funded by cigarette taxes -- virtually the identical plan that Democrats have pushed in Congress. Though more liberal than the average Kentuckian, Oregon voters rejected the plan by a margin of three to two. Notwithstanding the negative advertising funded by out of state interest groups, McConnell 's approach of renewing SCHIP but holding the line on its expansion comports with the values of Kentucky voters.
Why would the Democrats expand SCHIP when we have not yet solved how to fund Social Security? Like building an addition when you can't pay your mortgage, it's just profligate. But Democrats know that the surest way to guarantee an entitlement's permanency is to give the middle class a piece of it. And that is exactly what the SCHIP expansion would do, at least incrementally.
So the question for Dr. Cassaro, Esq., to address when he formally announces his candidacy today, is whether he is ready to practice medicine for the government, if the senate gig doesn't work out. Maybe that's why he hedged his bets and went to law school.
Cassaro, according to WHAS 11 Mark Hebert, practices medicine with a specialty in pain management, but was also educated as an engineer and an attorney (though he is not listed in the Louisville Bar Association 2007 Directory).
Perhaps, given that he is a physician, Cassaro can discuss the issue of healthcare with a little more thoughtfulness than the left has shown in the senate race thus far.
Take the issue of the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Republicans, including McConnell, agreed to renew the program to give free health insurance for poor children who don't qualify for Medicaid.
The Democrats insisted that the program be increased to cover more children -- those whose family income is well above the poverty line. Under the Democrats' proposed expansion, for example, a family of four with an $84,000 income in New York would qualify for SCHIP. The president correctly vetoed the program as expanded, and McConnell supported the president when the Democrats tried to override the veto.
In response, the Democrats ran ads against McConnell, asserting, in essence, that he hates children (even though he is the father of three girls).
It's the same logic that we saw with the proposed Louisville Library Tax: if you oppose the tax, that means you hate books. But the voters didn't fall for it.
Republicans don't hate small children (or books). To the contrary, as Susan Estrich complained, while promoting her book on the Laura Ingraham show, conservatives buy more books than liberals. And one of the unintended consequences of the Democrats' assault on families and fetuses is that Republicans bear more children than Democrats.
No, McConnell and Republicans agree that poor children need access to affordable healthcare. The issue, however, is how best to accomplish that goal. That's why the Republican leader has urged the Democrats to renew the coverage for those children previously covered -- for whom there is bipartisan support. Instead, the Democrats risk coverage for the neediest children while trying to expand the program.
Legislators draw lines to allocate scarce resources. So the real issue in the SCHIP debate is how far up from the poverty line we draw the line -- three hundred percent, or as the Democrats have demanded, four hundred percent above the poverty line -- or further?
Truthfully, many Democrats don't want to draw a line, any line, because that necessarily means leaving children out, thereby forcing their parents to hold down jobs and buy health insurance. That's why the SCHIP debate, at its core, is about universal health insurance.
Oregon voters recently confronted a ballot initiative that would have imposed universal health care for children, to be funded by cigarette taxes -- virtually the identical plan that Democrats have pushed in Congress. Though more liberal than the average Kentuckian, Oregon voters rejected the plan by a margin of three to two. Notwithstanding the negative advertising funded by out of state interest groups, McConnell 's approach of renewing SCHIP but holding the line on its expansion comports with the values of Kentucky voters.
Why would the Democrats expand SCHIP when we have not yet solved how to fund Social Security? Like building an addition when you can't pay your mortgage, it's just profligate. But Democrats know that the surest way to guarantee an entitlement's permanency is to give the middle class a piece of it. And that is exactly what the SCHIP expansion would do, at least incrementally.
So the question for Dr. Cassaro, Esq., to address when he formally announces his candidacy today, is whether he is ready to practice medicine for the government, if the senate gig doesn't work out. Maybe that's why he hedged his bets and went to law school.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Real Senators Don't Hide Behind Small Children
Enough already. The Courier-Journal's -- and now the Lexington-Herald's-- relentless attempts to accuse Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell of "sliming" a 12-year must be addressed. (As for why the Kentucky media have been so persistent, see the related story, below).
It's well known that the Democrats used 12-year old Graeme Frost to rebut President Bush's weekly radio address regarding the S-Chip insurance program for children, while Democratic Senate Leader Dingy Harry rode shot-gun.
The chronology is telling. On September 29, 2007, Little Graeme Frost reprises Tiny Tim as he tells the country about his car accident and how Maryland's use of federal S-Chip funds helped him to recover because his parents had no health insurance.
One week later, on October 6, the story breaks. A blog called Free Republic reports on some of the Frost family assets. It seems that Little Grame and his siblings attend a $20,000 year school and that his parents own their remodeled home in a historic Baltimore neighborhood (and, as it turns out, three nice cars).
The next day (October 7), the story goes viral. People all over the blogosphere were talking about it.
A press aide to Senator McConnell mentioned this phenomona in an email to reporters on October 8. The same press aide later that day tells reporters that the Frosts are "legit" and that there is no story. Well, maybe not in terms of the Frost's qualifying for S-Chip by income. The story of their assets, however -- which Maryland neglected to count when it gave them insurance -- has not been challenged, and poses real questions about the S-Chip progam.
The press aide updates Senator McConnell on October 11 about his emails to reporters.
The next day, October 12, WHAS reporter Mark Hebert asks Senator McConnell about his staff's involvement in this alleged campaign to smear Little Graeme. And Senator McConnell correctly stated that his staff had no involvement. Senator McConnell's statement was completely truthful, because his staff-member had nothing to do with the story's genesis and only discussed it with reporters after it was a hot topic on the blog.
The only mystery is why the staffer, Don Stewart, backed down so quickly when the mainstream media went after him. And therein lies a lesson: Democrats will obfuscate the facts by hiding behind small children, and then vilifying anyone who dares to raise a question, any question.
No one wanted to "slime" Little Graeme. But the tyke didn't just appear on Harry Reid's doorstep. His parents -- having chosen to not provide him with health insurance from their family-owned business -- then pimped him on national television. Or as the Supreme Court might say, they "injected him into the public vortex." To not have inquired about the Frost family would have been akin to ignoring FDR's wheelchair, or JFK's affairs. But then again, Democrats are used to getting a pass on media scrutiny.
It's well known that the Democrats used 12-year old Graeme Frost to rebut President Bush's weekly radio address regarding the S-Chip insurance program for children, while Democratic Senate Leader Dingy Harry rode shot-gun.
The chronology is telling. On September 29, 2007, Little Graeme Frost reprises Tiny Tim as he tells the country about his car accident and how Maryland's use of federal S-Chip funds helped him to recover because his parents had no health insurance.
One week later, on October 6, the story breaks. A blog called Free Republic reports on some of the Frost family assets. It seems that Little Grame and his siblings attend a $20,000 year school and that his parents own their remodeled home in a historic Baltimore neighborhood (and, as it turns out, three nice cars).
The next day (October 7), the story goes viral. People all over the blogosphere were talking about it.
A press aide to Senator McConnell mentioned this phenomona in an email to reporters on October 8. The same press aide later that day tells reporters that the Frosts are "legit" and that there is no story. Well, maybe not in terms of the Frost's qualifying for S-Chip by income. The story of their assets, however -- which Maryland neglected to count when it gave them insurance -- has not been challenged, and poses real questions about the S-Chip progam.
The press aide updates Senator McConnell on October 11 about his emails to reporters.
The next day, October 12, WHAS reporter Mark Hebert asks Senator McConnell about his staff's involvement in this alleged campaign to smear Little Graeme. And Senator McConnell correctly stated that his staff had no involvement. Senator McConnell's statement was completely truthful, because his staff-member had nothing to do with the story's genesis and only discussed it with reporters after it was a hot topic on the blog.
The only mystery is why the staffer, Don Stewart, backed down so quickly when the mainstream media went after him. And therein lies a lesson: Democrats will obfuscate the facts by hiding behind small children, and then vilifying anyone who dares to raise a question, any question.
No one wanted to "slime" Little Graeme. But the tyke didn't just appear on Harry Reid's doorstep. His parents -- having chosen to not provide him with health insurance from their family-owned business -- then pimped him on national television. Or as the Supreme Court might say, they "injected him into the public vortex." To not have inquired about the Frost family would have been akin to ignoring FDR's wheelchair, or JFK's affairs. But then again, Democrats are used to getting a pass on media scrutiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)