Tuesday, August 21, 2007

New Bush policy leaves children behind

In yet another glaring example of the Bush Administration's lack of compassion, they have issued new policies which make it much more difficult for State to provide health insurance to children. It also creates yet another layer of bureaucracy,which is sure to negate any savings the hair brained idea may have created at the expense of children.

Here's the crux of the policy:

Under the new policy, a state seeking to enroll a child whose family earns more than 250 percent of the poverty level -- or $51,625 for a family of four -- must first ensure that the child is uninsured for at least one year. The state must also demonstrate that at least 95 percent of children from families making less than 200 percent of the poverty level have been enrolled in the children's health insurance program or Medicaid -- a sign-up rate that no state has yet managed.

You've got to wonder if they asked for any input from the State before issuing these new guidelines. But then again, I wonder if the Bush Administration has ever ask for input from anybody outside of 1600 Pennsylvania.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

If there's such a glaring need to provide insurance for all children, why do the states have such a hard time enrolling 100% never mind the minimum required by the bill.

swchesson said...

Lane, question-
By most accounts social medicine is fiscally a sinking ship, do you propose raising taxes to pay for this?

Anonymous said...

Is there some reason that WEALTHY parents shouldn't be MORE responsible for their own children that the rest of us??????

A. Renee Daley said...

swchesson:

Of course Lane supports raising taxes to pay for this medical insurance. It's smacks of socialism, and that's just how progressives like it.

Lane:

You want to complain about bureaucracy? You seriously think that "progressives" are betten when it comes to limiting it?

I'd like you to name one Democrat running for election in 2008 that supports a strict Federalist/Constructionist stance on ANY issue. Progressives know even less about States rights and smaller government than George W. Bush does.

I also want to know why someone making $51,625 qualifies for state sponsored health care in the first place? If I can make insurance payments for myself and my son on less than $20,000 a year, then someone who makes over double what I do should be able to handle it.

But, there I go again using logic. The socialists -- I mean the progressives in this country will not be happy until we live in a total nanny state.

kender said...

My son is covered by private health insurance thank you very much. I don't want state sponsored health care.

We may even qualify for the state sponsored stuff, but I'd rather pay for decent care that is there when needed.

unfortunately we'll be paying for every one else
s soon enough.

Liberal Johnny said...

I liked your last paragraph. It reeks of honesty. Bush and his facist team play by their own rules and never seek outside advice. He's killing our kids!

best-tutor said...

Hello!

very nice post... enjoyed it very much.

Thank you

http://www.best-tutor.com

good site

tutor
tutor