Federal bill raises questions about government-funded health care

PETER VIGLIETTA
News Editor

As the political buzz around health care continues to grow, a Congressional bill to expand a federal children's health insurance program has people talking about how much the government should be responsible for.

The bill would increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), a subsidized health insurance program by $35 billion to provide $60 billion over five years. This would provide health insurance for an additional 10 million children in the U.S., according to a Nov. 2 article in The New York Times.

The federal poverty line (or poverty threshold), set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, is formulated using data from the Census Bureau and determines eligibility for certain federal programs including welfare, Medicaid and S-CHIP. This year, the poverty level for one person under the age of 65 is $10,210 and $20,650 for a family of four, according to the Department of Health and Human Service's Web site at HHS.gov.

"This is a debate about what is a reasonable income limit for families to be able to get their children involved in a subsidized health insurance program," said Richard Ketcham, president and CEO of Brooks Memorial Hospital in Dunkirk.

MARY LEMCKE/ Illustration Editor

Ketcham said that historically, states have been able to decide the maximum income that a family can have to qualify for S-CHIP. As it stands now, S-CHIP covers families up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level in many states, including New York. This would cover children whose parents' make up to $83,000 annually.

The bill, which passed in the Senate a week after the House approved the same bill passed President Bush's promise to veto it, would also increase the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to one dollar a pack, according to the Nov. 2 article. Bush's main criticism of the bill has been that the program was designed to help poor people and that the proposed reauthorization would cover children whose parents are capable of paying for it themselves.

"With a majority of public support in favor of Congress' bill and a president with low approval ratings, Congress will likely continue to pressure Bush to sign off on their version of the bill," said political science professor David Rankin. "However, with Democrats unable to muster enough Republicans in Congress to their side for a veto-proof two-thirds majority, Bush appears ready to oppose multiple versions of the bill until Congress submits a bill in line with his perspective."

With health care arising as a popular election issue, the bill has become a focal point of many political squabbles. A political cartoon in the Oct. 27 issue of The Buffalo News showed President Bush leaning out of his front door to extinguish a flaming bag that was labeled 'child health bill' with a fire extinguisher labeled 'veto' and two donkeys snickering behind bushes in the foreground.

"If kids don't get preventative care and see a doctor regularly, there are all kinds of other issues," Ketcham said. "If the parents can't afford it then they just get sicker, they can't go to school and educational issues arise. So, yes there are costs upfront but I think in the long run it saves money."

Socialized health care has recently become a media focal point, namely in light of the Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) political push for socialized health care. The political buzz was augmented by the release of Michael Moore's new movie Sicko, where Moore contends that the health care industry has come under control of private insurance companies.

"Do I think we need some kind of national program where everyone has the right to coverage as a citizen of the country- yes," Ketcham said. "But it's a very complex question as to how it would work."