Home > Uncategorized > Dole, Burr Vote Against Kid Health â€“ Media Takes Five

Dole, Burr Vote Against Kid Health â€“ Media Takes Five

Post on September 28, 2007 by Adam Searing 13 Comments »

At least the Charlotte Observer in an editorial yesterday took Dole and Burr to task for not voting in favor of the bipartisan children’s health insurance bill. Last night, in a 67-29 vote, the US Senate approved the bill under the urging of Republicans like Orrin Hatch of Utah, Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Charles Grassley of Iowa. Senators Dole and Burr again voted against the bill last night.

Senator Dole and especially Senator Burr have escaped any real questioning by the media or criticism for their votes. The News and Observer had a unfortunate piece in the “Under the Dome” section today where Dole was allowed to try and justify her vote without being challenged. Dole said she “supported” the Children’s Health Insurance Program but voted against the bill because:

It would cover adults. It would move children from private insurance to government rolls, she said. It would cost an additional $35 billion over five years. And it relies on a tobacco tax, which she said would hurt growers and industry in North Carolina.

Here are some suggested questions for Dole (and Burr too for that matter):

1. North Carolina has never covered adults under its children’s health insurance program, Health Choice. The bill would mean $143 million in new money each year for NC and allow us to reach an estimated new 120,000 children - still fewer than the around 300,000 kids who are still uninsured in NC – why would NC change its longstanding policy? And why would you vote against $143 million in new federal money for NC kids?

2. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 85% of otherwise uninsured kids who would enroll under the bill would already be from families with incomes low enough to be eligible for NC current Medicaid or Health Choice programs. In addition, two thirds of all kids enrolling under the bill would already be uninsured. How else are we going to help kids in these low-income families get coverage? What’s your idea?

3. The $35 billion cost of the bill is far less than the $42.3 billion new “emergency” appropriation for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars unveiled by the Bush Administration this week. In fact, 41 days in Iraq costs the same as insuring children under this bill – even before this increase. Where is your fiscal responsibility there Senator Dole; Senator Burr?

4. The bill is funded by a 61 cents a pack tobacco tax. Tobacco taxes for kids health have been shown to have wide support among North Carolinians. In addition, tobacco farmers have benefited from the $10 billion tobacco buyout in 2005 and have already received $2.5 billion in direct payments from the Phase II Tobacco Settlement. Isn’t it time to help the kids in North Carolina and not just the tobacco farmers?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Lieutenant Governor Perdue’s Health Plan

Perdue / Moore Health Plan Links

Comments (Closed):12

aplum
September 28, 2007 at 11:38 am
But Adam, kids don’t vote.
James
September 28, 2007 at 1:04 pm
And then there’s this.
Adam Searing
September 28, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Good job J.
Max
September 28, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Again, I say: I qualify for this Adam. Thanks but no thanks. Neither my kids nor I would like your handout. We can afford healthcare. I realize it’s hard for grownup rich kids to understand, but it’s important not to give handouts to middleclass people who can afford it otherwise–Not merely because it traps them in a perverse situation where they are less likely to be upwardly mobile, but because they don’t need it.

Your “save the children” rhetoric is astounding. Don’t you realize that with every breath you’re advocating theft by the state on behalf of those who are in a position to provide for themselves? I’ll pass over the problem of crowd out, and the slippery slope to socializing medicine — a slope that you’re happy to grease I’m sure.
JN
September 28, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Max:

Congratulations on being able to afford health care for your family! I’d be interested in finding out about who your insurance provider is and what ‘affordable’ private-market insurance options are available for a family of four making below $62k (that’s 300% the poverty level). I’ve got some friends in this income-bracket that can’t seem to find anything worthwhile that they can afford.

On a side-note, I’ve got some adult friends that have college degrees, making just over 300% of the poverty level, working for companies that don’t provide health insurance, and are unable to afford any decent health insurance.

Personally, I’d much rather see our tax dollars go towards providing affordable and comprehensive health care than paying Blackwater. I’m sure Libby and Burr would back their boy on continuing to support them, however.
JN
September 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Eureka!

It just hit me. Sorry to post back-to-back…

Adam, the reason why our senators voted against it is plain and simple. If we continue to provide health insurance for kids whose families make below 300% of the poverty level, the next thing you know, those making above that amount will start popping out more kids so that they can qualify for free insurance!

Don’t you remember the welfare queens?

Good thing I’m not a rich grownup kid, or else I’d have never figured this out!
JWE
September 30, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Max -

The problem is that you view healthcare as something that people have to earn – something that people shouldn’t just be given as a handout. How dare the government take money from those who honestly earned it to give health insurance to families who should be able to work a little harder or budget a little better. And you might be right – some of these families might be able to pay for health insurance. Even so, that doesn’t change the fact that so many of them don’t have health insurance for their children.

I’m not going to get into an argument over whether these families deserve the help or not (which we can have another day). I simply want to know this: By libertarian thinking, everyone deserves where they end up (to a point) based on their own choices in life. But what about the children? The children in these families, no matter what you may think of the parents, have not made any choices that could result in them not having health insurance. Why should they not be given the same opportunities to health as everyone else? I contend that they deserve to start out on the same foot healthcare-wise as everyone else, even the “grownup rich kids.”

Isn’t health insurance for children something all of us can get on board with? You and I may disagree over whether or not adults may “deserve” help from the government, but surely we can agree that everyone should at least be given the same starting opportunities!
krm0517
October 2, 2007 at 8:52 am
If this is about the children then why is the left pushing for adults to be covered, too? You guys speak with a forked tongue.
BK
October 2, 2007 at 9:55 am
Access to HealthCare is a right not a privilege! We are the ONLY industrialized nation that does not have access to healthcare for ALL of it’s people. So what if adults are also covered? What happens to children if parents are sick and without treatment? I work in the “Free Clinic” world and see adults on a daily basis that would be more than happy to have/provide health coverage for themselves and their families, they just can not afford it. How can a family of four, dealing with brain cancer (the dad), even get coverage? What about the woman (formally working-plant closed) living without electricity or water OR healthcare. She had to hitch three rides to even get ot our clinic. OH, the guy that had a widow-maker (Drs’ at Duke words not mine) heart attack at 46, tried to work and support his 2 two sons (single parent), had medicaid to help with his 11 medications (Do you know the cost of one Plavix pill?), got disability ($800.00 per month)…nonlonger on medicaid. Medication bill $800.00 + per month…….net gain? This has all been explained to me as “these people” are collateral damage. Where have we heard that term before?

Max, I do not know how you do it, more power to you. But, please know that others can not afford coverage, even if they want to, and most that I see certainly do (want to).
Jerimee
October 2, 2007 at 9:59 am
Why do GOP lobbyists believe that only the unborn have a right to life? It seems that the GOP would be concerned for the mother’s health (if only as a vehicle for producing the baby) and then also concerned with the baby’s survival after being born.

Please sign this petition asking Bush not to cut health care to children:
http://www.ncdp.org/petition_schip
Shelly
October 2, 2007 at 3:30 pm
There are many issues involved, what is wrong with giving health care to adults. Who is going to take care of the kids whose parents die from not having insurance? at that point you’ll be complaining of too many kids in foster care, or homes & etc and the state and tax payers are footing the bill for it. The parents need to be able to care for their children, certainly health care for adults makes that possible, but, it seems that you would rather see numerous children homeless. There have been huge numbers of children who have died at the hands of hospitals, doctors, health care providers who refused treatment because they did not have health insurance, what kind of society allows children to die because they can’t pay. It is barbaric and a sin. the thing that is so unrighteous is that this is suppose to be the bible belt and I tell you one thing if Jesus where to come back right now, all those who refused these children the right to live would be struck dumb and blind.
JWE
October 5, 2007 at 1:42 am
Hey krm0517,

You should know that I believe in a right to healthcare based on the fundamental rights of equality and opportunity. My comments above were an attempt to shed some light on the values that I feel those with different philosophical and political beliefs might share in common with me.

The reason many people have pushed for parent’s coverage through SCHIP is that children with parents who have health insurance are more likely to receive all of the timely acute and preventive care that the program is meant to ensure. In other words, parents tied in to the health system are more likely to make sure that their children receive care when they need it and get prevention before they do.

While I support this argument, I understand that many conservatives who support this program do not support this aspect, and so it is not something that I addressed above.

With all of that said, you should be more gracious in your posts. There is nothing to be gained by insulting others who’s beliefs are different from yours.