In case you were wondering what the White House tried to sneak out with the trash last Friday, now we know. The Bush Administration quietly announced new rules that will have the effect of denying health care to many children that states are seeking to cover under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Even worse the new rules are so onerous they could even force states to stop providing care to some children already covered by SCHIP.
And what's the reason for this callous action? It seems the Administration is worried that state efforts to expand the reach of this successful program to include more children who are currently uninsured may result in fewer families seeking private insurance plans, because the SCHIP program would be less costly and works better and has fewer hassles than dealing with insurance companies. In other words, the Administration wants to deny SCHIP health coverage to possibly millions of low-to-medium income children solely to shield the private insurance companies from competition and to protect their profits.
Today's New York Times has the story:
The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.
SCHIP has been highly successful in extending health coverage to millions of low income children, but there are still several million children with no coverage at all. The Democratic Congress has been developing legislation to expand the coverage to most of these kids, but Bush has threatend to veto the bills.
In the meantime, recognizing that SCHIP works, both Republican and Democratic Governors have expanded eligibility rules, so that families with incomes higher that the US poverty level of $20,600 per year could qualify. But the Bush Administration now seeks to impose strict limits on the states' ability to expand eligibility, forcing the states to meet impossible hurdles before they can cover more children. Under the new rules, states would have to:
- Prove that 95 percent of those eligible at the 200 percent of the poverty level are covered before allowing kids in families at 250 percent of the poverty level to be covered. State officials all agree this standard cannot be met, which means the state would not only be prohibited from expanding eligibility to more children in the future but also have to scale back current expanded eligibility rules. In other words, children above the poverty line and currently covered by SCHIP could be removed from the program because the state can't meet the condition for covering them.
- Demonstrate that raising the eligibility standard would not result in a reduction in private insurance. In other words, states can't expand public coverage except by protecting the private insurance market share.
- Require that children who receive care under SCHIP pay deductibles set high enough to make the private insurance coverage "competitive." Translation: arbitrarily impose additional costs on families using the public system so that the private system looks more attractive in comparison, even though the aggregate effect is to raise total costs for covering the same number of children, with no guarantee that those facing higher SCHIP deductibles would actually seek private insurance instead of just foregoing health care they can no longer afford.
The Bush Administration and its Republican Congressional allies seek to justify this latest outrage by claiming that SCHIP was meant only to help those children at or below the poverty line. That may have been its original rationale, but so what? There is no public policy reason to limit a children's health care system that is highly successful, improves public health, is endorsed by governors of both parties, and costs less than private insurance schemes that don't work as well (because of the perverse incentives private insurance schemes have to deny or limit coverage to lower their costs and increase profits). Nor is there even a "conservative" policy justification for subsidizing a private insurance scheme merely for the purpose of making it appear "competitive," when in fact it is more costly (as well as less effective in providing actual care). That's phony competition, subsidized by tax payers, and even Republicans should oppose that.
This is a simple case of insurance company greed and influence coupled with the Bush Administration's complete distortion of ideological preference for markets. This isn't genuine competition. Instead, here we see the hand of government using subsidies or penalties to tip the scales to favor private schemes that are more costly and less desireable, with two inevitable effects: (1) fewer children will receive health care and (2) it will cost more for those who do. So much for "compassionate conservatism."
The new rules are bad public policy no matter how you look at them; it's bad market economics, bad fiscal policy, bad health care policy, bad conservative principles and most of all, it's bad for kids. It's just plain bad for America. But it's exactly what you would expect from the worst President since . . . ?? ever. DemFromCT has more at The Next Hurrah. Check out the linked poll showing overwhelming support for expanding SCHIP, even if it means higher taxes. [h/t Peterr] And N=1 point us to this excellent health blog that also covered the story.
I know we've got a lot on our plate, but this is just one more reason to follow Christy's advice and meet with your elected officials while they're home. Let them know how you feel about the Bush Administration rules for denying health care to kids and make sure they're supporting the Democratic bills to expand SCHIP to millions of uninsured children. This is one veto override we can win.
And if you happen to mention impeachment, I'd say going out of your way to deny decent health care to America's children is a high crime and misdemeanor, wouldn't you?
Photo: Health and Human Resources Secretary Michael Leavitt, on PBS’ NewsHour.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
zip?
More stupidity from the Bush Administration. They are totally clueless about the fact that there are families out there with two working parents where private/work based insurance is either missing (more and more employers are dropping insurance programs) OR the family coverage is so expensive that the families are forced to make the choices between doing things like paying the mortgage (oh, wow) and putting food on the table and getting the kids coverage. Insane. Covering children SAVES money. In both the short and the long run.
Good morning Scarecrow!
Caw, caw
Good Morning
States should ignore the new rules and force Bush to enforce it through through the courts. Seeing as enforcing the new Bush rules will result in dead children I think states would have a pretty good case for doing a little delaying and stonewalling of their own until the Worst President Ever is out of office. Slow-walking isn’t just a tool for criminal administrations - it can be a check on the criminally stupid.
Terrific piece Scarecrow. This business is likely to have tremendous blowback. If he vetoes the bill, the Dems need to bring it up for an overturn vote no matter what the chances of passage, because it will be great to have the Repugs (again) on the record voting against healthcare and against children around the country.
How much more of this “Compassionate Conservatism” can this Country take?
Effing pathetic.
His new meme, “damn, I hate kids”
Here’s another sign of Bush’s kind heartedness. A story in common Hurricane Strategy with Mexico’s President Calderon
Wish the talking head shows would bring Republican governors on to debate this program.
I know, I’m dreaming.
I’d hate to see “Mean-Spirited Conservatism”…
The GOP Insurance Mantra:
First they came to provide health care to the poor, and I said nothing, because I was not poor.
Then they came to provide health care to the elderly, and I said nothing, becaue I was not elderly.
Then they came to provide health care to the children, and I said nothing, because I was not a child.
Then they came to provide health care to me, and there was no one left to say anything.
* * *
Yep, gotta protect all those insurance companies from the guvmint.
/snark
Good one, Peterr.
The working class may not be able to get health insurance from Bush, but thanks to his economic policies at least they’re making less money!
What this obstacle the federal government is presenting to prevent medical assistance is a crime against humanity on its own standing. Put the damnedfool obstructionists on record at every opportunity and use their record against them whenever possible.
joejoejoe @ 5
Unfortunately, the Administration holds the purse strings that substantially fund the SCHIP. States share the costs but probably couldn’t handle the expansions on their own. And if they tried, the Administration would probably withhold their share of all of it. What they’re doing is tying the conditions to existing funding, not just funding for expansions. It really is despicable.
We can win this veto fight and I think we should take it on.
Scarecrow - I’m with you. I think we should force Bush to veto this thing and then Congress overcomes it. Show Bush and his ilk to be what they are: elitist entitled jerks.
These are just very poor quality people.
Just when you think they can’t sink any lower…
blergh
I’m gonna need more coffee.
egregious @ 9
Actually, PBS NewsHour tried that, and it was terrible. See my “threaten to veto” link. The Republican Governor –Pawlenty (!!) wouldn’t question Leavitt’s arguments, even though he claims to support SCHIP, so it became a one-sided debate.
Anyone think that callously altering a program so that it denies health care to children just to protect private profits is a high crime and misdemeanor? I think we should start citing these outrages as impeachable offenses. Where’s “Hugh’s List”??
But it’s all about free markets…. er… well… you and I have to be subjected to pure, unadulterated, dog-eat-dog competition. But if you’re a big, rich, insurance company the government will step in to protect your obscene profits.
Once again the hypocrisy is exposed, but the word won’t get out to the majority of the people thanks to our MSM.
I think I need to contact my representative and senators again.
Time for my morning run — to Starbucks — back in a few.
Good morning, caw, caw, good day and every and all greetings to everyone.
This is fight worth having.
Scarecrow @ 20
The famous Hugh’s List is hosted by selise on her blog.
I like to think of it as the preamble to the New Magna Carta.
Isn’t maximizing corporate profits what capitalism is all about? It would seem he is doing exactly what they put him in office to do! Listen to all of the callers on Washington Journal squeal in fear at the dreaded “Socialism” when any decent Public program like this is broached.
…I’d say going out of your way to deny decent health care to America’s children is a high crime and misdemeanor, wouldn’t you?
Yes.
This is an issue that not only resonates with progressives, but I would say this is an issue that would infuriate the vast majority of our population if they got the straight scoop — which they clearly won’t unless they’re reading liberal blogs.
So I challenge everyone reading this blog to write a letter to the editor today explaining calmly and rationally, what is going on.
Make sure the public understands they are denying health care to children to protect insurance company profits.
Get the word out!
thanks egr! looks like hugh isn’t here… so i’ll quote from his list:
ok
this is getting ridiculous, this is just one of the things we managed to uncover, what about the things he’s done we cannot uncover?
we cannot afford the rest of this man’s term in office, we cannot wait, our children cannot wait, our grandchildren cannot wait, our armed forces cannot wait, our national security cannot wait, our financial security cannot wait
WE CANNOT WAIT
we have GOT to deal with republicans, we have GOT to offer whatever it takes to get votes
we have GOT to begin proceedings against this adminsitration in congress NOW, before we broker the deals
these criminals must be brought before the bar of justice and their crimes must be exposed for Americans to see
it doesn’t matter if we are successful, we must EXPOSE the crimes
off to work, see all later
OK, let me see if I’ve got this straight……….
Bush gets to veto the expansion of the program…….without actually vetoing it. His job just gets easier and easier, doesn’t it? Double blergh!
Would love to hear Tony Snow — quitting because $168,000 won’t cover his health and other expenses — commiserate with those earning $22,000.
There is no end to their callousness.
More compassionate conservatism at work. This really pisses me off. I work in a medical office and one of our employees can’t make enough to afford to pay her kids health insurance (with both parents working), however the income is just over the limit to qualify for NC HealthChoice. I was hoping Congress would give families like this some help, but of course Dubya sees it differently, bootstraps vs. the insurance industry.
I am unfortunate to be represented in Congress by that little turd McHenry, so any pleas for consideration of the bill in Congress will go on deaf ears.
And I thought the Queen of Mean had died. Instead, he wears a pair of pants and slithers in the oval office.
selise @ 28
Hugh’s going to have to add another one for this rule change that would affect the current program.
Oh, wait! A loophole!!!
A lot of this is tied to the poverty level. Well, the way things are going, the poverty level’s going up at a pretty good clip - over 13.8% for a family of 4 between 2001 and 2006. The richer the insurance companies get, the more the poverty level will rise, and the more kids who will get covered.
OK, it’s a sad excuse for a loophole, but that’s the only kind there is at the bottom of the economic system.
This is how the Republicans and the insurance companies remove the last doubt that they care more about profits than they do about children’s health. It strengthens the argument that the only way to regain some control over our own health is to wrest if from the hands of the insurance companies and their bought-and-paid-for operatives in Congress and in the current administration.
Universal coverage administered by a democratically elected government that is responsive to all the people–patients and health care providers alike–makes more sense with every move that this decadent regime makes to shore up its profit centers.
I think it’s safe to say the the majority of voters now have enough information to deduce that each of us would be better off with government coverage–and infinitely better off with good government coverage–than we are in the current maze of rising costs and dwindling benefits.
Maybe this is where just about everybody recognizes that the insurers have overreached–where we recognize that we don’t have to cooperate with a cartel that demands more and more while delivering less and less.
Universal health care sounds good to me, and I see no reason why the Bush family shouldn’t be taxed to pay for it. After all, their profiteering is being sucked from our lives and the lives of our children.
I’ve been reading and occasionally commenting at a site recommended by n=1, written by a doctor. Here is a post on this issue on that site. The comments show the level of discourse we can expect from the Rs.
Scarecrow @ 33
yep… i expect he will be updating it today… (he has been updating his list most every day)
… and i just want to encourage everyone to use the contact link on hugh’s list page - he appreciates getting suggestions and corrections.
What are these morons thinking? I can imagine the campaign ads:
COUGHING KID: (Pushes against door to clinic, door won’t open. Pushes and pushes, stops suddenly and has severe coughing fit from the exertion.)
(Camera pans up to reveal lettering on door: Your Neighborhood Clinic, A Republican/Big Insurance Joint Venture.)
ANNOYED MAN: (Man dressed up as W.C. Fields opens door, knocking kid down.) “Get away from me, kid, ya bother me.” (ANNOYED MAN taps cigar ash onto kid’s head)
FADEOUT.
Waccamaw @ 30
Good insight. By changing the administrative rules under the current statute, they try to preempt the statute’s expansion before it passes. But now that Congress has seen this, there is no reason to leave the Administration that discretion.
Other Pat @ 31
From your keyboard to the media’s ears . . . It’s SPOTLIGHT Time!
It’s a great way to send a good post to various media outlets, and I’d love to hear someone ask Tony just this question.
Dear Members of Congress:
Would you please read the ******* bill this time around before you pass it?
You know, I really have never understood this insistence on denying children healthcare coverage(and thereby, denying them healthcare). I have an MBA with a concentration in finance and accounting. There is this concept called “investing” - it’s not hard to understand…you “invest” money to gain a “payback” - now the “payback” might be in terms of actual income and dividends…or it might be in terms of “not having to pay out more money later.” A good example of that is to “invest” in more efficient equipment for your business, or “invest” in training for your employees to help them become more effective in what they do. In the household model, “invest” in insulation and new energy saving windows so that you aren’t shoveling your energy dollars out of the house every winter. The rethugs make it sound as if they are using sensible business thinking about this healthcare for children issue, but they are really just saying, “We don’t want to cover YOUR children. My kids are all taken care of thank you.” But covering children is an INVESTMENT - just like the insulation in the house. You are paying a little bit NOW, to make sure you don’t pay the big bucks to take care of their chronic issues LATER. Doing this just makes hard business and financial sense. Period. My two cents. More coffee please.
Peterr @ 41
Yep– great connection.
The first draft of my letter to the editor:
This past Friday, the Bush Administration announced new rules for the popular, and effective State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
While congress plans to expand the benefits of this highly successful program to even more children, President Bush has threatened to veto any attempts to expand the program. Which would obviously be very unpopular for the beleaguered president.
Apparently in an attempt to avoid the public backlash from a veto, the president has now tried a different tactic to undermine the popular program. Establishing rules making it nearly impossible to expand the program while protecting insurance company profits.
Among the new rules, are the following:
• Demonstrate that raising the eligibility standard would not result in a reduction in private insurance.
• Require that children who receive care under SCHIP pay deductibles set high enough to make the private insurance coverage “competitive.”
So it becomes clear that the Bush Administration is putting corporate profits ahead of children’s health. While you and I are expected to stand on our own two feet, big corporations are coddled by the corporate welfare state.
Contact your congressperson and your senators to urge them to address this outrage immediately! Our government is supposed to work for We The People, not corporate profits.
Isnt this just the beginning of Bushs new way. Going it alone,no congress no approval.
SufiLizard @ 45
Excellent.
snowbird42 @ 46
New??
Diane @ 5:49 -
I am unfortunate to be represented in Congress by that little turd McHenry, so any pleas for consideration of the bill in Congress will go on deaf ears.
And I’m gonna donate every penny I can get my hands on to get his *ss out of office the next go-round. You have my sympathy……we got stuck with Schuler.
So much for no child left behind.
snowbird42 @ 46
No, Bush has been operating this way for quite some time. That’s the whole point of his many signing statements, spelling out how he will interpret the laws — that is, how he will (or will not) set up the administrative rules and policies to enforce what Congress passed.
After a fast look, I don’t see a relevant signing statement to this issue, but that’s why he writes them in general.
Peterr @ 40
Wow, Peterr — what a list! Many thanks.
Bush believes that if those children really wanted health coverage, they should have had the good sense to be born wealthy. After all, if he could do it, why couldn’t they?
Other Pat @ 50
I hearby rename this latter program as “No Child Left.”
masaccio @ 36
Here’s an interesting post from that site:
And Bill O’Reilly calls liberal blogs hate speach?
Their hypocrisy should not surprise anyone at this point, but somehow I find I can still be shocked at how far they can go.
Here we might insult someone stealing candy from a baby. On the right-wing sites they insult the baby.
Scarecrow @ 47
Rest of his term new. He’s got nothing to lose.
Hate to keep posting, but issues of how to treat one another get me going as much as the caffeine:
If our beloved leader is such a compassionate Christian, then how does he respond to the passage: “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”
Time for our elected leaders to walk the walk.
Good Morning Everybody,
The time has come to find the people who make up this “base” and ask them, Americans, why they support an administration that is hurting so many of their fellow Americans.
Waccamaw, McHenry has problems, linky http://bluenc.com/mchenry-upda.....drug-store
Katrina for middle class children!
Boston1775 @ 57
The frequent answer, would be (confoundingly), “they’re keepin’ us safe from terrrrraaaahhhh….”
Dem from CT posted on this over at The Next Hurrah, and closes “Once again, the White House, and Republicans, are on the wrong side of the health care issue, an issue the American people care deeply about. Where is Thomas Nast when you need him?” (Click through for a classic Nast Moneybags sketch.)
The “wrong side” link goes to the Polling Report, which includes this little tidbit from a May CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll: “Q: Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all children under the age of 18, even if this would require higher taxes?”
Yes: 73%
No: 25%
Unsure: 2%
25% . . . isn’t that about what Bush’s Job Approval Rating stands at right now? That’s why he did this — he can’t afford to tick off his few remaining supporters!
Other Pat @ 50
Comment of the morning.
Why does George Bush HATE other people’s children?
Is the Carlyle Group going to lose money because of SCHIP?
Richmond @ 6
I’m not optimistic the Dems can or will do it. The party has a real problem of leadership, as we all know. No noise machine, but also no direction. Ten percent of our Senatorial delegation are running for President instead of trying to run the country better; the representatives are simply running to get re-elected in their own districts.
I blame McGovern for all this. This is ancient history, but the 1972 primaries essentially blew apart whatever discipline the Democrats had before then. They essentially finished off the demolition job started in 1968. (I campaigned for Clean Gene, so don’t get me wrong on this). The Presidential race is now a free-for-all that might, but usually doesn’t select the best qualified candidate.
It’s one thing for a party to have a lot of internal differences of opinion. That’s a strength. But to have no collective discipline when it counts, shared responsibility for decisions that matter is a weakness. The Democrats suffer from that weakness, and it hurts, because the fascists on the other side don’t.
Peterr @ 62
Thanks, Peterr — I’ve added that link to the post.
Fortunately for Native Americans there is the Indian Health Services underfunded as it is. In recent field hearings Dorgan and Tester were asking the administrators why they don’t ask for more money to meet un-met needs. Well hell, the Bush influence is everywhere isn’t it. The tribes would love to see more funding come into the health care system.
Thanks, Scarecrow. I’m late because I’ve been working on the same topic. Except that it’s only one part of a massive programmed attack on healthcare.
Will y’all start to read the health blogs and support those of us who are working on healthcare from a progressive perspective? Check the blogrolls of the progressive power blogs - how many link to health-related blogs?
*crickets*
SufiLizard -
If that’s any example of the kind of stuff N=1 has talked about getting on her site, it’s amazing she still has the strength to put her hands on a keyboard. Guts she has in full measure.
Diane -
I hope McHenry has a lot more than “problems”. Judging from the politicans in Alaska, I don’t hold out much hope that a little dirt will get him out of office. :-(
N=1 @ 68
Yes, it’s an excellent source. I’ve added a link to the main post.
montag @ 61
And our answer is that this administration stopped going after Osama bin Laden, allowed al Qaeda to come back to and maybe exceed its strength in 2001, atacked a sovereign nation and destabilized it to the point that governors are killed regularly, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and created al Qaeda of Iraq. And by the way, it sacrifices Americans in this effort daily, their lives and their families’ future.
Knut Wicksell at 64
FWIW, I’ve always thought the demolition job started not in 1968 but with LBJ’s fracturing of the Democratic Party over civil rights.
SufiLizard @ 55
Well you know, if it was a poor baby and the candy came from some government program, then the government actually stole it from rich people in the form of taxes so it’s not really stealing to take it back.
Now this is profound: Levin and Warner say they are not optimistic about political progress in Iraq.
Today I will deal with about 150 kids. Most of them do not have health coverage. That’s okay though. After all, what’s more important; $12,000,000,000 a month on war, and the comfort of the insurance companies and huge pharma, or our kids?
Boston1775 @ 58
the real question for the base is to ask them if they think Christ would be a democrat or republican.
even the base couldn’t deny Christ couldn’t deal with the neo fascists running the republican party right now
All this reminds me of what Bush did as Gov of Texas when CHIP first arrived — he opposed it before it was enacted, then sought to stifle it once it passed. PERRspectives has the story (click through for various links):
Heckuva job, Georgie!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....newsletter
another article about it
there was a show on about this a few weeks ago, think it was ‘now’ on pbs…..a family couldn’t afford their daughter’s diabetes care, dad lost his job and lost insurance….i think it was $1,000 a month for her care…another single mom had no insurance for infant….couldn’t signup for any help…and the governor of her state said they weren’t adding anyone to the rolls…said the federal government had to ‘pay up’ that it was already costing the state money, so closed it down…republican, think it was alabama….
can children with pre-existing conditions even get health coverage?
plenty of people don’t get married here so they will still be able to have medicaid coverage for their children……also keeps people from getting ‘better’ jobs, so they won’t make too much money, so they won’t lose coverage….having to have health insurance keeps some people poor….
not too many jobs around here come with health insurance….
Oklahoma kiddo @ 73
That quote speaks volumes! Thank you for getting to the crux of the biscuit.
Scarecrow @ 19
Pawlenty may be singing a different tune soon about the federal governmnent’s attitude. There was some MAJOR flooding in SE MN this weekend (18″ of rain in 24 hours) that took out big chunks of some small towns on creeks leading to the Mississippi. Most of these people are not covered by flood insurance, and FEMA says they’re too busy with disasters in Texas to come up and start helping. Pawlenty is holding off on asking for disaster assistance, probably because he knows that THAT will be a disaster too.
http://minnesota.publicradio.o.....ood_day_2/
“If kids can’t have healthcare, no one should have healthcare” - that should be the mantra!
Let the three branches of govt go without and see what it’s like for the fourth branch!
perris @ 75
Sometimes it seems that some people think that when Jesus reportedly said, “Suffer the little children . . .” that was the end of the sentence.
Scarecrow @ 81
that would be funny if it weren’t true
Last year I had a kid, his name is Chris in one of my high school math classes. This boy went for almost two months without replacement glasses he had broken. I read his assignments to him after school and at his home. No insurance, and his otherwise good working ( low pay, no bennies) parents too proud to ask for a handout.
Toby Wollin @ 43
Ah, but there are two flaws in this argument as far as modern Republicans are concerned:
1. It assumes that there is “the good of the country” that “we” are collectively investing in, whereas they are only concerned with what is best for them.
2. It assumes that the country will pay for the health issues later. It will, of course (though perhaps badly), because real people aren’t that heartless and we have an emergency room system and such, but the conservative worldview is based on the idea that we shouldn’t pay for things for the undeserving now or later. If they can’t afford to pay, they should just die, since it’s their fault they’re poor.
Other Pat @ 57
Perhaps a phrase like “suffer the little children” has confused the Little President. He knows that God speaks to and through him, but (unfortunately for everyone on the face of this planet) he knows much more than he understands.
Rhetorical question alert: How much of an idiot does one need to be not to see the connection between a healthy body and a mind that is capable of achieving — thriving even — in the classroom.
That unhealthy child most likely can’t even attend school and will have to work harder yet to catch up.
The mean short-sightedness of this is the trademark of our president.
Insurance companies need help.
Sick children can wait.
perris @ 75
I think you overestimate them.
Everyone has raised critical and thoughtful points of consideration. With congress in recess, it’s even more critical to contact all of them and explain how these assaults on the nation’s most vulnerable affect the nation’s public health. Everyone is made less secure when lack of access to essential healthcare creates public health problems, such as communicable disease transmission and vulnerability to pandemics, to unchecked tuberculosis and to increased corporate costs from resulting decreased worker attendance and productivity. Use the Republican phrases and talking points back at them.
“Suffer the insurance companies to come to me.”
AZ just repealed the gag rule imposed by our fine Arizona Repugs on the schools. Schools who identified any child who would qualify for SCHIP were prevented from informing the family of that program. Schools more than anywhere can identify these children when they apply for lunch programs.
How do you define what is 95%?
Do you need a census of the population first?
Covered by private or SCHIP insurance?
So much for the ballot measure they are trying to get for 08 to offer SCHIP up to 300% of poverty now!