Obama Signs Children's Health Insurance Bill

[Fish and Bread]

Wonderful news from Washington!

Catholic Charities Joins USA President Obama at Signing of Children's Health Insurance Legislation

Alexandria, VA—Rev. Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, joined President Barack Obama today in the East Room of the White House as the president signed into law the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) provides critical health care access to children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid, but do not make enough money to secure private health coverage.
The new law, which passed with bipartisan support in Congress, will provide more funding for SCHIP, reduce enrollment barriers, cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women, improve access to dental care, and expand eligibility to four million more children living without health insurance in this country.

“Improving access to health care for low-income children has been a major priority in Catholic Charities USA’s efforts to reduce poverty in America,” said Father Snyder. “We applaud Congress and President Obama for acting so swiftly on this vital law. Without SCHIP, vulnerable children of low-income families would not receive the care they need to be strong and healthy citizens and productive individuals in our society.”

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1584

 

[Veritas]

Wonderful news from Washington!



http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1584

What's scandalous is that a Catholic organization and a priest are willing to be used by a pro-abortion president who just signed a bill to allow public funds to pay for abortions around the world. This is nothing to cheer about.

 

[benedictaoo]

It's also pointless seeing how we already had and been having since Bush in 2000, medicaid for kids. We been having it and it was only cut off if you made pretty good money and in the last year or so, under Bush, it was offered to those who made too much money for a reasonable price...

so what's his bill going to do differently? Ah, that's right, make all parents buy it where they lose the freedom of choice to not buy it and just pay for doc visits.

 

[AMDG]

Wonderful news from Washington!

Actually it's not wonderful news. It just goes to show that there are some people that don't learn lessons from history (and very recent history at that!)

While watching the news coverage (and applause) another news converence--not so long ago, in October 2008--came to mind. It was about how the Governor of Hawaii had to "pull the plug" on their Keiki Care Plan for health insurance for children whose parents made too much for them to qualify for other existing public programs because of budget shortfalls and the fact that it just plain didn't work! It seems that the parents of children who were already covered by private insurance were "crowding-out" the poorer children (just like the economists said would happen) and with an already strapped budget, the Governor thought that it was unwise to spend public money on an unworkable program that would not help children.

(Oh well, I guess we have three choices (1) Obama can't or doesn't intend to learn from others, (2) he really doesn't believe that the nation is in financial straits--but that can't be true since he's had many news conferences about the need for his Stimulus Plan in this Financial Crisis, or (3) it was just another "photo opportunity" and he really doesn't care about poorer children. ) BTW, this does fall under Catholic Social Issues.

 

[Fish and Bread]

What I find scandalous is that there are so many folks, even Catholics, out there who oppose legislation to make sure sick children have access to a doctor and medicine when they get sick. Conservative ideology should never be allowed to trump protecting the life and the health of human beings. The Republican efforts to derail this legislation were a direct attack on the dignity and value of the human person, in my view.

Thank goodness for the great work the President and the Congress did in getting this legislation passed. Catholic Charities deserves a lot of credit, too.

 

[benedictaoo]

The joke is poor children have been having medicaid for a long, really long time now... what did we need this for? We been having free coverage for lower- moderate middle class and working class for a while too... what is this for? To give rich children junky heath care for free? because medicaid is not that hot-to-trot as far as coverage goes.

You know what it is? A push in the direction of a freaking socialist society.

 

[Davidnic]

Personally I am fine with this. We'll just see if it is done in a manner that learns from similar programs that failed. The Church and all Catholics should work with the president where his social agenda meets with Catholic teachings and oppose him where it does not.

This is not a trade off situation. We don't block him on medical care for children because his policies on abortion are vile. And we don't allow him to continue a legal holocaust because he gave other children health care.

The Vatican and the Fall assembly of Bishops said as much.

 

[Mom2Alex]

I was unaware that socialized medicine was a teaching of the Catholic Church - I'll brush up on my encyclicals at the next opportunity. My state has a comprehensive plan for all kids to receive healthcare and many parents don't want to bother filling out the paperwork. It is much easier to take the child to the ER for a high fever than having a primary care physician and applying for the insurance. We already have healthcare, and socialized medicine ain't all you want to sell it as being.

I know of a young mother-to-be whose child is about to be born and she lives in Canada. Her child has anencephaly and is not expected to live much past delivery. The child's head is not closed on the top and the mother requested C-section so as not to cause unnecessary injury to the child. The doctor said no. They even would deliver vaginally if the child was breach, because the head would plenty of 'give'. She told the doctors she wanted the child to be suctioned upon delivery. The doctor asked, "why would I do that?" ... She is due to deliver tomorrow and they would not schedule a c-section (the OB caved, sort of) until ten days after her due date. Unlike women in the US, for the moment, she could not elect to have a c-section. Kind of interesting. Anyway, prayers requested for baby Faith. For anyone actually interested in reading about the mom's struggles with the healthcare system in carrying/delivering her child, let me know and I'll pm you her blog.

 

[benedictaoo]

There is nothing to be fine with- he did nothing but take away a freedom of ours...


okay, okay... this thing he did is designed to benefit someone like me who has no insurance to due to self employment and who makes too much money to get the free coverage, so.... I, choose to forgo the "affordable" premiums of medicaid for my kids, I instead choose to just pay for my doc visits and medicine because I prefer the doctor they have that does not even take medicaid... get it?

Now, in order to help me out, I will be forced to pay for insurance for my kids, either I can go and get on the government plan or I can go and get private insurance.

This is the first freedom I'm losing.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I was unaware that social medicine was a teaching of the Catholic Church - I'll brush up on my encyclicals at the next opportunity.

Pacem in Terris touches on this briefly:

But first We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.

 

[AMDG]

The joke is poor children have been having medicaid for a long, really long time now... what did we need this for? We been having free coverage for lower- moderate middle class and working class for a while too... what is this for? To give rich children junky heath care for free? because medicaid is not that hot-to-trot as far as coverage goes.

You know what it is? A push in the direction of a freaking socialist society.

And we will fast learn (like Hawaii did) that this will do nothing but cause increased budget difficulties (it won't even help the poor children that need medical care--it will actually make it worse for them.) When will we learn that not everything that shines is gold?

 

[Fish and Bread]

The fact is, there are children who need it without health care or with inadequate health care. There are big gaps between medicaid coverage and the amount where a parent of a lot of children would be able to pay out of pocket for health insurance, especially as premiums continue to rise, for example. This is a very important program, that will help children.

And, yes, I believe that all children should be insured. Even a well-off family that can pay most bills out of pocket, may not be able to afford bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars or more when children get cancer or another serious health difficulty of that nature.

Providing health care is an important function of government in the 21st century. The rest of the first world has for the most part already realized this and treats all citizens free of cost. Being able to receive health care is a basic human right, as Blessed Pope John XXIII more or less reaffirmed.

 

[benedictaoo]

And we will fast learn (like Hawaii did) that this will do nothing but cause increased budget difficulties (it won't even help the poor children that need medical care--it will actually make it worse for them.) When will we learn that not everything that shines is gold?

You know what? I think these present day democrats are more for big business and the rich more so then what Bush and Cheney were accused of being.

Everything they have done was for the benefit of big business, wall street and the rich.

What have they done for the poor?

This is just something that will benefit insurance co. We will be forced to buy government run health care through insurance co and the coverage will be junk and the co will all be making money.

 

[Mom2Alex]

You know what? I think these present day democrats are more for big business and the rich more so then what Bush and Cheney were accused of being.

Everything they have done was for the benefit of big business, wall street and the rich.

What have they done for the poor?

This is just something that will benefit insurance co. We will be forced to buy government run health care through insurance co and the coverage will be junk and the co will all be making money.

Comrade Benedictaoo:

We're heading toward Socialism faster than I thought we would. I was a kid, without health care for most of my entire childhood... and yet I know that the government would not have been the proper overseer of my health care. They can't get anything right, yet I want to entrust them with health decisions? Like the ones I mentioned in my other post - a mom unable to elect to have a c-section to spare her child more harm?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdL...eaks-out-against.html&feature=player_embedded

I used to be Democrat, was registered as a Dem for most of my adult life. They left me behind, like millions of others.

Bow, say hail Mr. President, and ask the Lord to have mercy on us all.

Next step, we will be forced to pay for the abortions performed on little girls without parental consent.

Norman Thomas is dead, but President Obama is filling his shoes - one toe at a time.

 

[AMDG]

The fact is, there are children who need it without health care or with inadequate health care.

Fish, please "Google" the Hawaiian plan (the Keiki Care Plan) that the Governor found "unwise" and had to stop--it was specifically designed to close that "gap" you claim exists between those able to qualify for the free children's medical programs and those whose parents could not afford private insurance. Instead it caused more problems in an already strapped economy. It even "crowded out" the poorer children from existing medical care. It did more harm than good.

 

[Veritas]

What I find scandalous is that there are so many folks, even Catholics, out there who oppose legislation to make sure sick children have access to a doctor and medicine when they get sick. Conservative ideology should never be allowed to trump protecting the life and the health of human beings. The Republican efforts to derail this legislation were a direct attack on the dignity and value of the human person, in my view.

Thank goodness for the great work the President and the Congress did in getting this legislation passed. Catholic Charities deserves a lot of credit, too.

This is the kind of rhetoric that burns me up! F&B, you assume that because someone doesn't support a particular gov. plan, that they are evil, vile people who dont' want poor kids getting health care. That's balony and you know it! There are many solutions to helping people that you can't even conceive of just because in your liberal mind, gov. programs are the only way. What a pile of poo-poo. Every single entitlement program ends up costing an arm and a leg and not providing what it supposedly set out to do. It's nothing more than taking control over people's lives, redistributing from the producers to the non-producers and social engineering. I'm sick of it. Ultimately, it's not at all about "helping the poor". It's about making them slaves of the State. (And gaining votes for the Donkey party)

 

[Davidnic]

I was unaware that socialized medicine was a teaching of the Catholic Church - I'll brush up on my encyclicals at the next opportunity.

Well socialized medicine is not but it is not against it and it does achieve the aim. John Paul listed some human rights when he went before the UN (10/2/79) also there are some listed by other Popes. There is:

• The right to security in case of sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, unemployment, and any involuntary loss of the means of subsistence
• The right to sufficient and necessary means to live in a becoming manner (food, clothing, housing, rest, health care, social services)

So SCHIP fits. Now, can it be done other ways...sure. But this is in agreement with Catholic teaching. Now, the Church has urged changes in SCHIP to protect medical care from conception. Now...it also depends if the current version allows for contraception and [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]abortifacients to covered teenagers.

As Bishop Murphy said:

[/FONT]

“We insist that access to adequate health care is a basic human right, necessary for the development and maintenance of life and for the ability of human beings to realize the fullness of their dignity,” A just society protects and promotes fundamental human rights and dignity, with special attention to the basic needs of children and the vulnerable, including the need for safe and affordable health care. Our laws and programs should not arbitrarily exclude a whole sector of children, namely the unborn and their mothers.”
​

Bishop William Murphy, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

 

[AMDG]

But Davidnic, what I've been saying is that this is not good for the children (it will "crowd the poorer children out" of existing medical care--and as those in economics foretold and as Hawaii experienced) and it is not good for the country, which is already experiencing financial hardship (and will most likely further cost us a reduction of existing medical care.)

 

[Davidnic]

But Davidnic, what I've been saying is that this is not good for the children (it will "crowd the poorer children out" of existing medical care--and as those in economics foretold and as Hawaii experienced) and it is not good for the country, which is already experiencing financial hardship (and will most likely further cost us a reduction of existing medical care.)

SCHIP has been in operation for 11 years and this has not happened. If the new expansion has provisions against the potential (and it looks like it does) and is funded (and it is by an expansion of Tobacco tax) then I do not have a problem with it (except for some contraception issues). Now, there are other issues with it...and I do have a problem with Obama's socialism and mindset (as I have said many times). But this particular issue is not all bad. There are some problems with SCHIP but it has worked for a long time. It does not have the issues the Hawaii program does that I can see. They are not comparable legislations in my opinion...bearing in mind I have not gone through them line by line.

Now...how the debate was handled by Democratic lawmakers on the floor of the house was a mockery. But that is a different issue.

 

[JoabAnias]

What's scandalous is that a Catholic organization and a priest are willing to be used by a pro-abortion president who just signed a bill to allow public funds to pay for abortions around the world. This is nothing to cheer about.

How is it going to do that exactly?