Idaho House delegation split over SCHIP: guess who's holding up medical coverage for Idaho's children?

After Bush's shameful veto of the bipartisan-supported SCHIP expansion, all eyes are on the House of Representatives and the push to find the 15-ish Republican votes that would override the veto.  Mike Simpson, one of Idaho's two representatives and a medical professional himself, voted for the SCHIP bill, saying:

"As a fiscal conservative, former dentist, and a person who believes we must invest in our children’s health and education, my vote in favor of the CHIP bill was a difficult decision.

"The bill ends coverage of childless adults and returns the program back to its original intent – a health insurance program to cover our country’s most vulnerable children. The bill also provides much needed dental coverage for these children in hopes that tragic losses, such as the young boy in Maryland who died from an abscessed tooth, can be avoided. Among other issues, the legislation prohibits new waivers to cover parents in the CHIP program.

"In order for a child to grow, prosper, and contribute to society, they must have access to quality healthcare. By improving healthcare and children’s access to it, we are investing in our nation’s most valuable and precious resource, our children."

Bill Sali, Idaho's first district representative, has demonstrated much more interest in spreading misinformation about this much-needed bill for Idaho's uninsured children than finding solutions for Idaho's uninsured.  Sali's propaganda made its way into my inbox this morning, including this gem:

"This bill would raise taxes in order to provide a form of welfare for middle income people and illegal aliens. In short, this bill is going to hurt the people it is supposed to help, and help the people it shouldn't," said Sali.  "This bill is very harmful. It takes money from hardworking Americans while opening the door to provide health insurance to undocumented foreign nationals, including gang members, drug cartel operatives and terrorists. Further, it taxes Idahoans to provide health insurance to people already covered by private insurance or those who can afford to get it."

...

The SCHIP bill, which was originally intended to focus on low-income children, expands the program to include people who are well above the federal poverty level - providing coverage to families who earn in excess of $80,000 a year.  By allowing people with high incomes to join the program, it encourages people to give up their private insurance in favor of government-provided health coverage, and requires Idahoans to subsidize healthcare for people on the east coast earning more than $80,000.

Simply put, the Republican talking points Sali is leaning on are dead wrong.  SCHIP coverage can only be provided to American citizens who provide social security numbers as is written in the law, and while it is possible for some states to increase the maximum income eligibility level (tied to the poverty level), these are states whose living costs far outstrip Idaho's.  These states also provide far more tax dollars to the federal coffers than Idaho does (simply by virtue of Idaho's small population and relatively small incomes), and therefore will foot a proportionally larger chunk of the national bill than Idaho will. 

I suppose it is possible that there are "gang members, drug cartel operatives and terrorists" amongst the ranks of uninsured American children, but if that's the case, there are more direct ways of dealing with such law enforcement problems than denying teeth cleanings and antibiotics to thousands of low-income American children.  Sali has aligned himself with George W. Bush's veto and against the uninsured children and the majority of voters in this country. 

If you're as unimpressed as I am, feel free to contact Sali and let him know.

Cross-posted at F-words.

Comments

[Irwin Horowitz]

Yet another example of FUD - Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt, the standard operating procedure as outlined in the "Karl Rove playbook of dirty tricks and ostrich feathers" (for burying their heads in the ground).

I mean, the man's greatest claim to fame is being an absolute idiot, so we really shouldn't be all that surprised by the drivel he spews forth in defense of a position that is indefensible.

I sincerely hope that Larry Grant or Rand Lewis (whichever ends up running next year) makes as much political hay out of this vote as possible.

[Jim Hansen]

Excellent post, Tara. The override vote will be on October 18th so now is the time to contact Bill Sali's office and to tell everyone you know to do the same. Call, fax a letter and visit his office personally. Too much is at stake for the health of kids in this country to let a minority of members of congress kill SCHIP.

Sali's offices:
Boise Office
802 W Bannock, Ste 101
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 336-9831
(208) 336-9891 (fax)

Caldwell Office
704 Blaine St, Ste 1
Caldwell, Idaho 83605
(208) 454-5602
(208) 454-5618 (fax)

Coeur d' Alene Office
610 W Hubbard, Ste 206
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho 83814
(208) 667-0127
(208) 667-0310 (fax)

Lewiston Office
313 D Street, Ste 104
Lewiston, Idaho 83501
(208) 743-1388
(208) 743-0299 (fax)

[Sara]

Jim: close - I'm actually Sara :)

[Sharon]

You didn't address the fact that the healthcare covers families earning up to $80K ... I had heard over $60K ... More than just Sali is saying it, it's easy enough to check so don't call it propaganda. A program like this is needed, but it should NOT be expanded to families 300% -- or whatever -- above poverty line. It needs to be re-written. If you don't believe that companies would cancel their employees' healthcare when it becomes available by the gov't think again. You are niave if you think the gov't can provide all without a bigger price to pay. Expanding this program is a step nearer to gov't run healthcare for all, and we do not want to go there. I've lived it in the UK and it is not as nice as Michael Moore wants you to believe (talk about propaganda). Things like this are very complex, there is no clear black and white, but you are trying to make it so. BTW if any of you Sali haters bothered to understand economics, you'd see that Sali makes a lot of sense most of the time. Most of the people I've found who criticize him are pretty ignorant of the concepts he uses to make his decisions.

[Sara]

Sharon, the poverty level is the same in Manhattan as it is in Bovill, ID. A family making $30K/year in Bovill isn't going to need the assistance with basic needs that someone in Manhattan (or San Francisco or Atlanta, or Newark) is going to need. If the poverty level were tied to cost-of-living, then states wouldn't have to ask for the waiver to extend the ceiling of coverage upwards so that people who can't afford health care for their children will have access to it. As it is, the $80K figure is based on the highest request for a waiver, not the highest waiver given

And if you haven't noticed, there are plenty of companies that either make it impossible for employees to access health care through company programs through high employee contributions or only hiring part-time workers, or have already done away with health care for their employees. So clearly private insurance through employers isn't a system that is working for low-income people. And to a parent of a sick kid, being able to afford care or not being able to is pretty black and white.