Skip to main content

Buried in the huge, intentionally complicated sellout bill, there is a little known provision that sneakily chops CHIP, (AGAIN)

Recent media on the cutting of CHIP
CHIP on chopping block again?

CHIP Provision In Health Bill Triggers Concern

In House Health Bill, Kids Play ‘Lottery of Geography’: Children's Health Advocates Fear Repercussions From Ending CHIP

CHIP on Chopping Block in House Health Reform Bill
Current Bill Drops Popular Children's Health Plan in 2014

CHIP is the program that has allowed poor working parents to bypass the increasingly amoral and dysfunctional insurance system and get affordable healthcare for their children, like every child gets in Canada.

Cutting CHIP represents a betrayal of many working parents

The House bill:

  • Mandates that parents and nonparents buy private insurance plans. None are required to provide equal benefits to CHIP. Benefits will be nothing like CHIP. They will only pay a portion of costs, many will only pay above arbitrarily high deductibles, thousands of dollars.
  • Moves most poor children into commercial insurance plans of uncertain quality.
  • Deal to preserve CHIP until 2019 cancelled
  • Despite costing $15 billion more to pay for 65% of the children's costs with private insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will be chopped.
  • Private unsurance is designed to prevent care so many defer care worried about starvation or lack of money to pay for rent or food.
  • it (Obama's free market "solution" to chop CHIP) represents an uncertain, risky situation for children. Parents will delay or not allow their children to get care if they risk homelessness for going to the doctor because they must pay up to 35% of the often unpredictable costs.
  • A recent study showed that thousands of children die because of the uniquely American system of withholding care from the poor.
  • CHIP appars to meet the criteria of being "too attractive" and so its banned.

From the Charleston West Virginia Gazette

"If the children were moved to private insurance, their parents would also pay significantly more in premiums and out-of-pocket expense, according to an actuarial study by financial consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide. Using data from 17 states, researchers found that, at 175 to 225 percent of poverty, parents of CHIP children paid up to 2 percent of their child's treatment. If the same children were transferred to private plans, their parents would pay between 5 and 35 percent of the cost of care.

"Most of these parents are working people who are counting dollars," said Renate Pore, health care analyst for the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. Families eligible for CHIP make too much to be eligible for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance, she said. "CHIP is the stronger coverage package, and we are very concerned about the idea that those kids would be moved over without some protection," said Bruce Lesley, director of First Focus, the national child advocacy group that commissioned the actuarial study.

The CHIP program includes developmental screening and preventative care that is not covered by most adult plans. It covers a wide range of services, including doctor and hospital visits, immunizations and prescriptions, tests and X-rays, diabetic care, and dental and vision care. It provides case management for children with special needs.
"There are many wonderful parts of the reform legislation, and many things in health care that need to be changed," Lesley said, "but this is one that should be left alone."

Originally posted to Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:55 AM PST.

Poll

Should the Democrats be allowed to throw millions of Americans into an uncertain, risky situation when a solution that we know works, which could be implemented in under a year, lies right across the border in Canada?

10%3 votes
10%3 votes
3%1 votes
62%18 votes
13%4 votes

| 29 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (0+ / 0-)

    Illness is Health! Negligence is Care! Fraud is Accuracy! Affordable Healthcare or Bush by 2084: A Progressive WH by 2016!

    by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 06:55:15 AM PST

  •  That was in the Senate Finance Committee (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, MKSinSA

    version a few weeks ago.

    If I'm not mistaken... Rockefeller raised a ruckus and the problem was already remedied.

    Which bill are you talking about?

  •  LETS KILL OFF THE GOOD BY INSISTING ON PERFECT! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OIL GUY

    All my IP addresses have been banned from Redstate.com.

    by charliehall on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:01:54 AM PST

    •  Lets kill the poor insisting on perfection (0+ / 0-)

      Lets start with all of you, you aren't perfect..

      Illness is Health! Negligence is Care! Fraud is Accuracy! Affordable Healthcare or Bush by 2084: A Progressive WH by 2016!

      by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:18:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you won't get anywhere with this (5+ / 0-)

        You have worn out your welcome with this kind of behavior.  

        If you think you are winning converts, you're wrong.  You're alienating your audience.

        I don't care if you agree with me, but at least take a moment to think about efficacy and whether you're doing anything positive to push the idea that you treasure.  

        My answer- you aren't.  

        Post commentshere. It's Patients First, and it's unmoderated.

        by otto on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:32:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Idiotic slogan. Non substantive, deceptive and (0+ / 0-)

        false.

        The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.
        Orange County Liberal

        "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

        by enhydra lutris on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:06:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Who knew it was possible to produce an (0+ / 0-)

      argument so bad that it failed to refute a diary as horrible as this one?

      Screaming a mangled Voltaire quote in all caps does not an argument make.

      Crush the Horror.

      by JesseCW on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:52:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Links? Evidence? Which Bill? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, kefauver
    •  GOOGLE NEWS... (0+ / 0-)

      Illness is Health! Negligence is Care! Fraud is Accuracy! Affordable Healthcare or Bush by 2084: A Progressive WH by 2016!

      by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:19:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Follow the links in the diary.. (0+ / 0-)

        There are more on Google.

        Illness is Health! Negligence is Care! Fraud is Accuracy! Affordable Healthcare or Bush by 2084: A Progressive WH by 2016!

        by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:52:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  CAPS LOCK MAKES NOT A CITE (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper, sullivanst

        Given the complexity, the only cite I accept is the following:

        Give me a link to THOMAS, or cite the actual bill.

        For instance:

        H.R. 3115 IH (111th) Sec. 3 (a) (1)

        That would lead to this:

        (1) IN GENERAL- Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section:

        ...

        I don't trust reporters to get this right. They don't get much else correct, why should they get complex legislation?

        So, cite the bill. Which bill, what section, and what specific verbiage is going to gut SCHIP?

        It is curious to see the periodical disuse and perishing of means and machinery, which were introduced with loud laudation a few years or centuries before. -RWE

        by Gravedugger on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:14:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why don't you call Kate Long at the (0+ / 0-)

          Charleston Gazette? Or Kaiser Health News?

          They would be able to tell you.

          Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

          by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:40:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why don't you back your diary up? (0+ / 0-)

            It isn't my job to call your sources. If you are going to make claims, back them up with primary sources.

            When I copyedit MA and PhD candidate humanities papers it is their responsibility to cite primary sources in addition to interpretive ones. I don't do their research for them. I won't do your research for you.

            It is curious to see the periodical disuse and perishing of means and machinery, which were introduced with loud laudation a few years or centuries before. -RWE

            by Gravedugger on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:09:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Confusing diary. (7+ / 0-)

    I couldn't figure out what you're talking about.

    Revolutionary Road was an awful, awful film.

    by burrow owl on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 07:03:41 AM PST

  •  Bush is alive and well in Congress. I don't (0+ / 0-)

    understand why we are writing about anything else. This is a corrupt Congress, mainly republican but about 20% of Democrats are Bush ass kissers. So how do we make people understand that they are voting to send more power to the very people who have screwed them for the last eight years?

    •  Obama and Bush are far more similar than (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      sullivanst

      we think

      Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

      by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:41:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  HR'd for Obama=Bush bullshit (0+ / 0-)

        apropos of nothing.

        In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

        by sullivanst on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:55:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, your not going to hide the truth! (0+ / 0-)

          with a click of a mouse...

          Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

          by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:42:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I neither wish nor need to handle the truth (0+ / 0-)

            There is none in your comment.

            It's precisely because Obama is very unlike Bush, in that Obama believes in separation of powers whereas Bush implemented Cheney's notions of an all-powerful executive, that the health reform bill has been so slow and imperfect to form.

            But then, I know from experience that rational debate is impossible with you. See ya.

            In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

            by sullivanst on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:55:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'd suggest a deep breath (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heiuan

    and then I'd suggest not indulging in the notion that this is all about Obama.

    If the House bill does away with CHIP in a way that harms kids, that's something we need to be informed about.  

    However, it's pretty irrelevant whether or not Obama is a big nasty corporate owned robot or the Patron Saint of tulip farting unicorns - the question is whether or not Congress is in danger of passing a bill so flawed that it does more harm than good.

    He's signing whatever they send him unless it really has Death Panels in it.  That's obvious by now.

    This song shouldn't be about him.

    •  Children being able to go to the doctor is crucia (0+ / 0-)

      is crucially important. Unless we WANT a nation of adult people with really bad health.

      THATS SEEMS TO BE THEIR GOAL!?

      Illness is Health! Negligence is Care! Fraud is Accuracy! Affordable Healthcare or Bush by 2084: A Progressive WH by 2016!

      by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:16:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a very important issue, Andiamo (0+ / 0-)

        Which is why it's important to write diaries about that inform the reader clearly of the problem at hand and, if possible, suggest a course of action.

        There may be some light here...but I can't tell for all the heat.

        Crush the Horror.

        by JesseCW on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:19:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know first hand what this means to families (0+ / 0-)

          Look, this is an important issue to me because I grew up not being able to get decent medical care. I know firsthand what this means to families. Its not some abstract thing to me.

          They STILL won't be able to afford health care. And for children, it will be even worse.

          Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

          by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:35:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's out of the house bill (0+ / 0-)

    Because everyone would go the exchanges.  However, the Senate bill put chip back in.  It's just something to watch in conference.  No need to get upset now.  Unless you're andiamo.

    •  Obviously you are living in a dream world.. (0+ / 0-)

      wake up.

      This isn't Washington.

      Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

      by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:36:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chill man there's nothing to do about it now (0+ / 0-)

        The managers amendment is out.  The bill is being voted on sat.  Do I think the bill is perfect?  No.  Do I think it should be approved?  Absolutely.  This is why the conference us important.  You take the best of both worlds and you pass both.  Oh coincidentally, single payer is NOT going to happen.  Do you want to raise taxes on everyone in the country right now?  Cause even though
        healthcare is "free" it still requires everyone to have Much higher taxes.  So, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

  •  Flawed. (0+ / 0-)

    As usual, Andiamo's purity trolling is unfounded.

    Families between 133-150% of FPL get rolled into Medicaid. This is a large benefit.

    States that implement CHIP through Medicaid expansion will be unaffected.

    It is only states that implement their CHIP program separately from Medicaid that are affected. Most of those separate CHIP programs are in fact private insurance with public subsidy, much like... uh... the reform proposes.

    Let's see what's actually proposed here:

    Beginning January 1, 2014 (a year
    after the Exchanges are operational), children in separate CHIP programs would be eligible for coverage through Exchange plans. Until that time, states would be required to maintain their current CHIP eligibility rules, methodologies, and procedures (although a state could establish a waiting list if its federal funding runs out) and CHIP-eligible children would be ineligible for Exchange plans. The Secretary of HHS would submit a
    report by the end of 2011 to Congress on how to ensure that the Exchange coverage (benefits and cost sharing) is comparable to an average CHIP plan and that appropriate transfer procedures exist.

    It's of course simply false to claim that people will be forced into private insurance. They're mostly already in private insurance, but they'll have a choice of the public option under HR3962.

    In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

    by sullivanst on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:52:52 AM PST

    •  Do you have any idea how little money that is? (0+ / 0-)

      And how rapidly the subsidies vanish as a family makes a tiny bit more money? Or how they have set it up to rise every year, instead of having a limit on uncovered costs that is pegged to INCOME like civilized countries do.

      " How It Would Work

      Solomon’s paper offers an example of a family of three making 220 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $40,282. In the first year, the family would be required to pay 8 percent of its income for premiums, or $3,223. That amount represents 29 percent of $11,083, the average 2009 cost of high deductible family coverage offered by employers. (note that they are still exposed to a potentially unlimited amount of co-pays and other uncovered costs, despite having paid for insurance.)

      Let's assume in subsequent years that the family’s income kept pace with inflation and they remained at 220 percent of the federal poverty level. They would continue to pay 29 percent of the cost of the premium. But because premiums are likely to rise faster than inflation, Solomon’s analysis found, the family’s (premium) cost would soon rise above 8 percent of their income.

      Since 1999, insurance premiums have jumped 131 percent, while wages increased 38 percent, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is a program of the Foundation.) This year, the average premium for all family policies rose about 5 percent, to $13,375 annually, the foundation reported, while workers’ wages rose 3.1 percent.

      Robert Laszewski, president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Arlington, Va., says the indexing makes it harder for Congress to meet President Barack Obama’s goals of providing affordable coverage. "The president has promised health insurance security for the middle class, but there are ... problems with that," he said. "The first is the size of the subsidies to start with. And apparently, the way that Senate Finance has structured the plan, the subsidies as a percentage of income will dwindle each year."

      All the major bills before Congress have subsidies for people under 400 percent of poverty, which is currently $73,240 for a family of three. They all link the amount people getting subsidies would have to pay to a percentage of their income in the first year.

      The Finance Committee provision (.pdf) would help hold down the amount of federal subsidies needed, by shifting more of the growth in costs to consumers over time. Already, subsidies represent about $450 billion of the estimated $900 billion price tag of the legislation over 10 years.

      "They did this to make subsidies a little cheaper," says Karen Pollitz, research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University. "But it means that if you’re [a low-income policyholder] struggling in the first year, it will get harder and harder ... unless we have some massive breakthrough in cost containment" and the growth of premiums slows.

      A policy paper by Elise Gould and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez at the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, says payments by low- and middle-income families should be based on a percentage of income, not premium costs so that "subsidies do not become grossly insufficient over time."

      Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

      by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:52:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The children would be exposed to the same costs (0+ / 0-)

        as adults, and children with older parents are not going to get any help. That means that because of their age, like now, their parents will be forced to buy the entire family the cheapest "insurance" which often wont cover doctor visits or drugs, or the entire family will go without.

        THIS IS NOT REFORM, its a hijacking.

        Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

        by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:56:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the premiums, uncovered costs and drug costs (0+ / 0-)

          will continue to rise, three to four times faster than inflation.

          That is not reform, its a hijacking of the 2008 election.

          Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

          by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:58:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They simply haven't allocated enough money (0+ / 0-)

            to make a dent in the huge problem without real cost control.

            that is the underlying problem, and its a HUGE one. Thats why we need the savings of single payer, or its going to get worse from here.

            Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

            by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:01:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Which bill are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

        You impugn the credits based on the Senate bill, which does not end CHIP, whilst complaining about the clause in the House bill to end CHIP.

        You're not arguing honestly. This does not surprise me.

        Oh look - your source, the CBPP says the House bill's highlights include "slowing health care cost growth". It also points out that the House bill not only provides substantially more generous assistance with premiums for families in the 150-400% FPL range (plus, of course, expanding Medicaid to families in the 133-150% range), it also provides cost-sharing assistance, so that a family's total healthcare expenditure IS capped relative to their income. In fact, the Finance committee bill also does that, but with a higher cap.

        Bottom line is, you're full of shit.

        In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

        by sullivanst on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:19:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The House bill cuts CHIP and forces children into (0+ / 0-)

          private insurance.. where they will NOT get affordable care.

          The private plans that the working poor can afford are the typical high deductible packages that end up being disaster for the chronically ill. People with chronic illnesses will find themselves in impossible situations, because the amounts of money necessary to both pay premiums and pay uncovered costs has no limit. Obama gave away the store, so we can't cut costs

          You know as well as I do that they are passing on the cost to those who can least afford them.

          As you know. healthcare costs rise 3-4 times faster than wages, and rather than limiting the impact of that rise, (which they are morally obligated to, since they volunteered away real cost control everything) they pass it on to the unaware nation..People dont realize that the amount of money families have to pay will rise. With income, with age, with blips in the economy. Given the situation, we need single payer!

          Its as if Obama bought something way too expensive for himself and his friends (their isolation from responsibility for the wrongful preservation of a system that kills thousands a year, one every 12 minutes) on our credit card, without telling us, but now we have to pay the bill.

          Electoral System Reform NOW - Instant Runoff Voting Means A Progressive WH by 2016!

          by Andiamo on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:29:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site