… we need to look at the text ourselves and decide if features in the legislation is good or bad.

Agree, but that’s easier said (written) than done, DLS. I’ve been reading legislation for the better part of my adult life and I’m still often confused by the various sections and caveats and inter-related qualifiers in a complex bill, especially one like this one.

That plus very few of us — even freelance, part-time political writers — don’t have the time to invest in this type of detailed reading, not on every single issue, not even on every issue about which we have strong feelings. Yes, we can still investigate sources and opinions, which is what I’ve tried to do, but between time pressures and non-legal backgrounds, actual bill reading is an uphill battle. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but I also have to believe there’s a need for an intermediary.

I just wish there was a single, truly non-partisan group that could objectively evaluate legislative language and candidly, without bias, spell out the pro’s and con’s for all of us to see.

(or non-ideological)

In lieu of that we need to look at the text ourselves and decide if features in the legislation is good or bad.

a revised bill expected also to be vetoed by Bush

HR 3963 is not yet available on Govtrack (from where I have reviwed HR 976), but here is the bill (passed the House; expected to pass the Senate) on THOMAS. (HR 3963) Here is HR 976 on THOMAS if you want to see it there rather than on Govtrack.

Bush has all but advertised in neon that he’ll go up from $5 billion to $20 billion, but the Democrats aren’t willing to really negotiate at all. Crowd-out, which is deliberately sought here (III A) is addressed by — studying the issue. The tobacco tax remains; new aid to pregnant women remains, etc. This bill also deserves to be and should be vetoed. Next time the Dems should actually choose to compromise.

” … a single, truly non-partisan group … “

Perhaps the CBO fits the bill. Its latest analysis in this WaPo article.

You both raise very valid points and questions. Back to the investigation, I suppose.

I just wish there was a single, truly non-partisan group that could objectively evaluate legislative language and candidly, without bias, spell out the pro’s and con’s for all of us to see.

But then, that’s what lawyers and courts are for, I suppose … aaaaargh!

Here’s a link to the entire bill (HR 976).

Note that this is somewhat but far from fully moot; a revised bill expected also to be vetoed by Bush continues to raise the income limit from 200 to 300 per cent of the poverty level, retains the tobacco tax, apparently, and may well have some of the other defects in the bill that already was vetoed (see link above).

* * *

[*sigh*]

DLS constantly insists on misrepresenting what the subsidy being extended means.

I’m quoting from the bill itself. Why don’t you make your latest false accusation against the authors of the bill?

If you read the bill you’ll find a section where it says that for those individuals who cannot afford the difference between individual coverage through their employer’s insurance plan and what is charged to cover a family (Often a substantial amount.) SCHIP will help cover the difference. How does this move someone off of private insurance?

As I have said, they will switch from their current (fully, truly) private insurance to the publicly subsidized insurance. Can’t you read? Or do you enjoy making false statements, changing the subject, etc., as much as you do given you do so, so often?

As I understand it, the $35 billion (over five years, or $7 billion a year) would essentially fund the unfunded part of the program, i.e., even the existing mandate is not matched by existing funds. Yes, the expansion would also allow the states to cover more children than they do now. I don’t think anyone’s claiming they would cover fewer kids.

The real fact here is what is wrongly named as myth above. S-CHIP subsidies are being extended to employer-based insurance. Of course people will be encouraged to switch to the subsidized coverage (at public expense) rather than pay the full price!

If the people in question are of modest income and coping with potentially (or actually) punishing medical expenses, so what?

The whole idea of S-CHIP is to be of help to children with medical problems and their families. It’s not about business. It’s not about profit. It’s about public service.

Hey, police and fire protection aren’t about private enterprise and profitmaking, although they help create an environment in which both stand a better chance of surviving and thriving. They’re also about public service.

This probably sounds like heresy in this period of corporate welfare queens growing fat on the public dime and administration-sponsored waste, fraud and abuse as standard operating procedure, but providing public services can be and often is a good use of taxpayers’ money.

And what is so sacred about private insurance companies anyway that if you’re going to have an imperfect program that it is more important that it protect them than sick people?

I will spend some additional time studying the passages you excerpted. However, a cursory review does not convince me that Sen. Roberts is wrong. To the contrary: There seem to be sufficient caveats and qualifications in the passages you excerpt to support Roberts’ claim.

Again, I will read these excerpts more carefully. In the meantime, I’d appreciate your sourcing of the same. I assume the excerpts are from the bill itself, but a link (to Thomas or whichever database you used) would be appreciated, for verification purposes.

Thanks.

Between ages 5 and 105, a good number of flip-flops are in order.

Myth: This bill will encourage families to drop their private health insurance in favor of SCHIP.

Fact: This bill takes the necessary steps to encourage further private market participation in the SCHIP program. It builds on the current private structure, better allowing states to provide health insurance to children through the private market.

The real fact here is what is wrongly named as myth above. S-CHIP subsidies are being extended to employer-based insurance. Of course people will be encouraged to switch to the subsidized coverage (at public expense) rather than pay the full price!

A State may elect to offer a premium assistance subsidy [...] for qualified employer-sponsored coverage [...] to all targeted low-income children who are eligible for child health assistance … the amount equal to the difference between the employee contribution required for enrollment only of the employee under qualified employer-sponsored coverage and the employee contribution required for enrollment of the employee and the child in such coverage, less any applicable premium cost-sharing applied under the State child health plan … either as reimbursement to an employee for out-of-pocket expenditures or, [...] directly to the employee’s employer … permitting the parent of a targeted low-income child receiving a premium assistance subsidy to disenroll the child from the qualified employer-sponsored coverage and enroll the child in, and receive child health assistance under, the State child health plan

and

A State may elect to offer a premium assistance subsidy [...] for qualified employer-sponsored coverage [...] to all individuals under age 19 (and to the parent of such an individual) who are entitled to medical assistance under this title who have access to such coverage … the term `premium assistance subsidy’ means the amount of the employee contribution for enrollment in the qualified employer-sponsored coverage by the individual under age 19 or by the individual’s family. … In the case of the participation of an individual under age 19 (or the individual’s parent) in a premium assistance subsidy under this section for qualified employer-sponsored coverage, the State shall provide for payment of all enrollee premiums for enrollment in such coverage and all deductibles, coinsurance, and other cost-sharing obligations for items and services otherwise covered under the State plan under this title.

and don’t forget, also,

A State may establish an employer-family premium assistance purchasing pool for employers with less than 250 employees who have at least 1 employee who is a pregnant woman eligible for assistance under the State child health plan [...] or a member of a family with at least 1 targeted low-income child and to provide a premium assistance subsidy under this paragraph for enrollment in coverage made available through such pool.

Anybody foolish enough to believe this government program does not encourage crowd-out and is private, not public, would also probably believe (or say) that nominally private health care providers paid by Medicare and prohibited from duplicating the service outside of Medicare is “private,” too.

The bill was defective and needs to be corrected.