FIGHT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CHILDREN

We need to expand the federally financed medical insurance coverage for children. Bush has threatened to veto any such expansion. I guess he believes it is better that children not have access to physicians and health care. Why? Because he fears that this coverage of children would take away revenues and profits from private medical insurers.

Bush's position on CHIP (children's health insurance plan) is a gift to all of us who oppose him. How anyone could be against expanded health insurance coverage for children is unfathomable and indefensible, no matter what the financial cost.

So I read in today's The New York Times an article by Robert Pear on the activities of House Democrats in crafting a bill that would expand CHIP as well as make Medicare more responsive to the needs of older persons:

"After a rare bipartisan agreement in the Senate to expand insurance coverage for low-income children, House Democrats have drafted an even broader plan that also calls for major changes in Medicare and promises to intensify the battle with the White House over health care. . . .

"House Democrats hope to portray the issue as a fight pitting the interests of children and older Americans against tobacco and insurance companies. The White House says the Democratic proposals would distort the original intent of the children’s program, cause a big increase in federal spending and adversely affect older Americans who are happy with the extra benefits they receive from private health plans.


"By packaging Medicare with the children’s health program, Democrats say, they have built a strong intergenerational coalition that could help them overcome a presidential veto. The House bill has already drawn support from two powerful groups, AARP and the American Medical Association, in part because it would prevent cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. But the House bill is likely to meet fierce resistance from some Republicans because it is more costly than the Senate bill and could undermine private Medicare health plans, which have been championed by Republicans for a decade."

Let's expand CHIP for children, but let us also improve services of Medicare for older people.

We all know that the Medicare plan now in effect, sponsored by the Republicans and pushed into law by Bush, favors moving people out of the traditional Medicare coverage and into the coverage provided by the private plans such as Aetna and Humana. In effect, Bush's Medicare plan aims at dissolving the government's sponsorship of health care for senior citizens, and foisting the job off to private insurers who lure seniors with low premiums in the beginning years hoping to increase premiums after Medicare no longer exists.

Writes Robert Pear:

"Proponents of the private plans, offered by companies like UnitedHealth and Humana, say they provide more benefits than traditional Medicare.

"But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the government paid the private plans, on average, 12 percent more than it would have cost to care for the same people in traditional Medicare. Moreover, it said, payments to the fastest-growing type of plan, known as private fee-for-service plans, are 19 percent higher than the cost of traditional Medicare.

"The House bill would gradually reduce these payments so that Medicare would pay the same amount, regardless of whether a beneficiary was in a private plan or in traditional Medicare."

Here are some of the provisions in the draft bill as reported by Pear in the NYT:

"In addition to expanding health care for children and curbing payments to private insurers, the House bill includes these provisions, as described in a written summary of the legislation and interviews with lawmakers:

¶ It would be easier for low-income Medicare beneficiaries to get additional help. Congress would simplify application procedures and relax the strict limits on assets, which now disqualify many retirees with modest savings.
¶The secretary of health and human services would be allowed to expand Medicare coverage of preventive services like certain disease-detection screenings. To encourage use of these benefits, Congress would eliminate most co-payments and other charges.
¶Medicare would pay primary care doctors, including internists and family physicians, to coordinate the care of some people in traditional Medicare. Researchers say such coordination improves care and saves money, especially for people with chronic diseases who may be seeing six or eight doctors.
¶State insurance commissioners would be given more power to regulate marketing by agents and brokers selling private health plans to Medicare beneficiaries. State officials and consumer advocates say that some people have been tricked into enrolling in such plans by agents who use deceptive sales tactics.
¶Congress would abolish a provision of the 2003 Medicare law that requires the president to propose changes in Medicare to limit its reliance on general revenue. Democrats fear that this requirement will be used to justify cuts in benefits or in payments to doctors or other health care providers.

"In addition, the House bill would prohibit private Medicare plans from charging higher co-payments than traditional Medicare. "