posted October 02, 2007 11:24 AM              

* Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
* Print
* Reprints
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Newsvine
o Permalink

Article Tools Sponsored By
By SARAH KERSHAW
Published: October 2, 2007

Gov. Eliot Spitzer said yesterday that New York, joined by six other states, would file suit against the Bush administration, challenging stricter eligibility rules for the government health insurance program that covers poor children. Separately, Gov. Jon S. Corzine announced yesterday that New Jersey filed a similar suit against the administration.

The protests from the states come in the wake of President Bush’s threat to veto legislation that would loosen those rules and increase federal funds for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or Schip. The bipartisan bill would expand coverage to 10 million children from the 6.6 million covered now.

More than 40 states have urged Washington to act quickly to reauthorize funds for the program, which has been the subject of angry debate in Congress over how much the federal government should contribute.

In their legal challenges, the eight states contend that the new eligibility rules, which went into effect in August and limit coverage to children living at or below 250 percent of the poverty level, will either force out children in the program or leave tens of thousands without coverage who would be eligible.

In August, federal health officials informed states that they could no longer receive federal matching funds for children in families living above 250 percent of the poverty level, except under special conditions that the states say would be almost impossible to meet. Three weeks ago the federal health officials denied a request by New York to insure more children by covering those in families with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty rate, or $82,600 for a family of four.

“Despite every effort to negotiate in good faith, the Bush administration did nothing but put roadblocks and poison pills in our path,” Governor Spitzer said at a news conference yesterday. “The president was out of touch with the reality on the ground.”

Mr. Spitzer said that Maryland, Illinois and Washington would join New York in the lawsuit, with Arizona, California and New Hampshire filing amicus briefs in the case. He has argued that the new rules violate the intent of the federal law that created the children’s insurance program in 1997.

Jeff Nelligan, a spokesman for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, which administers Schip, issued a statement saying, “We are confident that our requirements are appropriate and will be sustained in a court of law.”

He added, “Our chief goal with Schip is to ensure that the poorest kids and those with no health insurance are placed at the front of the line.”

An expansion of the national program passed by both the House and Senate would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than current spending. President Bush has proposed adding $5 billion to current spending.

New Jersey, which estimates that 10,000 children will lose health insurance under the new eligibility rules unless the Congressional version prevails, filed its lawsuit yesterday in federal court in Trenton.

Governor Corzine, speaking at a news conference, criticized the White House for both the veto threat and the eligibility rules, saying: “The Bush administration has gone far beyond its regulatory rights. I think there’s going to be major, major pushback.”

New York health officials said that the Congressional version would allow the state to add 70,000 children to the 396,000 currently covered.

David W. Chen and Winter Miller contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/washington/02schip.html?ex=1349064000&en=2fbf6d04bd96306f&ei=5088%0A&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

posted October 02, 2007 12:09 PM            

Maybe it is unPC to talk about it but having children (barring extreme circumstances) is a choice not an accident. You don't trip on the sidewalk and find out that oops! you're pregnant.

Geez. Hey, I'm "accidentally" going to hit retirement age one day. Guess I shouldn't have to worry about saving up for retirement. I'm "accidentally" going to want to buy a house one day, too. Guess I shouldn't have to worry about saving money for that. Or getting an education. Or buying food or anything else really. And, of course, not healthcare for me or any kids I "accidentally" end up having. Everything is just going to be free from now on and I'll never have to worry about working towards a better job/career or planning ahead for the quality of life I want because the money for all our needs will magically appear from these people called "the government". What a fantasy.

(Note, I'm not saying anyone *actually* thinks like that. Hyperbole. Equally illogical. And like that.)

posted October 02, 2007 01:15 PM            

What I'm saying is that if you're choosing to have sex, you should be prepared for having children and meeting their needs ... seeing as there is no way to have sex with ZERO risk of getting pregnant. Every kind of contraception carries a risk with it.

But nobody wants to hear that. "I'll just use condoms. I have a right to do what I want with my body. It won't happen to me anyway because I'm being safe. Blah blah blah. Oh no, I'm pregnant ... or oh, no, my girlfriend/wife is pregnant! Help me, Government, because I wasn't ready to have kids!" But nobody gets on their case about their "poor" children.

posted October 02, 2007 01:49 PM              

I'm not even exaggerating. You can actually come and see it yourself. Just see them walking down the street.

posted October 02, 2007 01:49 PM              

Did I just agree with Eleanore?

posted October 02, 2007 01:53 PM              

there was a time when healthcare was affordable, before the AMA and pharmaceutical mafias made it impossible for all forms of healthcare outside their nazi/financial control to be available to people.

Homeopathic medicine and practitioners were run out of this country last century by the AMA precisely because it has the capacity for healing in a much more inexpensive, successful and holistic fashion than allopathic medicine. the AMA has tried to do the same to other alternative forms of medicine, such as chiropractic and naturopathy.

homeopathy also promotes real "health," not an addiction of a toxic system to more toxic substances, that do nothing to heal, but rather to suppress disease, thus making the body more sick than it was before.

this system generates a population of people addicted to toxic "medicine" and drugs, diminishing their physical, mental and spiritual health. which ultimately is the desired goal...a perpetually unhealthy citizenship is more easliy manipulated and controlled than truly healthy people who have the capacity to think for themselves.

posted October 02, 2007 02:46 PM              

hospitals are places of such negativity...i much prefer the health food store, the book store...places that allow me to take responsibility for my own health in all its facets -- body, mind and soul.
i am grateful for the sometimes life-saving elements available in allopathic medicine, no doubt.

but the reason i question universal health care, esp mandatory health care, is that often it keeps people slaves to a toxicity that they are told simply to cover up with more toxic chemicals. the expensive treatments, the naturopaths, the holistic practitioners, gentler alternative care, that can lead one on a path of healing self-discovery, these are not avaible in "taditional healthcare" (disease-care).

for true healing to begin, one must move beyond the limited framework of allopathic medicine. forcing people to remain yoked to this limited system is a form of social control. as it is, people are forced into lifestyles they may not otherwise choose because of fear....fear from the powerful AMA and pharmaceutical companies, that program us to believe that our survival is dependent on their chemicals. it isn't. and addiction to these chemicals keeps people yoked to the same lifestyles that ulitmately contribute to their deteriorating health!

and all the while they control us through fear. though as i said, i do respect the positive benefits of allopathic medicine. esp in emergencies -- they can be lifesaving.

it's complicated.

posted October 02, 2007 02:49 PM              

Health And Healing