Comments on: SCHIP Runs Aground on Adult Coverage

By: Catron

Catron — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:35:40 +0000

I read “flexibility” to mean “vote buying.” They fully intend to enroll adults at the expense of low-income kids. In fact, they are already doing it. Why? Because adults vote and kids don’t.

By: shadowfax

shadowfax — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:48:20 +0000

Didn’t read the text of the letter, but I think you over-state the implications of the letter. My read of the article implies that the senators don’t want to lose “flexibility” (which I read as “money”) to cover the adults (”Parents”) under medicaid.

Anything beyond that is inference. If they are advocating actually putting adults under SCHIP, please provide more evidence.

By: Catron

Catron — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:33:46 +0000

You’re crawfishing, Marc. You’re earlier assertion was that “covering parents … is crucial to family wellbeing …” Even if you had some stats to prove that, it’s a red herring.

The “C” in SCHIP stands for “children.” These people are trying to hijack a program meant for low-income children. It’s dispicable.

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:51:34 +0000

So, is not true that the majority of SCHIP adults were/are to be parents?

By: Catron

Catron — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:52:14 +0000

It’s about covering parents, which is is crucial to family wellbeing and to enrolling more children.

It’s hard to believe that even you have fallen for that preposterous canard.

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:59:09 +0000

It’s about covering parents, which is is crucial to family wellbeing and to enrolling more children. So now you’re anti-family values too. And the ‘well above the poverty line’ angle has been comprehensively trashed - it was only in the most expensive places like New York that up to 300% was mooted.