Reader comments
Leavitt leads fight over kids insurance

If we've learned anything from the last several decades of escalating health care costs and the US preciptous fall in the world health care ranks, it's that healthcare is part of the national commons. Private insurance has proven a dismal failure at meeting our needs. We need to take reasonable incremental steps to creating a single payor source, private healthcare provider system.

I'd like to know how Sen Hatch justifies the SCHIP program within the limitations of the US Constitution. From my perspective, this is a program that can be operated at the state or community level without federal involvement.

This program is just another step toward HillaryCare -- a government-run, single payer system where bureaucrats win and citizens lose.

Actually, it is the federal government that has caused a significant amount of the problems in healthcare, whether through tax policy, regulation, and welfare entitlements. The state governments follow closely behind with additional mandates and regulation. Government involvement generally reduces innovation, increases cost, eliminating choice, and reducing quality.

The original bill was bi-partisan. The writer seems to have forgotten Sen. Kennedy and his support. To many people don't realize that federal healthcare like Medicare is the pacesetter for about all private health insurance. In other words if Medicare doesn't cover an item, private insurance won't either. Check it out !

First, there is nothing in the Constitution that you or anyone can point to which forbids the federal government from operating an insurance program. Don't toss around straw-man arguments. Second, children in all states deserve, as a basic human right, equal insurance benefits they surely would not get if we left it up to the individual states.

yeah Im with that john guy

Although I am completely against the idea of a federally controlled health care system, I am all for helping the less fortunate, as long as we make sure the money appropriate only goes to the less fortunate.

What the birdman says goes, after all he was elected by Utah on his pro education platform, so he should know. Is it possible, he's infected with "Whirling Disease".

I agree that the federal government should not be an insurance provider. However, Jacob's first point (which rebuts John's 7:06 AM comment) is correct; the program is constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution allows Congress to spend money on the "general welfare of the United States." There are lots of things the federal government can't pass laws about, but they can spend money on just about anything they want. So, bad idea - yes, unconstitutional - no.

Children do NOT have a "right" to the fruits of my labors in health care, nor do they have a "right" to steal money from my family (through taxes) to purchase it. Health care is no more a "right" than is transportation. Every child does not have a "right" to a government purchased bicycle, Corvette, or Ferrari.

The creation of a temporary program (SCHIP) to help with children, has now created an artificial crisis/emergency which could result in going back to the status quo-hyped as "leaving children who are now in the program without health coverage".

Additionally, we can't afford it. On average, the 300 million people in the US consume $6,000 in health care every year. With roughly 1/2 being taxpayors, every taxpayor would have to pay $1,000 each month to fund universal health care.

The best course of action would be to pursue and expand affordable/accessable/quality health care such as retail based clinics. These clinics utilize retail settings to avoid high lease rates of professional medical office space, utilize Physician Assistants to avoid the high costs of doctors, and receive payment at the time of service to avoid the costs assoicated with medical billing.

It is ludicrous to link the SCHIP program with government-run health care. The SCHIP program has a simple mission: to provide basic health care to children whose parents cannot afford it. There is no hidden agenda in that quest. It is asinine to justify something so basic and good by trying to use fear tactics (even though nationalized medicine isn't scary to me.) I've spent years in European coutries where the care was great and the cost was manageable.
To further exacerbate the issue by saying that "raising cigarette taxes to fund SCHIP is placing an undue burden on the working class" is almost comical. Even so, this isn't about the working class, it's about the tobacco conglomerates. The president is grabbing at straws on that one.
Receiving good and equal health care should be a basic right in this country of wealth. Mr. President: Please don't insult our intelligence with idiotic statements such as these!

Jacob, The Constitution is the framework for a federal government with limited powers delineated within it. Amendment 10 states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Please identify where the Constitution expressly states that the federal government can provide this program and/or these services.

Of course, this also ignores the fact that the federal government is horribly inefficient and ineffective.

If we believe Healthcare isn't a right then we need to stop acting like it is. Our current system mandates Hospitals and Physicians to accept patients whether the patients can pay or not. When no payment is made by those individuals the costs are passed onto people who have insurance via higher insurance premiums. It's a back door tax versus a government tax, but it's still dollars out of your pocket. As a society we need to decide if Healthcare is a right, or a benefit and then be willing to accept that fully with appropriate policies. If it's a right - expect universal care, if it's a benefit - expect people to die 'cause they don't have money.

I believe the answer is in between those extremes and the real solution involves more individual responsiblity from where we are today, but more government intervention too. I'd be wary of proposed solutions that only focus on one side of that equation - unless they are prepared to take that extreme all the way (i.e. allow the ambulance to drive by the accident victim who doesn't have money).

Bull I'm with John Dougall, excellent. Government is dangerous, it ruins everything & I mean everything it gets it's hands on!

Don't the president and congress enjoy a government run socialistic health care system?