Children's Health Insurance Program in Utah

Let’s talk about children, everybody has some or knows someone who does. A recent study exposed this nasty fact; there are 82,000 children in Utah who do not have health insurance. So, Utah’s legislature, the source of so much useless knowledge, has decided it is the parent’s fault because they don’t know about CHIP, the Childhood Health Insurance Program.

Currently, there is a bill in the Utah State Legislature to study this lack of knowledge “problem” and increase the distribution of information about the CHIP program, which provides insurance to those children whose family income does not exceed certain levels. This bill would allow the state to spend $173,000 per year, for a period of 5 years, to study the problem and provide outreach about the programs.

Here’s why I think our legislature is missing the mark-again.

The maximum gross income for a family of 4 to qualify for CHIP is $4,367 per month. If we assume that both parents work at minimum wage jobs, their gross income is $2600; and childcare takes $930 for two children. In all probability, one parent is going to stay home with the children to avoid the childcare cost. At this level, CHIP works for them.

Let’s bump the income level up a bit. Let’s put dad at $15.00 per hour, and mom at $11.00. Their gross income is $4506 per month. Childcare for 2 children still takes $930. Now, they don’t qualify for CHIP.  And, at this income level the family does not qualify for SNAP or federal student lunch programs. The average cost of health insurance in Utah for this family is $1614. If you add the cost of daycare to the insurance, the family is spending $2543 per month, leaving only $2000 per month for housing, food, and transportation.

No, Representative Welton, the problem is not that people don’t know about the programs; the problem is the extremely low-income cut-off for qualification in Utah. A “family values” state indeed.

You don’t need a focus group, legislative study group, or $173,000 per year for 5 years. All you need is common sense, a commodity that in short supply in our state legislators.

Thank you for reading, your comments are always welcome.

R.M. “Bob” Hartman

And we have a Winner!

It’s great, folks, really great! The House Republicans have passed, and sent to the Senate, the American Health Care Act. This bill will reduce health-care related costs and taxes by $5640 annually for those Americans who make $200,000 or more each year. Companies that employ 50 or more full time workers will no longer be forced to offer health insurance to the employees. This will definitely help make America great again.

Now, if you have winners this big, you naturally are going to have some losers. But who are they? The losers are you and I, the American people. Here are a few facts for your consideration.

If you make $10,000 annually, your health costs will rise by $1400 yearly. Those fine Americans that make $50,000-$72,000 will only see health costs increase by $60 annually, unless you get pregnant or have a pre-existing condition.

We are going to get rid of some of those pesky regulations that Obama put in the ACA. We are going to start by allowing insurance companies to charge you more, or deny you coverage entirely if you have any pre-existing conditions, such as being a victim of rape or domestic violence, pregnancy, cancer, or heart conditions, to name a few.

Insurance companies are corporations, and corporations are people, too. They don’t want to be forced to cover pregnancy, mental health care, or cancer screenings as essential services. The American NoHealth Care Act gives them the choice of covering them or not. I’m no expert, but I really don’t expect the insurance companies to willingly cover them any more as essential services.

If your insurance lapses for 63 days or more, say when you are unemployed, insurance companies can charge you higher premiums for pre-existing conditions than before.

Medicaid, including CHIP, is a health program that provides basic services for low income Americans. This program will be capped under the American NoHealth Care Act, which will force people close to the poverty line out of the program. They will then have the option of paying more than they can afford for health insurance, or just get sick and go to the emergency room. Now, that is what is known as freedom of choice? NOT!

These are just a few of the facts relating to the American NoHealth Care Act. Here’s a couple more, and they might hit home with you. This bill was passed without any Democratic votes, and in fact 20 Republicans voted against the bill. Are you represented in the House by a Republican? (Sadly, I am, and I am not happy about her vote. I voted for her opponent in the election.)

Did you vote for that Republican?

Think about it.

As always, thanks for reading. Please feel free to post comments or thoughts.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman 

Unusual Weather

It is raining today in the Salt Lake Valley; this is unusual because, in March, we usually have snow, not rain.

But the unusual weather today in Utah is not as bad as the weather inside Congress in Washington. Today, the representatives in “the people’s house” will vote on the American Health Care Act, a bill that is publicized as the beginning of the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act; the same Affordable Care Act that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would repeal on Day 1 of his term in office. Well, he didn’t get to repeal the ACA on Day 1, and right now (8:11 AM MDT), it looks like he won’t get the AHCA passed by Congress today, either.

For this piece of legislation to pass in the House, the Republican party can afford only 21 no votes from its members. As of Wednesday night, 24 Republicans have publicly stated they will vote no. No Democrats have indicated they will vote yes. Right now, there is strong opposition to this bill from the health care sector and insurance companies, both groups that are normally strong supporters of, and donors to, republican politicians and the republican party.

It is also opposed by the AARP and the March of Dimes, because it would raise insurance rates on older Americans and drastically cut funding for Medicaid and health insurance subsidies, subsidies that have allowed millions of Americans to afford health insurance. CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, is also a part of Medicaid. What about the children? Oh, yes, they don’t vote. But, their parents and grandparents do.

Those states that accepted ACA money to expand Medicaid to previously uninsured residents would see that money disappear, which would put state governments in a lose-lose scenario. The states would either raise taxes, to replace the lost federal money, or cut recipients off the Medicaid roles. Neither of these choices would be good in the next election for the existing state politicians. To understand the value of federal funding for Medicaid, consider this fact:

Fourteen states receive the minimum of federal Medicaid money ($1 from the Federal government for every $1 of state money; while the remaining 37 (including DC) receive 50.1% to 73.1% of their Medicaid moneys from the federal government. Eleven states (ID, UT, AZ, NM, AR, MS, AL, SC, KY, WV, DC), all of which are nominally “red” states, receive between 67% and 73% of their Medicaid money from the federal government. (source: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured)

Can the Republican members of Congress from those states vote yes on this bill, and then look their constitutes in the eyes in the 

next election cycle?

There is a tsunami approaching Washington DC right now.

Your comments, as always, are welcome.

RMH

http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-financing-how-does-it-work-and-what-are-the-implications/  retrieved March 23, 2017 at 9:05 AM MDT

Breast Exams, Birth Control, and Republicans

Two recent news articles have me very concerned relative to health care for American women. Both of these situations revolve around women’s rights, particularly the right to reasonably priced and available reproductive health care. I realize I am stepping into very volatile territory here. It is my belief that, in America, women should enjoy the same rights, freedoms, and protections that men enjoy. Your comments and criticisms are welcome, as always.

First, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced they would no longer provide funds to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, citing a potential congressional review of Planned Parenthood’s financial practices. This review is headed by Representative Cliff Stearns, R-FL, and is encouraged by anti-abortion groups. Planned Parenthood provides, among other services, free or low-cost breast examinations, and ob-gyn examinations, for women without insurance or the ability to pay “full price” for this service. The funding Susan G. Komen Foundation provides is earmarked for these service, and its’ monies cannot be used for abortion. The question being raised in the review runs along the lines of determining if monies given to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services are being used to provide abortions. In my opinion, this is a red herring, as Planned Parenthood's financial and operational practices were investigated in 2005 by the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services. The investigation found no irregularities in the organization’s finances or practices. In fact, Planned Parenthood Federation of America serves 3 million people annually, and only 3% of its services are abortions. After a huge public outcry, Komen reversed the decision and the funding will stay in place, for now.

Second, a policy from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires all employers who provide employee health insurance to cover contraceptive methods, including but not limited to birth control pills, Plan-B and permanent contraceptive procedures such as sterilization, effective August 1, 2012. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both come out against this policy, saying it is unfair to require employers (citing the Catholic Church as an example) to be “forced” to provide insurance for items that, if used, violate religious beliefs on birth control for women. For example, if a (non-Catholic) employee of a Catholic-operated hospital, covered by employer-provided health care, wishes to purchase birth control, it is not covered by insurance. The new regulation simply mandates that this coverage be included in the health care policy. It does not demand that anyone use birth control. Bowing to political pressure, the Administration has granted a waiver to religious-based organizations (such as Catholic-operated hospitals). This waiver, in my opinion, is a step backward for the Obama Administration and a major defeat for women wishing to control their reproductive lives.

So why am I concerned about these news items? I fear that these two examples illustrate a Republican party out of touch with America, and indeed with itself. In 1970, President Richard Nixon (a Republican) signed into law the the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning. This was passed in Congress with wide-spread bipartisan support. Liberals saw it as increasing families’ control of their lives, and conservatives saw it as a way to reduce the number of people on welfare. President Nixon stated “no American woman should be denied access to family planning because of her economic condition.” In a scant 40 years, Republicans have gone from supporting policies that would reduce the number of people on welfare to arguing that women should not have the right to determine when or if they bear children.

It is commonly accepted that proper health care, including screenings for cancer, is much less expensive that treatments for medical conditions gone unchecked. Cancer of any type is a devastating condition, physically, mentally and financially. At it’s “best”, it causes severe emotional and financial stress, at it’s worst, a painful death. It is also true that preventing unwanted pregnancies is much less expensive than having children born into families that cannot support them, or the mental, physical, and financial price of abortions. In framing the decision (to include birth control in employer-provided health care) as “forcing” women to use birth control, and “forcing” employers to include contraception in insurance polices, the Republicans are spinning this regulation as government interference with business. In doing so, they are implying that women cannot make a decision (to use birth control or not) regarding their own physical and religious beliefs. There is nothing-nothing at all- that says a woman must use birth control. The regulation does require businesses that provide insurance to include birth control in the policies. The choice-to use birth control or not-is left to the individual.

During 1999–2008, the reported abortion numbers, rates, and ratios decreased 3%, 4%, and 10%, respectively. (Source: CDC Reproductive Health, data and statistics, Jan 12, 2012). In 2008 (latest complete data year) 825,564 medically-induced abortions were performed in the United States. Slightly less than 300,000 were at Planned Parenthood clinics nation-wide. (Planned parenthood is the only nation-wide provider of abortion.) I will argue that there were 825,564 abortions that should have been prevented by availability and proper use of birth control methods. However, Republicans and “religious right”, you cannot have it both ways. Either you allow women the right to low- or no-cost birth control, or you have abortions. If you have abortions, you can choose safe, legal abortions, or we can regress in time to the “back-alley” abortions.

In the final analysis, this is one more Republican attempt to “play to the base”, to argue that the current administration, and Planned Parenthood, is pro-abortion. Nothing can be further from the truth. No one is “forcing” women to use birth control, and no one, including Planned Parenthood, is promoting abortion. All that is being done is to require employer-based plans to include the availability of birth control, and for women to have the right to a safe abortion, if that is necessary.

On a very personal basis, I would hope that if my daughter, or granddaughters, were “sexually active”, they would have access to good, truthful information regarding birth control, and if they decided that an abortion was necessary, it would be available in a safe, legal, and accepting environment.

Thank you for reading and understanding.

An American Tragedy

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Emma Lazarus, 1883

This sonnet, which most schoolchildren in the United States of American are aware of, was written as part of an arts and literary works auction raising funds for the building of the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty. In 1886, when the auction opened, this was the only entry read to the audience. However, it was not until 1903 when a bronze plaque bearing the poem was affixed to a wall on the inner wall of the pedestal.

Sadly, however, the lamp is now extinguished; the golden door and bronze plaque are tarnished, and the words difficult to read.

In this, the “Greatest Country on Earth”, a tragedy unfolded this December that should have shocked and repulsed every citizen of America. In less than 72 hours, this event passed through the news cycle and remains an unacceptable and yet forgotten blemish on our fair land.

A 38 year old mother of two, distraught and without hope, committed murder/suicide, and took herself, daughter and son out of this earthly existence. They were living on $500 a month child support and her meager earnings as a maker of decorative pillows. Her attempts to receive food stamps and welfare had been denied, and she had been reduced to begging food from restaurants in the area as they approached closing hour. Rachelle walked to these restaurants. Previously, she had sold her truck for $400 to buy food for the family. The children showered outside (there being no running water inside) of the ramshackle camp trailer where they lived, for which she was paying $400 per month rent.

On December 5, 2011, Rachelle Grimmer, her 12 year old daughter Ramie and 10 year old son Timothy walked to the Food Stamp Office, where she asked her case be assigned to a new caseworker. They were taken to a small office, where she took about 2 dozen people hostage. A supervisor in the office convinced Rachelle to release all the hostages. At 11:42 P.M, Rachelle fatally shot her two children, and then took her own life.

This happened in the year 2011, in The United States of America, and this is WRONG. How have we become so calloused, so rigid, that America cannot offer aid and assistance to children and adults in severe cases of need? What has happened to our sense of decency and compassion, of caring for those unable to care for themselves? In our rush to dethrone the “welfare queens” and remove the “leeches on society”, can we not look past them and see the children?

I fear our great country has lost its moral compass.

Ask yourself, “Is this what America means to me?” Inquire of your local, state, and Federal Government, “Is this the best you can do?” In the New Year as we approach the election cycle, with its sound-bites and press releases, question the candidates “What are you going to do about poverty? How can you make America better for all Americans, not just the rich and favored few who give large campaign donations?”

Free insurance? not quite

An admission here. I have been very vocal about the free insurance benefit for members of Congress. But lately, doing research, I have found that the Senators and Representatives do NOT get "free" insurance; the are part of the FEHP network and pay an average of 28% of the monthly cost for health insurance. The balance, an average of $975 per month, comes from you and me. (This program is available to most federal employees, at the same premium structure.) There are still a couple of benefits Congress gets the rest of us don't; there is no waiting period or pre-existing condition clause.

So there you have it. It's not free..but it is a lot less than most of us pay!

The Painful Season

Utah State Senator Daniel Liljenquist (R-Bountiful), another stuffed white shirt male, has stated that he would like to see epidurals and “some” C-sections eliminated from eligibility in the jointly-funded (State and Federal) Medicaid programs in Utah. How typical of our male, middle-to-upper class State legislature! How would he feel if it was his wife or daughter being denied pain relief during childbirth? Would he then change his mind? One can hope that he overcomes his myopic view of the people receiving Medicaid benefits before any further damage is done to this program, particularly in view of the current recession and high unemployment numbers. Given his website and Facebook pages, where he has posted being a strict conservative, one might presume he is among those who don’t want Utah to receive additional monies from the federal government provided by H.R. 1586, passed o n August 11, 2010 which would allow the state to receive more federal money to help pay for rising Medicaid costs within the state programs. Please, if you live in Utah, call your state senators and ask for their assistance in bringing the monies to Utah and keep unnecessary pain out of the delivery room!

Regulation

An accquaintance of mine on facebook recently commented, “first health insurance, now financial reform--brought to you by the same people who crashed the real estate market with fanny and freddie?!”
I must disagree, the people who crashed the real estate market and fanny/freddie were in the George W. Bush administration, not the current (Obama) administration. President Obama is trying hard, without any Republican support, to revamp and re-regulate the stock market, real estate, and speculative investment companies; if he achieves any true success, it will be without the assistance of any of those previously vaulted administration officials or their minions in Congress.
If you go back in history to the “Great Depression”, President Roosevelt had to invoke Presidental Authority to close the banks for 3 days, to allow enough time to implement his plans for government authorities to control and regulate the banks and investment/insurance companies. He broke them apart, told banks they could be banks, insurance companies they could provide insurance, and investment firms they could make investments, but the three could not work together to swindle the public out of money (my take on the process).
In these plans, he used the “best and brightest” from both sides of the aisle. Eccles and Marriot, both Republicans from Utah, were very high in his administration, and played a major part in the seperation of banks, investment, and insurance companies. These companies had to operate as separate, stand-alone businesses, they could not refer one customer to another desk and take profits therefrom. He was successfull, in that he took from the bankers/investment communities the abiltiy to make over-leveraged loans from banks on real estate in order for short-sighted consumers to purchase stocks, nor could the public short-sell stocks based on property valuations of the day.
While it may be argued that it took some time for his actions to make a positive effect, it cannnot be argued from a historical persepctive that these were in fact the correct moves to bring a halt to the depression.
So it is today. Over the last three decades, our government has worked to reduce regulation and increase co-dependant banking/investment/insurance/real estate companies. These steps, one at a time, have lead us to the financial collapse of this decade. Now the public outcry is for “more regulation”, and our government is trying to put this into place. Then, sadly enough, the pendulem will swing again, and we will have cries for less regulation, and we go off for a merry ride.