Blogging for America

The Bush administration has come up with regulations that will allow uninsured children affordable health care coverage. There are only two catches: The first is that the child would have to be without health care for at least one year to qualify. This regulation is to insure that their parents do not drop them from more expensive health insurance plans to save money. because we all know that children do not need health care every year of their lives (?). It also does not take into consideration the parent who loses their job, and thus their health care. For instance the middle class (plus) 40,000 plus mortgage bankers who have lost their jobs this week? Or the death of the covered parent which leaves the child without coverage? Second, that the state in which they live has to have 95% of their children below 200% of the poverty level ($20,650-41,300 for a family of 4) enrolled in Medicaid or the state's children's health program (NY has around 85% of their children covered by their health care plus, only 2 states have 90% coverage). By the way, there is no extra federal funding to cover the boost in health care coverage from even 90 to 95%, so forget about those 48 states with less than 90% coverage trying to foot that bill!

So, not only do these regulations hurt children (the very essence of family based on their definition of family, no?) but it also treads heavily on state's rights. State's rights--the concept that the states make policy decisions to cover the health and welfare of their citizens (also known as police powers). States rights used to be the rallying cry for conservatives /republicans.

So, so much for compassionate conservative family values--next time any of that group uses that term, I suggest shoving the rhetoric back down their throats.

It is time we call them on their hollow rhetoric,

.