Pro-Con: Should Congress expand health insurance to cover all children?

Comments: This article points out that things are not as simple as many politicians or the media members makes it out to be. In California, we have Medi-Cal and the Healthy Families plans so why are there uninsured children? Also would the proposed changes truly help the people that currently not insured?

Even before the impact of the current recession, the last government measurement in 2007 found that nearly 9 million American children are uninsured.

Last year the Democratic Congress passed, and President Bush vetoed, a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that would have covered 3.8 million of these children by 2012 for about 1 percent of the cost of the recent government financial rescue plan. Since that time, the need has grown as 1.2 million additional Americans have lost their jobs.

It is critical that the federal government provide additional assistance to struggling families and states. We shouldn’t make any family have to choose between basic expenses and health care coverage for their kids.
- Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y.

The new Congress is poised to act on President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign promise to provide universal coverage for children. That would be a mistake. When a “free” government plan is offered, it’s nearly impossible to resist. Poorer children would be left behind as states focus on enrolling higher-income kids.

Expanding the program would “crowd out” the private insurance many higher-income kids already have. Putting many millions of children on a government program will quickly lead to restrictions on access to care. Lower- and moderate-income uninsured families, not just children, need help in purchasing policies, and that help could be provided through refundable tax credits.
- Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute

By Phillip Brownlee