Don't think opponents of children's health care are pulling out all the stops?
The New York Times reports that "conservative bloggers" are spreading lies about 12 year-old Graeme Frost, who gamely spoke up in favor of SCHIP because that program in Maryland provided him with essential medical care to treat a brain injury from a 2004 car accident. The bloggers accused Graeme's father of refusing to buy insurance for his six children even though he owned his own woodworking business. In fact, that business was dissolved in 1999. They said their home had undergone substantial remodeling and was worth about $400,000. In fact, it's valued at $260,000. They pointed out that Graeme goes to a private school. True, but on scholarship.
Mr. and Mrs. Frost both work; they own property. They are not poor. They earn about $45,000 a year — exactly the kind of family for whom SCHIP was designed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that of the 3.8 million uninsured children who would gain coverage under the bill the President vetoed, 84 percent have family incomes below the current eligibility guidelines. The rest would have somewhat higher incomes because some states would expand eligibility.
The President and other opponents of covering more uninsured children through SCHIP have said the bill departs from the original purpose of covering the poor. Wrong — SCHIP was always intended to serve families above poverty, allowing states to set their own eligibility levels. But the new legislation puts more constraints on states than current law — if states want to set eligibility at above 300 percent of the poverty line (about $60,000 for a family of four), they'll get less federal funding.
Learn the facts.