Organize the South

By now the atrocious vote to privatize Grady is general knowledge. What I find interesting is this story by the AJC about how state legislators think they are the ones getting a raw deal.

Right off the bat the story shows the AJC slant towards privatization. The first sentence reads, "On a day when Grady supporters should have been triumphantly plotting a bright future for the rescued hospital..." Apparently it's objective fact that 1) the day was triumphant, 2) the hospital was "saved," and 3) supporters of the hospital are pro-privatization. In hockey getting 3 goals is s called a hat trick, but at the AJC it's just called journalism.

Still, the funniest part of the story is reading about all the poor, defenseless politicians who are outraged (outraged I tell you!) at being given a demand. "I have no intention of signing an unenforceable document that seeks to bind the state to a specific, annual appropriation," said Gov. Perdue. House Majority leader Jerry Keen hinted the deal puts everything back at square one. These drama kings are reacting to the privatization resolution that requested the hospital get state money. Imagine that? A public hospital serving poor people from across the state getting public money from across the state. Shocking, isn't it?

Hopefully, the community can still kill this plan before it goes forward. It look likes the state wants a private hospital that makes money for campaign donors. That is the free-market system at work. The poor, apparently, are free to die.

Rep. Gingrey's office sent an email in response to a letter my wife and I sent earlier this week. In our letter we asked a series of questions. Gingrey didn't answer any of them. He also didn't say whether or not he would vote to override the presidential veto. Perhaps we need to send another. Rep. Gingrey's response email is below.

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the current state of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or as it is called in the state of Georgia, PeachCare. I appreciate having the benefit of your views and welcome this chance to respond.

Georgia’s PeachCare program provides medical insurance for 270,000 children whose family income is less than 235 percent of the federal poverty level. This is a testament to the strength of the PeachCare program in the state of Georgia and how important it is for Congress to act in order to ensure the program’s solvency.

As a physician for nearly 30 years, I am a strong supporter of the SCHIP program. Sadly, loopholes in the SCHIP program have been exploited in recent years, compromising the mission of the program. For example, many states have filed waivers with the federal government to ask permission to use SCHIP funds to cover new populations for which the program was not intended – including single, childless adults. This practice undermines the financial integrity of SCHIP and takes money away from states like Georgia.

I voted to pass a continuing resolution that will fund the SCHIP Program through November 16 this year. I am also co-sponsoring an 18 month extension bill of the SCHIP bill, H.R. 3584, that will ensure that our nation’s children – including the children in Georgia covered under the PeachCare program – will not go one single day without health insurance.

Rest assured I plan on being a leader in the effort to reauthorize SCHIP. I will advocate for commonsense reforms to strengthen the program and make sure funds will be available to provide healthcare to—first and foremost—the population this program was intended to help: low-income children.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you feel that I may be of additional assistance on this, or any other matter of importance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may also contact me via my email at gingrey.ga@mail.house.gov, or log your ideas and opinions on my website: www.house.gov/gingrey.

October 8, 2007

Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D.
119 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Rep. Gingrey:

We have recently moved into the 11^th district into a nice neighborhood. My wife and I have a modest home, friendly neighbors, and weeds in the yard.

My wife and I don’t have children. I’m a small-business owner and my wife is about to become one. We’ve mostly worked in the non-profit industry. We have a keen interest in health care since the financial burden is so great. We are particularly interested in the SCHIP legislation and the presidential veto. We would like you to vote to override this veto. Frankly, we are disappointed in your statements on this program. The news room on your website (gingrey.house.gov) has a press release with comments you made on the House floor. The title reads, “Gingrey blasts Democrat’s plan to expand SCHIP to cover wealthy families and illegal immigrants on their way to socialized medicine.” We hoped, as a doctor, you would focus on getting as many people as possible quality health care.

We read the entire release on website. We understand you oppose health care for “illegal immigrants.” Why is that? Is it better to cut off some people from the health system? What if these people have an infectious disease? Even a cold or the flu? Wouldn’t excluding them actually put everyone at risk? Should we exclude other people from this basic human right (Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)? At any rate, the legislation actually doesn’t change the fact it’s against federal law for “illegal immigrants” to sign up for SCHIP program. Given this is a non-issue, why do you use it? We hope it’s not because you use the term “illegal immigrants” as a manipulative device to avoid real issues.

The press release also says the legislation is “a measure which would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover children of families with income levels up to $80,000.” We went to factcheck.org to find out. Here’s what they said:

The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law.

The income ceiling in Georgia is $48,528. The highest income ceiling is in New Jersey and is $72,275. Factcheck.org also cites a study by the Urban Institute that about 70% of children projected to benefit from the legislation are in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level ($41,300 for a family of four). The link to the study is http://www.urban.org/publications/411545.html. Doesn’t this mean your statement is wrong?

We like factcheck.org, so we studied the site for a while. We found some interesting bits of information. For example, in your press release you said, “Rather [the legislation] diverts precious resources from those who need it the most in order to cover adults and already privately insured children. In fact, the extra $35 billion the Democrats are asking American families to pay for is aimed at a population where 77% of the children already have private insurance coverage. These children would simply be transferred from private insurance coverage to a taxpayer funded, government controlled healthcare entitlement program.”

We searched factcheck.org but couldn’t find anything that supports your claim. We did find out about something called the “crowd-out effect.” This is a phenomenon in which government programs targeting the uninsured are used by those with (or those who could have) private insurance. The SCHIP legislation you voted against has a crowd-out rate of 32% according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO also stated that this is probably the best percentage one can achieve with this kind of legislation.

Where did you get the 77% figure? It wasn’t on factcheck.org. We searched the Internet and couldn’t find anything to substantiate your claim. We did find a page on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities citing an analysis by Jonathan Gruber that 77% of the Bush administration’s health tax proposals would go to those already insured. The link to that is http://www.cbpp.org/7-16-07health.htm.

We have one more question. In your press release, you describe the SCHIP legislation as “implementing a major tax increase on working class Americans.” As working class people, we deeply oppose major tax increases on working class people so this statement delighted my wife and me. We’re wondering then why you voted against the original House bill CHAMP (Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act). This legislation would have funded SCHIP expansion, in part, by cutting Medicare Advantage subsidies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, private insurance companies are paid 12% on average more than what it really costs to cover the same beneficiaries. The CBO estimates overpayments will be about $54 billion over the next five years. Wouldn’t opposing subsidizing giant corporations cheating working-class people out of our hard earned tax money be a good way to oppose major tax increases on working-class people? If “illegal immigrants" ran the corporations taking billions of dollars from taxpayers, would you support reducing the Medicare overpayments?

We apologize this letter is so long. We hope to hear from you soon. If you like, stop by the house and we’ll make you some homemade Indian food.

Sincerely,

Dan & Rita