That's the news out from the Kids Count program of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which studied Census Bureau data to assemble what they believe is the most realistic assessment of poverty among the youth on a state-by-state basis. Some findings include:
Indiana ranks as the 11th-worst state in the U.S. in terms of the status of its poor children, according to a new report.
The number of Hoosier children living in poverty has increased by nearly 21 percent since 2000, a growth rate nearly twice that of the U.S. average for the period.
[...]
In Indiana, more than one-third of all children live in families headed by a single parent.
And nearly 10 percent of Hoosier children live in families struggling with "extreme poverty," getting by on incomes at or below 50 percent of the federal poverty level. The federal poverty level for a family of four is about $20,500.
It's probably worth noting at this point that the Governor Daniels and SCHIP really, really don't get along. You know, that federal program that could be expanded, allowing for greater funding for children who don't have access to health insurance? The one that has enjoyed continuous bipartisan support in the House and Senate, but has been vetoed every time by Mitch Daniels' old boss in the White House?
Dr. Jonathan Walker and Edith Kenna write in this morning's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette on the disconnect between what President Bush and his cronies would like you to believe about the SCHIP bill currently before Congress (again), and what the reality of this program expansion would be. It's an excellent piece, and I recommend you read the whole thing, but to just give you a sampling of what we're talking about, here is a brief snippet:
The program will cost too much. At a time when President Bush has asked for an additional $200 billion for the Iraq war, this bill is asking for $7 billion a year in extra funding for uninsured children. Study after study shows that it is far more expensive if these children show up desperately ill in the emergency room because they had no insurance. You are going to pay for them either way - it is just that when kids are healthier, they do better in school, and it costs us less if they get the care they need before they get really sick.
It taxes Hoosiers unfairly. This bill is supported entirely by taxes on tobacco products, and Hoosiers smoke more than the rest of the nation. The problem of uninsured children, however, does not respect state lines. Besides, a recent study in the journal Public Health showed that increasing taxes on cigarettes reduces smoking prevalence and results in significant savings in medical care costs, so the tax pays for itself. The only loser is the tobacco industry, and it is time to stop putting the interests of that industry ahead of the needs of uninsured children.
And just a reminder: The SCHIP bill came back last week and was once again passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House.
Still defending the President's politics over the health of children across the nation? The entire Indiana Republican delegation: Reps. Steve Buyer, Mark Souder, Mike Pence, and Dan Burton. (Steve Buyer didn't actually vote on the most recent version -- I'm not sure why -- but he has expressed time and time again that he stands with the President on this issue, so I include him here.)
Shame on them, and let's all hope that the Democratic challengers in these districts take every opportunity to remind their constituents that a vote for any of them is a vote against responsible health care options for children in this country.
CONNERSVILLE, IN - Indiana 6th District Congressional candidate Barry Welsh (D-Connersville) released the following statement today regarding the vote yesterday in which current Representative Mike Pence voted to sustain President Bush's veto of the low income children's health program.
"Congressman Pence stood in lock step with President Bush and the veto denying Health Care to Children in the S-CHIP bill. Congressman Pence had to flip-flop in his voting as he had voted for the bill before voting against it. Congressman Pence thought Health Care for Kids was important and voted for it, until President Bush told him to vote against it. Pleasing President Bush is more important to Congressman Pence than Health Care for Kids, and that is not representative of Hoosier Family Values and is the wrong priority for any Congressman to use in decision-making."
For more information contact Communications Director Joh Padgett at (317) 352-5066 or via email at press@barrywelsh.org. Also visit our website and blog at the addresses listed below.
Today we are scheduled to see a veto override vote in the House of Representatives, which is widely expected to fail. This failure will not just be a blow to hundreds of thousands of uninsured children around the country, but will set the tone for political discourse for hundreds of races around the country. Here we have a political party so paralyzed by the fear of that ridiculous term "socialized medicine" that they refuse to admit the numerous benefits that could come from this legislation, (not the least of which being health care for kids.)
Governor Daniels and his administration openly oppose the expansion of children's health care as well, citing the fact that they don't believe Indiana should become a "donor state" to the rest of the country. Does this mean that the Governor is supporting another increase in the cigarette tax in order to give these benefits to Hoosiers, by Hoosiers?
Of course not.
And yes, I know that there are some state-level Democrats who have expressed an opposition to the SCHIP bill, the most notable among these Rep. Charlie Brown, who has made a name for himself fighting for children across the state. I respect Rep. Brown and all of the things he has done in the past, but I think he is wrong on this, and I find it hard to believe he would wake up the morning after the passage of this bill and think to himself that our state is worse off than it was the day before. I can't say the same for the Governor, who shares his political mentor's (read: that guy in the White House) paranoia of anything and everything that comes from the public sector.
Who could this bill help? The Gary Post-Tribune brings us just a few stories of the hard working families in this state who could benefit from an expanded SCHIP program:
Tonia Tyler said having her two children covered under the State Children's Health Insurance Program gave her "peace of mind."
"It was great. I was so grateful to have it," said Tyler, 39, a Gary single mother of two. "My daughter, Ashley, has asthma and before she had SCHIP she was constantly in the emergency room and missing school. But because we had the insurance, she got the nebulizers (an asthma treatment device) and other medication and didn't have to go to the ER or hospital."
But Tyler, a medical assistant who makes $22,500 annually, had her children dropped from the SCHIP program when she was unable to afford the $66 per month insurance premiums the state requires. Her children, including Joshua Tyler, 4, now have no insurance coverage.
"Sixty-six dollars a month doesn't sound like much, but we couldn't pay it and I was surprised how quickly they cut you off," Tyler said. "It would be great to have health insurance for my children. As a parent it makes you feel bad when you can't provide for them."
So shame on those who vote against this bill today, and if their Democratic challengers aren't putting together a press release lambasting their rubber-stamping ways as we speak, then I can't imagine what they could be doing.
The Indianapolis Business Journal has a story today by reporter J.K. Wall that doesn't exactly speak highly of Indiana's costly health care statistics, or the oft-touted but rarely seen "economic hotstreak" that the Governor loves to tell us about:
Spending on health care is rising faster in Indiana than it is across the country. Yet the state's job and income growth continue to lag national norms.
In 1991, the average Hoosier spent just 94 cents on health care for every dollar the average American spent. But in 2004, Hoosiers matched the rest of the nation dollar for dollar, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data released last month.
Meanwhile, the average Hoosier earned just 91 cents for every dollar earned by the average American in 2004. And Indiana has yet to regain the number of jobs it had in 2000.
"If your cost escalation there is greater than earnings, it does affect job growth," said Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research in Washington, D.C.
Higher costs for everything from doctor visits to diagnostic tests could explain Indiana's run-up in health care spending. But many other factors-poorer health, more frequent trips to the doctor, an older population-could be at play, too.
Whatever the drivers of health care spending in Indiana, the rising trend would concern any employer looking to add jobs. On average, employers pay about 80 percent of total health care costs for their workers, according to a 2006 survey by Hewitt Associates Inc., a benefits consulting firm.
But before you get all crazy and socialist on me, spouting off about how an expanded SCHIP program could possibly help reduce the aforementioned financial burden on employees and businesses alike, just remember that the potential job growth we would see would be communist job growth, and Mitch Daniels and FSSA chief Mitch Roob would rather die (or get beaten at the ballot box next November) than see communist job growth.
As I've mentioned before, I think the SCHIP vote, including the upcoming veto decision, is a perfect issue by which our Democratic challengers can begins discussing policy in their campaigns against Indiana's GOP congressional delegation. Here is a bill that is supported by a vast majority of voters, and in fact enjoys widespread bipartisan support from many notable conservative voices. Here is something we can point to and say, "Look at their values versus Hoosier values, and then decide who you agree with."
The first challenger to fire a substantial salvo in this fight is the 4th District fundraising machine of Nels Ackerson, who pens a piece in today's Lafayette Journal and Courier:
No issue before Congress is more critical to Hoosier families who are struggling to meet staggering health care costs, and nothing is more central to our core values than the health and safety of our children. The issue: whether we value our children enough to provide them with adequate health care when they are in need.
Five members of Indiana's congressional delegation, including both of our senators and three members of the House, voted for this bill. They deserve our praise for putting people and sound principles above partisan politics. The other members of Indiana's delegation should now join them in voting to override the president's veto.
In passing SCHIP, compromises were necessary. Concern for fiscal responsibility had to be satisfied. Congress rejected a more costly bill that had passed the House, agreeing on a less expensive measure that still serves the needs of children. But President Bush vetoed the carefully-balanced compromise. Some of his supporters have falsely decried the bill as a partisan, big-government measure. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R- Iowa, rejected those attacks, saying of SCHIP, "It's not a government takeover of the health system. ... It's not expanding the program to cover high income kids. It's a good bill." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that those advising the President to veto the SCHIP legislation were "misguided" and "sincerely wrong."
Indiana was 47th among all states in per capita income growth in the past decade. Real income has been stagnant for average Hoosiers in recent years while health care costs have increased at twice the cost of living. Hoosier employers who have not cut employee health benefits face health insurance premiums that are soaring.
The very members of this Congress who have created the largest federal deficits in our nation's history now are hypocritically calling SCHIP supporters the big spenders. The cruel irony is that the huge federal deficits already passed in the past six years have plunged us into an ocean of debt in which our children and grandchildren will have to swim or drown. The least we can do is to provide them with life jackets of adequate health care.
I quoted at length because Nels is spot on with his analysis of the situation, and this speaks volumes about the priorities he would take to Washington on behalf of his constituency. On the other side of the coin, Rep. Steve Buyer's notable silence on his vote says more about where he stands than anything else.
After all, it's not all that politically popular to say that you would rather protect the President than protect the hundreds of thousands of uninsured children across this country.
Sheila Suess Kennedy is far and away one of my favorite columnists for the Indianapolis Star, and once again she hits it out of the park with her piece on Bush's SCHIP veto.
Why would a president who did not veto a single spending bill during his first six years in office draw the line at health care for poor children?
We can discount the inartful and downright inaccurate descriptions of the bill coming from the White House. In a press conference, Bush complained that the bill wasn't really focused on the poor -- that it would cover children whose families earned up to $83,000 a year. Several senators, including Charles Grassley, a Republican sponsor of the legislation, were quick to correct him.
The bill maintains current law, and limits the program to children whose families earn up to twice the federal poverty level. That would be $41,300 for a family of four.
Nor is this veto a welcome sign of emerging fiscal restraint from a president who has wasted billions of dollars on contracts with the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater, a president who "low-balled" cost estimates in order to get expanded, very expensive Medicare prescription drug benefits through Congress. Health economists point out that programs like S-chip, which encourage preventive care and timely treatment of illness, actually save tax dollars--unlike the Medicare bill, which did much more for the bottom lines of big Pharma and the insurance industry than it did for the elderly.
These are important questions, not just for the President, but for Reps. Mark Souder, Steve Buyer, Dan Burton, and Mike Pence. They have stated that they will vote to maintain Bush's veto of this bipartisan legislation, and I still have yet to see much pressure from the mainstream media in terms of shedding light on their unwavering support of the President.
With Rep. Baron Hill coming around to the idea of expanded health care for poor children, we are now left to deal with the four Republican members of Congress from our state that have taken the stance that protecting the President is more important than protecting vulnerable children across this country. This morning the Lafayette Journal and Courier takes them to task, and provides an excellent, brief overview of the entire debacle (emphasis added):
The current bill would reauthorize SCHIP, adding about 4 million to the 6 million already enrolled. The cost to do so would be recouped from higher tobacco taxes, including a 61-cent increase on a pack of cigarettes.
In Indiana, SCHIP funds Hoosiers Healthwise, a program available to legal residents who earn up to 200 percent of the poverty level. The poverty level is $20,650 for a family of four, so a family that makes twice that -- just over $41,000 -- would qualify.
The federal program allows states flexibility in determining eligibility for the program.
"When it comes to SCHIP, we should be guided by a clear principle: Put poor children first," Bush said in the days following his veto. But his plan funds SCHIP at levels that would actually end coverage for some children currently enrolled.
The president also says the reauthorization bill is too quick to offer coverage to people who can afford to buy their own health insurance.
"Here's the thing, just so you know," Bush said to a gathering in Lancaster, Pa. the morning after the veto. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year."
"Not unless the administration agrees to it," shot back Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican and Bush supporter, pointing out that the administration would have to allow waivers for such families to receive coverage.
I plan on contacting the Democratic challengers in the 3rd, 4th, and 6th Districts today, in order to get a statement on where they stand in relation to the Republican rubber-stampers who officially have had their license to use children as political props revoked.
With the announcement yesterday that Rep. Baron Hill will vote to override the President's despicable veto of the SCHIP expansion, we can concentrate our energies within the state to pressuring the four Republicans who all voted against the bill to begin with and show no signs of abandoning their wholesale defense of the President. The indicted are, in no particular order:
Rep. Mark Souder (IN-3)
Rep. Steve Buyer (IN-4)
Rep. Dan Burton (IN-5)
Rep. Mike Pence (IN-6)
These four have made it clear: They would rather protect the President than the hundreds of thousands of children across the country without adequate health care coverage. Shame on them.
If I were Barry Welsh (IN-6) or Nels Ackerson (IN-4), I would be finding the nearest media outlet and unloading on Pence and Buyer for their rubber-stamping ways.
And as for the kids? They've had enough of being used as props:
Baron Hill (IN-09), who originally voted against the SCHIP expansion, has announced his intention to vote to override the President's veto.
Let's congratulate Baron Hill, and give him all the encouragement he can get!
* Jeffersonville Office phone is (812) 288-3999 (toll-free number) is 1-866-440-1321 fax is (812) 288-3873
* Bloomington Office phone is (812) 336-3000 fax is (812) 336-3355
* Washington office phone is (202) 225-5315 fax is (202) 226-6866
This is a tremendous event, regardless of the outcome. There is no doubt that the number of phone calls, emails, faxes, and in-person visits to his offices was a huge factor in this decision. Progressive activists, the Party, and the majority of Americans were working in the same direction toward a common goal. Lobbyist money can't compete with true grassroots activism, especially when it's combined with some institutional support.
The Bloomington Herald-Times (sub req'd) published an editorial yesterday accusing Baron Hill of political cowardice and bowing to the influence of tobacco.
Last fall, our editorial board endorsed congressional candidate Baron Hill because we believed the federal government needed a major shift in direction. The Republican-controlled White House and Congress were holding our country captive in an ill-conceived war, leading us further into deficit spending, and infringing on more and more of our civil liberties.
We also backed Baron Hill because we believed he reflected strong Hoosier values - values like health care for families and children.
Yet, Congressman Hill recently announced that he will not be voting to override President Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill, although he has supported SCHIP funding in the past. If the override fails, 800,000 children in the United States and 69,500 in Indiana will lose health coverage. If the override is successful, coverage for these children will be funded by a 61-cent increase in the cigarette tax.
The moderate congressman's decision to vote against the override appears to be a political nod to the tobacco farmers in the 9th District. While Hill may understandably be thinking about re-election in 2008, we believe politics in this case should yield to what's best for the children of our state.
We don't accept Hill's assertion that his vote doesn't matter, in his claim that "there are simply not enough votes in the House of Representatives" to override the veto. We'd like to know whether his position would change if the anticipated margin were closer. While the override may be a long shot, what if it were to fail by one vote?
Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, who twice supported the SCHIP expansion bill and who supports the override, is apparently able to vote with his conscience, regardless of the tobacco constituency in Indiana. We suspect that Congressman Hill really does support the SCHIP concepts, but we're disappointed that his vote apparently won't reflect those values.
I value your opinions and take them into serious consideration when making decisions in Washington. I ask the same of you now: please consider my reasons for voting against this particular bill. Please separate it from my continuous support of the broader SCHIP program. I certainly understand if you still disagree with my decision. All I ask is that you try to understand my reasons. As always, please feel free to contact me or a member of my staff and someone will be happy to further address any concerns you may have.
Sylvia A. Smith dedicates her column in today's Journal Gazette to this week's SCHIP vote, and doesn't have too many kind words for those in Indiana's congressional delegation who couldn't bring themselves to support the expansion of this program that provides health insurance to thousands of children all across the country. The word from President Bush, Mitch Daniels, and Indiana FSSA chief Mitch Roob is that the expansion will -- and I couldn't make this up if I wanted to -- provide health insurance to children who are too rich to deserve it. This message has been parroted by Indiana's Republican representatives, who have all blindly embraced the mantra that this expansion will allow children of families bringing in $83,000 a year to live off of the goodwill of the federal government. Smith cuts through the noise and lays out the facts on this weak rationalization.
Bush is wrong because the structure of the program does not change under the legislation that 332 members of Congress endorse. As it's been for the last 10 years, states have the flexibility to create a separate program or expand Medicaid.
And Bush's use of $83,000 is a canard. The existing program covers children in families that make up to 200 percent of the federal poverty rate, or $41,300 for a family of four. States can set their own multiples of the poverty rate; in fact, this year Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into a law a bill setting the Hoosier limit at 300 percent of the poverty level. But states that do so must first get federal approval.
New York tried to raise its limit to four times the poverty rate - that's where the $83,000 figure comes in - but the Bush administration denied it.
To imply that any child whose parents earn $83,000 can get federal- and state-subsidized health insurance is just plain wrong.
And yet, Reps. Mark Souder, Mike Pence, Dan Burton and Steve Buyer all opposed the legislation. And yes, so did Rep. Baron Hill, which I don't think is going to endear him to the many in his district who deal with poverty of various forms every day.
Blue Indiana brings us a great little piece of information this morning about Governor Mitch Daniels and the expanded State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) which recently passed Congress:
"I strongly urge the President to veto the SCHIP measure," Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana told me shortly after his luncheon address to the Midwest Republican Conference here.
Governor Daniels went on to say:
...that if the expanded program were ever to become law, "don't be surprised if we then have expansion into national health care."
OK, so Mitch is towing the Bush line, national health care bad, blah blah blah. He is a Republican after all. But then what about this jewel that was posted on his website this last May in regards to an expansion of SCHIP:
Study: Increased funding could create 4,564 jobs in Indiana
While the post is critical of some aspects of the SCHIP program, it's point, in big bold letters, is that an expansion of SCHIP will bring 4,564 new jobs to Indiana. It seems that Mitch wants to have it both ways.
So Mitch, which is it, create jobs or support the Pretzilnit?
On the heels of President Bush's attempt to cut down funding for government-sponsored health care to those in need, we receive word that Indiana's news health care plan for children may be affected:
Plans under the new state budget to insure some 40,000 additional children under Hoosier Healthwise would be scaled back if new Bush administration rules to limit the expansion of government-sponsored health care prevail over the wishes of Congress.
Dennis Smith, who oversees individual state Medicaid programs for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, sent a letter to states Friday establishing the stringent new criteria for children from households that earn more than 2 1/2 times the federal poverty level, a floating scale that amounts to $51,625 for a family of four.
The new criteria would undermine the state's planned expansion of Hoosier Healthwise to cover children in families earning three times the federal poverty level - $61,950 for a family of four. The expansion was included in the state budget as part of Indiana's new health care plan for low-income adults.
FINALLY!
For months I have watched as Governor Daniels and FSSA chief Mitch Roob have complained about the federal government meddling in the affairs of state-administered programs. Here is something that I can agree with them on. I mean truly, how ridiculous is it that they would try to deny need children their much-needed health care? Are you with me Mitch!?
FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob, whose agency administers Hoosier Healthwise, said he had no problem with the new federal SCHIP rules.
"Our problem in Indiana remains the health care of poor children and poor adults, not the health care of middle-class kids," Roob said.
Wow. I'm just going to repeat that so you can let the absurdity of this statement sink in.
"Our problem in Indiana remains the health care of poor children and poor adults, not the health care of middle-class kids," Roob said.
Actually, the health care of middle-class kids does matter Mr. Roob, and you might know this if you found the time to remove your head from the arse of the private sector long enough to talk to some of the people who are served by your administration.
(Bumped from the user diaries. - promoted by Thomas)
There will be a final vote on children's health coverage legislation (SCHIP) in both the House and the Senate in September, and it is crucial that Indiana Congressmen Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, and Joe Donnelly support it. There are opportunities right now to tell Congressmen Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, and Joe Donnelly to stand up for children by voting in favor of this critical children's health legislation. During the month of August, these Members of Congress will be back in Indiana to get a sense of the issues that are important to you and other Indianans as they attend various events across the state. By visiting these Members of Congress at these local town hall meetings and public events, you can reinforce the message that healthy coverage for children is important to Indianans.
Here are the Town Hall meetings listed at the Children Defense Fund's website. This was sent to me by Children's Defense Fund but it doesn't appear that the Town Halls are specifically about SCHIP so you could also attend and voice your opinions about any other topic (the recent FISA legislation, for example):
Rep. Joe Donnelly
Monday, August 27 4:30pm Elkhart City Council Chamber Elkhart, IN
Tuesday, August 28 5pm Knox City Council Chamber Knox, IN
Rep. Brad Ellsworth
Thursday, August 23 Covington, IN
Thursday, August 23 Williamsport, IN
Rep. Baron Hill
Monday, August 20 6:30pm Sisters of St. Benedict Monastery Ferdinand, IN
Tuesday, August 21 7pm Donner Center Columbus, IN
Friday, August 31 9am - 11:45am Paul W. Ogle Community Center, IU South East New Albany, IN
The following appears to be a statewide event specifically addressing SCHIP:
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
It's probably worth noting at this point that the 
As I've mentioned before, I think the SCHIP vote, including the upcoming veto decision, is a perfect issue by which our Democratic challengers can begins discussing policy in their campaigns against Indiana's GOP congressional delegation. Here is a bill that is supported by a vast majority of voters, and in fact enjoys widespread bipartisan support from many notable conservative voices. Here is something we can point to and say, "Look at their values versus Hoosier values, and then decide who you agree with."
