Richard Moore and Beverly Perdue's Health Care for Kids
Submitted by Robert P. on Sun, 10/14/2007 - 1:41pm
I am going to set out a fairly brief review of the health care for kids outlines that both candidates have submitted. I won't call them plans, because they really aren't plans at this point. They are outlines and will be treated as such, though I must give Beverly Perdue credit for submitting a much more complete outline of her total health care package. Moore's lack of a total health care plan is one reason I am only posting about children. Nonetheless, Perdue almost lost me with this, which seems like a swipe at Rep. Verla Insko, Health Care for All NC, and the Commission idea they are pressing:
Maybe in some far-off utopia, someone can simply draw up a plan for universal coverage on paper and expect it to somehow just happen. But North Carolina is the real world. If we want to improve the health and lives of our people, it’s up to us to craft a workable plan and make it happen. In the end, we can get it done and we can do it right. But nobody should expect to avoid the gnashing of teeth, the locking of horns, and the knocking of heads that will be necessary along the way.
This table provides a pretty good summary of who stands for what.
Kids
Candidate Universal Goal Single Plan 4 Kids Expand Kids Care Pub. 4 Above Welf Fill in Cracks Beverly Perdue ✔ X ✔ (200-300%) ✔ (sliding above 300%) ✔ Richard Moore ✔ X ✔ (250%) ✔ (sliding up to 300%) ✔
As I have mentioned elsewhere, our candidates are barely different. They are two different varieties of Vanilla, say Breyers and Ben & Jerry's. Intriguing, tasty, but not all that different. Still, I have to give the edge to Beverly Perdue, she comes out on top for offering public health care plan options to the parents of more kids than does Richard Moore. As for the progressivity of her plan, I think there is some clear in-fighting going on within her panel of experts that have put together this plan. Look at these two quotes from within the same plan.
Maybe in some far-off utopia, someone can simply draw up a plan for universal coverage on paper and expect it to somehow just happen. But North Carolina is the real world. If we want to improve the health and lives of our people, it’s up to us to craft a workable plan and make it happen.
By that time, we may be greeted by a new day in Washington with serious action on the universal coverage front for all uninsured adults. But it is clear that, right now in North Carolina, we must break the ice and start focusing broadly on uninsured families and not just on uninsured children.
On the other hand, I think the underlying truth of what will happen in either of these adminstrations is laid out in another quote from her plan:
I believe North Carolina’s progress in these early days of the 21st century can be measured by how far we travel down the road to affordable and quality health care for all our people.
Not, by how quickly we achieve universal health care, but by how far we travel, hand-in-hand with big insurance and the power clouters at BCBS, down the road to affordable and quality health care.
Now, consider the realities of what they are proposing with the reality of what is happening on the ground.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://bluenc.com/trackback/7874
- Robert P.'s blog
- Login or register to post comments
Not enough.
This is just another reason that I am not excited about this race, it just isn't enough. It's 2004 here in North Carolina according to these two campaigns. Keep in mind "On July 31, 2007, the N.C. General Assembly passed N.C. Kids’ Care, a health insurance expansion plan for all children in households with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level!"
That makes large parts of their "plans" moot.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
The federal legislation passed after NC Kids Care
rendered that legislation moot, however. It prevents states from serving children in households with incomes over 250% of the federal poverty level - which is one reason why some governors have decided to file suit against the federal government.
I've never been a states rights kind of girl, but I am now wondering if that isn't the way we're going to get to the places we need to be - gay marriage, health care for everyone - in all the things I care about, it's the states that are leading on this, not the federal government.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Have I mentioned my head has been in a hole?
Do you have links?
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
After double checking -
I typed too soon. I was responding only to a Republican-offered compromise on the S-CHIP program,not the Kid's Care program developed by the NC Legislature. I apologize. I assume that if the S-CHIP veto is overridden, some S-CHIP funds will go towards the Kid's Care program, but the NC Lege allocated state funds for the administration of Kid's Care.
I do know, however, that there is a multi-state suit against Bush for violating laws surrounding S-CHIP and the states' ability to operate it as they see fit.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Links
It was not federal legislation, but a CMS letter that puts limits on SCHIP expansion. This "crowd out letter", explained by the Alliance for Health Reform here, was used as the basis to deny New York State's expansion of its SCHIP. This then led to New York filing its legal action.
My understanding is that the legislation the President vetoed would have removed the restrictions in the crowd out letter.
I'm not into the States Rights legislation either.
There are so many obvious issues that can be perverted via states rights that I have a real problem with this.
Am I proud to be a North Carolinian? Damned right I am. I'm not "from" here, but I am here and I've been here long enough to know I'm proud of this lovely state and I am a North Carolinian.
Yet, if you allow each State to declare their votes on propositions that are internally exclusive to their State and not our national discourse to become their provencial policy decisions, how can we, as an entire group of citizens of our this democracy continue to be a country?
I realize there are laws that are different within the jurisdiction of individual States. However, if something as controversial as a womens right to choose abortion over carrying a child to term becomes a State by State question and the legal answer is decided by each State, won't we turn into the United States of Progressives in this corner of the nation and the United States of Fundies in this other corner of the nation?
This, of course, is just my opinion. Which is always open to discussion, and often changed if my significant other says so.
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
It seems like a lot of activists set their sites on states
when they can't change the federal laws. I'd rather see federal laws changed - it's the whole reason for having a strong central government, imo.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Agreed
I like me some State by State intrigue. The part where we break off from each other because of our progressive or winger voters just makes me cringe.
North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!
There is a reason for the 10 th amendent?
it's the whole reason for having a strong central government, imo.
A stong central government always leads to Tyrants, [like Bush and Cheney] Dictators [ like Bush and Cheney, Stalin, Hilter, Mao, A host of ancient corrupted imperial Roman Emperors ] and the endless Wars of a Empire and finally bankruptry with worthless debt and criminal torture along with the loss of civil liberties to it's citizens. A real Democracy is how close it is to it's citizens and workers and hears it's voice at city hall to oust corporate welfare fascism.
The founders of this country had a very clear reason and knowledge for the 10 th amendment and knew their history of past evil central governments. The founding of the Democrat party was base on Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson principle on a constitutional republic and democracy working at the same time to " We the people"
Max, darlin,
It's the Democratic Party.
And I believe in a strong central government because I believe that if I am married in NC, my marriage should be recognized in CA, or IA, or any other state. Not so problematic for me, since my spouse is male - at least genetically. But I have literally hundreds of acquaintances who are not afforded the same recognition of their relationship.
That's but one example. How ridiculous that Maria and Julia are married in Massachusetts, but not Oregon.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
This actually is not a problem
constitutionally. The Constitution agrees with you. It is found in the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of Article IV, Section I. The problem here is not the states, but actually the centralized federal government that passed the unconstitutional DOMA. This is at the center of all marriage and civil rights fights.
So, I, as a firm beliver in all 10 of the Bill of Rights (actually a believer in all articles of the constitution, whether original or amendments (except where voided by a newer article) ) I would have to say that the constitution demands that your marriage, or that of Maria and Julia, or Kyle and Josh, be recognized.
The constitution is, by and large, a pretty good document if you go to trouble of actually reading it and not just think it says what you want it to say (this is directed at you Scalia).
CM
---
The Great appear great because we are on our knees – Let Us Rise!
-- “Big Jim” Larkin
Linda Cloud CYE
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.
Progressive Discussions
To be fair
Also look at what the candidates are going to do to get people enrolled in these programs. How good a program is doesn't matter if people don't use it. I think Moore's plan does more to actually get people enrolled and covered.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
I'm open to additions. Care to expand?
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon