Private Insurance

Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids? Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Mr. Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."

Gov. Parris N. Glendening has ordered the creation of a task force to review the state Injured Workers' Insurance Fund, after its award of a multimillion-dollar no-bid contract.In a letter made public yesterday, Glendening's chief of staff, Major F. Riddick Jr., disclosed that the task force will be asked to assess the structure of the fund's governing board and the agency's operations.In the Feb. 15 letter to Montgomery Democratic Sen. Ida G. Ruben, Riddick wrote, "Recently, there have been concerns raised relative to several issues including the management of the agency itself."

THE HOUSE VERSION of a bill to give children from low- and moderate-income families health insurance costs about the same as Gov. Parris N. Glendening's sweeping plan to extend Medicaid.But philosophically, it is quite different in important and advantageous ways.The governor's plan, which has passed the Senate, would create a new entitlement -- free health care for children and pregnant women in families making up to 200 percent of poverty, or about $32,000 for a family of four.The entitlement would extend to those with access to private insurance, which they could drop and then sign up for the free plan after 90 days.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS in Annapolis have developed an alternative to Gov. Parris N. Glendening's plan to extend government health care to uninsured pregnant women and children. Their proposal makes far more sense. It relies on graduated tax credits to help families afford private insurance, rather than committing taxpayers to the cost of insuring children in perpetuity.The governor wants to extend Medicaid to families with incomes up to 200 percent of poverty -- $32,000 for families of four -- even if they have access to employer-provided insurance.

YOUR Feb. 25 editorial "Sensible health plan for children" makes no sense. The piece contains misinformation and distortion, and suggests that you have not carefully researched this important subject.The reason health care for uninsured children is a major focus of this year's legislative session is that the federal government has made available to Maryland $60 million a year for five years to provide health coverage for uninsured children, a fact you neglected to mention.This money comes in a 2-to-1 federal grant, so Maryland would pay only $30 million (not the $76 million stated in your editorial)

PARIS -- President Clinton was elected in 1992 promising to give the United States a needed national-health insurance system. The battle that followed pitted advocates of a single-payer state system, on the Canadian or European models, against the private insurance industry, ending in a qualified victory for the latter.Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, wrote in the New York Times a few days ago that the original Clinton proposals "would have limited our choice in doctors, cost millions of jobs and created new bureaucracies and tax increases."

FOR most women, the prospect of pregnancy at 59 would rank closer to a nightmare than to a wish fulfilled. At that age, yearnings run more toward grandchildren than children. That's just as well, since nature puts limits on childbearing that make motherhood over 50 rare indeed.Even so, the furor sparked by news that scientific advances made it possible for a 59-year-old British woman to give birth to twins is unseemly. Surely a mature, successful, affluent 59-year-old is a better candidate for motherhood than an unwed, uneducated adolescent.

"If the legislation you send me does not guarantee every American private health insurance that can never be taken away, I will take this pen, veto the legislation and tell you to start over again." So said President Clinton at the most contentious moment of his State of the Union address.To some experts, this was a line in the sand he had to draw. Unlike last year's budget fight, which easily lent itself to Capital Hill horse-trading, the health plan drawn up by Hillary Rodham Clinton may be a stone arch that falls to pieces if one of its major building blocks is taken away.

Health plan conceals huge tax increaseSen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., is one of the few with the courage and presence of mind to expose the president's health care plan for the gigantic snow job it really is.Here are some facts gleaned from an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Martin Feldstein, former chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. The figures quoted were calculated by Mr. Feldstein and colleagues at the National Bureau of Economic Research:* The hidden tax cost for this largest-ever welfare expansion would top $100 billion -- equivalent to raising personal taxes by nearly 20 percent.

WASHINGTON -- The White House announced yesterday an ambitious "deadline" of December 1997 for achieving universal health insurance coverage, but a number of advocacy groups and economists expressed strong doubts yesterday that President Clinton's soon-to-be-unveiled health reform plan can achieve that goal."

As the debate over health reform moves into high gear, one issue has come to the fore as the most controversial: President Barack Obama's proposal to give all Americans the option to choose a public insurance plan, operated by the federal government in direct competition with the private sector, similar to Medicare. With polls showing this idea with public support as high as 83 percent, an organization called Conservatives for Patients' Rights is spending millions on ads to frighten Americans that this will amount to a "federal takeover" of health care.

The first question a doctor's office asks any new patient: "What kind of insurance do you have?" Shaneera Smith's answer, like that of millions of Americans, is: "I don't have any." Smith and her husband, Omar, both had pretty good jobs - she as a hairstylist and part-owner of a salon, he as a mortgage broker - though they were without health benefits. But they figured they were young and healthy enough that they could skip the added expense of monthly insurance premiums, especially as they struggled to pay the rest of their bills.

Private care system leaves out too many Wouldn't it be amazing if instead of a doctor's office being "horrified if you don't have coverage," as Robert Blendon, a health policy professor at Harvard University, suggests it should be, people were horrified by a health care system in which millions of Americans aren't able to get the care they need ("Clinton, Obama clashing on health," Dec. 26)? Those who pay huge premiums for high-deductible insurance policies with large co-payments know that even having health insurance does not mean one can necessarily afford health care.

Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids? Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Mr. Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."

WASHINGTON -- The House approved sweeping health care legislation yesterday that would expand government benefits for children, the elderly and doctors while boosting tobacco taxes and cutting Medicare payments to private insurance companies. The largely party-line 225-204 vote followed hours of debate and parliamentary stalling tactics by Republicans. Cheers rang out in the House chamber when Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, announced that the bill had passed. The House bill would expand a popular health insurance program mainly for the children of the working poor.

BOSTON -- The nation's most comprehensive health reform effort became law yesterday as Gov. Mitt Romney signed a bill that will assure near-universal health insurance for Massachusetts residents. The measure, which resulted from a year of negotiations between the Republican governor and the overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature, was swiftly heralded as a national model. Insurance providers and health experts also took part in the deliberations. The law will require all state residents to purchase health insurance by July 2007.

The Maryland Health Insurance Plan is one of the state's greatest unknown success stories. It's a government-sponsored health plan for people who are too sick to qualify for private insurance. Here's how it works. Take a middle-age man with multiple sclerosis who can't get private insurance, for instance. He doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, and he can't afford the $1,300 monthly cost of medication on his own. Once accepted into the MHIP program, he pays a premium (as well as co-pays and deductibles)

IT'S ALL VERY well for presidential candidates to be squawking over potential terrorist attacks. But there is a real danger looming that isn't getting nearly as much attention, though its impact is likely to be far broader - the soaring cost of health care. The Bush administration deftly buried the news on Labor Day weekend that Medicare premiums will rise next year by 17 percent to $78.20 a month. That's a lot of money for retirees on fixed incomes - often elderly widows living exclusively on Social Security - and it doesn't even buy drugs.

FOR CENTURIES, the first rule of medicine has been to "do no harm," but Congress has just seriously harmed a program that has provided America's seniors with a lifeline for nearly 40 years. I have long supported providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit within Medicare, but the newly passed Medicare bill will cause more harm than good. Under the pretext of offering "choice" to seniors and encouraging free-market competition, this bill gives an unfair advantage to private health plans, an advantage that over time will weaken the guarantee of Medicare as we know it. This bill grants private insurers billions in federal subsidies to encourage them to re-enter the senior market.

A CAMPAIGN is about to get under way on Capitol Hill that could produce significant new tax savings for more than 10 million homeowners as early as this year. The objective is reversal of an IRS policy that has vexed real estate tax experts for years: the agency's steadfast refusal to allow deductions for mortgage insurance premium payments, whether for private insurance or government-backed guaranty programs. If successful, the coming campaign could open the door to millions of dollars of tax write-offs to homeowners and lower the cost of homeownership for large numbers of first-time buyers - the principal users of mortgage insurance programs.