Tuesday, April 03, 2007

HB 109 Passes - Kids Get CHIP

It took awhile and a second reading, but Sylvester Turner’s HB 109 which would restore health insurance to children of the poor passed by 126 to 16, Craddick not voting.

As written in the El Paso Times:

“The bill, which passed with a vote of 126-16, would reduce restrictions on Children’s Health Insurance Program enrollment and allow more than 100,000 additional Texas children in the program, according to a legislative analysis. It would undo some changes legislators, trying to save money because of a nearly $10 billion shortfall, made to the Childrens Health Insurance Program in 2003.”

I didn’t see it but I heard the amendment war was strident, with 28 amendments put forth. Of the 28 only 6 were adopted. Amendments by Sylvester Turner and Yvonne Davis were procedural and corrected wording. Ones by Dan Flynn, Patrick Rose made sure there was sufficient wording to keep aliens from being covered by CHIP. Gattis and Corte tried to amend by including wording that would require people in the program to reapply for eligibility every 6 months rather than every 12. That didn’t work and from that point it looked like passage was going to happen. Trey Martinez Fischer’s amendment to ensure that the information provided by section 2 of the bill be available in Spanish and English was passed, and finally Larry Taylor to strip the 90-day waiting period for a newborn under 90 days old.

They say that most of the children that lost their coverage in 2003 will regain their eligibility. Not as many as they wanted, but 100,000 children will get their health benefits restored.

The 16 Nay votes were from the following:

Leo Berman, Joe Crabb, Robert Eissler, Dan Flynn, Linda Harper-Brown, Charlie Howard, Carl Isett, Jodie Laubenberg, Nathan Macias, Sid Miller, Tan Parker, Ken Paxton, John Phillips, Debbie Riddle, Robert Talton and Larry Taylor.

Was this a vote based on religious values? You can bet. Who on God’s Earth would be against children’s health? Jesus loves little children.

Sixteen Republicans in safe districts, that’s who. Being from a safe Republican district allows you to do things that Jesus would not approve.

But Satan most certainly would.


Van said...

Yes, it would be an educational experience to hear from my Representative,Charlie Howard, as to the real reason(s) he voted against this. I wouldn't trust that we'd get a straight answer, but it sure would be nice to know.

If the Senate and our squamate governor follows the House,
it would be good to have emergency rooms cleared of non-emergency cases that could have been seen properly in clinics or doctors' offices. Not only would hospitals not be losing money, but acutely ill ER patients would have the staff to see them in a timely manner.

More children could learn as students who are not well, do not function well in classrooms. Bless Larry Taylor's heart for being concerned about a baby's second-most fragile time period of her health. Gosh, this may bring Texas in to the 20th century.

Anonymous said...

Rather than assume you know why someone voted no on this bill, why don't you actually ask?

Frankly, from what I've seen, the no vote was the right vote. There's one provision that was included in this bill that likely caused most of the 16 no votes: The provision to switch back to a 12 month enrollment period.

My wife works in the healthcare industry and she is appalled at the bill that's been approved. Before the 2003 reforms, there were many parents who clearly could have afforded better care for their kids who were able to keep them on CHIPS because the state had a 12 month enrollment period. The problem dropped significantly when it was shifted to a 6 month enrollment.

Here's hoping this thing is vetoed or gets the changes that are needed in the Senate.

Hal said...

Oh, yeah, that's right. It was bad, bad, bad to put 100,000 kids with no health insurance back on the rolls.

We all know that "these people" are a bunch of goldbricking sleazebags.

I doubt that your wife, who is "in the healthcare industry" is a doctor or a nurse or a technician or anyone else that truly cares about the health of children of the poor. The wife wouldn't be in the health insurance industry, would she? The industry that stands the most to lose in all of this?

Jesus won yesterday. Beelzebub took his licks, but I suspect he'll be back. He's still got 16 disciples in the Texas legislature.