Helena Hotflash!
from the
Montana Women’s Lobby
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
Business and Professional Women (BPW)
One of the top issues this session is convincing lawmakers to follow the will of 70% of Montana voters, and fully fund Healthy Montana Kids providing 30,000 more children with health insurance.
Healthy Montana Kids Plan will be a one stop shop for Medicaid and CHIP. Families who earn up to 185% of poverty ($32,560/yr for family of 3), would be covered by Medicaid. CHIP eligibility would increase to 250% of poverty or ($44,000/yr for a family of 3).
On Friday night, Senate Finance and Claims Committee lowered income eligibility from 250% to 200% of poverty, effectively removing 15,000 children.
The money needed for the first year has already been collected from a health insurance premium tax and is in a special revenue account. The committee diverted this money back to the general fund, removing our ability to pay for the program.
There will be an amendment on the Senate floor on Wednesday to put the money back.
“The safety net is being ripped apart at the same time more people are losing their jobs and will need that safety net to be there, now, more than ever. We’re not talking about a few people falling through cracks, we’re talking about whole neighborhoods falling through gaping holes.” Sen Christine Kaufmann (D-Helena).
ACTION NEEDED: Please contact your Senator today and urge her or him to support fully funding Healthy Montana Kids. Put the money back!
TALKING POINTS:
* Every dollar spend on Healthy Montana Kids will bring in $3.50-$4.00 in federal matching funds, amounting to about 70 million dollars.
* Follow the will of your constituents who voted for full funding.
* Uninsured children are less likely to get medical care when they are sick or injured.
* Early care for an illness is less expensive than waiting for an emergency room crisis.
* Tell a personal story about a difference CHIP has made in your family
I voted for the referendum, but with reservations. The qualifying threshold was too high, the state control too limited, and the reliance on federal funding too great. But I had to vote yes or no, and in a relatively successful economy, providing coverage to children who needed it narrowly edged ahead. (The full-page glossy “thank you” mailings, paid for in part by insurance and pharmaceutical companies, didn’t do much to allay my concerns.)
Were I to vote today, I would vote no, without hesitation. My concern for children without coverage is no less, but my tolerance for bad legislation is much lower.