UPDATE (3/28/07): HB340 Passed on a vote of 101 to 63 (rollcall). This essentially means a few things:

1. PeachCare is more solvent
2. Enrollment is now limited to those making 200% of the federal poverty income as opposed to 235% (for a family of 4, the requirement is now income under $40k as opposed to $47k)
3. For everyone currently in the program, the new income requirement will be waived (i.e. this law does not affect you if you are already in the program)

Good news or bad news? I tend to be against government programs that simply use wealth transfer to make something free or significantly cheaper for a segment of the population. It essentially does nothing to solve the underlying problem, is only a temporary fix for those that truly are needy and eventually makes the underlying problem worse and creates a cycle of greater and greater needs and entitlement. Ultimately, this small change has the overall impact of helping to meet some short term solvency needs and makes it harder to get the entitlement. Is 200% better than 235%? Why not 300% or 150%? Hard to say. I say let's solve the real problem.

*******

And you thought I was done blogging !!

Well, I've been a voracious reader of blogs, but haven't felt like I was adding anything and it was just time consuming. Well I may have hit on a topic worth blogging about - for me anyway. The topic is still Politics and Policy, but now specific to Georgia Government. As the PTA treasurer for my childrens' school, I receive advocacy emails from time to time regarding this legislation or that. I don't take very well to a group I am afilliated with telling me what to support with only partial facts. I am especially appalled at being asked to support something if it has little to do with Education given that that is what PTA is supposed to be all about. I get a little suspicious you know.

So, on to the first piece of legislation: HR 340. First, I'm inserting the email I received:

Georgia PTA PeachCare Action Alert

Please take action to preserve healthcare coverage for more of Georgia's  children---Ask your Representative to vote "NO" on HR 340

Sick kids cannot learn, grow or prosper. HB 340 will reduce the PeachCare eligibility threshold from 235% to 200% of the federal poverty limit, preventing between 3,000 to 5,000 children from low income, working families from being covered per year. This bill also allows DHR to eliminate vision and dental options or charge additional premiums, erects new layers of bureaucracy for all potential enrollees, and maintains the current enrollment freeze instead of waiting to see how the federal government handles the S-CHIP reauthorization in September. Georgia already has the 6th highest number of uninsured children in the nation. HR 340 will only add to this problem, sending more kids to ERs instead of getting the preventative care that they need.

***********************************

First of all, this has little to do with education. It is tied to PTA by the words "Sick kids cannot learn, grow or prosper", but that alone doesn't really make it about education. In fact, by this reasoning, ALL entitlement programs are simply for the good of education and must be supported. In fact, you could link virtually every piece of legislation ever invented to education using this type of approach. But I digress...

Below is my "friendly" email response.

At the risk of potentially angering some folks, I am providing additional information on the attached email.

First, the email mistakenly calls this HR340 (HR stands for House Resolution) when it is in fact HB340 (House Bill).

Here is a link so that you may read the bill – the entire text is only about a page long. Also, it clearly indicates changes to the original PeachCare statute with underlined text.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb340.htm

For the record, I have not made up my mind as to whether or not I would support it. I have sent my Senator, David Shafer, and house rep, Tom Rice, an email asking for their input on this bill.

Couple of notes about the email:

1)       it is entirely accurate to say that the elgibility threshold will change from 235% to 200% (I don’t know where the figure of 3,000 to 5,000 children affected came from so I don’t dispute it). However, those families that are CURRENTLY in the program meeting the 235% threshold will NOT have their eligibility cancelled. I think that is a very important point in understanding the impact of the bill.

2)       The email states that “bill also allows DHR to eliminate vision and dental options or charge additional premiums” . This is possible I suppose, but reading the bill by itself makes it appear that vision and dental can be ADDED (offered as optional) for additional premiums. If the original bill mandates dental and vision, then this will would in fact validate the email statement. I have not reviewed the original statute.

3)       The email states “erects new layers of bureaucracy for all potential enrollees”. In my reading of the bill, this is based on the changes which will INCREASE the VERIFICATION of eligility with regards to income levels and U.S. citizenship status. Are we not verifying now? Perhaps that increase bureaucracy will actually save tax dollars by not providing for people that do not meet these valid eligibility requirements.

One other note I would keep in mind as I personally consider my support, or lack thereof, for this bill. At our recent PTA meeting we lamented the education budget cuts. I believe Julie also mentioned that the prison sytem is a big reason there might not be sufficient funds. Well, it’s not just prison systems that eat up our budget. Entitlements such as PeachCare, while necessary and valuable, eat up a big chunk of change, especially with rising health care costs. Since the gov’t is on a limited budget (thankfully since it's your money and mine), would $1 million be better spent on keeping PeachCare eligibility the same or putting it directly towards education? (I made up the cost – I have no idea what the true cost is).

Please don’t think that I am taking a stand on this either way. I DO SUPPORT PEACHCARE!! This bill is merely an amendment to PeachCare.

I have to know more facts before I feel strongly enough to call my representatives. Not to mention, it’s hard to be persuasive if you don’t know the facts.

******************************

The bottom line is that

1) the bill is not directly related to education and thus should not be advocated by the PTA
2) the original email is misleading in its attempt to create support for voting NO to HB340

The same PTA members that get hopping mad about "cutting" of school funding (it's not really a cut, but a decrease in growth rate) are jumping on the band wagon of huge entitlements. If you want to complain about education spending, then you can't complain about cuts in other areas!