May state legislative applications limit an Article V convention? Subject, yes; specific language, probably not
- September 12, 2013
If the goal is more government involvement, and one implicitly assumes that poor families cannot raise children properly, what better way to foster more government involvement than to produce and harp on data showing that child poverty is increasing? Continue reading
READ MOREIf the goal is more government involvement, and one implicitly assumes that poor families cannot raise children properly, what better way to foster more government involvement than to produce and harp on data showing that child poverty is increasing? Continue reading
READ MOREMedicaid notoriously underpays doctors, so Medicaid patients have trouble accessing them. When Medicaid eligibility expands, many newly eligible people drop “private” health plans to enroll. Continue reading
READ MOREPublished in the Boulder Daily Camera: Maintaining current Child Health Plan fees would not only be an injustice to taxpayers, but also an insult to eligible parents. The fees imply that parents value enjoying life’s amenities more than their own children’s health.
READ MOREGov. John Hickenlooper was wrong to veto Senate Bill 213, which would have increased Child Health Plan Plus premiums for families earning more than twice the federal poverty level. What’s unfair is that Colorado compels taxpayers to fund a program that allows eligible parents to value satisfying bodily appetites more than their children’s healt
READ MOREIf the state must compel taxpayers to fund CHP+, Senate Bill 213 would increase enrollment fees so eligible parents can more sensibly weigh the costs of their kids’ health care against the costs of booze, tobacco, sweets and movies.
READ MORE