Fearing that putting more money into state health care programs for children will make the idea of universal health care too palatable, our esteemed President has vowed to veto any substantial increase in federal funds for state child insurance programs.

No, that’s not the reason given. What’s stated is that increasing the budget for such programs will lead to increased taxes while reducing campaign contributions from the private insurance industry. Ack, no, that second part wasn’t in there, but that industry did get a nod even though it has done an incredibly poor job of covering uninsured children throughout its entire existence. Rest assured that they’ll get around to it… eventually… when they can figure out either how to make a profit from it or how to get enough substantial breaks from the government to cover the losses.

So why is this of any interest to me? I’m not poor. My family benefits from two incomes and fantastic insurance coverage through my employer. Well, it’s because those state health care programs work to my benefit for Gareth’s care. Were it not for state assistance, Gareth would likely not have the nursing coverage he needs to attend school (and, admittedly, to allow Brandy and I to sleep a few hours each night). He would not have access to his speech computer, mobility equipment, and life-enabling surgeries. Let’s not forget the maintenance equipment like suction pumps and canisters, syringes (3cc, 5cc, and 60cc), liquid diet ($300/month in PediaSure), traches, trache ties, mist tubing and masks, et cetera.

I guess you could say I’ve been spoiled by the great health programs available here in PA. If a lack of federal funding made them disappear, we would probably go bankrupt. As it is, we can live with a degree of comfort and spend our energy and money on making sure Gareth has the most fulfilling life possible.

I’m not usually a fan of “for the children” rhetoric, but in this case, I’m all for it.

Of course, we’re not out of the woods even if this program is expanded. One of the goals in drafting new legislation is to close loopholes that allow families above the poverty level to benefit from such services. Ours is exactly that. If the holes are closed too tightly without exclusions for disabled children, we’d be out of luck.