The Conservatives' child benefit plans sent precisely the wrong signal

As they staggered from the train wreck that was the child benefit fiasco last week, Tory spokesmen were handed a new message to enunciate. Stumbling glassy-eyed around the receptions in Birmingham, they recited pretty much word-for-word the new official defence: this measure was admittedly not much of a step towards dismantling the deficit (in the weird times in which we live, a saving of a billion pounds is relative peanuts) but it was intended as a “signal” that the well-off were going to have to bear their share of the burden.

Well, the signal it was supposed to send got blown away in about 20 minutes. In the blizzard of condemnation which made clear that this testament to “fairness” was quite grotesquely unfair to traditional families with a single earner, and to couples who had made the mistake of actually marrying (cohabiting parents will be unaffected, since there is no way of proving that they are connected to one another), an even more unfortunate signal escaped unnoticed.

The Conservatives have been making a real effort over the past year to take back the word “fair” from the Left. Labour has always used the word as synonymous with “equal”: if wealth or achievement was not evenly distributed, then that fact in itself meant that we lived in an unfair society and that this injustice needed to be rectified by government intervention. Many of the speeches at the Conservative Party conference this year (including David Cameron’s) made the case quite explicitly that the proper meaning of the word “fair” involved just rewards for effort and virtuous behaviour, rather than everybody ending up with roughly the same outcome, however much or little they had contributed.

This is, as I am getting tired of saying, what most people believe: that getting something for nothing, while other people are working hard for what they have, is not fair at all. Of course, there must be compassion and protection for those who are truly the victims of disadvantage. But generally speaking, a fair society is one in which you get out of life pretty much what you put in. This is perhaps the single most important argument for the Tories to win if they are to have a hope of changing the country in the way that they must.

But what exactly was the concept of fairness that was being invoked in the farrago over middle-class child benefit? That the affluent (on £44,000 a year – cue hollow laughter from the south-east of England) must expect to lose their benefit payments just as the poor will lose theirs: that if the welfare-dependent classes are to have fewer state handouts, then the prosperous will have to take their share of the cuts, too – because “we are all in this together”.

Health Reform to Cover Most Young Adults by 2014

More than 12 million of the nation's 15 million uninsured young adults ages 19 to 29 may be able to get health insurance in 2014 as a result of the healthcare reform law, according to a report released Friday by the Commonwealth Fund.

"By providing multiple insurance options for young adults at key life transition points, including graduation from high school and college, the law will significantly reduce both the short- and long-term gaps in health insurance that have historically plagued this age group at all income levels," wrote Sara Collins and Jennifer Nicholson, both of the Commonwealth Fund.

The number of uninsured young adults rose from 13.7 million in 2008 to 14.8 million in 2009. In addition, 5 million insured 20-somethings have very high out-of-pocket costs, leaving them effectively underinsured, the authors noted.

Children-Only Health Insurance Going Away

DENVER -- Thousands of Colorado children will soon have fewer options for health insurance. And parents who may not be able to afford it for themselves, but want it for their children won't have that option.

Ironically the change is as a result of the health care reform act.

7NEWS learned several large insurance companies are no longer offering child-only health policies.

Child-only policies are typically obtained by families because sometimes it's cheaper than a family health plan through an employer. But most often parents who cannot afford health insurance for themselves purchase a child-only policy to make sure their kids are insured even if they are not.

According to Dr. Larry Wolk, with Rocky Mountain Youth Clinics, child-only policies are for parents who may make too much money for Medicaid, but not enough to afford health insurance.

Rocky Mountain Youth Clinics has three clinics in the metro area -- Thornton, Denver and Aurora.

"We see kids whether they have insurance or not," said Wolk.

On Thursday Brandee Lucero took her 4-month-old daughter, Antoinette Daniels, to Rocky Mountain Youth Clinic in Thornton for her check-up.

"I got blessed," said Lucero. "(Antoinette) is very healthy."

Lucero said she is double blessed because her daughter qualifies for Medicaid.

"It is very relieving knowing she is getting it because I think of people that cannot get on it and they don't have anything," said Lucero.

Luckily, even people without insurance have safety-net clinics and hospitals across the metro area -- Rocky Mountain Youth Clinics is one of them.

But Lucero worries that once she gets a job she may not have health insurance for Antoinette because she may make too much money to qualify for a public program such as Medicaid or CHP Plus and the company she works for may not offer insurance or a plan she can afford.

In the past, families in such predicaments used to be able to purchase child-only policies. However, because of the Affordable Care Act those options are disappearing in Colorado.

The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies which offer child-only policies to take all kids, even those with preexisting conditions.