Detroit Free Press; Affordable healthcare available for most of Michigan's uninsured children even without ObamaCare

ObamaCare had nothing to do with healthcare. It had everything to do with control. Every bleeding heart story liberals were selling to the gullible establishment media was either false or grossly exaggerated. Take uninsured children for instance, an ironic topic since liberal are rabid pro-aborts and have went so far as to try and legalize infanticide as long as the child is young enough (a recap on that later). Turns out, ObamaCare wasn't needed for them after all. From The Detroit Free Press: Editorial: The doctor is in -- affordable medical coverage is available for most of Michigan's uninsured children. Just a reminder again that this is written a board of pro-aborts:

Surely few people would dispute that all children should have regular checkups, vaccinations and easy access to a doctor when they get an earache. For most of them, that means having health insurance.

Now, there's a good chance more of them will get it.

Michigan estimates that roughly 127,000 children have no health insurance. Virtually all live in households whose income exceeds the federal poverty level but have little or nothing left after rudimentary expenditures for food, shelter and clothing.

Some uninsured children have parents who can afford visits to the doctor's office but lie awake at night wondering what would happen if their child gets appendicitis or breaks an arm. Others live in parental denial and may end up in the emergency room for sore throats -- or worse, sore throats and other common ailments that have grown far more serious from lack of early treatment.

The good news for 90% of lower-income parents is that their families probably qualify for one of Michigan's two health insurance programs directed solely toward children. The good news for health care providers -- and public health in general in Michigan -- is that a coalition of interested groups is putting new muscle into trying to find those families and get their children signed up. Except for the best-off families who choose to self-insure, there is no reason for any child in Michigan to go without coverage.

This isn't a fruit of the Obama administration's landmark health care reform, or even the transition to it. The programs in question have existed for years. The no-cost option, Healthy Kids, is an arm of Medicaid that covers children in households slightly above the poverty level; children qualify even if their parents don't. The low-cost option -- at $10 a month -- is MIChild, which covers children in households where incomes are 150% to 200% of the poverty level. That can be as high as $44,000 for a family of four.

No ObamaCare, no problem. But until SCOTUS rules the power grab unconstitutional, we have this: Survey: Employers consider ending health coverage

Nearly one of every 10 midsized or big employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers once federal insurance exchanges start in 2014, according to a new survey from a large benefits consultant.

Towers Watson also found in a survey completed last month that an additional 20 percent of the companies are unsure about what they will do.

It's even worse for small businesses. Now for the recap I promised above regarding Democrats and infanticide from a prior post (Ironic Detroit Free Press headline placement in regards to abortion and murder/infanticide): tearing a baby apart in his or her mother's womb and throwing him or her out wit the trash is AOK with the pro-aborts, but performing a 4th trimester abortion is not and will get you at least a dime in the can. It's the same thing! What's the difference? A few obvious questions here. 1) If she had aborted her baby a few hours before giving birth, would the the prosecutor still lament that she "do justice for this baby" or insist that the murdering abortionist be held accountable? 2) Why not? 3) Did you know that last year, a Texas Congresswoman introduced an infanticide bill that would define the murder of your own baby as not murder as long as the infant is less than 1 year old: Democrat Pushing Bill To Make Killing An Infant Not Equal To Murder? An example of Democrat/liberal compassion. 4) Did you know that the above scenario is legal in several states including Virginia? Really. If the mom had lived in Virginia, she wouldn't even be charged with anything as 4th trimester abortions are AOK and protected by Democrat ghouls:

Question 5) who are the Democrats that would support such barbarity? Answer to question 5: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, mmmm mmmmm mmmmm. As an Illinois Senator, he protected by his vote a procedure known "live birth abortion" where babies were born alive and left in soiled linen closets to die while crying and screaming. It is utter depravity and a crime against humanity. Yet 4 times Obama voted to protect 4th trimester abortion infanticide (more here and here):

²⁸Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³²Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1 (NIV)

Question 6) should the mom have claimed that the baby was smothered because she thought her child would have a bad quality of life and she was therefore performing a mercy on her baby? Recall that in the UK prominent author and advice columnist Virginia Ironside said that all "good mothers", would put a pillow over the head of her baby if it was suffering from a disability and would have a poor quality of life: Video: UK pundit advises the murder of all disabled children