Noted.

Noted.

Sasha Chavkin on more Shell games in Nigeria; David L. Kirpon how healthcare reform will affect coverage for kids

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

MORE SHELL GAMES?

In last week’s issue of The Nation, my story “Shell Games in Nigeria” examined whether the oil giant was complying with environmental rules in the Niger Delta region. Now it seems that the company may simply be walking off the field. The British Sunday Times reported on December 20 that Shell is seeking to sell off up to $5 billion of its oilfields there. The move would represent a major shift by Shell, which for decades has been Nigeria’s biggest foreign oil producer, toward reducing its presence in the area, following years of costly attacks by militants, disputes with the Nigerian government and harsh scrutiny of its environmental and human rights records.

One of the leading candidates to buy the fields is the Chinese state-owned oil group

Sinopec

. If the purchase goes through, says

Michael Watts

, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, local communities that have long struggled with Shell should not hold their breath for any improvements.

“The track records of these Chinese companies are not good in other places in Africa,” says Watts. “Are they worse than Shell? That’s a hard question to answer.” For the long-suffering residents of the Delta, the debate may begin all too soon.   SASHA CHAVKIN

WOMEN AND CHILDREN LAST:

Amid the tumult over abortion funding and the public option, almost no one has noticed that children could wind up the biggest losers after healthcare is “reformed.” Less than a year ago, Congress expanded the

Children’s Health Insurance Program

(CHIP) to cover virtually all of the 8.1 million uninsured kids. For kids’ advocates it was a red-letter day, but the legislation passed by the House repeals CHIP outright. Instead, most youngsters would have to sign up for private plans in the newly created exchanges, which provide subsidized coverage for families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

House leaders argue that it makes sense to enroll kids and parents under the same scheme. But the private plans will cost families a lot more; as much as 1,650 percent more out of pocket for those earning 225 percent above the poverty line, according to an actuarial study, while also offering less coverage. The

Congressional Budget Office

concludes that because of the high cost of insurance, shifting kids off CHIP means that millions of youngsters will lose health insurance.

As always, children from poor and working-class families are politically powerless. Although polls suggest that making sure all children have coverage is second only to cost control as a health reform priority and although more than 600 organizations pleaded with Congress to keep CHIP intact, youngsters’ needs went virtually undiscussed in the House.

The Senate version got this issue right by keeping CHIP intact through 2015. It also includes decent dental care and pediatric benefits that many policies don’t cover, and it guarantees coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions. The House must reverse course when it takes up the issue. CHIP is the public option for millions of kids, and health reform can’t mean turning back the clock on meeting their needs.   DAVID L. KIRP

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x