Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Interesting votes on SCHIP

I came across this blurb - I believe the original source was MSNBC - and wanted to share it with you:

"The clash over the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) is being fought largely between members of Congress from high-income states, such as Maryland, versus members from low-income states, such as South Dakota and Mississippi, which rank near the bottom in median household income, says MSNBC.

Consider:

* On the decisive Senate vote to push ahead with expansion of the S-CHIP program -- where both senators from a state voted for S-CHIP expansion -- they came from states with an average household income of nearly $50,000.

* But where both senators from a state voted against S-CHIP expansion, they came from states with an average household income of under $42,000, including the lowest-income states such as Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Mississippi."

Perhaps the senators actually realize, despite all the political rhetoric, that the planned expansion of SCHIP to the middle and upper classes is rather detrimental to those it's intended to help?

12 comments:

Lisa Renee said...

Perhaps the solution should be to have this based on a more state by state basis where the median income for that state is used as a determination as opposed to a blanket number. It seems that would solve part of the problem though I still take issue with the funding of this from an additional tax on cigarettes.

Maggie Thurber said...

Lisa - that's an interesting idea...

Another interesting idea was that the Feds would restrict the states ability to expand to higher incomes until 95% of the lower incomes were participating.

I liked this concept because it means that those whom it was intended to help will be getting the first dollars...and only after you've got near total participation could you offer it to anyone else...but then, I doubt there'd be much money left over...

Sadly, the states were all fighting this restriction - which didn't make sense to me...

Neighborhood Concerns said...

I caught this on NPR and the amount of mis-information, deliberate or accidental is amazing to me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685

Tim Higgins said...

Maggie,

Anything that slows the growth of this type of government program would be of benefit to the taxpayers, but I find it no surprise that the states are fighting the restrictions.

There are two places that no one should ever want to be: between a microphone and a politician (no offense to your prior positions intended), and between a state government and the federal feed trough.

Maggie Thurber said...

NC - there are many things in this bill that could be considered good. But the biggest problem is that the bill still allows for adults to be covered (under state rules and going against the concept of 'for the kids') and it doesn't have a steady source of funding because it relies upon increased sales of cigarettes/cigars while the government concurrently funds anti-smoking programs.

As for who is providing the insurance - I think it needs to be clarified that even under medicare/medicaid, the government contracts with private insurance firms to do the administration, etc. However, the issue isn't the entity providing the insurance - it's who's PAYING for it. And in the case of SCHIP, it's you and me - while we also pay for our own insurance.

Further, expanding the eligibility (which this does - even if not to the extent that NY wanted) encourages those with insurance to switch to the 'free' SCHIP program...and it could encourage employers who do provide coverage to drop it. This is not good.

But thanks for the link which spells out many of these things!

Frank said...

I have been doing some reading and listening about this subject. To be honest, I don't think it is something that we need. From my understanding of this issue, there is no solid way of funding of this program, the government does not the power to create a program like this (according to the Constitution) and while I would fall under this program, there are other alternatives to take care of this issue. Also, it would open a whole can of worms to the potential of socialized health care (which the government is not empowered to do either).
There are just too many things that can go wrong with this program (think about Social Security).

Neighborhood Concerns said...

Don't we all pay more in premiums for the under insured or un-insured, like me as I cannot afford it and am unemployed and if I get sick and need help I may have to go to the emergency room for health care.

"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."

The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request."

The problem is?

And yet we sink billions of dollars into a so called war on terror and we cannot find the funding for health care, somewhere other than the current funding source.

There is something wrong with the concept or spending billions on so called defense when working families cannot afford health insurance.

Wait for the compromise to hit the tables and then watch the SCHIP program in some form funded.

Maggie Thurber said...

First, military spending - even with the Iraq war - is a small part of the budget, especially when compared to the cost of entitlements. Additionally, military spending as a percentage of GDP is actually less now than it was when Clinton took office.

You make a fallacious argument (excluded middle) by implying funding for the war must compete with funding for SCHIP. (Sounds like you're parroting democrat talking points, NC ... and you're better than that.)

Further, I suggest you read this post that basically refutes most of the claims you're now making. Then let's talk...

yes, there will be compromise...but the solution to the problem of health insurance issues - and health care in general - isn't to increase government support of it or to increase the numbers of people reliant upon taxpayer funded programs. You should read what Whole Foods did - it's a much more effective way to control costs while still giving people the LIBERTY to be responsible for health decisions.

Maggie Thurber said...

testing comment moderation...

Darkseid said...

Glad to see the SCHIPwreck as Bush finally found his lost veto pen. However, illustrious Bela Pelosi has postponed the veto override vote for TWO WEEKS..while the ads with kids run 24/7, and the republicans are called baby-killers. She is confident and smug, and feels enough will be shamed into supporting it. Sine eight of the politicos who voted against it were cRATS, she may have a point. They only need about 20 votes or so. That makes me fearful.

Darkseid said...

By the way...I've joined the blogwagon. Still stumbling around in the dark, but hopefully, I'll get the hang of it.

http://onthedarkseid.blogspot.com/

Art A Layman said...

Oh but I had the wisdom of y'all. Especially the command of the Constitution so clearly expounded on here.

Good points by some. You need to look at costs of living in various areas to determine vaibility of income cutoffs. New York City ain't Toledo folks. Adult coverage is phased out in current bill.

Maggie the Iraq war spending is off budget. Medicare claims processing is contracted out. The rest of Medicare administration is handle by the government and it is considered far superior to the administration of private insurance companies.

Social Security System is not poorly managed. The problem is the government tends to view its receipts as general fund. System works quite well, long term funding is the problem when all you babyboomers start collecting.

Try to think in terms of walking in others shoes folks.

Google Analytics Alternative