The SCHIP Debate
By Jonathan Rick Posted in Policy — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Legislation: H.R. 3162, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007.
Background: Established in 1997, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, pronounced "s-chip") is a partnership between the states and federal government to insure poor children. The program is up for reauthorization by September 30, but big-government liberals want not just to renew it, but also to expand it.
The problem is, the expansion contradicts SCHIP’s original, limited intent.
First, it redefines eligibility by recognizing people up to 21 as “children.”
Second, it extends coverage to a family of four with an income of $82,600—hardly a “low-income” group.
Third, by removing the requirement for reauthorization, it transforms SCHIP from its current block grant status into a permanent entitlement, like Medicaid, which is automatically funded every year, regardless of congressional approval.
Read on . . .
Thus, what’s being proposed is not reauthorization but repudiation. SCHIP was intended to insure kids. Now it’s being exploited to encompass adults and even wealthy families. Instead of distorting language and creating new entitlement programs, we should reaffirm sensible age, income and reauthorization parameters.
Furthermore, the proposed expansion crowds out private insurers in favor of government health care. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill will cause nearly two million people to abandon market-based medicine for Washington-based mandates.
In order to avoid caricature, this debate is not about whether to insure poor children. This debate is about how to insure them: not via welfare-style coverage, but via market forces that have facilitated the world’s most advanced drugs and cures.
Finally, at a time of ballooning deficits, expanding SCHIP makes a mockery of fiscal responsibility. According to CBO estimates, the bill will cost nearly $60 billion over 10 years, which is 10 times President Bush’s budget request.
Moreover, in order to finance all this, smokers would be hit with an extra half dollar in taxes for every pack of cigarettes they buy. Such a sin tax is inequitable and regressive.
Democrats are picking up where Hillary Clinton left off 14 years ago. Their Hillary Care-lite legislation deserves the same fate as hers: ignominious defeat.
Cross-posted at No Straw Men.
$82,600 come from?if both parents works full time(40 hours a week) that averages to $19.85 an hour.now in most states $19.85 is a very good wage.
SCHIP is just another to make us into more of a nanny state.
"A free people ought to be armed" - George Washington
[*Retread. Disregard. - Moe Lane]
Age eligibility remain the same as they have been.
The other bill, which I believe was sponsored by Hillary Clinton, does increase the age eligibility, but this bill is not likely to pass the Senate.
I think you should have noted this important distinction.
what the priorities of the family were that they couldn't afford to insure their kids.
I admit I don't have huge issues with this program, as originally written. I sort of don't have problems with an expansion to age 21, if it comes with similar restrictions like other family healthcare plans that the 21 year old be a full time student.
I have issues though with making it a permanent entitlement rather than bringing the program up for reauthorization every X number of years.
But I do think this is a way to broaden state involvement in healthcare, and I think broadening the amount of income to qualify for the program may encourage some families to take a pass on paying for employer provided insurance in favor of the taxpayer footing the bill. I can understand a person working at a low skill job for $8 an hour not being able to afford a $500 a month family insurance coverage-but I am not seeing how a person whose salary is 82,000 a year can't afford it if they work for a company that provides benefits or shoot even if they are self employed.