Real World

I wanted to start a thread where we have an informed discussion about SCHIP, which is the program that helps poor families by providing health insurance to their children. This program was recently put up for expansion, which the president vetoed. Obviously, for some people, this has struck a nerve, whereas for others, it was a sensible move considering the details related to the expansion. What I want to do in this thread, is discuss those details, and the pros and cons involved. I would like to have an informed discourse here, and not some name calling, Save the Children! type rant. I've maintained that I, and I'm sure most others in here, would like to help the most needy of children with their health coverage. However, wanting to help them, and inturn using that guise to expand government beyond what's necessary, is that with which some of us are opposed to. Since SCHIP has become so topical, I've slowly tried to inform myself about it's details. It's a long bill, something like 465 pages, so there is alot to cover, and many angles to consider when you rely on articles to offer perspective. Anyhow, anyone want to discuss the specifics of the bill, where it went wrong, or what should have/be done to get it right?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

STFarmy

I think this is a great idea, as I don't know much about SCHIP myself. In general, I'm opposed to the expansion of most government programs of this nature. But, if there was some sort of structural flaw in the original that didn't allow the truly needy healthcare, I would support a bill to fix it. I think that we as a nation can afford to help the neediest, but as I understood this bill, it was an expansion beyond necessity. I will try to read up on it myself so I can be of more use in this thread than my "wow great point RW, yes you're so right" posts that I tend to do sometimes. Ugh I'm such an parrot sometimes.

scout

The problem I have with the veto is that once again, Bush vetoes a bill which helps Americans. Yes, I'm sure the bill is flawed and that it will benefit some Mexicans. Now, tell me that all the bills he passed while the Republicans were in control of congress didn't have any flaws and what bills did he pass that had a good impact on the middle class. I was involved with the school lunch program, which involved receiving subsidies from the government. There were no doubt people who flagrantly took advantage of this program which resulted in rants about free lunch. The bottom line was, the program did an enormous job of feeding kids that otherwise did not get sufficient meals. I'm thinking we are hearing the same kind of arguments with SCHIP.

Real World

Some relevent tidbits:

As originally crafted, SCHIP was created so that the federal government would largely fund state efforts to provide health insurance to children living in families who earn less than 200% of the federal poverty level.


according to StateMaster, as of Dec. 2004 California had enrolled just over 771,000 children in the program. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, in 2000 there were about 2.12 million children in California living in poverty.


The new census data show that many of the newly uninsured are working Americans from middle- and high-income families. Of the 2.2 million people who became uninsured in 2006, 1.4 million had a household income of $75,000 or higher. About 1.2 million of the newly uninsured worked full time.



Under the bill, eligibility for government coverage would be extended to families with incomes up to 400 percent above the federal poverty level (FPL)—$82,600 for a family of four—hardly considered low-income by any reasonable standard.[5] The House policy is transparently absurd: 89 percent of all children between 300 percent and 400 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; 77 percent of all children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; and 50 percent of all children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance.[6]



• While Arizona has now stopped doing so, it previously paid for 110,000 adults with SCHIP, 85,000 of whom were childless.
• Wisconsin spends 75 percent of its SCHIP money on adults, Minnesota, 61 percent. Adults remain eligible.


According to (3 yr average 2004-2006) Census figures, there are 77+ million children under the age of 19 in the US. 30 million live under 200% of the poverty level. Of those 30+ million, 5+ million are uninsured.


Last year, 11.7 percent of people younger than 18 lacked health insurance.


The Employee Benefit Research Institute, for example, said last year that immigration accounted for 86 percent of the growth in the uninsured between 1998 and 2003.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

I'm a believer in fiscal sanity, especially when it comes to all things government. I have no problem with social programs, and doing my part to ensure that the elderly, disabled, poor, and needy are helped in some way. My issue is the blank check mentality of "Save the Children!" type government. That providing 1 kid with a good lunch that needs it overrides the fact that 75 people are skimming off the program. Emotion and government have no business being included in the same sentence. Emotion is a religion of sorts, in that it's intentions are great, but it's logic doesn't always make sense.

Anyhow, the more I research this bill, the more sense it makes to veto it. The proposed expansion is yet another example of a good idea going the way of typical government. The programs original intention was to provide health insurance coverage to children in households who's income was at, or below 200% of the poverty line. Something in the vacinity of $40,000, since I belive the poverty line is somewhere near $20k +/-. Children living below the poverty line are automatically covered by medicaid. This program was deemed a successful one, but it didn't succeed in covering all of the eligable children. Most people here that and automatically assume (like I orginally did) that an expansion would mean a move to try to cover all of the children who are at, or below the 200% threshold. Well, guess what? It doesn't. The expansion, as goes most government programs, is massive, and overreaching, in the sense that it moves to cover children in families who are at, or below 400% of the poverty line, or $80,000+ dollars of annual income. Why? What's worse, is that the expansion would cover those who enroll, meaning that it's first come, first serve, and not priority oriented. So when the money dries up, you could still have more uninsured children at the originally set, and most dire level of 200% of poverty or less. This is madness. It just goes to show you how moronic people in government are. Why not expand it to simply cover more of the children who are at the 200% level? That would have made sense, but no, they have to go move it to cover children who are already insured at an 89% rate. This is a move to expand governments reach, and inch us closer to universal, government run insurance. Why the move away from the needy? This screams of a socialist program.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

fleabassist1

Sure, expand SCHIP - but don't cover children who already have private insurance and children who's family make over 80k a year.

__________________
GO PATRIOTS!!!!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holy Diver

I believe the 80k a year thing was a measure that NY reps wanted to get on the bill, but it didn't fly. I heard last night on MSNBC that it was more like 60k.

"Bush claims the program is a middle-class entitlement. He is under the false impression that families will cancel perfectly good insurance from work to go on the public dole. The president has obfuscated facts to prove his point. He said a family earning nearly $83,000 could qualify. That's true in New York, whose poverty cap was raised with permission of the Bush administration. And it's understandable considering the high cost of living there. A New York Times poll published Sunday shows to be considered rich in New York, a family of four must make at least $200,000 to $500,000 a year or more. In Illinois, a family income of $60,000 certainly doesn't guarantee the high life."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/comment...dit16a.article

We need for politicians to quit the talking points, over the last week or so I've seen the age of teh children go up from 22-26, and income from 80-83. I honestly don't know who to believe, and honestly dont care. This bill comes down to one issue for me: Making sure young people have healthcare, and incase of a n emergency, that family will not have to sell their future for something that is probably no fault of theirs.

Either way....75-85% of americans are FOR this and are willing to pay more taxes to provide heaathcare for children. Its only a matter of time before this successful plan becomes expanded. I place myself in the 75-80%.



PS - Props to Real World for opening a nice discussion/debate on this. There has been a lot of anger over this issue, and I think we as americans owe it to ourselves to look at this plan...passed by a republican congress in 97 I believe....from all angles.

wistahpatsfan

If only it were that simple. These politicians couldn't pour a glass of water without making it complicated. That's what happens when you get liars...er...I mean...lawyers dominating Congress.

Now why do you suppose a lawyer would give up his 7-figure salary for a 6- figure one? Follow the money.......

Real World

That's not entirely true HD, with respect to the polls and their support. As you all know, I'm not to keen on polls as I think they are always manipulated, and because their is a clear 30-40% retard factor in the American public. Anyhow, I hate to use NewsBusters, but they illustrate how loaded the CBS polls questions were (click here), and how the results changed when more information was given. USA Today:

Poll: Mixed feelings on kids' health care program

Majority put trust in Democrats but agree with Bush on eligibility limits

By Richard Wolf
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children's health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree with the president that government aid should be targeted to low-income families, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows.

Two days before the Democratic-controlled House attempts to override Bush's veto of a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the poll shows that opinions on the issue are mixed.

Fifty-two percent of respondents say they have more confidence in Democrats to deal with the issue, compared with 32% for Bush.

Slim majorities back two positions at the core of the president's opposition to the expansion:

•52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to such families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...poll16.art.htm




BTW HD, thanks for the props.

I more I research the issue, the more I feel that it's not expanding the SCHIP program that people are opposed to, it's how it's being expanded. I think a straight forward move to increase funding for those persons below the 200% poverty level would pass overwhelmingly, and is something I would support. I'm not opposed to social programs that help the needy, I'm opposed to the massive expanse of government that screams of socialism, and moves to subsidize the lives of people who simply don't need subsidation.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Holy Diver

I agree with that.