Welcome to PatsFans.com

SCHIP & it's expansion

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Oct 19, 2007.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    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?
     
  2. STFarmy

    STFarmy In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2007
  3. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,717
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    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.
     
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    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.
     
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    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.
     
  6. fleabassist1

    fleabassist1 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,104
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

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

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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/commentary/604838,CST-EDT-edit16a.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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2007
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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.......:mad:
     
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2


    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/news/20071016/a_chippoll16.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.
     
  10. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    I agree with that.
     
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,287
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +519 / 14 / -28

    Here is what I do not understand, that if a child who is in an accident and that child needs extensive care and that child does not have health insurance, who will pay for it?

    Right now a hospital cannot turn someone away because of inability to pay, the Hill Burton Act dictates this.. so somehow they have to absorb it, most families do not have the means to pay it back.

    If there was some type of insurance, SCHIP, then the child would still get medical attention and the gov't would reimburse the hospital instead of them having to absorb and passing on the cost to others.

    Call me nuts, but the child who has this serious accident will get medical attention, the issue is payment either the hospital absorbs it and parents pay back a minimal amount or we have an insurance system.

    I tend to oversimplify, but this works for me.. I do not want to get into the arena of illegals, but there are a lot of kids who get hurt or have medical emergencies who will need very expensive care. This is not so much a giveaway, but an effort to cover those in the gap who do not have medical care and who need it in an emergency.
     
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,326
    Likes Received:
    254
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -2

    Yes, from what I've read, that is exactly what SCHIP is desgined to do. Any child under the poverty line is automatically covered by medicaid. SCHIP is a supplemental program designed to help uninsured kids from poor families. Obviously, common sense tells us all that being over the poverty line doesn't mean you're not poor. So SCHIP was originally set up to help insure those kids below 200% of poverty, or $40,000 household income. Everyone liked the program because it helped people who truly needed it. The problem is with who some people want to allow coverage to now. I can't understand why we would expand the qualification to cover kids who are currently insured, when we haven't covered all of those who are under 200%. That makes little sense to me.
     
  13. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,553
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    I'm still a little iffy on the details, but not really committed to support or opposition either way all that strongly.

    That said, I love YOUTUBE . Come on, its for the kids :singing:
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2007
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,644
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +812 / 2 / -9

    Remember,
    If we have a program like this it will be run by the same people who gave you Free Condoms, Masturbation Classes, The Walter Reed Hospital Crap and FEMA.
    :bricks:
     
  15. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,411
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +351 / 15 / -11

    Wall Street has done at least as bad a job managing its finances as the government has. Why in the world would anyone want to trust private industry with something so precious as the health care of children? Besides, we have the most expensive health care in the world, and it's ranked 37th in the world. At least government is transparent, but conservatives seem to be fooled by corporations who are allowed to be far more secretive than government. If private enterprise wants to fill a public role, then their records and processes should be as transparent as those of government.
     
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    What percentage of kids have significant money spent on health care ? Sure the occasional broken leg but other than that and the unfortunate catastrophic rarities, there is no expense. My kids are 9 & 11 and I bet my insurance has paid less than $1K total between them their whole lives. A few shots, a few anti-biotics, a few check ups. Add in dental and I've paid a few hundred more. There is not much expense for kids' health care - kids are healthy. It takes a while for us to eat and drink ourselves into heart attacks. I'm sure they'll be covering Ritalin and other mind numbing drugs, though; that's where the money for kids' health care comes in.
     
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,411
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +351 / 15 / -11

    Single payer health care would greatly reduce the cost of health care. Imagine 250 million people negotiating with insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies. Imagine the kind of leverage and economies of scale that would provide.

    I bet we're pretty much in agreement on the over prescription of drugs to kids, but I do think drugs are cheaper than therapy, and that's why they're used.
     
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,739
    Likes Received:
    235
    Ratings:
    +587 / 14 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Mind numbing drugs are needed for a FEW kids but I have little interest in some big program to start dishing them out for free. Even aside from the cost it would do more harm than good. Kids need shots, the occasional anti biotic and the very occasional catastrophic issue like a broken leg. If there were some tiny minimalistic program for the poor, fine, but they want to make some big huge thing when it's not needed. Honestly, I think the last time my kids saw their doctor was for their pre-K shots and they're almost done with 3rd and 5th grade now. Kids are healthy, we don't need so treat them like retirees.
     
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,411
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +351 / 15 / -11

    I think the main issue is for those kids who have serious disorders or illnesses, such as leukemia or autism. I think the reason child healthcare gets approved is for the reasons you're saying -- relative to the costs of healthcare for adults, it's inexpensive.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>