• TinSoldier said on Oct 20, 2007....

  Interesting, I'll respond as I read and hopefully post more later.
  
  You know that this feels like homework, right?
  
  The linked article stated:
  
  "The most recent Census data shows that there were
  approximately 9.4 million children without health insurance in
  2006 (a 710,000 increase over 2005)."
  
  
  (BTW, that's 7.6%)
  
  And then figure 2 showed that over two-thirds of them were eligible for existing programs like SCHIP and Medicaid! So why aren't they insured?
  
  "Approximately two-thirds of
  uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, but
  not enrolled."
  
  
  Ooh, ooh! Good point (because I agree with it, not because of any critical thinking on my part):
  
  "Private coverage has become increasingly unaffordable for
  low and moderate income families. Family premiums for
  employer-based health insurance coverage increased by 78
  percent from 2001 to 2007 while worker wages increased by
  only 19 percent. An average premium for a family is now
  over $12,000 and if purchased directly would consume over
  a quarter of income for a family of four at 200 percent of the
  poverty level. (Figure 3) The increase in the cost of health
  insurance premiums falls heaviest on low and middle income
  families."
  
  
  Which says to me that throwing more federal money at the problem is a mistake. The solution needed is to find some way to control costs. Healthcare is not a fossil fuel -- it's not something that will eventually run out if we use it all up. Figure 3 is quite illuminating actually. To me it shows the effects of a broken system.
  
  
  "Congress passed and the President vetoed CHIPRA, bipartisan
  legislation that would cover 3.8 million children who
  otherwise would be uninsured and increase spending for
  coverage by about $35 billion over the next five years. This
  bill resembles the Senate SCHIP reauthorization bill that was
  not as broad as the House version which would have
  increased funding for children’s coverage by nearly $50
  billion reaching 5 million uninsured children. The President’s
  SCHIP proposal would only increase funding by $5 billion
  over the next five years, a level that the CBO says is not
  adequate to maintain coverage for current SCHIP enrollees"
  
  
  See, there should be some sort of compromise between $50B and $35B and $5B. Just because I, personally, am against a large increase in eligibility in the program doesn't mean that I think that a $5B increase is sufficient to keep the popular program running.
  
  Okay, finished. That was a very interesting paper and thanks for posting a link to it.
  
  I had seen some others while I was discussing the subject but I'm not sure whether I can find them again. I'll see what I can do, but no promises.
  
  

• bloc said on Oct 20, 2007....

  @tin
  how should we reduce the costs? Oh, I know, government intervention. That's right, markets are not suited for healthcare.

• TinSoldier said on Oct 21, 2007....

  bloc -- well, yeah. You've got it exactly right. Government intervention.
  
  I see healthcare as a public good much like education and police and fire. But I don't see anyone else proposing the same thing -- too many people calling it a "basic human right" which is more divisive than anything. Too many people who want to divert government money to existing private structures which have already proven themselves unworthy or unwilling to protect the public health.
  
  And in each of those other public goods (fire, police, education), the private sector has a place but the public sector still owns them. As it should be.
  
  So yeah, government intervention. At the local and state level, not the federal level. Outside of the FDA and CDC that is.
  
  Not the federal government continually increasing payments to the parties who benefit from the status quo ante regarding employer-subsidized health care and HMOs and PPOs and what not. Nor employers continuing to do so.
  

• lioneljay said on Oct 21, 2007....

  TS, it seems clear that the problem is that health care simply costs too damn much for people who work but make only a little more than the federal poverty thresholds. The costs are continuing to spiral upwards with little or no pressure or resistance.
  
  So where might that pressure or resistance come from? I'm not sure what the best answer is.
  
  However, right now there are several million children in the U.S. who are not covered by health insurance. We have a bill in front of Congress that would extend some care to some of these children. The bill calls for funding these children's care for the next five years.
  
  Do any of us foresee a drastic change for the better in healthcare costs and availability within the next five years? Even if we elect a Democrat to the White House and strengthen the Democratic majorities in Congress, it's likely to be a multi-year project to reform our national health care system, such as it is.
  
  So, what's wrong with committing right now to doing both? The plan is to fund this SCHIP expansion with new taxes, mostly on tobacco, so it doesn't have an impact on the federal budget. AT THE SAME TIME, let's commit to a project to make healthcare affordable FOR ALL AMERICANS by the time the current SCHIP renewal runs out.
  

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 21, 2007....

  LJ....I think one of American's biggest problems is our attitude to let our emotions react to the Head lines. Everyone throwing around these figures are quit content to except this as the reason for the shape american families are in as far as their lack of having a health insurance plan. The Cost is too much for a family of four at twice the level of poverty! I think an independent study should be done on the lower middle class to upper middle class. One basic question that should be asked is: "How much does your family spend annually on Recreational equiptment?" I think we are becoming a society of people that we see something that will make us feel good...ie-(speed boat, Jet Ski, RV & on & on), then we will worry about the Mundane things later!! It's even better if we can get someone else to pay for the mundane things for us. BST  

• lioneljay said on Oct 21, 2007....

  BST, please read your recent comment a little more critically. Essentially what you're doing here is raising the old "welfare mothers in Cadillacs" argument.
  
  Here are a couple of numbers for you. My family does not qualify for SCHIP by any means, but a quick review of our budget says that we spend roughly 6 times more on healthcare than we do on all recreational activities and equipment (of which we have bought only some running shoes, a couple sets of golf clubs, and three bicycles in the last two years). That includes a family membership at a local fitness center. Plus, our healthcare costs are subsidized by my wife's employer.
  
  Now, without employer assistance, our monthly healthcare bill would be about $1,000. And that's in a group plan. If we were to try to buy the same coverage outside of a group, it would easily be half again as costly. Now apply those numbers to a total annual income of $45,000. I'm sorry, but folks making less than $4000 per month (gross, not net) are not out buying $5000 jet skis. Sorry, but that argument just doesn't pass muster.
  
  But, those folks making $45,000 (and let's keep in mind that this is the upper limit for SCHIP eligibility and not the norm) are definitely having to choose between spending what's left after food and shelter expenses (which in our area would probably hit somewhere around $2500 per month even in a rental property) on healthcare and other essentials like education expenses, clothing for the children, and transportation.
  

• bewaresmoothtalkers said on Oct 21, 2007....

  LJ....Somewhere, your figures & what I heard was to be the new cap is a little different. I heard it was twice the poverty level or $63,000. I take my hat off to you & your family. I just wonder where all the families are coming from that are filling up all the amusement parks, RV parks & the lakes. Someone must be buying all those RVs, Jet Skis, boats, snow packages, ect..ect..ect. I don't think only the rich are buying this stuff. There is many other markets out there in America that is making big profits off of the Recreation demand & I think even you would have to admit, it's not only the rich spending alot of their money on the Non-esential things. Does anyone bother to poll these people that already quailify for the Schipa's programs as to how much do they spend annually on lottery tickets or any other source of gambling. I'm not saying these people don't deserve to have health care but I think before we just throw more money at a problem, lets make sure the recipients aren't just blowing their own money. It's not the kids fault for not having health insurance but we should make sure the parents aren't getting a free ride because of stupid decisions they make.  BST

• bloc said on Oct 21, 2007....

  @bst
  your argument is ... shaky to say the least. The idea that you see people doing recreation is some kind of assessment of the affordability of healthcare is simple not a real argument. 
  
  
  Also, I'm certain that wherever you heard your figures was intentionally trying to mislead you. 

• lioneljay said on Oct 21, 2007....

  BST, here's the deal. The income level for SCHIP qualification is set by the individual states and they are required by law to establish the qualification level as a multiple of the federal poverty threshold for a family of four. Presently that federal number is about $22,000 but each state is allowed to set its own maximum in order to take into account variations in local costs. It costs a lot more to live in New Jersey or New York, for example, than it does in Alabama or South Dakota so those states are likely to have a higher multiple.
  
  I don't know for sure where the $63,000 figure that you quoted came from, but some states are allowed to set their threshold as high as 2.5 times the federal poverty number - and that would be somewhere near your number. But, and here's the thing, the limits are set by the states and not by the federal government. It's your governor and legislature that set the limits.
  
  As for who's buying all the jet skis and so on that you're seeing, I don't know. However, I do know that there are a ton of people in this country of reasonably good means who are also almost buried in credit card or home equity loan debt, which is often taken on in order to expand their lifestyle. Whether or not these folks are making good choices, I don't know. And if some of the people you see are from the income levels that might qualify for SCHIP, I don't know.
  
  But here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned: why would any American think that it's right that all Americans don't have decent health coverage? Why is it that some people think that only the wealthy should have good health care? Why is it that whenever we get into a discussion of funding health care for the poor and the working poor the knee-jerk reaction is to accuse those people of not deserving the help?
  
  Is there something inherent in being in the working poor class that makes one a less moral person than someone who makes more money? I doubt it, and yet every time I see a discussion of health care help for the working poor the first reaction is against it seems to be that the working poor just don't deserve the help - as if they are somehow lesser people because they have to work two or three retail jobs to make a living and none of their jobs provide healthcare benefits?
  

• reckoner said on Oct 21, 2007....

  American should aspire to be a land of opportunity for all, not the lucky and those born into wealth. The root of opportunity is childhood and we should enable all children to reach for the American dream. Why should they, through not fault of their own, be punished if their parents live above their means? 
  
  
  Rugged individualism is only half the story. Our collective boat rises and sinks together separate from our relative positions on the boat. Taking care of children is not only the right thing to do, it will improve all our lives.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 22, 2007....

  don't mind me, just tagging this for future reference.
  
  ed

Comment on "SCHIP - Just the facts"

Currently tagged	SCHIP politics Human Nature healthcare (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously