You’ve heard the debate about SCHIP. The Dems want to take a program originally intended to subsidize health care for legitimately poor kids (originally passed by Republicans, if I recall correctly) and expand it to cover children whose families could not pass (or flunk) any legitimate means test for the subsidy under current law. In other words, they want to do what they always do with entitlements – expand them far beyond their original intent, to addict more of our society to government assistance of one kind or another. The Republicans, true to principle, have fought back against the creeping socialization of healthcare smarting after November and leery about their prospects next year, have been acquiescing in depressing numbers. The President, fortunately, has pushed back by vetoing the bill. Most Americans support the President on this veto.
Which is, I suspect, why Congressman Walz is standing to post in the spin machine:
SCHIP was created 10 years ago to help provide health care for children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The program is economical — it needs less than $3.50 a day to cover a child — and cost-effective, because children who have access to routine preventive care from a family doctor don’t have to rely on emergency rooms for their medical care.
That is, of course, the boilerplate about the program – boilerplate that got it passed in a Republican Congress. I have nothing to add that better commentators haven’t already hammered on…
…except this next bit.
I believe these concerns, such as those expressed just a few days ago in these pages by my colleague Rep. Michele Bachmann are overblown.Some have expressed concerns that, under this program, wealthy parents will enroll their children in SCHIP instead of providing them with private health insurance. But if these concerns were well-founded, then private insurance companies would be leading the charge against an expansion of SCHIP. Instead, they are among its strongest supporters.
Walz either never passed Economics 101, or things none of the rest of you did.
Picture yourself as a healthcare company (and I’ve worked for them a couple of times – so while I claim no extra-special insight, I’m not the idiot Walz seems to need us all to be). Your choice:
- Engage in the scrum of the market, advertising and selling and servicing insurance to people the old-fashioned way – by having to convince them to give you their money for your products and services, with all of the ups and downs that attend working in the free market
- Letting government do your selling for you, and cashing their checks.
What’s not to like?
As, indeed, Walz notes:
Under SCHIP’s public-private partnership, private health-care plans work with individual states to cover uninsured children. That is why this legislation has been endorsed by America’s Health Insurance Plans, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association. In other words, SCHIP is as good for America’s health-care industry as it is for keeping America’s kids healthy.
Where “good” equals “conveniently remunerative”.
Saw a stat yesterday that said under the current schip program, 60% of the particpants in Minnesota are adults. Will try to find documentation for it later. Of course, it’s “for the children”.
Maybe the insurance co’s are looking at it this way:
Young adults are gravy for them because they don’t have many health problems. In effect the younger policy holders subsidize the older policy holders with their premiums. If SCHIP means more young adults will have insurance the insurance co’s make more money — regardless of whether the premium comes from the individual, their employer, or SCHIP.
Terry:
While you might be right about younger males, you are not accurate about younger FEMALES. The age band 20-30 is one of the more prime demographics for females to….have babies. Babies be expensive, Terry. Pre-natal to toddler, not just the delivery charges.
Oh, and as for Walz: I don’t blame him for his utter lack of knowledge on this subject. He has his lips so firmly planted to Nancy Pelosi’s ass…the fumes are probably causing brain damage.
Dave-
I thought about the young girls-n-babies thing but I’m not sure how significant it is. Non-hillbilly gals (I say that with love!) seem to wait until they are in their 30’s before they have kids these days. But I don’t know what the actual numbers are.
First as usual lets correct the history. Republican leaders Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich were the strongest opponents of the bill. Democrats Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton were it’s strongest proponents. They were able to get the bill through with the help of moderate RINOs (the ones you want out of the party) like Hatch, John Chafee, Mike Dewine, John McCain, and Alen Spector. You can read the whole thing here:
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEFDC113CF932A2575BC0A961958260
Second, if you are in favor of taking the profit out of health insurance have at it. But the health insurance plans would oppose any plan that covered “wealthy” children because that would be too close to universal health care which would eliminate their business model. They are happy to have the government pay to cover a few million low income kids, because there was never much profit in that sector of the market, but they would certainly go to the mattresses to stop a plan that covered “wealthy” children. Such a plan would put them out of business in the end.
First as usual lets correct the history.
And then, as usual, we’ll note that you’re not “correcting” anything, just adding a niggling little bit of trivia.
They are happy to have the government pay to cover a few million low income kids, because there was never much profit in that sector of the market,
Anything that they can bill as an entitlement – with the usual entitlement-level premiums – is fine by them.
As to the “wealthy” – irrelevant. Serving into the middle class (families earning near $80,000) is the issue.
“Anything that they can bill as an entitlement – with the usual entitlement-level premiums – is fine by them.”
That is just plainly and laughably wrong. America’s Health Insurance Plans, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association do not support a universal health care entitlement. They have fought it tooth and nail for their entire existence.
If Walz’s claim about the “wealthy” was irrelevant, what does that make your post trying to refute it?
First as usual lets correct the history.
“And then, as usual, we’ll note that you’re not “correcting” anything, just adding a niggling little bit of trivia.”
Not even accurate trivia. SCHIPs was passed in 1997 and Hillary Clinton wasn’t even in the Senate then.
Thorley:
To get passed a bill requires approval from the House, the Senate, and the President. As the article you failed to read points out President Clinton was initially unwilling to fight Senator Lott over the tobacco tax to fund S-CHIP. But, “Participants in the campaign for the health bill both on and off Capitol Hill said the First Lady had played a crucial behind-the-scenes role in lining up White House support.”
“To get passed a bill requires approval from the House, the Senate, and the President.”
Gosh, I guess the founders left out HILLARY!
Hey, if you want to have kids in this country, get a job with health insurance.
Kids are for closers.
/jc
Fighting over who gets to control my health care, businessmen or bureaucrats, is a depressing argument.
Maybe we can find a way to restore the health care market instead of incessantly beating it down further into the ground? *shrug*
Troy:
What do you find depressing about covering everyone with better health care for half the total cost we are currently paying?