Abandon SCHIP: Big Government Returns

October 3, 2007

Abandon SCHIP: Big Government Returns

“The era of big government is over,” then-President Bill Clinton told us in 1996. Congress’s proposed expansion of SCHIP -- the State Children’s Health Insurance Program -- recalls instead the remark of another Democratic political figure. In 1968, while stumping for president in Indiana, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was asked by medical students, “Who is going to pay for your socialized medical plan?” Kennedy famously responded, “You will!”

In just ten short years SCHIP has gone from being a program for struggling families to a permanent middle class entitlement. The alternative -- a reform of private insurance to expand coverage for all Americans -- has gained little attention during the debate.

Originally established by House Republicans in 1997, SCHIP was meant to insure children of families who do not qualify for Medicaid. The incomes of eligible families generally did not exceed 200 percent of the poverty level. The new version of SCHIP does not stay faithful to the intent of the program.

The congressional expansion of SCHIP raises spending $35 billion over 5 years. Families making more than 400 percent above the poverty line may be eligible for the program. In the state of New York, a family of four earning $83,000 would qualify.

Rampant spending and middle class handouts aren’t the only problems. Half of all new children enrolling will be leaving private insurance, shifting ever more of the health care sector from market to government. Part of the needed funding increase will come from an even higher cigarette tax, making the plan even more regressive and unfair.

Twenty-two million new smokers will be needed to pay for the bill, highly unlikely with a tax increase at 61 cents per pack. Smokers, who tend to be poor and who come from poorer states, will be paying for the health insurance of children of well-to-do parents.

While it is unlikely that smokers will generate much sympathy, the revenue vacuum will surely be turned toward all taxpayers when the tobacco funding dries up. To say it is risky to fund a government program with a declining revenue source is a rank understatement.

Because of the program’s large expansion and the decreasing income limits, SCHIP paves the road for nationalized health care. Representative Steve Rothman (D-NJ) concedes as much, calling the plan, “The next step toward universal health care for all Americans.”

Even normally big-government President Bush has promised a veto of the expanded SCHIP bill, citing excessive cost and the substantial shift from private to government funded insurance. He favors a much smaller increase than the congressional version, one that he says fulfills the intention of the program. His party, however, contains many supporters of the bill currently on Capitol Hill.

Proponents, moreover, have fought back by sending an army of children to the White House to protest the intended veto. In a made for TV moment, the children pulled wagons around the White House loaded with petitions opposing the veto.

New Jersey’s governor has filed a lawsuit against the White House for trying to limit the eligibility for SCHIP. New Jersey currently enrolls families making up to 350 percent above the poverty level, or $72,000.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners, who gained fame by linking the Gospel to big government supports the idea, claiming, “Those who oppose covering the kids now have literally no alternative plan in mind.” But Wallis shuns free market solutions, even denouncing attempts to strengthen social security through market forces. Real compassion and charity are not measured by taxes and the failed poverty policies of the past.

In his zeal for government solutions, Wallis also fails to notice the tension between the Christian mandate to pay special attention to the poor and the regressive principle of SCHIP. It will end up shifting money from poorer individuals and states, to the upper middle class and more affluent states. While states pay a smaller portion of the funding, the more they spend the more dollars they receive.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the President to tell him, “She is praying he will change his mind.” One has to wonder, is anybody praying to counter the loss of common sense and the return of big government?

Ray Nothstine is associate editor at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Comments

James Mace: elijah2k@hotmail.com

Government-worshipers are enlisting politically active Christians into their "liberal" socialist agenda via deceptive theologies such as messianic healings (governmental health care). (Another recent such recruitment from the Christian voting block is seen in their hypocritically using the Turkish Armenocide in an attempt to claim the moral high ground of compassion [and simultaneously attacking President Bush et al.].)

Subversives such as Jim Wallis of arch-progressive Sojourners and Tony Campolo are further examplars of corrupters of Christianity abusing Scripture to support agendas enslaving politically active Christians to pseudo-Christian theologies of so-called "compassion," etc., which end up deifying the State. The glory of the Christian's labor goes not to God but to Caesar: "Hail, Hilary Care!" ("It's for the children . . . . I'm from the government, and I'm here to help . . . .")

Conversely, conservative politically active Christians have truer, more solid and farther reaching compassion built on the Rock, not on shifting sands of Statism propped up with false theologies culling useful fools into thralldom.

Fred Chittenden: drfredc@drfredc.com

If the SCHIP program is such good insurance for middle class kids, the Congresscritters, and the staff of those who vote for it, ought to be required to sign their children up for it.

*In WA state (as in most, if not all, states), the SCHIP program is basically the same as Medicaid — full of red tape and restrictions on providing quality care.
o There’s lots of clinics that don’t take it, or severely limit access to care by one means or another. This is likely to get worse if SCHIP passes in it’s current format.
o Putting more folks into the Medicaid treadmill is only going to make it harder for the truly needy on Medicaid to get timely care as the middle class starts cutting and crowding in line for their care.
* Hence the suggestion that those in Congress and staff ought to experience that which they wrought. If it’s good enough for the middle class, it ought to be good enough for Congress.

Not…
-------------
Also. solution's to our nation's health care financing woes doesn't revolve around some magical change in insurance.
-------------
Rather start by making ALL ESSENTIAL HEALTH CARE COSTS TAX DEDUCTIBLE whether one has insurance or not. This simple change would benefit everyone, even those with insurance.

o The tax code discrimination against those without employer based health care coverage is the greatest form of discrimination in our nation. It's time to eliminate this discrimination.
o Those without insurance would get tax deductible care -- including payments for loans (principle and interest) to pay for health care coverage.
o Copays for those with insurance would be tax deductible.
o The financing/insurance marketplace would likely respond by offering various financing products for health care that may or may not include high deductible coverage and negotiated fees.
o The trend of adding mandates onto insurance would be reduced or eliminated. The escalating cost of coverage would be reduced. This is because all costs would be tax deductible, whether or not they are mandated covered by insurance. It's possible that some mandates might even be removed.
o For those of limited means, who might desire opting out of Medicaid, who also pay little to no taxes (making tax deductibility of limited benefit), one might consider various tax credit options to helping them finance high deductible coverage.
o Remove state boundaries to insurance coverage so regional and national plans could be offered.

Lora: lora727@sbcglobal.net

This writing is right on. Come on government was never meant to provide health care. just like the people in Katrina still complaining wanting the government to build them housing. what has happened to the American ideals of working. We are better than that, start working, like the bible tells us to do. The bible tells us the poor will always be with us. Read it.

I want to help children too, but let me tell you the DHS is not the way, that group is something else, if you ever had any experience with them (yes we have). Also try finding providers for SCHIP, not easy to even find physicians to treat children insured on SCHIP. Keep the program for the poverty driven kids, not for those who are all ready insured, or parents make $80,000. Get conservative on this issue and all issues of spending.

tracie: tracie0802@yahoo.com

Lets be honest, SCHIP has helped alot of children receive health care that they may not have had if it wasn't available. There are many families dependent on the services it provides so if you feel that you can afford health insurance and feel you have enough slack to talk about who should and shouldn't have the opportunity to access the program, then purchase health insurance for yourself and your children and have enough deciency to leave the much needed service for people who actually aren't able to afford private insurance. No one knows everyones unique situation to say. Who knows, some day you may need it to.

Margi : hmg100@juno.com

For those of you who believe government has absolutely no role in ensuring the availability of health care, please advise on the health insurance coverage available for a currently uninsured 45 year old individual recently diagnosed with cancer. Place a few calls to insurance carriers in various states and report back on your results - can this individual obtain coverage and if so, at what cost? If you don't think this system is badly in need of reform, you will after you make a few calls.

Jeff Barke: ekrabjeff@aol.com

There is certainly a Judeo-Christian value system them comands us, if you will, to help those that can not help themselves. However, this is a demand placed upon individuals. It is not a demand that govenment steal money from the haves and give it to the have nots. If we allow our secular government to mandate our obligation toward individual charity we are headed further down the socialist slipery slope.

mollyfurie: faunashee@yahoo.com

My grandson's life was saved by SCHIP. My daughter and her husband and their four children were barely hanging on to their home during an rough period for them. Neither of them had insurance through their employer, nor could they afford it. In fact, local churches and friends and relatives were bringing them food. SCHIP came along just in time. My daughter noticed that her sone - then about 8, seemed to fall down a lot. And the excessive clumsiness seemed to get worse. SCHIP had just kicked in and she took him to a GP who recommended a specialist, who discovered a mixed glioma in his hippocampus. Anyway, it was growing fast and really expensive brain surgery was necessary to save his life. Specialists were flown in, and he underwent 12 hours of surgery, and follow up treatment. For years he had to have periocic MRIs to see whether the tiny dot they couldn't get to without causing brain damage would grow. It didn't. He's a teenager now, normal and creative and alive and I am grateful for it. But somewhere in the US soon, there will be another child with a similar life-threatening situation, and will he or she have the same advantage? Maybe not.

Bill Decker: bdecker@cisco.com

rmiller22 is a perfect example of someone so under served by our public education system that he or she doesn't understand the original or real purpose for our federal government. One of the few things the federal government is supposed to do is to provide for our national defense. I am sure rmiller22 is against the current wars and would not support a war unless a Clinton started one. Our federal government has no business dealing with healthcare insurance, social security and so many other things they have their hands in that they should not I can not list them all. Look at the constitution of the United States Government.

.

rmiller22:

Funny how those who complain about "big government" complain only about policies intended to help the poor, sick and elderly. I don't hear any complaints from them about the vastly larger "big government" military spending. Health care for these children is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions spent there!

For-profit private insurance companies will never be able to solve the problem of uninsured families because low-income families a) can not pay much and b) tend to have more health problems. A business runs based on making a profit, and things like health care and education are not "profitable." They are services that the citizens of a country needs, just like police and firemen, trash pick-up, and sound infrastructure. Naturally these services fall to be paid for by taxes, because they can not be paid for by individuals, and they are not profitable, but necessary for a decent society!

Jason Rennie: thesciphishow@gmail.com

Actually Chris I think that Ray has the long term interests of the kids in mind. The proposed big government solution to health care generally causes far more problems than it ever solves. I come from a country with nationalised health care but I assure you everybody who can afford to have separate private health insurance does have it and chooses not to rely on the publicly funded system because of long waiting times and poor coverage for things that are deemed "elective". Where "elective"
surgery means "you are not going to die from this in the near future".

If you really cared about the children and the poor and the community you would see Roy's point. With this being funded by more taxes on tobacco, smokers (who are generally poorer people) will suffer (I thought you wanted to help the poor and the kids of the poor) and when the system collapses from expense everybody will have to shoulder a higher tax burden (also not good for the poor).

And frankly your jibe about "putting their ideology over basic Christian concern for the weak and needy" is simply misguided and to be brutally honest also entirely disingenuous. Christ said that the poor was the churches responsibility not the responsibility of the government. If anybody is shirking their basic Christian duty to the poor it is you and other Christians who are willing to abdicate their God given obligation to care for the poor in favor of letting the government sort it out. Frankly it is disgusting to watch someone invoke the name of Christ to give them an excuse to make their duty someone else's problem.

Werner Speer: wspeer@mis.net

The democrat SCHIP bill among other things extends the definition of "children" to age twenty five. Its'called "buying votes."

Denise Smith: smide57@hotmail.com

Note to Manes: Spoken like a compassionate, but uninvolved, liberal who refuses to see the danger in the government 'fixing' anything. It comes at a price that pales in comparison to what those 'sick kids' "pay". You are insisting on a transplant with what is needed here is a band aid--fix the problem....NOT the system. In most situations, the system does not fail these kids or any kids. But, for the exceptions, we are to turn the ship around? That is just plain lazy. Roll up your sleeves and get busy helping the few....

Every hear of the Shriner's? They help any and all children in need.

Signed,

"Rants" - R - US

Chris Manes: lokicsm@aol.com

Let's see, what do sick kids without health care insurance care about more: (a) the purity of our economic system and conservative rants about "big government," or (b) getting health care.

Market evangelists like Nothstine should be ashamed for putting their ideology over basic Christian concern for the weak and needy.

Acton Commentary