We haven't spent much time on the latest version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) here at IB. No, there's no "agenda" in our having skipped it; generally, we write about those things which interest us. Quite frankly, there've been more than enough blogworthy items of late, and so SCHIP has managed to stay under our radar.
Until now:
For those who may have missed it, the SCHIP was set up in 1997, during the Clinton administration. The then-First Lady (and current Junior Senator from the Empire State) had failed in her bid to nationalize some 15% of our economy, and this program probably seemed a way to address at least some of her concerns (although I'd add that this was not necessarily what she had in mind, nor was she in a position to dictate its terms).
Very briefly, the purpose of the program was to "insure" kids in low (read: Medicaid-eligible) families in order that they might receive more affordable health care. As with many (most?) such programs, its original intentions became blurred, until now a lot of folks one would consider "middle class" are now eligible (or at least their kids are).
This presents a problem: expanding the program garners votes, but it also requires spending more money. And since, as we've pointed out many times here, the gummint has no money of its own, the taxpayer is left to pick up the (ever increasing) tab.
The program is due to expire soon, and so the Legislative and Executive branches are looking for ways to breathe new life into it. The President would like to increase its funding by some $5 billion (yes, that's billion, with a "b"), while the Congress is thinking a bit more "generously," to the tune of some $35 billion (yes, yes, billion with a "b"). Yikes!
As the esteemed Heritage Foundation has learned, however, there's a catch (well, actually, there are a lot of "catches," but we'll focus on this one): Instead of limiting the program to the truly needy, Congress wants to expand eligibility to folks who can well afford to purchase their own health insurance, and therein lies the conundrum:
Ooops!
Talk about "unintended consequences." If indeed they are "unintended."
The bottom line is, why would someone making, say, $50,000 or even $75,000 choose to pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance, if similar coverage was available "free?" The net result is that even more folks end up on the gummint plan (and the taxpayers' dime), which then drives costs up even further...can you say "vicious circle?"
Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that "one quarter to one half of newly enrolled children would have otherwise had private coverage." That's a lot of folks to cover, and it's not free.
Well, at least not for thee and me.
Posts
