Herbert Spencer Lives
posted by Frank Pasquale
In the latest installment of the SCHIP saga, the Bush administration has effectively said that families making over 250% of the poverty level deserve a new hurdle before they get government help to ensure their children have health insurance:
The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families. . . . If a state wants to set its income limit above 250 percent of the poverty level — $51,625 for a family of four — [the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations] said, “the state must establish a minimum of a one-year period of uninsurance for individuals” before they can receive public coverage.
One quick question here: is there any allowance for cost of living differences? Given the Manhattan real estate boom, a family on the very upper end of the proposed New York eligibility level–making $82,600 a year–might easily spend more than half of its disposable income on rent, and be hard-pressed to find insurance. Moreover, New York’s “Warhol economy” makes many workers even more vulnerable to income swings than the rest of America. Finally, consider the plight of those employed by small businesses: only 47% of firms employing 3-9 workers even offered health insurance in 2005, and the individual health insurance market is not exactly a picnic for those in less-than-perfect health:
Consumers who are in less-than-perfect health clearly face barriers to obtaining health insurance coverage in the individual insurance market. Insurance carriers often decline to cover people who have pre-existing medical conditions, and even when they offer coverage, frequently impose severe limitations on the coverage for any expenses related to the pre-existing condition or charge more to cover these expenses.
The Bush administration’s approach to SCHIP is supposed to be justified by fears of public funding “crowding out” private insurance plans. But as I’ve said in a previous post, I think there are better ways of avoiding crowd-out than the draconian steps the administration is currently taking. Given that it is opposing the taxes on tobacco that would both cut smoking and fund more children’s health care, I am afraid its ultimate position here is pure Herbert Spencer (thought that’s a bit unfair to Spencer–he was in favor of a progressive estate tax).
August 21, 2007 at 12:20 am
Posted in: Health Law
Print This Post
Responses (1)
markg - August 21, 2007 at 11:34 am
Bush’s approach to CHIP is such a joke that even most republican senators are jumping ship on him. For example, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah have announced they intend to vote for most of the funding necessary to extend CHIP.
I absolutely can’t stand George Bush. He sits there with that smug stupid smile on his face while he babbles excuses for kids to do without medical care (all while we are fighting a war we didn’t need in the first place).
True justice would be for this arrogant man who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth to be dumped in a ghetto somewhere and have to struggle to get the necessaries of life.
Leave a Reply