Comments on: Abandon SCHIP

By: Catron

Catron — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:44:54 +0000

Spike, your original comment included the following question: Do you have any evidence that the SCHIP expansion is going to go towards adults? I provided the first link to show that a lot of SCHIP money is already going to adults. Surely, even you aren’t naïve enough to believe that the reauthorization bill is going to reduce eligibility, right? But I guess it isn’t a good sign that you take Grassley’s comments seriously. The second link was offered as a general education resource, so that your future effusions on this issue would be more informed. Another useful piece can be found here.

By: Catron

Catron — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:57:31 +0000

Well, I think we know the answer to that, don’t we? The “news” media point out such things only if they emanate from George Bush or some other wicked Republican.

By: Rich

Rich — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:35:03 +0000

It occurred to me today that, according to the Democrats proposed tax hikes, I am “rich,” but according to SCHIP, I am “poor”.

Why hasn’t anyone in the media pointed this out?

By: spike

spike — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:56:17 +0000

The first link describes existing SCHIP, not the expansion.

The second praises some expansion bills because it keeps the expansion to children and doesn’t try to cover adults. Do you read your links before posting them?

Over at healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com, Bob Laszewski quotes Chuck Grassley like this: Grassley said in response to the President’s veto threat, the Senate Finance deal “refocuses S-CHIP on low-income children cost effectively, using appropriate targeting policies.”

So… again, where are you getting your information that the expansion is going to adults?

By: Catron

Catron — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:11:44 +0000

Spike, if you’d like to have an actual clue, you could start your reading here and here.

By: spike

spike — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:47:25 +0000

As loathe as I am to engage you in a “debate”, do you have any evidence that the SCHIP expansion is going to go towards adults? Everything I’ve read indicated that the latest legislation eliminated programs for adults and provided extra funding to cover all of the kids who qualify for CHIP. As you may know (but probably not), states move the CHIP income thresholds and either publicize or don’t publicize CHIP depending on how many people they can afford to cover. Expanding CHIP would allow states to cover all the near-poor children and stop these practices of discouraging enrollment during bad times.

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:32:26 +0000

Regardless of the precise number, the money would come out of the pockets of the poorest beneficiaries—not insurance profits. This is why the NAACP vehemently opposes MA cuts.

Even worse, much of this money would be directed to adults (as in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, etc.) who can afford to buy insurance or kids from families that don’t fit any rational definition of “poor.�?

So, it’s not a matter of choosing between kids or insurance companies. It’s about a bait and switch operation that will only increase the power of government without helping the program’s ostensible beneficiaries.

By: Maggie Mahar

Maggie Mahar — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:26:52 +0000

$50 billion is not my number. According to the Congressional Budget Office over five years Medicare will be paying Medicare Advantage insurers $54 billion more than it would cost Medicare to provide services to the same Medicare benficiaries directly. Over 10 years, CBO says the over-payment will be nearly $150 billion.

For full documentation (and links) on all of the points in my argument, please see the longer version of the article posted on http://www.tcf.org.

Thanks– Maggie Mahar