2008 Woodie Awards
SCHIP response
By Elena Wolf is a 2007 alumna
In his Oct. 9 column on the Bush veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Eric Lombardi expressed concern for the millions of impoverished children in America, stating that the veto ended "the movement to help save the most desperate in America from pain, illness and in some cases, death." That statement, however, overlooks the the fact that while the intention of the movement may have been to help the needy, in its application, many of the people who would have benefited can't actually be considered all that desperate.
One look at what the bill entailed revealed serious drawbacks and sound reasons for opposition.
SCHIP was originally created in 1997 to give health care coverage to children from households with incomes of 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $40,000) or lower. Bush supported its renewal this year and even proposed a 20 percent increase for its funding, but the bill Congress sought to pass proposed a 140 percent increase, requiring 35 billion dollars.
This bill was not merely a renewal, but called for a massive expansion which would have worked to enroll four million children over the next five years, after which, there would be an 80 percent cut in its budget. That proposal was problematic, though, because presumably one of two things would have happened: 1) the program would have to be renewed and increased again, a repeating cycle or 2) having lost much of the funding, the rug would be pulled out from many of the recently enrolled children as their names dropped from the list.
Another major flaw of the bill was its rejection of a requirement that 95 percent of eligible children from families at the 200 percent or lower poverty level be enrolled before children from higher incomes could be covered.
Unlike the original SCHIP, the new one would have extended to families earning as much as $83,000, 400 percent more than the poverty level! That figure is shocking, given the Congressional Budget Office report that found that "77 percent of children between 200 and 300 percent of federal poverty level already have private health insurance." Had the bill been successful it would have allowed people who were able to afford private health care to instead take advantage of 'free' health care by switching to a government-run system, which is hardly just or effective in addressing the original problem.
One look at what the bill entailed revealed serious drawbacks and sound reasons for opposition.
SCHIP was originally created in 1997 to give health care coverage to children from households with incomes of 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $40,000) or lower. Bush supported its renewal this year and even proposed a 20 percent increase for its funding, but the bill Congress sought to pass proposed a 140 percent increase, requiring 35 billion dollars.
This bill was not merely a renewal, but called for a massive expansion which would have worked to enroll four million children over the next five years, after which, there would be an 80 percent cut in its budget. That proposal was problematic, though, because presumably one of two things would have happened: 1) the program would have to be renewed and increased again, a repeating cycle or 2) having lost much of the funding, the rug would be pulled out from many of the recently enrolled children as their names dropped from the list.
Another major flaw of the bill was its rejection of a requirement that 95 percent of eligible children from families at the 200 percent or lower poverty level be enrolled before children from higher incomes could be covered.
Unlike the original SCHIP, the new one would have extended to families earning as much as $83,000, 400 percent more than the poverty level! That figure is shocking, given the Congressional Budget Office report that found that "77 percent of children between 200 and 300 percent of federal poverty level already have private health insurance." Had the bill been successful it would have allowed people who were able to afford private health care to instead take advantage of 'free' health care by switching to a government-run system, which is hardly just or effective in addressing the original problem.
Published: 10/11/07 Section: Viewpoints
Be the first to comment on this story