Home ND News Mobile Forum Contact Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, October 02, 2007


Should a family that qualifies to buy a $250,000 home be eligible for free health insurance?

That is essentially the question currently being debated in Washington, DC.


The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), is receiving a great deal of discussion now as Congress considers its reauthorization. This program, called Healthy Steps in North Dakota, has been a very important tool for providing health care for children through age 18 in low-income families, but the bill recently passed by the US House and Senate is a radical expansion of the existing program.


The new bill would permit coverage up to 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL). 300% would be $61,974/year for a family of four. An earlier version, supported by many in Congress, would have covered families to 400% of the poverty level which is calculated to be $82,629/year for a family of four. That is way above the average income for North Dakotans.


Someone with an annual income of the 300% of poverty level, using standard formulas, can qualify for a monthly payment of $1446, permitting them to purchase a home valued at approximately $175,000. A family earning 400% of poverty level can qualify for $1928/month payment which would permit them to purchase a home valued at approximately $245,000. Should families who can buy homes for $175,000-$250,000 be permitted to receive government-paid health insurance? That is a welfare program for middle income families. The higher the income limits, the more state tax dollars will be needed to provide coverage, since there is a 25% state match required to draw down federal funds.


H.R. 976 as recently passed by Congress would expand the SCHIP program by $35 billion over the next five years, to a $60 billion program. President Bush has supported a $5 billion expansion over 5 years which would be a 20% increase in funding above the baseline. The bill dramatically expands federal spending far beyond what is necessary to reauthorize SCHIP responsibly.


The bill would permit states to expand coverage to “children” up to age 25, as well as to family members and caregivers for children in families whose incomes qualify for coverage. This could cause people who currently have health insurance to drop it and opt into the government program. This would be a dramatic encroachment of government-run health care and is an obvious attempt to move closer to universal health care coverage, way beyond the original intent to provide health care for children.


North Dakota currently permits families up to 140% of the federal poverty to qualify for SCHIP coverage, and that will move to 150% as soon as Congress reauthorizes the program. North Dakota uses net income , rather than gross income, to qualify. In North Dakota, unlike many other states, expenses such as taxes, child care costs, and child support paid are subtracted from gross income before determining the qualifying income level, resulting in more families qualifying, especially those with high child care costs. A North Dakota family of four can have a net income of $28,920/year at 140% and receive SCHIP benefits and will be able to make $30,986/year at 150%.

The Health Steps program in North Dakota includes vision, dental, and prenatal coverage for children up through age 18, which is a significant advantage over many states’ programs. The idea has been to provide as much coverage as possible for those who need it the most


How will this federal increase in coverage be paid? A proposed cigarette tax increase of 83 cents per pack will be imposed and can escalate to $1/pack. Whether or not this is the right way to pay for the additional costs of the expanded program is another discussion. Many existing programs are having the legs cut out from under them in order to fund expansions of pet programs. One serious funding change takes money away from Medicare Advantage which benefits low income seniors by reducing out-of-pocket costs. The payment changes are so draconian that the likely effect will be to eliminate options for many beneficiaries, particularly in rural counties or small, urban communities where earlier sessions of Congress expressly intended to provide choices for beneficiaries. It is wrong to balance health care for middle income families on the backs of low-income seniors.


Enhancing SCHIP so that it can better serve North Dakota children is an appropriate goal, but the current bill has too many flaws. After a Presidential veto, all parties can get down to work to reauthorize a very important program at levels that we all can support.

Senator Judy Lee
Chair, North Dakota Senate Human Services Committee

Does this tick you off? Click here to email your elected representatives right here on Say Anything, or comment below.

Comments

Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

Should families who can buy homes for $175,000-$250,000 be permitted to receive government-paid health insurance? That is a welfare program for middle income families.

Should those very same people that can buy $250,000 houses have their property taxes subsidized by people who cannot afford property via their state income tax bills?

FreeRepublicans.com on October 2, 2007 at 09:43 am

This is just another incremental step toward imposing government health care.
I don’t want the same people hoping to tax my death, to supply my health care.


No Free Lunch
25i20w9.jpg

Kevin on October 2, 2007 at 09:44 am

I feel like a chump for paying for my kids health care insurance.


1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 2, 2007 at 10:00 am
Rob
Rob
22123 comments
Send a private message

Yeah, you should sign up for SCHIP so I can pay for ‘em…


The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob on October 2, 2007 at 11:52 am
Avatar for Curtis

I applaud your input.  I also agree with it, but I do wish nore people elected to office were as open as you in declaring their views on important issues in a fashion such as this.

I’m genuinely impressed with your being on the record this way.

My best wishes,
Curtis Overbo

Curtis on October 8, 2007 at 01:38 pm
Avatar for California group health insurance

Scary. I’m with the government and I’m here to help

Avatar for Robin

The bottom line is kids don’t have a choice about healthcare it’s up to the parents.  With that being said why should our kids suffer with no healthcare.  All kids no matter what should be covered.  What is wrong with our President and anyone else who wants to denine kids the right to be healthy.

Robin on October 10, 2007 at 10:32 am

With that being said why should our kids suffer with no healthcare.

Our kids?  If they’re your kids you should pay for it.

My kids have health insurance that I pay for.

Like it or not the government doesn’t provide anything.  They wind up taking from someone else. 

If this guy were concerned enough to take care of his family that means that there would have been more money in other peoples pockets to do good.


1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 10, 2007 at 10:44 am

The bottom line is kids don’t have a choice about healthcare[sic] it’s up to the parents.

Robin ... That’s exactly right!


flag002.gif washC.gif Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Anna on October 10, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Avatar for Henry

Let’s ask a (Republican, JC, Rotarian?) realtor whether a sixty thousand-a-year family should spend $1,500 a month on a house or health insurance.  Of course, a Democratic agent would make the same recommendation, but his/her party isn’t blocking SCHIP.

Either way, a world with SCHIP would be better for all those involved in the housing industry—lenders, brokers, insurers, lawyers, realtors, builders—than the current situation.  It’s the President who is causing the logjam.

Henry on October 15, 2007 at 08:00 am

The fallacy you’re making Henry is that SCHIP isn’t free.  Someone else is paying the tab.

In fact it’s not unlikely that many people who are forced to pay for this deadbeat’s kids are worse off financially than these guys.

What we need in health care is for more people to be responsible for their own bills for their own benefits.  Expanding the program only makes that worse.

Which reminds me that if fact the family in question has already qualified for SCHIP and a bill renewing that coverage is not controversial and GW Bush would sign that. 

So even under current law there’s people getting free coverage that should be expected to pay for it.


1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 15, 2007 at 08:21 am

...but his/her party isn’t blocking SCHIP.

Typical leftie lying; SCHIP isn’t being “blocked”; the veto is for the massive expansion of SCHIP.  Some of this expansion is for invaders and “kids” up to age 25.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on October 15, 2007 at 08:26 am

Let’s ask a (Republican, JC, Rotarian?) realtor whether a sixty thousand-a-year family should spend $1,500 a month on a house or health insurance.

A Realtor?  Why?  Becoming a realtor involves no notable intellectual qualification beyond a modest capacity for mind-numbing tedium and a certain overbearing sanctimony.  Might as well ask a bus driver, a roofer, or a kindergarten teacher, although asking any of them would hardly prove anything.  We are NOT a democracy, nor was it ever intended that we should be on. And despite the Left’s endless argument to the contrary, we do NOT govern by polls.

There is no right to healthcare, and certainly not to healthcare provided by robbing one taxpayer to subsidize the lack of responsibility of another.


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on October 15, 2007 at 09:32 am

Henry: In both cases, medical care and the housing market, govt has moved to restrict supply, which raises the price, given the existing demand.  Get the govt out of both markets, and prices will become affordable, as supply rises to meet demand.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on October 15, 2007 at 09:36 am

Henry: In both cases, medical care and the housing market, govt has moved to restrict supply, which raises the price, given the existing demand.

Ditto college tuition.


No Free Lunch
25i20w9.jpg

Kevin on October 15, 2007 at 09:43 am

In both cases, medical care and the housing market, govt has moved to restrict supply, which raises the price, given the existing demand.

R108,

Of course, in both cases demand isn’t static but increasing dramatically.  Our legal, identifiably population is increasing by a steady 2% per year.  And while we are living longer, we also have a huge undocumented, illegal population adding to demand in both markets and we face a 20 year wave of “baby-boomer” retirements which will only add to the demand for medical care services.

All of which reinforces your point that the sooner the federal government gets out of both markets, the more supply there will be to satisfy the demand… and at lowers costs as well.


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on October 15, 2007 at 09:45 am

Kevin/Bat: Exactly.  In an unrigged market, the prices that exist today would have already created a greater supply, even if demand were static!  High prices in a free market are a signal for increase capital flow into that market, which accomplishes two purposes, both of which are to the benefit of the consumer.  One, increased supply and lowered prices, and Two, only the most efficient producers survive the weeding out process.  The others move elsewhere, where they might be more efficiently employed.  It’s all good.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on October 15, 2007 at 09:53 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

If you want to ignore a fellow commenter, download this.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.