Socialize Medicine, One Step at a Time

Authorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) runs out at the end of September. This gave the Democrats and some Republicans in Congress an opportunity to vote in July to expand this government health insurance program. SCHIP is supposed to provide health insurance for children whose families make too much money to qualify for medical welfare, i.e., Medicaid, but who can't afford to pay for private health insurance. Initially, this meant families whose annual incomes were twice the poverty level. This amounts to a $40,000 income for a family of four in 2007.

Since SCHIP began operating in 1997, the percentage of uninsured children belonging to families with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level fell from 22.5 percent in 1996 to 16.9 percent in 2005, a reduction of 5.6 percentage points. SCHIP now covers about 6 million children. By comparison, about 10 percent of children living in families with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the poverty level are uninsured, and less than 5 percent of those whose families make more than 300 percent of the poverty level are uninsured.

Just before its August recess both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed legislation that would substantially expand SCHIP. The Senate bill would allow states to broaden SCHIP coverage to families making up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level and the House bill sets no income eligibility limits on the program. And some states are eager to use SCHIP to subsidize middle class health insurance for kids. For example, New Jersey wants to expand SCHIP coverage to 350 percent of the poverty level and New York wants to go up to 400 percent. So in the Garden State a family of four earning over $70,000 would be eligible for government health insurance for their kids and a family earning over $80,000 per year would qualify in the Empire State. Considering that the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the median income for a four-person family is below $80,000 in all but five states. This implies that at 400 percent of the poverty level, more than half of all American families could qualify for expanded SCHIP.

If President George W. Bush fails to keep his promise to veto this legislation, SCHIP would be well on the way to becoming another middle class entitlement. That is just what advocates of government-funded health care want. Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ) made this goal explicit when he called the House SCHIP bill "the next step toward universal health care for all Americans." Expanding SCHIP is what Kathleen Stoll, director of health care policy at the left-leaning lobby group, Families USA, happily identified as sneaky sequentialism. The ambit of private health insurance and health care will shrink as government funding expands.

In fact, this kind of crowding out is already taking place. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report in May that found, "For every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children." In January, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber and Cornell University economist Kosali Simon published a study that estimated "for every 100 children who are enrolled in public insurance, 60 children lose private insurance." And why not? From the point of view of parents, the government is giving their kids free health insurance, so they can pocket the money they were otherwise spending on private insurance.

The CBO also noted that a broadening of SCHIP to higher income levels "would probably involve greater crowd-out of private coverage than has occurred to date because such children have greater access to private insurance." Recall that 90 percent of kids living in families with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the poverty level are insured and 95 percent of those in families with incomes over 400 percent are. Crowding out of private insurance helps force the country to take "next step" toward universal government-controlled health care. After all, almost 50 percent of medical expenditures are already paid for by government programs. Advocates of universal health insurance hope that as fewer and fewer Americans rely on private health insurance, government-funded health insurance will grow in political acceptance.

How to stop the slide to government-funded insurance? Grace-Marie Turner, director of the free market health care think tank the Galen Institute notes that two-thirds of all uninsured kids already qualify for SCHIP under current rules. So if the real goal is to make sure that poor kids are insured, states should enroll the ones who qualify now for the program, instead of expanding it to middle class families.

Turner also argues that programs in states that now allow higher income families to qualify for SCHIP must be rolled back. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took a step in the right direction. HHS issued new SCHIP regulations that require states to enroll 95 percent of children whose families' incomes are below 250 percent of the poverty level before expanding the program to higher income groups.

Finally, SCHIP subsidies should be transformed into vouchers that low income parents can use to purchase private insurance for their kids. That way SCHIP becomes a bridge to a growing market for competitive private health insurance, instead of another dismal step toward universal government health insurance and all that implies about restricted choice, stifled innovation, and poor quality.

"Socialize Medicine, One Step at a Time - It's for the children."

BULL ... It's for the politicians! The children are just another tool.

The first major step toward socialized medicine was taken a decade or two back by the federal government. The federal government moved to cut the number of medical schools and reduce the capacity of the remaining schools. Simple supply side economics is at work on the health care system. Reduce the number of medical providers and costs will increase.

It is going to cost money to correct the problem government caused. The nation will ultimately adopt a plan that subsidizes insurance, or increase the number of medical schools and capacity so more providers are available. Subsidized insurance under both the Democratic and Republican plans will never fix the root problem ... THE COST OF MEDICAL CARE!

Michael Moore tried to convince people the success of medical care in Cuba was due to socialism. Bunk! Cuba has nearly twice the doctor to patient ratio of the USA.

And don't look for relief from either major political party. Both are proposing many varied plans to assist citizens in meeting medical costs through insurance programs (which coincidently are major political contributors to both parties), but neither party is proposing anything the would actually lower the cost of medical care, which would make care more affordable, and insurance less necessary.

We already have socialized medicine. We have had it from the moment the centralized government took control of the medicine school spigot. Had it not been for the huge increase of foreign trained doctors immigrating to the USA over the last decade or so, we would have a much worse situation.

Americans should be insisting the politicians stop pandering to their medical contributors and get to work on legislation that will reduce the cost of medical care by increasing the supply of providers and suppliers. With a mere fraction of the amount of money proposed to be spent annually, our nation could make a modest one-time outlay to build and expand medical schools, which would reverse past government misdeeds.

The single benefit coming from the current health care debates is how well it illustrates the similarity of the Democratic Party and Republican Party. They are both willing to sacrifice affordable medical care in order to protect their cash cows.

Re the poverty report that was released this week.

There seems to be some controversy in the way that poverty is counted in these reports. All the social programs that we have to reduce poverty in this country are not counted in the poverty reports. If a family is on section 8 housing, received food stamps, has SCHIPs insurance for the children or any of the other assistance, it is not included in their income. So we are not getting a true picture of “Poverty”.

SCHIP is really about single payer on the installment plan. Once it becomes politically acceptable to put kids as well as seniors in a government run insurance program (the latter is Medicare) the next step would be to include the rest of the adult population. And before we know it, we have full blown Canada Medicare in the United States. The problem as every one recognizes, is no one wants to be against the children. So GOP support for the unwarranted expansion of SCHIP is not so much out of a change of principle as it out of a combination of fear and political calculation. 10 years ago the Right thought it stopped HillaryCare cold. In fact, the Left may just have lost a battle but went on to win the war.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.