« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

SCHIP: A Good Program Marred by Bad Policy

By: Congressman Frank Lucas (Diary)  |  February 4th, 2009 at 04:25 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Today, the House of Representatives passed the Senate-amended reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, by a vote of 290-135.  This is a federally funded program that is supposed to provide health care to low-income children whose families cannot afford private health insurance.  While I believe that this is a good program and I support initiatives to bring health care to children who need it, I cannot support this reauthorization.

To begin with, applicants are not required to present proof of their identity, other than a verbal presentation of their Social Security number.  This weakens the standards to determine which children are eligible and opens the program up to abuse and fraud.  In addition, families making up to $88,000 per year will be deemed eligible for free healthcare at taxpayer expense.  Maybe in the Speaker’s hometown of San Francisco $88,000 a year is considered “low-income,” but I think most Americans would agree that is not true.  Before we expand this program to middle-class children and adults, we must ensure that proper health care is provided for low-income children.

Finally, under the reauthorization, the expansion of SCHIP will supposedly be funded by an increased tax on tobacco products, including cigarettes and cigars.  However, the use of tobacco products has dramatically dropped in the last few years and studies show that another increase in price will cause that number to drop even further.  This means that in order to fully fund SCHIP for the next ten years this country would need 22.4 million new smokers.  If that is not accomplished, then an additional tax will have to be levied on the American taxpayer making this bill a regressive tax in disguise.

This bill is yet another example of a problem that is becoming more commonplace in the 111th Congress.  Rather than allow for committee consideration and debate, Speaker Pelosi crammed this bill across the floor of the House of Representatives and barred all amendments and input from the minority.  SCHIP is a good program that has been subjected to bad policy.  It is unfortunate that the Speaker chose to pass this important bill in this manner instead of allowing a real discussion that would ensure SCHIP is a successful and financially viable program.  I hope that the legislative procedure for future bills, especially of this magnitude, will be slowed so that everyone may be involved in the process.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Maggie_in_Indiana

    when the funding is inefficient then another government entity will step in to include this and use this as a good example why they think we need government controlled health care . Pelosi knew exactly what she was doing in pushing this through and it wasn’t “for the kids”.

    • Praying

      we are doomed.

    • DerKrieger

      doesn’t indicate where Congress has the authority to create SCHIP. I oppose it in its entirety.

    • JHancock

      I don’t think Americans know exactly how much they will be hurting if socialized medicine comes to pass.

      1) Consider that America is the only country where Pharm companies or Medical supply companies make a good profit. For example Galaxo Klein, a German company, makes over 1/3 of its profit in the US market.

      2) Consider how many American’s stock portfolios and retirements are invested in these Pharm and Biotech companies. What would happen if Americans suddenly lost 1/3 value in all their biotech stocks (probably more because a 1/3 reduction in sustainable profits would decrease stock by more than 1/3).

      3) Consider how R&D would stall for less common diseases and improvements in care. Rather than pushing the limits of what is medically possible, any future research in a socialist system would be based on efficiency and AVERAGE outcomes improvement. Having seen the health of the AVERAGE patient, I am determined that I want cutting edge health care not what the average person can get in a socialist system. For example, will a 64yo diabetic be able to get a new kidney in the social system. At the cost of 800K-1million the first year and 50-100K for drugs, complications and maintenance yearly after that don’t count on it.

      4) In Europe there is now a 48h physician and resident workweek. In the US it is currently 80h. European doctors make about half (less in some countries) of what US Doctors make. Sooo…if we go socialist, this will likely cut physician salary. As their European counterparts work far fewer hours, I don’t see US doctors working the same long days for half the cash. In other words 1/2 cash=1/2 hours. As we are already having a shortage of physicians, what will happen when we effectively cut our medical workforce in half by cutting their pay, which will result in reduced hours.

  • izoneguy

    How do I apply? I have two kids and not having to pay $400 per month for their private healthcare would help our family.

    Really? $88,000

    • Terilyn Donaldson

      My husband earns good money. We pay $800 per month for child support plus $350 for health ins, plus ALL out-of-pocket expenses for his children. We could save a fortune!

      Too bad our children will be required to pai it back….

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    A program with good intent, only becomes yet more incrementalism and why we CANNOT compromise with partial-Socialism in the first place…

    They tried to get these SCHIP changes/increases the last Congress with the “for the Children” BS…. This is, of course, their latest step forward toward and closer to full Socialized Medicine….

    • nivlem

      than to be burdened with everything that this bill and the “stimulus bill” are
      putting on them. Congresmen Lucas, you and the other Republicans are the
      only ones who can protect them. The writing is on the wall. If you cannot
      stand firm on the belief that this bill must stimulate the economy and not simply be “payback” for Democrat backers, our future generations are in big trouble.
      They will not be stopped.

      Please draw the line on this. Do not waiver in the name of “bipartisanship”.
      The importance of this bill goes beyond “earmarks and pork”. We must fight
      this battle here and now…

      Thank you for coming to RedState. We value your posts, and appreciate the
      opportunity to respond and let you know our deep concerns regarding this bill.
      We know the battle is hard and exhausting, and sometimes must seem fruitless.
      Please know we are cheering you on. We cheered when the House stood
      strong, and we will be cheering and grateful when the Senate does as well.

    • JHancock

      Why not even a little socialism works.

      1) The govt decides to help the downtrodden who can’t help themselves.

      2) An economic blip happens causing more people to have a hard time. Many of these people may have been unwise with their finances due to the safety net of government help and bankruptcy.

      3) The people who are having a hard time want government help, after all it’s only fair. They get it and this dilutes the pool of people who are being responsible and paying their own way.

      4) As the pool of people who are paying for their own health care, transportation, housing, food, etc. gets smaller, the price gets higher (basic economics–small production of anything including healthcare is less efficient and will cost more)-also as the govt has huge bargaining power, they will pay less and eventually get less for their people. This will do two things.

      5) Insurance getting more expensive will cause more people and employers to bail, raising costs further and forcing more people into a liberal governments loving (and controlling) arms.

      6) The government will be stretched thin by this new influx of people they are caring for which will….raise taxes. Which will…hurt economy. Which will…force more people onto social programs.

      7) As the government pays less and less for services, the quality of those services will decrease, while the price of services outside the government system will become prohibitive. This will lower the middle class, not raise the lower classes.

      8) The upper class, as well as Liberal party elites will be part of the upper class, and will enjoy even more power than they already do. Not only will they be rich, but the entire country will be dependant upon them for survival. This will allow gross abuses of power, tax evasion, exploitation, control over religion and family.

      And that’s how America will eventually look like China, unless….. big shock…..Americans begin to value responsibility, thriftiness, hard work, initiative, self sufficiency once again

  • johnt

    but do you ever get the feeling you and your compatriots are like the Dutch boy of legend who stuck his finger in the dike to avert the flood. Nonetheless don’t give up the fight. They want it all but they can’t and shouldn’t have it.

  • papalee

    and a good person, but this is not a good program. I am in through agreement that any government program that takes from one citizen or one set of citizens to give to another is simply bad for everyone. I didn’t get married before I could pay for the things my children were going to need and I stayed in a joy that was near slavery because there was little chance of going elsewhere and getting the pay I was making. I stayed because I had family and obligations but I knew that I was paying what I was because I and my family were being robbed for the benefit of those who knew that the Democrat Party and misguided Republicans would rob me and those like me so they could have not merely necessities but many things which I could not afford.

    This is the first step in destroying what is left of our once excellent health system. It will drag it to the pitiful basis of those of Canada, Great Britain and the Scandanavian countries. I remember only too well being in England almost twenty years ago and listening to ordinary English folk telling us that health care was being rationed for those over 55 even if you could afford to pay.

    Let me use an example I heard on the radio. If one of you and I were walking down the street and saw a person in need, it would be perfectly ok if I, you or both of us removed a bill from our wallet and gave it to them. But if I took a gun from my pocket and made you give the man a twenty, it would be wrong just as if you did the same to me. In this case it is the government with the gun and their doing is no different from any individual doing it, especially as so few of those who want to rob us come anywhere to matching our charity in their private lives.

    Obama made a plea for responsibility, but it is not responsible to spend money which the government does not have, nor to take funds from one person to enrich another for whatever purpose.

  • clintonformccain

    “However, the use of tobacco products has dramatically dropped in the last few years and studies show that another increase in price will cause that number to drop even further. ”

    ————

    Unfortunately, this is not really true. According to the CDC data, there has been a slight decline in the percentage of adult non-smokers over the last decade from 25% in 1995 to 21% in 2006.

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_2.htm

    However, this gain is almost entirely among those who never started smoking. The “never” smokers have increased from 52% to 58% over the same time frame.

    The bad news is that the percentage of former smokers who have quit has stopped dead in the water after increasing steadily from 1965. The percentage of former smokers who are now ex-smokers has only increased from 49% in 1995 to 52% in 2006. Really a pathetic number when you consider the massive tax increases and restrictions on smoking in public places and the workplace that have taken place over that time frame.

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_6.htm

    This suggests two things:

    a) The current government and pharmceutical company methods for quitting smoking are not working. The rate of quitting nicotine addiction (smoking) stopping in its tracks when pharmaceutical nicotine (patch and gum) became available over the counter. Virtually all health care funding for quitting smoking now goes to the purchase of pharmaceutical nictoine products.

    b) You could increase the tax on cigarettes ’til you are blue in the face and it probably won’t make people stop smoking. It might discourage teens from starting a lifetime of nicotine addiction (a very, very good thing), although that is debateable with all the candy flavored cigarillow, snuff, and hookah products the tobacco companies are now peddling.

    This

    • clintonformccain

      The second sentence above should read:

      According to the CDC data, there has been a slight decline in the percentage of adult SMOKERS over the last decade from 25% in 1995 to 21% in 2006.

  • mbecker908

    Please cite, SPECIFICALLY, where in the Constitution the Federal Government has the authority to do this program.

    Thank you.

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      corrupted the Preamble “to promote the general welfare”

      Local News Tease earlier today: “The President provides Health Care to all Children” …. what a joke!

  • Vegas_Rick

    People who can’t afford to care for children shouldn’t have them. Tell me Congressman, where specifically in the constitution does it give you the authority to take my money and give it to a poor person who made bad choices.