With President Barack Obama having pledged support for expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, all Democratic congressional leaders needed to do was revive one of the two bills that had been vetoed by President George W. Bush. Instead, they changed the legislation and ended up politicizing a cause that had broad GOP support, including from Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. To Democrats’ contention that 90 percent of the latest bill is unchanged, Roberts said, “It’s the 10 percent that represents barbed wire and a heck of a burr underneath our saddles.” Especially with federal spending going wild, Republicans have a point in questioning whether it’s wise to give states the go-ahead to cover children in families with incomes exceeding three times the federal poverty level – $63,600 for a family of four. Less understandable is GOP outrage over the new provision allowing more children of legal immigrants to be covered; currently, they must have been in the country for at least five years to qualify. Why punish the children of documented immigrants who are paying taxes and otherwise following the rules? SCHIP, known as HealthWave in Kansas, has been a bipartisan godsend to many families over the past decade. It will be regrettable if its long-sought expansion ends up bearing only a Democratic seal of approval.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
56 Comments
I watched part of the debate on this, the argument focused at one point on. $70,000 income could qualify for SCHIPS. The problem is that for some in one area of the country that is a lot. While in other parts that is like lower middle income. Here that would be a decent income but in NYC that is close to poverty.
Reality needs to be a matter in these issues not talking points.
I don’t care where you live dog, $70,000/year is a lot of money and more than enough to raise a family AND buy their own insurance.
If the high median wage in Kansas is $44,000/year, I’m not buying into the folklore it takes $26,000/ more per year for a comparative scale.
We all have relatives who live in different parts the country and know the salaries. I call B.S. on those who want to include it.
Are you kidding? I don’t think you have any idea what it cost to raise a family these days. The average cost of health insurance for a family of 4 is around $1600 a month. With the cost of housing, food, and untilities, anyone making even $70,000 a year would be hard pressed to make ends meet.
This isn’t the 60s or 70s, Reg. I don’t know how old you are, but obviously it’s been awhile since you put food on the table for your whole family.
Besides, health care should be a right..not a priveledge for only those who can afford it.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted January 28, 2009 at 6:53 am | Permalink
Are you kidding? I don’t think you have any idea what it cost to raise a family these days. The average cost of health insurance for a family of 4 is around $1600 a month. With the cost of housing, food, and untilities, anyone making even $70,000 a year would be hard pressed to make ends meet.
This isn’t the 60s or 70s, Reg. I don’t know how old you are, but obviously it’s been awhile since you put food on the table for your whole family.
Besides, health care should be a right..not a priveledge for only those who can afford it.
=============================
Where do you get your insurance quotes? I bet you I can get health insurance for less. :)
According to NCHC (National Coalition on Health Care:)
In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the
rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of
four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over
$4,700.2
That’s the employer’s cost, not the workers. So the worker’s cost per month would be considerably less, usually a 60/40 split from what I’ve read (varies with the company)
Oh yeah, I’m older than you Mary and I keep up with issues. :)
Let me put it another way, Reg..could you personally pay between around $900 a month for private medical and dental insurance for you and your wife? If so, then good for you. Most of us couldn’t afford that AND pay for gas, utilities, housing, and food.
And that of course, is the rate IF you have no pre existing conditions…the the premium would go WAY up.
I’m talking about if you had NO employee benefits, Reg. I keep up to, and many employers don’t offer health benefits to their workers nowadays.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted January 28, 2009 at 7:09 am | Permalink
Let me put it another way, Reg..could you personally pay between around $900 a month for private medical and dental insurance for you and your wife? If so, then good for you. Most of us couldn’t afford that AND pay for gas, utilities, housing, and food.
============================
Sure I could, if I was making $70,000/year like the article suggested the high salary is being discussed. That’s a very good income anywhere in the United States.
As for me, if I lost my job, I can’t even get private insurance because of my history of cancer.
People like you tend to throw the same senerio out for everyone, but not everyone has a good paying job with health benefits…in fact those that do are becoming the minority in this country.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted January 28, 2009 at 7:12 am | Permalink
I’m talking about if you had NO employee benefits, Reg. I keep up to, and many employers don’t offer health benefits to their workers nowadays.
——————-
Well, according to the figures I just gave, if the employer didn’t provide it, it would be about $12,000/year to me for coverage of four people ($1,000) per month (their stated average cost)
And, if I made $70,000 as the article suggested – yeah I could afford it.
“Less understandable is GOP outrage over the new provision allowing more children of legal immigrants to be covered; currently, they must have been in the country for at least five years to qualify. Why punish the children of documented immigrants who are paying taxes and otherwise following the rules?”
Why institute a policy that encourages immigration of people who can’t afford to care for their own kids? Why institute a policy that punishes the taxpayer(me for one) with the cost of caring for the kids of someone who brought them here but can’t afford to care for them properly?
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted January 28, 2009 at 7:14 am | Permalink
As for me, if I lost my job, I can’t even get private insurance because of my history of cancer.
People like you tend to throw the same senerio out for everyone, but not everyone has a good paying job with health benefits…in fact those that do are becoming the minority in this country.
——————————–
Then you need AFLAC or a similar income maintenance insurance that will pay your bills until you can find other employment. :)
“Sure I could, if I was making $70,000/year like the article suggested the high salary is being discussed. That’s a very good income anywhere in the United States.”
I doubt it if you were raising your kids in this day and age. Things have changed.
On that note I have to get to work…stay warm and have a good day everyone!
Well Mary, according to Wiki, the average weekly wage in Manhattan was $1453. Now, that’s is one of most expensive boroughs in NYC. That’s well within the 70,000/year mentioned in this article.
**********—————————*********
There appear to be a lot of people making ends meet on $70,000 or less in the United States.
Why institute a policy that encourages immigration of people who can’t afford to care for their own kids? Why institute a policy that punishes the taxpayer(me for one) with the cost of caring for the kids of someone who brought them here but can’t afford to care for them properly?
What a lovely knee-jerk anti-immigrant sentiment. But the reality is that a family of resident aliens who earn enough to qualify for SCHIP probably weren’t thinking “Oh, we must go to America! Their healthcare system is so wonderful there!” Give sane people a break.
Whatever the merits of the bill, it says something chilling about healthcare in America that something like this is even necessary. And punishing legal immigrants merely for being foreign is not a defensible position.
In the name of the Children we will keep paying and paying because it’s free money that somebody else has to pay for it. All social programs regardless of need are necessary to some. Question is where you stop and how much can you spend. Our dollars will only stretch so far.
Rage says-
“Oh, we must go to America! Their health care system is so wonderful there!” Give sane people a break.”
Sane people understand that there is no descent health care in Mexico.
Sane people understand that the greater the handout, the greater are the number of people who will take it.
Sane people understand that by raising the income level higher will encourage people who already buy private insurance to drop it and take the hand out.
Sane people understand that being generous and compassionate with other peoples money is neither generous or compassionate.
So Heckler thinks the anti-immigrant provision will magically apply only to Mexicans who will of course, as they apply for their visas, be thinking primarily about health care they might get if they get a job in America that doesn’t properly cover their children–which of course is the goal of every legal immmigrant. /sarcasm off
Got it.
But Heckler’s also just made clear that’s he’s opposed to the program on general principles, so other arguments are superfluous.
Enjoy your irrelevance, Heck.
“Heckler” gets this wrong –
“…the greater the handout, the greater are the number of people who will take it.”
Which is patently insane when applied to health care.
Health care is not market-driven.
Nobody looks over their health coverage and goes out to get a gall bladder removed just because it’s covered.
But in the real world, an untreated sniffle (because there’s no health coverage for a visit to a doctor’s office) too often becomes severe pneumonia (which results in much more expensive emergency room and hospitalization).
Americans are already paying for health care. There won’t be any more sick people if we choose to more efficiently use the dollars we’re already spending.
In what is supposed to be the greatest nation on this planet, we still have a political party who is against abortion, but after the kid is born says, screw em, someone might abuse the program.
With that in mind, I say screw the Republicans, build a national health care system, and take care of the kids; they are our future, and being in good health will help them be able leaders, rich or poor.
I think this blog shows just how well the issue will be handled in a bipartisan way. :)
“Nobody looks over their health coverage and goes out to get a gall bladder removed just because it’s covered.”
Or because it’s on sale this week only. Certain restrictions may apply. See your local dealer for details….
BIG eye roll.
I wonder if obama sees now how his bipartisan efforts are being repayed?
Probably not.
“In what is supposed to be the greatest nation on this planet”
And a CHRISTIAN nation to boot! I think some of things guys take “suffer the little children” a bit too literally. And erroneously.
Poor george, so worried about how far our tax dollars will stretch. How about if we cut the budget for unnecessary wars of aggression by one dollar for every dollar we put into preventative maintenance health care?
I bet he wouldnt go for that. Better for halliburton and blackwater to enjoy financial health on the taxpayer dollar than for children to get medical care.
These winguts will jump over a dime just to save a penny. No wonder they made such a mess of this nation’s economy.
#
Heckler
Posted January 28, 2009 at 8:01 am | Permalink
“Sane people understand that there is no descent health care in Mexico.”
Sane people also go across the borders (Canada and Mexico) to buy prescription drugs; get excellent dental care at half the cost of this countries.
“Sane people understand that the greater the handout, the greater are the number of people who will take it.”
Sane people also understand there are NO government programs that are not being abused by somebody: it’s part of the package, unfortunately.
“Sane people understand that by raising the income level higher will encourage people who already buy private insurance to drop it and take the hand out.”
Sane people also understand that flags can be put in place so people making over x dollars in x parts of the country don’t qualify.
“Sane people understand that being generous and compassionate with other peoples money is neither generous or compassionate.”
Sane people also understand that a handout to the sick and needy is what makes this country great, regardless of cost.
I, for one, do not mind in the least my tax dollars going to help children. Better that then war.
ditto Walker, ditto!
according to Wiki, the average weekly wage in Manhattan was $1453. That’s well within the 70,000/year mentioned in this article.
Reg, would you try doing the math again? Unless my calculator is on the fritz, $1453 X 52 (weeks in a year) comes to $75,567. That would be greater than 70,000, right?
“Predestined” suggests –
“….doing the math again? Unless my calculator is on the fritz, $1453 X 52 (weeks in a year) comes to $75,567. That would be greater than 70,000, right?”
Don’t facts get in the way of the CONs’ parroted talking points. It makes them cranky.
#
Predestined
Posted January 28, 2009 at 9:23 am | Permalink
according to Wiki, the average weekly wage in Manhattan was $1453. That’s well within the 70,000/year mentioned in this article.
Reg, would you try doing the math again? Unless my calculator is on the fritz, $1453 X 52 (weeks in a year) comes to $75,567. That would be greater than 70,000, right?
=============================
Yes, I suppose…
But I also said well within the limits of $70,000 – which means upper and lower limits as established by differences in tax rates, areas where lived relative to their costs. Median also meaning that the figure is used to prevent a skew of extremes of data utilized.
The point is, if the median salary for the highest paid area in NYC is that, then the $70,000/year figure to include as a SCHIP may well be out of line.
That is, too many people will be included in the program that don’t need to be included.
Would you mind doing the statistical variation by geographical region in the United States to determine the upper and lower limits of exactly what the SCHIP upper inclusion rate would be?
But nice try at using an irrelevant dig.
“Regular” squirms –
“But I also said well within the limits of $70,000 – which means upper and lower limits as established by differences in tax rates, areas where lived relative to their costs.”
What are you? Sarah Palin’s ghost-writer?
“Better for halliburton and blackwater to enjoy financial health on the taxpayer dollar than for children to get medical care.”
It’s the parents job, not mine.
Monkeyhawk
Posted January 28, 2009 at 9:35 am | Permalink
“Regular” squirms –
“But I also said well within the limits of $70,000 – which means upper and lower limits as established by differences in tax rates, areas where lived relative to their costs.”
===========================
Evidently neither yourself nor predestined understand what ‘median’ means.
It is used to control the bias of extreme figures in a range of numbers.
Well within the range, means that median of $70,000 plus or minus that is used as a median figure representation is within the range of comparative numbers (plus or minus that median number)
$75,000 is well within the median of comparative figures in the data set used to determine the median. $70,000 is not a hard based figure, it’s a median figure – you know like the median in the middle of a highway. It coves a certain area and can be represented by a median statistic symbol in comparison to the whole of the highway.
But do prattle on…
Regular,
I would have to assume that the amount referred to is gross pay, since nothing was mentioned about tax rates.
Monkey”boy” says-
“Which is patently insane when applied to health care.
Health care is not market-driven.
Nobody looks over their health coverage and goes out to get a gall bladder removed just because it’s covered. ”
And women don’t have more babies to get a bigger welfare check either. That would be just nuts. Right?
The trouble with most of you lefties is that you REFUSE to learn anything from experience and history.
You refuse to look at what happened to our welfard system before it was reformed.
You refuse to see how the social systems of many western European countries have been pushed to the brink of collapse by immigrants who come not to work but to collect all the socialist bennies.
unreal. Ignorance can be fixed. But refusing to learn is just stupid.
But nice try at using an irrelevant dig.
No dig intended. If I wanted to dig, I’d be up front about it and make it very clear…the way you do. (That was a dig.)
Name one government agency where fraud isn’t a player. Fraud is going to happen, unfortunately, but denying children health care because some bozo might abuse the system is nothing more than a red herring.
The Republicans here don’t want their tax dollars helping children get health care. I have no problem having my tax dollars supporting health care for children. I guess that makes me a bad person in the Republicans eyes. Well, I also have no problem with your tax dollars going to support health care for children as well. That must make me a really bad person, which is fine with me: I’ll wear that badge with honor.
#
Predestined
Posted January 28, 2009 at 9:52 am | Permalink
But nice try at using an irrelevant dig.
No dig intended. If I wanted to dig, I’d be up front about it and make it very clear…the way you do. (That was a dig.)
========================
Fair enough…
Let me know when and if you really lay into me. :)
#
fleettwood
Posted January 28, 2009 at 9:42 am | Permalink
“Better for halliburton and blackwater to enjoy financial health on the taxpayer dollar than for children to get medical care.”
It’s the parents job, not mine.
========================================================
Evidently, Fleetwood is living in a black hole, and is unaware of the millions of families who have lost their jobs and are unable to buy health care for their children, let alone themselves. How’s that Christian thing working for you anyway?
#
JMWalker
Posted January 28, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink
Name one government agency where fraud isn’t a player. Fraud is going to happen, unfortunately, but denying children health care because some bozo might abuse the system is nothing more than a red herring.
The Republicans here don’t want their tax dollars helping children get health care. I have no problem having my tax dollars supporting health care for children. I guess that makes me a bad person in the Republicans eyes. Well, I also have no problem with your tax dollars going to support health care for children as well. That must make me a really bad person, which is fine with me: I’ll wear that badge with honor.
————————————-
I don’t mind helping out parents with children who are truly in need.
I do mind helping out well paid people who would get government paid health insurance just so the parents can park that second SUV in their drive way.
The DimLibs, as a political agenda, simply want to continue overloading the tax funded entitlement boat until that boat sinks, taking us all down with it.
The asinine argument that a family of four making $70,000/yr.+ in income is entitled to free health care paid for by others is just that….asinine.
What the he11 has happened in this country where we once prided ourselves on self-reliance and it was an embarrassment to accept welfare unless truly down and out. You call $70,000 down and out?
No wonder I have no respect for left-wing liberal Dimocrats.
“No wonder I have no respect for left-wing liberal Dimocrats.”
What a bunch of destructive enablers of an ever increasing entitlement mentality, much to the destruction of our once great country.
O’Reilly (sp?) – not a fan – ran the story of the Michigan man that froze to death in his home due to his electricity being shut off. He had a lively debate with two other talking heads. What impressed me was how he ended the segment.
He said that if anyone was in a similar situation, they should email him and he would make sure it didn’t happen to them.
Now, in order for someone to get that message and respond, they would have to have cable and internet. If you have both and are about to get your power cut off, your priorities are off.
But the base of the statement. What I realized is that there are two types of people; those willing to help others, and those willing to help others – with someone else’s money.
“How’s that Christian thing working for you anyway?”
I’m not a Christian.
How’s that Giving Health Insurance to Folks Making 3 Times the Poverty Level” thing going?
By stopping fraud in all government funded programs, enough could be saved to pay SCHIP with billions left over.
Oh, and Fleetwood, are you not aware that being a Republican and not being a Christian is akin to being the devil hisself? It’s a wonder Nathan doesn’t stone you:-)
“By stopping fraud in all government funded programs, enough could be saved to pay SCHIP with billions left over.”
You are almost correct. Should be “Stop goverment funded programs”.
“being a Christian is akin to being the devil hisself? It’s a wonder Nathan doesn’t stone you:-)”
Hogwash
#
Regular
Posted January 28, 2009 at 10:26 am | Permalink
I don’t mind helping out parents with children who are truly in need.
I do mind helping out well paid people who would get government paid health insurance just so the parents can park that second SUV in their drive way.
=====================================================
Then contact your congressperson and ask them to lower the qualifying maximum to a reasonable level. Duh. This ain’t particle physics. That’s what I’ve done to all the reps in Kansas. Mine? $40,000.
I admittedly haven’t read the bill, and I’m wondering if the maximum will be different for each state/area. Is there anything in the bill that mentions this?
Oh, and Regular, my dig was more a poke. I try to refrain from personal pokes, but was forced to make an exception for you. ;)
#
Predestined
Posted January 28, 2009 at 11:28 am | Permalink
I admittedly haven’t read the bill, and I’m wondering if the maximum will be different for each state/area. Is there anything in the bill that mentions this?
Oh, and Regular, my dig was more a poke. I try to refrain from personal pokes, but was forced to make an exception for you. ;)
——————————-
Clarification of intent insures I know where to dig the fence post holes. :)
When folks start posting about health insurance/care it reminds me of the story of the 5 blind men describing an elephant, each touting and describing what they felt, tusk, ear, leg, trunk and tail. While each of their comments are absolutely true they hardly relevant, showing no understanding of the beast. Meanwhile nobody askes the mahout for his observations.
“Regular” gives us –
Clarification of intent insures]
I know where
to dig the fence post holes.
Damn!
Is it Bad Haiku Season again?!
Ok since the factor is medium wage, lower middle class and poverty level. The benefits should be based on the individual states income level considered impoverished. It differs based on the cost of living and middle income in the state. With a starting cost of $1,ooo,oo a month for a studio apartment in NYC. With the cost of getting back and forth to work and food. The aforementioned figure is cut to ribbons before the cost of health. But here in Kansas the cost of all the above is much lower so the cut off line for the bill should reflect the differences. Whether it is 70,000 or 75,000 the differences make a big difference depending on where the family live.
#
writerdog
Posted January 28, 2009 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
Ok since the factor is medium wage, lower middle class and poverty level. The benefits should be based on the individual states income level considered impoverished. It differs based on the cost of living and middle income in the state. With a starting cost of $1,ooo,oo a month for a studio apartment in NYC. With the cost of getting back and forth to work and food. The aforementioned figure is cut to ribbons before the cost of health. But here in Kansas the cost of all the above is much lower so the cut off line for the bill should reflect the differences. Whether it is 70,000 or 75,000 the differences make a big difference depending on where the family live.
============================
Jersey
If I was making 70, 000 a year it would be great here in Kansas but would suck in either NYC or Jersey.
That’s the thing, writerdog. It should depend on the area, even after the state. NYC might be completely different than upstate NY. Large metro areas like NYC *could* have a different rating than the more rural. That’s nothing more than a guess, by the way.
I agree that 70K for Kansas is high. I wouldn’t mind making that though. grin But I’ll be thankful for what I do make and hope it doesn’t decrease in the near future.
My youngest was on Healthwave. Since her father, at the time of the divorce, didn’t have health insurance (a whole ‘nother story there) and I couldn’t afford it, both attorneys said to put her on Healthwave. In fact, it reads that way in the divorce papers. We didn’t use it a lot. We don’t run to the doctor or emergency room for every little sniffle, but she did require some counseling for an anxiety disorder and later some dental work, so I was thankful to have it. She’s over the max age now, but looking for a job where she can get insurance while she’s still in school, too.
If I understand this expansion correctly, it allows states to continue to receive their federal matching funds if they exceed the 300 percent cutoff (families with incomes exceeding three times the federal poverty level). Aren’t most states in pretty dire financial straits? How many are going to overspend, or even have the ability to do so?