So, there has been lots of talk concerning children's health lately. To summarize:
Measure 50: Would modify the Oregon Constitution to add an 80 cent tax on cigarettes and use the money to pay for children's health. Would not create any new government agencies, but would add staff, so there would be more bureaucracy than now.
SCHIP: would expand plans to provide government assistance for health insurance for children. Families making $80k a year would still be eligible for government assistance. President Bush is proposing a much more modest increase in government assistance.
The Blue Dog View:
I'm not opposed to the idea of government helping provide for children's health for people who truly can't afford it. But government assistance for those making $80k a year? That's hard for me to swallow as a fiscal centrist. the other issue I have is that I think the health system we have in this country is really broken. And I don't think you fix a financially flawed system by simply throwing more government money at it. I haven't heard anything in either one of these proposals about actually making changes to the health care system itself, so to me adding more government money into the system without some kind of structural change is really counter-productive.
Of course I could be wrong...thoughts?
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
my understanding is that the 80k number is only the case in new york state, where the state elects to provide the benefits to families whose income is 4 times the povery level. most other states have it set at 3 times the poverty level.
the $80k number is a republican booga booga scare number to push the buttons of people who live in areas where the cost of living is lower than it is in NYC.
It sounds like there are eight other states looking for "exceptions" allowing households with incomes significantly above the poverty level to quality...yeah, I know this comes from the White House, but unless you are accusing them of flat out lying, it does make the law look somewhat like a government grab of health care (at least for some)...I'm in favor of the government helping the truly needy. I guess I just disagree with you about what constitutes a financial condition needy enough to need government intervention.
Here's the article:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071006-1.html
If you live in San Francisco, Southern Cal, NY, you may be paying $3k plus a month on rent for a family of four. That's off the net salary of income earners, not gross. We have created a system in some cities where the middle class can't afford to live there, but are expected to work there. If they commute in, it means added expense for child care, and the costs continue.
It's not unreasonable to allow for these regional variances--keeping in mind that otherwise the children of these families go without health care. Do you think parents are choosing not to be covered?
Post a Comment