Monday, March 12, 2007
Unhealthy Care
Big article in the Des Moines Register today about children's health care and the Hawk-I program. There are several key points that the article misses out on that anyone with common sense and a little research behind them would be able to include.
Shortfall endangers kids' coverage
There are around 30,000 Iowa kids on the program. Originally, the program was a matching federal grant to states known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program. When Congress set it up in the 1990's (Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy co-sponsored), expenses were capped at $40 billion for the decade. Capped at $40-billion.
You can guess what happened to that cap. With no real enforcement on behalf of the federal government, it naturally grew.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia...is a longtime supporter of the program. [He says] it's beneficial for families to have parents included, but the program was aimed at children, he said. "When states use funds intended for children to instead cover adults, that means fewer dollars are available for kids," Grassley said.
Harkin said he's more comfortable with covering adults. "What I understand is when parents enroll, maybe kids are more likely to enroll, so maybe that's OK," Harkin said.
Duh. Of course he wants less responsibility to be placed on parents to get their kids insurance coverage. The more that don't have insurance, the more a state gets money. Which is why we set the income eligibility level so high.
To start the story, the Des Moines Register report included a sad-sack story (read: biased) to get you to care and want more government goodies. Later, we find out that the family DID check into private insurance.
Shouldn't the program be helping with no choice instead of those who are too lazy to pay for it on their own?
That applies to corporate welfare too. Last year, following 9/11, the federal government devoted $500 million to persuade companies to remain in lower Manhattan after the damage. American Express alone pocketed $25 million...despite the fact they had had an office in the area for 150-years and had never expressed a desire to move to another area. They took the money anyway.
-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!
Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!
WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)
Shortfall endangers kids' coverage
Come late June, the help provided by Hawk-I might be harder to come by for many youngsters.What tight federal budget cuts? I haven't heard of any...have you?
The program in Iowa - and 13 other states - faces a shortfall that could leave thousands of Iowa kids without insurance.
Congress is scrambling to come up with a solution, and kids' insurance is seen as a top priority for the Democratic majority, but nothing's certain yet at a time of tight federal budgets.
There are around 30,000 Iowa kids on the program. Originally, the program was a matching federal grant to states known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program. When Congress set it up in the 1990's (Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy co-sponsored), expenses were capped at $40 billion for the decade. Capped at $40-billion.
You can guess what happened to that cap. With no real enforcement on behalf of the federal government, it naturally grew.
Popular with both Democrats and Republicans, the program with a $5 billion national budget this year is aimed at working families who aren't the poorest of the poor - they hold down jobs but can't afford the rising price of health insurance.$5-billion dollars THIS YEAR ALONE certainly exceeds the CAP of $40-billion originally intended, doesn't it? It's not surprising that the CAP was exceeded, though...all a state had to do to get more money was to make the program open to more people.
Compared with some states, Iowa has been modest in its approach to the program, lawmakers say. Iowa restricts health insurance coverage to people under age 19, while some states have included pregnant women, parents and even childless adults.Any low income program that makes anyone with an income 200-percent above the poverty level eligible isn't necessarily a low-income program anymore. New Jersey, for instance...has the eligibility set at 350-percent above the federal poverty level.
The top income limit for eligible Iowa families is 200 percent of the federal poverty level, which comes out to about $34,000 a year for a family of three. But 15 states - many on the East or West coasts - set limits higher, saying their cost of living is higher.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia...is a longtime supporter of the program. [He says] it's beneficial for families to have parents included, but the program was aimed at children, he said. "When states use funds intended for children to instead cover adults, that means fewer dollars are available for kids," Grassley said.
Harkin said he's more comfortable with covering adults. "What I understand is when parents enroll, maybe kids are more likely to enroll, so maybe that's OK," Harkin said.
Duh. Of course he wants less responsibility to be placed on parents to get their kids insurance coverage. The more that don't have insurance, the more a state gets money. Which is why we set the income eligibility level so high.
To start the story, the Des Moines Register report included a sad-sack story (read: biased) to get you to care and want more government goodies. Later, we find out that the family DID check into private insurance.
Whatever the debate in Washington, [Knoxville family Marci] Ruff said the Hawk-I program has been of great assistance.CHOSE to go without primarily because they could get someone else to pick up the tab. I currently pay an "astronomical" amount of $100 dollars a week for coverage for myself and 3 others.
"I've been married to my husband for 18 years, and we've always had health insurance," she said. But when he lost his job, then found a new one, the health insurance was an "astronomical" $90 a week and they chose to go without, she said.
Shouldn't the program be helping with no choice instead of those who are too lazy to pay for it on their own?
That applies to corporate welfare too. Last year, following 9/11, the federal government devoted $500 million to persuade companies to remain in lower Manhattan after the damage. American Express alone pocketed $25 million...despite the fact they had had an office in the area for 150-years and had never expressed a desire to move to another area. They took the money anyway.
-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!
Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!
WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)
Labels: corporate welfare, health care
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
