SCHIP Reauthorization Compromise Has Its Flaws
- Sep 25, 2007 - 8
On Friday, September 21, a bipartisan group of Senate and House leaders announced that they had arrived at compromise language for the much-debated and maligned attempt to expand SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program). The compromise language is a move to the right from the original language of both the House and Senate reauthorization efforts. Nevertheless, it doesn’t go far enough.
SCHIP has been very successful in providing health insurance coverage for millions of children living in poverty. Reauthorization of the program, which is scheduled to expire on September 30, is important for the futures of these children. Unfortunately, under the compromise language approved by Senate and House negotiators, the program will be expanded to include families of four earning up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level, or $61,940 a year. What is more, the compromise allows New York State to grandfather in their proposal to cover a family of four earning 400% of the poverty level, or $82,600 per year. Other states that have already approved higher levels also could be grandfathered in.
President Bush has expressed his commitment to the original SCHIP legislation. He has also proposed increasing the eligibility level to 250% of the poverty level and adding $5 billion more for funding the program for another five years, bringing total funding for the next five years to around $30 billion. The House and Senate compromise language increases funding to $75 billion. In reality, SCHIP spending is difficult to control since it approximates an entitlement program. While the original legislation called for $24 billion in federal spending between 1996 and 2007, the federal government ended up spending more than $40 billion during the ten-year period. It doesn’t take much imagination to believe that the compromise bill proposed by the Senate and House would exceed its cap as well.
The ERLC supports reauthorization of SCHIP in accordance with its original design, as a means to provide health care for the millions of children in this country whose parents cannot afford to provide it for them. Healthy children have a better chance to become healthy adults. Healthy adults are much more likely to reach their fullest potential and contribute significantly to the well-being of the nation. This is a worthwhile goal. SCHIP should be reauthorized, but not expanded to include families who can afford to provide health care for their children without government assistance. The money used by the government to insure these children will be taken away from other families who need to provide for their children.
The compromise language proposed by the Senate and House negotiators moves our nation closer to a government-run health care system, which will be less efficient and less patient-friendly.
Dr. Richard Land has experienced what life is like under socialized medicine. He and his wife Becky lived in England for a number of years (1972-75) and had a child born under that system. Dr. Land does not want Americans subjected to that kind of health care.
“I am convinced that thousands of people die every year in Britain who would not die if they were being treated under the American health system,” he says. “The bottom line is that a government-run health system would mean significantly worse health care for 80% of our population, with only marginally better care for the bottom 20%.”
The current American system (even with its obvious flaws) is much to be preferred. What is needed is a plan to cover those who cannot possibly cover themselves, while our nation continues its unprecedented economic growth and makes it possible for more and more people to be able to afford a health care plan of their own choosing, paid for out of their own income.
If you agree that SCHIP should not be expanded to include families who can afford to provide health care for their children without government assistance, please tell your congressman and senators to vote against the House and Senate negotiators’ proposed SCHIP expansion compromise. You can contact them here.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Living, Health, Citizenship, Legislation, National
8 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Sep 26th, 2007, at 7:15am, Russell Page wrote:
My wife and I were grateful for the CHIP program while we were poor seminary students. It was a blessing and the care provided was excellent. It is a mistake to say all socialized health care will be like that of Great Britian. Just because on form of socialized medicine was unpleasant in the 70’s does not mean an American version 30 years later would have the same problems.
Having spent time in France while in college (1999) i was impressed with their health care system. I believe it is a shame that the richest country in the world cannot provide affordable health care for all of it’s citizens.
I would love to have Dr. land come down and preach at my tiny country church and explain to these poor people why Jesus does not want them to have health insurance.
2 On Sep 27th, 2007, at 5:59am, Nathan Falco wrote:
Russell,
I believe that you missed the point of what Dr. Land was saying. According to the article, the ERLC supports the continuation of the SCHIP program in its original form, which provides health coverage to just the “poor” people you referred to in your comment. What the ERLC is opposed to is extending the SCHIP to families who make $60k or even $80k per year; such families CAN provide health coverage for their children, they just choose not to. Providing the same coverage for them would lessen the program’s ability to cover those who really need it. So Dr. Land is really on your tiny country church’s side.
And I don’t see where you get off saying that Jesus doesn’t want poor people to have health insurance. This has nothing to do with Jesus and is actually aimed a poor people.
3 On Sep 27th, 2007, at 10:54am, Russell Page wrote:
Please understand that many people, myself included consider ERLC to speak for Southern Baptist’s based on what scripture says. Nowhere in scripture do I see Jesus preaching against helping the poor or sick. When Dr. Land says that this program is flawed because it helps too many people I expect that he has a scriptural basis for this assessment. For someone to post on the ERLC website that this issue has nothing to do with Jesus concerns me. If it has nothing to do with Jesus we should not be commenting, but I am under the conviction that everything has to do with Jesus and as Christ’s body we are to reflect his glory, love and mercy into every decision.
Having never made $60k a year I would not know what someone in that salary range could afford. I make $33k a year and my church provides a parsonage as well as pays for my insurance. I am grateful for this! I have no debt but if my church did not cover these things for us we would be unable to have insurance.
4 On Sep 27th, 2007, at 11:07am, Russell Page wrote:
Furthermore I believe in Baptist polity and the ability we have to disagree with dignity, honor and love. Rereading my first post there was a tone that was very unchristian. I apologize to Dr. Land and any who read that post and wish that I had not started a worthy discussion with any spirit that was not of God.
5 On Sep 27th, 2007, at 11:31am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Hi Russell,
Thank you very much for amending the comment about Dr. Land in your first post.
I agree that, as you mentioned, there is the ability (and plenty of room) here for discussion, debate (even spirited in tone), and disagreement on many issues (within Baptist polity and the nation at large).
I must admit I was rather appalled by the last paragraph of your first post, for the very reason you’ve apologized. I believe it took away from otherwise worthwhile points you made about this issue. It was also a gross mischaracterization of Dr. Land’s position on the issue, particularly considering he is on record as having echoed your very concern:
It seems to me the disagreement (if there is indeed disagreement) lies in the policy, not in the philosophy, intent, or spirit.
All that to say, I’m am more than impressed that you posted an apology. It is a rare occurrence, both ‘online’ and offline, and you are to be commended for doing so. Thank you again for your effort to keep the tone of this discussion appropriate and on point.
(Oh, and in the spirit of full disclosure: Matt is on staff at ERLC.)
6 On Sep 29th, 2007, at 7:02am, Nathan Falco wrote:
Thank you very much for your comments on my statement in my first post: that this issue has nothing to do with Jesus. I did not intend to cause divisions, and realize that my last statement was not made in the spirit of Christ; thus I apologize for the way it was worded. The intended meaning was not literally that this issue has nothing to do with Jesus in particular, because as a Christian everything should be seen through the lens of Christ.
Unfortunately, (and the intention of my statement) this issue is one that is not addressed by scripture: providing health insurance coverage for everyone, regardless of their financial straits. Scripture and Christ both call us to care for and support the poor and helpless, but is it a Christian’s responsibility to provide the same financial help to those who do not need it, such as families making $80k per year? That is something that we cannot definitively speak for Christ on; it is vague and open to debate. (Continued below)
7 On Sep 29th, 2007, at 7:44am, Nathan Falco wrote:
(Continued from previous post) As a Baptist, I believe we should be fiscally responsible and provide help where it is needed most--if we extend this “help” to $80k income families, why not extend it to $150k, or $500k? Where do you draw the line? My wife and I make about $30k per year and we have our own health insurance coverage. It would be great if we could get out from under it by qualifying for free insurance. Thanks for your genteel debate on this, as it is important to all of us!
8 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 2:41pm, Fred Griggs wrote:
My concern with any government program like SCHIP is that it fails to recognize personal responsibility. The Bible has much to say about responsibility. Some of that has to do with taking care of the poor and some has to do with husbands taking care of their families. I hope that a balance can be found, which will address both issues.