The Economic Reasons Why the Middle Class Needs SCHIP
Two families have spoken up about their participation in the SCHIP program. The right wing has attempted to paint these families as free-loaders, stupid or lazy. However, the fundamental reality is far more stark. The Bush "boom" has created a small amount of jobs. In addition, the economy has lost high-paying jobs in the manufacturing and information technology - jobs that use to supply the health care for their employees. As a result, median income has declined during this expansion. At the same time, the cost of health insurance has skyrocketed making it more and more unaffordable for more American.
Let's start with some basic economic facts. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research this expansion started in November 2001. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 130,883,000 non-farm jobs. In September of 2007 (the most recent information) there were 138,265,000 jobs - an increase of 7,382,000. So over the 70 months of this expansion the economy has created an average of 105,457 jobs/month. Unfortunately, it takes about 150,000 jobs/month to absorb population growth. In addition, over the same period of time the country has lost 1,845,000 manufacturing jobs and 433,000 information service jobs - both high-paying areas of the job market that traditionally provided health care. As a result of low job creation and the loss of high-paying jobs, median family income according to the Census Bureau has dropped for the duration of this expansion.
At the same time, the cost of health insurance premiums has increased far faster than inflation. Here is a chart of the annual increase in health care insurance premiums from Kaisr Health: Notice how the increase in insurance premiums has far out-stripped worker's pay.
This means the number of uninsured has increased:
This isn't rocket science. Here is the simple economic chain of events for the economy.
1.) Job creation is weak.
2.) The economy has lost a ton of jobs that had high pay and health insurance benefits.
3.) As a result, median family income has been stagnant.
4.) At the same time, health insurance premiums have increased far faster than inflation or pay
5.) As a result, the number of people without health insurance has increased.
The right wing is making the "personal responsibility" argument. Well, that's tough to do when the economy isn't creating the kind of jobs that either provide health insurance or can help people pay for health insurance. It really is that simple.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The politicians were bought by the tobacco and insurance industry. SCHIP didn't pass because of corporate loyalties.
We need to get the lobbyist out of our government and take back our democracy.
I also think the veto of SCHIP is another attack on single mothers whose median pay is 33,000. The neocons want to make it as difficult as possible for them, so they will stay married, or get married.
YOU WANT TO KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE? TRY HAVING TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY TWICE BECAUSE OF MEDICAL BILLS AND YOUR DAUGHTER IN HOCK UP TO HER ASS BECAUSE HER COLLEGE SAVINGS WENT TO PAY HER MOTHER'S MEDICAL BILLS. TRY HAVING TO PAY BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH IN PRESCRIPTION CO-PAYS FOR MEDICINES TO KEEP YOUR WIFE ALIVE. BEFORE HER DEATH IN 1999, MY WIFE WAS CHRONICALLY ILL FOR 20 YEARS AND AS HER VARIOUS DISEASES PROGRESSED SHE SPENT MORE AND MORE TIME IN THE HOSPITAL. ONE OF MY EMPLOYERS DIDN'T HAVE GROUP HEALTH COVERAGE, BUT PAID EMPLOYEES INDIVIDUAL POLICIES INSTEAD. SINCE THIS WAS ALL BUT WORTHLESS IN MY CASE I ENDED UP WITH A 50K HOSPITAL THAT I HAD NO HOPE OF PAYING ON MY 38K PER YEAR SALARY. I'M NOW RETIRED WITH NO SAVINGS (WENT FOR HER MEDICAL CARE) JUST A SMALL PENSION AND SOCIAL SECURITY, THAT GETS SMALLER EVERY TIME I GO THE THE STORE. WE NEED A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM RUN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MEDICARE WOULD BE AN IDEAL STARTING PLACE, AND CONVERT ALL FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE FACILITIES TO NON-PROFIT STATUS SO HEALTH CAR WOULD BE DELIVERED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PATIENTS INSTEAD OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.
Some Republican talking points debunked....
• More smokers will have to be created to pay for SCHIP. FALSE: The bill is financed by a 61-cent-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes, which covers costs for the first five years. In the second five years, the cigarette tax will not be enough. Congress will have to decide in 2012 whether to restrict enrollment or find new revenue sources. That does not mean they will encourage 22 million new smokers.
• Families making $82,600 a year qualify. FALSE: This can happen only if the administration grants a waiver. It has already rejected such a request from New York, probably the only state where the cost of living might justify such a request.
• Illegal immigrants will qualify. FALSE: Not true now, not true in the bill the president vetoed. A provision that may have helped questionable immigrants was put forth in Congress but taken out before final passage. SCHIP goes only to citizens and legal immigrants who have been in the country at least five years.
• Private insurers will suffer. FALSE: Some Republicans worry about crowding insurance companies out of the market, but individual health insurance is out of reach for most families already. Some families may drop on-the-job insurance if SCHIP offers more services at a better price. But it won't be many, and it's better than having them drop all coverage when they're squeezed.
And besides, we already have a system of "socialized medicine" - it's called MediCare and it works well (although it needs improvement). For those who don't think government does things well, I suggest you never call the police or fire department (socialized emergency services), never fly on a plane or ride aboard a ship or train (socialized transportation services), ride on a road (socialized transportation infrastructure), never drink clean water nor breathe fresh air (socialized ecological benefits), never eat food nor take drugs (socialized examined and approved food and medicine), or never use the protections of labor and wage laws (socialized workplace protections).
Writing from Germany, I cannot comment on SCHIP. It does however appear as an entitlement and it is not surprising that it is contested.
On health insurance I would like to comment: one of the American health insurance problems seems to be the "well-paying job with health benefits". This works like health insurance for the individual as long as he has that job. If the individual had health insurance in his name, and the employer would pay part of the premium as a benefit, then the individual had portable insurance. If unemployed it might get tight very quickly, but temporary rescue measures could be devised.
The employer-provided health benefit for workers and retirees appears as an out-dated relict of war-time wage freeze when health benefits were created in lieu of wage increases. Not being individually insured appears as alien to the spirit of individual responsibility and selfrelieance.
The employer would never go for paying part of an individual insurance policy. If they did that they would lose their "bulk" bargaining power they currently have and it would undoubtedly cost them more money than the current system.
Actually, they have something like that called COBRA which allows you to continue your coverage after you lose your job. You have to pay the full price for the coverage. It's temporary (don't know how long).
When you say SCHIP appears as an entitlement, what's wrong with that? How does insurance work in Germany?
Both couples that the right has trashed were, in fact DENIED coverage for their children because of pre-existing conditions (read "because they really needed it"). This is not just about how much money you make.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/MalefMalkin.jpg
"Saga of the S-CHIP" as read by Georgie Junior
I have an alternative for the financing. Every American pays premiums based on a sliding scale for their medical insurance. Every American has medical care. It is called a single payers system. I would have it administered by the govenment because they are more efficient in providing medical care than the insurance companied. (Check the figures, more medical care for the dollar.) It is long past time for universal health care. And don't hand out the lies about all the canadians coming here for their medical care. A few come because they are dealing with spefcific specialists, some because it is more convenient. The Canadian health care is better than ours. Lower infant mortalitiy, Canadians live longer. So do the Spanish, Dutch, French, Portugese, Norweigiens, Germans, Japanese.... We on the other hand have about the life expectancy of Cubans. Hey Americans, we are not #1.
The only problem is that your system won't enrich the Health "care" companies.
You know how much the republicans love corporate welfare.
Believe it or not, America already has socialized medicine. Problem is, you have to be completely broke to qualify. So maybe instead of creating a completely new system, why don't we just start raising the threshold of qualification. We might start with being able to qualify while keeping possession of our houses and vehicles, then work our way up to include being able to keep our own income.
Nah!
Show me where you can get individual health insurance with a co pay limit. I haven't found one with less the 50% copay. So even with insurance you owe 100K$ on a 200k bill. Frankly, there is no such thing as Health "insurance" anymore, just expensive hostile discount plans.
Seriously, Point me to some good health insurance please?
Insurance companies prosper, when they can pick and choose, who they insure.If you are likely to have a claim, they would rather insure someone else. If they cannot profit by insuring you, they don't want you.The only reason that we now have Medicare, is because the private insurance companies refused to cover people over a certain age (65). The President of the United States is opposed to children getting medical treatment. He was not saying no to all children, only those who need it. The children of the wealthy will be taken care of with or without insurance, and so like so many other issues, the poor are once again the target. What kind of a society denies medical care to children? As long as these Insurance companies are involved they will continue to rob us. Some people think that each of the Democratic candidates have a health care plan. They do, but they all protect the Insurance Companies, and keep them involved, except, of course Anti-War Candidate, Dennis Kucinich...A FREE, universal, single-payer, not-for-profit, health care system......Medicare for All!
I thought the same way until an Edwards supporter showed me how his plan is basically designed to phase out the insurance companies. I think Kucinich is ideal, and people should vote for him, but I have to support Edwards until after the primary shakeout and vote for whoever comes out on top, possibly Hillary (the lesser of many goods).
Thank you for the simple explanation.
Here's something else to consider...
In my area, a family of 3 would be eligible for coverage under the expanded SCHIP if they grossed approx. $52K/year. (It's about $19K/year under the current program.)
To cover a family of 3 under private health insurance would cost approx. $24K/year. With the remaining $28K/year ($52K -$24K) this family of 3 is expected to pay taxes, mortgage/rent, child care, utilities, food, clothing etc. How would they do it?
The people who object to raising the cigarette tax to pay for SCHIP should offer an alternative.
How about not having kids until you can pay for their health care?
So the only ones who could have kids would be the rich? What an egalitarian society we inhabit. Oh and by the way, even if you can afford to *pay* for health insurance, they can deny you coverage for any little pre-existing condition, so you might not even be able to *get* health insurance for your family! And even if you do, it covers so little and you have to fight and beg for any payment on your medical bills, despite shelling out exorbitant premiums and co-pays, because they'll say you had a pre-existing condition so they don't have to pay for that surgery that saved your life. Why don't you do a little research, watch SiCKO, or get a little experience out in the real world before posting ridiculous statements like the above. I almost hope you or someone you love loses health benefits so you can see what it's like trying to get health care in this country, so then you will be forced to see what a serious problem we share. This whole "go it alone" attitude just doesn't cut it when you're talking about the common pool of risk we are swimming in.
Amen!
I'd like the government to get out of the business of throwing money at every problem.
What ever happened to the idea that if you can't afford it, you do without. Why should your neighbor pay for YOUR needs or those of YOUR children?
How about practicing abstinence until you can afford children.
Works for me. Then the college Republicans can fight our shooting wars, defend our borders, pick up our garbage, etc. I'm one of the lucky ones, you see. I have diabetes and my wife had ovarian cancer 11 years ago. My wife left nursing for massage therapy, as an independent contractor, 7 years ago because she got tired of seeing uninsured and underinsured being sent home to die. My job with benefits was outsourced to India. But I was lucky enough to find a contract position that could cover the bills, which now include $1950 per month for health insurance. I'm sure Wall Street appreciates the insurance company's buying stocks and bonds with my premium dollars to keep the Dow high, and the White House loves to point at the Dow as proof that the economy is doing fine. But my general attitude is now F**K THEM.
Ideologically we disagree on the "need" for the expanded version of SCHIP soon to be vetoed. So I won't argue that point. But lets be honest about where children stand as a priority in this country.
We could fund schools that look like palacial complexes, pay teachers more than doctors. But we don't. We could fund youth and children reccreation centers and atheletic facilities and nearly end childhood obesity. But we don't.
We could eliminate the national debt and fund social security. But we don't.
Its a good thing that we don't forsake ALL else for the expense of our children. So it's OK to say we don't literally do everything we can for our children.
The latest SCHIP expands the scope of the program far beyond any safety-net capacity. It may not insure upper-mid income children as some right wingers have suggested but its pretty close to socialized medicine for most children in America. Plus the funding doesn't ad up. A penalizing tax on smokers, when SCHIP would require millions of new smokers each year. People will quit smoking(good) but then the funding won't be there(bad). And once people are addicted to "free" health care you can't get them off it. Not to mention, to tax smokers is to tax poor people.
Maybe a smaller versionof SCHIP funded another way, would be a good idea. But this is just bad legislation.
We could fund schools that turn out educated citizens. But we don't.
We could pay teachers more than entertainers. But we don't.
----
We could use some of the Iraq war money to pay for SCHIP. But we don't.
We'll have to disagree on the 'need' for expanded SCHIP. I wouldn't mind free healthcare for all children. I'm glad you think 'maybe a smaller version of SCHIP' could be funded.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
