S-CHIP By The Numbers

The rhetoric around reauthorization the State Children's Health Insurance Program is making my head spin. Whoever thought that providing health care to kids could be so complicated?

Instead of the usual political bickering, I prefer to look at the numbers, plain and simple:

$35 billion: The additional funding allocated over five years in Congress's S-CHIP bill. This cost is entirely offset by an increase in the tobacco tax.

$195 billion: The additional funding that President Bush has requested for the next one year of the Iraq war.

$83,000 per year: Average family income that President Bush claims will be covered under the new S-CHIP reauthorization bill.

$34,340 per year: Average family income under which 70% of families to be covered in the new bill fall. The current bill does not include any provisions changing income eligibility caps.

32% - The percentage of children estimated to gain coverage under the new bill who would otherwise have some sort of private insurance (The 'crowd-out effect').

77% - Estimated crowd out under the Bush administration's proposed health tax proposals submitted last year (more than twice as bad).

18,000 - Number of deaths each year due to a lack of health insurance.

108,000 - Number of lives that could be saved by increasing the tobacco tax to $1 a pack.

412-1: The House of Representative's vote on Monday on supporting National Life Insurance Month.

265-159: The House's vote on Tuesday on supporting the S-CHIP bill, which is less than the two-thirds majority needed to override the president's expected veto.

1.9 million: Number of children who are estimated to lose coverage over the next five years if S-CHIP remains unchanged.

3.5 million: Number of uninsured children who gain health care coverage if Congress can override Bush's veto.

Somehow, the President's plan just doesn't seem to add up...

Comments

[nloewentheil]

I'd also like to see an estimate of the cost to society of each smoker; in other words, the additional health care cost that each smoker incurs on society on average.

[JeffDeVore]

PS. If the number of lives lost due to lack of insurance is 18,000 then how can 108,000 be saved by funding the program?

[ShockedSHOCKED]

If this comment is not purely rhetorical, there is an explanation:

The 108,000 lives saved would come from reductions in the levels of smoking caused by the dollar/pack increase. Lives lost due to lack of insurance is a completely different issue, but if raising cigarette taxes both reduces death by lowering rates of smoking AND reduces death by funding more insurance coverage then it's a win-win proposition.

[RobNelb]

The 108,000 is the number saved by just the tobacco tax alone, not even counting the millions of children who will receive coverage in the S-CHIP program. Some policy makers are complaining about the tobacco tax being used to fund the program, but when you look at in terms of number of lives saved, it's a real win-win all around.

[KenGirard]

Add in the number of lives saved from people who will quit smoking due to increased cost.

Now if we can only add in a higher luxury tax on any car, truck, boat or motorcycle that cost more then $30,000. Do the same for pet, purse or jewlery that cost more then $1,000, and houses that have more then 2,000 sq. feet.

[Seattle34]

And let me guess, your car cost less than $30,000, your pets and purses cost less than $1000, and your house has less than 2000 sq ft?

Am I right? Huh? :)

[JeffDeVore]

I understand that a great many people see cigarette smokers as the scum of the earth, but is there ever a program whose first source of funding isn't an increase in cigarette tax? Like maybe a tax on luxury yachts or hunting ammunition? How about a tax on gambling on sporting events?

[RobNelb]

I think the main reason they chose the tobacco tax was because it was a big health benefit that comes from a health program. It really makes sense to tie the two together.

[howardl]

This is a useful presentation. One thing is unclear: Is Bush wrong when he says that families making $83,000 a year would qualify for the schip benefit? Or are you saying that not very many people making that much would qualify, and that most (70%) of the people who do qualify would make less than 34,000? And if you mean to say the latter: how many of those people making less than 34,000 do not qualify under the rules as they are now?

[RobNelb]

Bush came up with the $83,000 number when New York State suggested that it may consider covering states up to 400% of the poverty level using additional state funds. This was merely a speculation, and no state currently covers kids at that level.

The federal S-CHIP reauthorization doesn't include any mention of covering kids at any different levels than those that are currently covered by the program, and in fact, as I mention, the vast majority kids who will receive care are already eligible for S-CHIP or Medicaid, but they are just not enrolled because states don't have the money to cover them.

The Annenburg Political Fact Check has a good analysis of this at the following link: http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html

[usna73]

May I add more of the Bush fantasy to your analysis.

We are parents of a permanently disabled child. I was advised to file for S-Chip ( didn't need it at that time) to be sure to secure our place in line if we ever had he need, here in Ohio. I did so, being incredulous that in fact a family in need could not get a waiver at that point for a disabled child, just because the family had resources. That is true even if the child would not be covered under a private health insurer contract. Luckily, I am part of a group policy with my employment.

The Bush solution is to go to the emergency room, or spend down all of your assets and receive Medicaid to protect your children.

By the way, it has been five years, and we would still be on the waiting list for the waivers. The cavalry will not be coming.

The need for help is especially dramatic in Cuyahoga County(Cleveland) where poverty is rampant. Now may I ask, do you think that has to do with the fact that Bush is highly unsympathetic to a large African-American population with a large Democratic presence. Not a chance, huh? Not with our compassionate conservative decider in charge.

[Sceptic42]

As I understand it, the states themselves are in control over what constitutes eligiblity for the program, and that New York, for instance, allows children to join even if their family makes up to four times the poverty amount (which is where the $83,000 figure comes from). So SOME families making $83,000 per year would qualify, but that is certainly not the *average* amount of those who would qualify.

[RDixon]

"$35 billion: The additional funding allocated over five years in Congress's S-CHIP bill. This cost is entirely offset by an increase in the tobacco tax."

This cost is NOT entirely offset by the tobacco tax.
In fact for that to be true there would need to be approximately 5 million new people take up smoking right now and smoke 2 packs per day.

I won't address the rest of your numbers as they are for the most part just pulled from the air or imagination.

[Sceptic42]

A quick search of U.S. cigarette sales and we find that the total number of cigarettes sold in the US in 2005 was 378 billion. That translates to 18.9 billion packs (at 20 cigs a pack). If we use the (lower) House increase of 45 cents, that gives us 8.5 billion dollars per year, more than enough to cover the 7 billion per year (35 billion over 5 years) that this would cost. Even assuming that fewer people smoke today than in 2005, and assuming that even fewer will smoke by 2012, it is demonstrably FALSE that you would immediately need 5 million new smokers to pay for this increase.