Comments on: S-CHIP Fiasco http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/ Health Care Policy and Reform Insights | NCPA Fri, 25 May 2012 07:01:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dave Racer http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-20141 Dave Racer Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:28:28 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-20141 Far too simple and logical to catch the attention of politicians. By the way, I’d like to find a way to shed 95% of political oversight, limiting the pols to only issues dealing with enforcement of legitimate contracts. But as they said about Ronald Reagan’s ideas, that sounds too simple. Far too simple and logical to catch the attention of politicians. By the way, I’d like to find a way to shed 95% of political oversight, limiting the pols to only issues dealing with enforcement of legitimate contracts. But as they said about Ronald Reagan’s ideas, that sounds too simple.

]]> By: Chris Conover http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19910 Chris Conover Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:07:24 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19910 John, I deserve no credit for crafting this inspired idea, but hope I get some credit for recognizing an excellent idea when I see one. Count me among its supporters. The 4th unstated advantage is that by putting it on the table, you can pretty quickly separate those interested only in making political hay over this situation from those actually interested in reducing the ranks of uninsured children. Judging from the snippet of Paul Krugman’s overheated, flagrantly inaccurate (but also largely unchallenged) Bush-bashing remarks on this issue that I overheard this AM on the Diane Rehm show, I fear there are too many like-minded Democrats interested in leveraging this veto into a 2008 campaign issue to make consensus around your idea a politically viable one. Keep up the good work. John,

I deserve no credit for crafting this inspired idea, but hope I get some credit for recognizing an excellent idea when I see one. Count me among its supporters.

The 4th unstated advantage is that by putting it on the table, you can pretty quickly separate those interested only in making political hay over this situation from those actually interested in reducing the ranks of uninsured children. Judging from the snippet of Paul Krugman’s overheated, flagrantly inaccurate (but also largely unchallenged) Bush-bashing remarks on this issue that I overheard this AM on the Diane Rehm
show, I fear there are too many like-minded Democrats interested in leveraging this veto into a 2008 campaign issue to make consensus around your idea a politically viable one.

Keep up the good work.

]]> By: Gregory Isaacs http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19907 Gregory Isaacs Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:03:46 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19907 I have a suggestion. Why not send out some self-employed or employed w/o furnished insurance with the usual medical histories to try and buy insurance on the open market? You will then have proof that they can buy the insurance for $1000 a year per child and demonstrate that there is affordable coverage out there in the private market for any family or individual that puts forth the effort to find it. I have a suggestion. Why not send out some self-employed or employed w/o furnished insurance with the usual medical histories to try and buy insurance on the open market? You will then have proof that they can buy the insurance for $1000 a year per child and demonstrate that there is affordable coverage out there in the private market for any family or individual that puts forth the effort to find it.

]]> By: Ron Lindsey http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19906 Ron Lindsey Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:01:15 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19906 Brilliant. Brilliant.

]]> By: Peter Ferrara http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19905 Peter Ferrara Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:59:33 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19905 Your piece here is a ray of light in the darkness. But only a ray of light. We need to be on the offensive, quite right. But the other factor is that we should not be discussing SCHIP out of the context of Medicaid. We are spending on Medicaid altogether what now, over $400 billion a year? Yet we are debating SCHIP as if Medicaid and the enormous contribution to the poor from taxpayers it represents doesn't exist. Republicans who don't want to expand SCHIP by 140% are being told that they dont care about poor children, even though they have supported a program providing $400 bilion a year in health care for the poor, a program by the way that even the richest country in the world cannot afford. The problem with using tax credits to try to deliver assistance on health care is that it is creating another welfare entitlement program for health care on top of Medicaid. Your proposal, and the tax credits Heritage proposes, would be a good substitute for Medicaid. But on top of Medicaid? Is our position now that Mediciad is not enough health care assistance for those of low and moderate income on health care and we need to do more? This is why the real alternative to doubling or tripling SCHIP is to block grant both of them back to the states on the model of the 1996 AFDC reform. This frames the issue at the federal level as how much should the feds devote to this program each year. That leads to a focus at the federal level on the overall budget problem. This leaves for each state to decide who gets how much health care assistance at what income level. With fixed, finite block grants, each state decides the issue effectively as if the state is paying for all of it. If we can just limit Federal spending on Medicaid and SCHIP to grow no more than the rate of growth of GDP, these programs would no longer contribute to growing Federal spending as a percent of GDP, one really huge accomplishment. Your piece here is a ray of light in the darkness. But only a ray of light.
We need to be on the offensive, quite right. But the other factor is that we should not be discussing SCHIP out of the context of Medicaid. We are spending on Medicaid altogether what now, over $400 billion a year? Yet we are debating SCHIP as if Medicaid and the enormous contribution to the poor from taxpayers it represents doesn’t exist. Republicans who don’t want to expand SCHIP by 140% are being told that they dont care about poor children, even though they have supported a program providing $400 bilion a year in health care for the poor, a program by the way that even the richest country in the world cannot afford.

The problem with using tax credits to try to deliver assistance on health care is that it is creating another welfare entitlement program for health care on top of Medicaid. Your proposal, and the tax credits Heritage proposes, would be a good substitute for Medicaid. But on top of Medicaid?
Is our position now that Mediciad is not enough health care assistance for those of low and moderate income on health care and we need to do more?

This is why the real alternative to doubling or tripling SCHIP is to block grant both of them back to the states on the model of the 1996 AFDC reform.

This frames the issue at the federal level as how much should the feds devote to this program each year. That leads to a focus at the federal level on the overall budget problem.

This leaves for each state to decide who gets how much health care assistance at what income level. With fixed, finite block grants, each state decides the issue effectively as if the state is paying for all of it. If we can just limit Federal spending on Medicaid and SCHIP to grow no more than the rate of growth of GDP, these programs would no longer contribute to growing Federal spending as a percent of GDP, one really huge accomplishment.

]]> By: Richard Green http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19904 Richard Green Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:55:25 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19904 John, once again you forget the real purpose of "insurance" is to keep humans well and in the best possible live state. You do not seem to care what kind of health plan [and eventually health treatment or no treatment] the little children have as long as you can get credit for solving a problem. Please think of your solutions to the REAL problems and NOT to imaginary ideals. Believe it or not the conservative initive really does want to help keep little children healthy and disease free--we just do not want to pay for middle class and upper-middle class adult's and children's health expenses, if they have money to pay for their own. To make it simple--we do not want socialization of medical expense. John, once again you forget the real purpose of “insurance” is to keep humans well and in the best possible live state. You do not seem to care what kind of health plan [and eventually health treatment or no treatment] the little children have as long as you can get credit for solving a problem. Please think of your solutions to the REAL problems and NOT to imaginary ideals. Believe it or not the conservative initive really does want to help keep little children healthy and disease free–we just do not want to pay for middle class and upper-middle class adult’s and children’s health expenses, if they have money to pay for their own.

To make it simple–we do not want socialization of medical expense.

]]> By: Bob http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19768 Bob Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:52:40 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19768 Free care is worth exactly what you pay for it. Free care is worth exactly what you pay for it.

]]> By: Dawn Richardson http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19767 Dawn Richardson Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:51:36 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19767 Instead of calling it S-CHIP, we've been calling it BULL-CHIP. Keep up the good work. Instead of calling it S-CHIP, we’ve been calling it BULL-CHIP.

Keep up the good work.

]]> By: Michael Cannon http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19756 Michael Cannon Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:34:18 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19756 Are you asking me to concede, for the sake of argument, that government has a legitimate interest in kids’ health insurance? Or that government equals society as a whole? Either way, my answer is NIEN! Are you asking me to concede, for the sake of argument, that government has a legitimate interest in kids’ health insurance? Or that government equals society as a whole?

Either way, my answer is NIEN!

]]> By: Lucy http://healthblog.ncpa.org/s-chip-fiasco/comment-page-1/#comment-19754 Lucy Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:32:45 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/s-chip-fiasco/#comment-19754 You're good, John! You’re good, John!

]]>