The $40,000 refers to the level of income that defines the upper limit (?) of the proposed SCHIP expansion, not something on the books now.

And the group I linked to is PRO the SCHIP expansion, not Anti. The collection of articles and editorials is the spin the advocates give to the program. Any bias in it isn’t indicitive of my own view.

I’m not against the current SCHIP program, and maybe some expansion of it is in order, but at some point it becomes something other than a helping hand to poor people. Were if to become a middle class entitlement the costs could be enormous.

Mississippi is eligible to receive as much as $55 million in new funds for fiscal year 1999. SCHIP is historic, bipartisan legislation signed in 1997 by President Clinton. The SCHIP law appropriates $24 billion over five years to help states expand health insurance to children whose families earn too much for traditional Medicaid, yet not enough to afford private health insurance. Mississippi, like all states with SCHIP plans, will receive federal matching funds only for actual expenditures to insure children.

Together, the 56 state and territorial SCHIP plans anticipate providing health insurance coverage for more than 2.6 million currently uninsured children over three years.

“The Clinton Administration and the states are working together to give children the health care they need to live longer, healthier lives,” said Secretary Shalala. “It’s a pleasure to approve Mississippi’s amendment and I look forward to more states expanding their programs in the future.”

SCHIP gives states three options for devising a plan to cover uninsured children: designing a new children’s health insurance program; expanding current Medicaid programs; or a combination of both strategies. HHS must approve any amendment to a state’s SCHIP program.

Mississippi’s initial SCHIP plan, a Medicaid expansion, was approved by Secretary Shalala on March 31, 1997. In February 1999, the state had an amendment approved that created a separate SCHIP program for children below age 19 in families with income levels between 100 percent and 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The current FPL for a family of four is $16,700.

So tell me how $16,700(1999) becomes $40,000 today. Something doesn’t smell right here, I wonder how you feel about corp welfare for ADM?

I’m not at all convinced this is the best bill possible; There was an odd thing about suddenly dropping a tabacco tax for funding, for example.

However, if looking for a better bill was the answer, then the talking should have started years ago. One way to kill bills, practised increasingly, is to claim support for the iidea, but deny a vote for the bill because it’s just not good enough. That argument can be used in perpetuity.
Politicians use this method cynically to milk approval from both sides of the issue. In the meantime, the bill dies, often without being resurrected..

I’d rather go for the bird in the hand than the two in the bush liable to fly away.

You’re fractionally a heartless SOB if you want to deny them the health care for half a decade while a better plan gets worked out.

Though if this truly is rob Peter to pay Paul, that does sound kind of shady.

Does that mean we can talk frankly about how the bill pays for the additional coverage by reducing Medicare payments for seniors?

And is it OK to talk about whether or not there might be a better way to handle the problem of uninsured kids, or am I simply a heartless SOB if I don’t have a kneejerk reaction to support this?

Emotions are only cheap to those who don’t share them.
Mostly, emotions can motivate people to do great things.

I would not misrepresent in aid of pursuing my emotional goals. However, what is middle class and what is poor depends on whether a family can or can not afford to buy private insurance,, not on the dollar amount of their income.

Investing in the health of its citizens is the most
unemotional, and fiscally prudent thing this nation could do.
Should we ever manage to do it adequately, I’ll be very emotionally glad.

Pay a penny today, or pay a dollar tomorrow, the bill for this neglect will come due.

Good point.

There may be problems with this specific program, but the general idea is a good one.

What a crock. That’s people making $19.25 to $24.00 an hour. Sure, in some places where housing is extraoridinarily expensive it is a stretch, but most areas of the US simply are not that expensive. (Believe it or not most people do not live in NY, DC, Boston, SF and LA.)

It is soooo discouraging to see how focused the public is on making sure no struggling individual or family gets away with one cent of undeserved assistance.

It is a matter of priorities. By “selling” this as a program for the “poor” it avoids the fact that it is really offering a helping hand to the middle class. Too many government program get sold in such a way. “Oh you dont want to help the poor children! You brute!”

Or, “You don’t want to help those poor family farmers, you bully!” When those “poor” family farmers are making a million bucks a year.

Lets talk honestly abut what this program is, who it is designed to help, what it costs, and where it should rank in our list of priorities. The cheap emotionalism gets us nowhere, and is meant more to obfuscate than to clarify anyway.

It is soooo discouraging to see how focused the public is on making sure no struggling individual or family gets away with one cent of undeserved assistance. It would be ever so much more fuitful to engage in counting up the public dollars saved by investing in good health care for all.

We all pay, one way or another, sooner or later, for a low health level in the nation. Our health statistics are going down, down, down. Pay a penny today, or pay a dollar tomorrow, the bill for this neglect will come due.

Here is a good place for info from a SCHIP advocacy group: On page 14 it has a story that sums the program up thusly:

SCHIP (or just plain CHIP, as most know it) is the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, operated separately from Medicaid. Created by Congress in 1998, it now covers 68,000 children of low-income Mississippi families whose
employers do not provide medical coverage or who earn just enough to not be eligible for Medicaid.

Medicaid is an entitlement program, funded 83 percent by federal dollars, that now covers some 605,000 Mississippians, including 130,000 children, who live below the poverty level (now $40,000 for a family of four).

The entire point of SCHIP is to cover people who cannot qualify for Medicaid. I’m not saying there should be no program of any sort. I just think it is disingenuous to call it a program for “poor people” when it is clearly designed for people who make $40,000+.

And yes, egrubs, $40,000 won’t go as far in the OC, but it quite middle class in Mississippi (and most other areas.) That is one reason the states run these programs, so they can be implemented with an eye to local conditions.

That said…um…I can’t understand how this is a “philosophical” issue without immediately proposing a “philosophical” way for those same kids to be covered just as effectively.

Are we really defining “working poor” up to $40,000+ a year?

Where did this number come from? I didn’t see it in any of the posts links. IC, please provide a link for verification.

the strange reluctance of the Dems to serioulsy stomp for national healthcare is based on their candidates dependency on HMO and Pharma money

Did you ever seriously doubt this? Lobbyists are not partisan, they donate to whom they think will win. The biggest lobbies donate to everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, to make sure that no matter who is in power, THEY are in power.

Yes socialized medicine, ohhhh scary! We wouldn’t want to be like those smelly Europeans, never mind they have better systems. lower infant mortality (hell even Cuba has lower infant mortality!) and life expectancy.

I realize that foks making $40,000 can experience real financial hardships if their children develop serious chronic medical issues, but this program goes WAY beyond helping folks in those situations.

Couldn’t we have a more narrowly focused program to help those in the middle class deal with catastorphic costs?