Bush continues to work towards complete destruction of the GOP

I got this from another board. All credit for formatting, etc. goes to the girl who posted it.

Mods: If this post is too long or breaks any rules, my apologies.

SCHIP and "Crowd-Out": The High Cost of Expanding Eligibility by Paul L. Winfree and Greg D'Angelo WebMemo #1627 Congress is engaged in an attempt to end the federal stalemate over reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is set to expire at the end of the month. Rather than refocus SCHIP as a targeted safety net for low-income uninsured children, the two chambers passed bills to extend the safety net to children in families with significantly higher incomes.

Expanding SCHIP eligibility further up the income ladder is not a good way to help families that lack insurance yet have incomes above the current federal threshold. Enrolling children in families at these income levels is inefficient and will disrupt the private coverage many of them have today. This is because government programs and taxpayer dollars will increasingly become substitutes for private coverage and funding. This policy-induced phenomenon, known as "crowd out," substantially increases the cost of covering uninsured children.

The Heritage Foundation conducted an econometric analysis of the likely crowd out associated with the House and Senate bills. This analysis was based on a modified and extended version of the methodology developed by MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, a leading expert on the crowd-out effect. This analysis found that Congress's expansion proposals for SCHIP could cover as many as 2.4 million newly eligible children, but because of crowd out, the ranks of the uninsured would decrease by only 1 million. This is because, for every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), 54 to 60 children would lose the private coverage that they have today. [1]

To avoid undue costs and ensure that the program effectively and efficiently serves its intended purpose,[2] Congress should change course and focus SCHIP on uninsured children in low-income families. To accomplish this, it should provide tax relief or direct assistance to needy families currently unable to afford to enroll their children in available private coverage.

When Congress reauthorizes SCHIP, it should keep in mind two important points. First, policies that expand eligibility thresholds cause children to lose private health insurance, which is often replaced by public programs. Second, estimates of this crowd out and its costs are significant and supported by most research in the field.[3]

SCHIP and the Crowd-Out Effect
Most of the debate over SCHIP reauthorization hinges on expanding program eligibility to children in higher income families. While expanding SCHIP eligibility would, to some extent, reduce the ranks of uninsured children, these gains would be significantly offset—or even outpaced—by losses in private insurance. As the safety net is cast further up the income ladder, instead of complementing private coverage and reducing the ranks of the uninsured, SCHIP would increasingly become a substitute for it.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently conducted a literature review to estimate crowd out due to previous SCHIP expansions. CBO estimates crowd out for these expansions is between 25 and 50 percent. In other words, one quarter to one half of newly enrolled children would have otherwise had private coverage.[4] Indeed, most leading studies of SCHIP expansions find crowd out of this magnitude. Moreover, it is generally agreed that the magnitude of the crowd-out effect will grow with further eligibility expansions because an overwhelming majority of newly eligible children already have private coverage to lose. [5] Yet recent studies have not estimated the crowd-out effects of SCHIP expansions relative to income eligibility thresholds. To fill this gap in the literature and to estimate the potential crowd-out effects if Congress were to expand SCHIP to children from families with higher incomes, The Heritage Foundation conducted its own econometric study.

Congress's SCHIP Eligibility Expansions and Crowd Out
The Heritage Foundation estimates show that SCHIP expansions have significantly substituted government programs for private coverage among newly eligible children. Moreover, this effect grows significantly in magnitude as children from higher income families become eligible.[6] (See Table 1.)

On the aggregate, for every 100 children newly eligible for SCHIP, between 30 and 35 children lose private coverage. Disaggregating the analysis by income eligibility thresholds, however, indicates crowd out grows in magnitude when the program is extended beyond its intended focus of covering uninsured children in families below 200 percent of the FPL[7] In summary, Heritage finds:

• For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the FPL, 34 to 42 children would lose private coverage;
• For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the FPL, 44 to 51 children would lose private coverage; and
• For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 400 percent of the FPL, 54 to 60 would lose private coverage.

​

The Cost of Senate and House Expansions
Estimating the magnitude of crowd out as a result of SCHIP expansions is important because, as the program becomes a substitute for private coverage, assistance flows to families whose children would have otherwise had insurance and away from children who currently go without. Because crowd out causes the ranks of the uninsured to decrease less than expected on a static basis, it increases the cost to the taxpayer of covering the uninsured. For this reason, despite what some in Congress might think, expanding SCHIP eligibility is a costly way to reduce the ranks of uninsured children.

Under the Senate's SCHIP expansion,[8] an estimated 1 million to 1.2 million children would gain SCHIP coverage, but between 467,000 and 611,000 children would lose private coverage. Due to poor targeting and the relative cost of crowd out, the annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the Senate’s expansion plan would increase from $1,418 to between $2,508 and $2,859. This is 1.8 to 2 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 2.5 times the average cost of private insurance.[9]

​

Under the House's SCHIP expansion,[10] an estimated 2.2 million to 2.4 million children would gain SCHIP coverage, but between 1.2 and 1.5 million children would lose private coverage. Due to poor targeting and the relative cost of crowd out, the annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the House’s expansion plan would increase from $1,612 to between $3,485 and $4,008. This is 2.2 to 2.5 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 3.5 times the average cost of private insurance.[11]​

​

Conclusion
Expanding SCHIP to cover children in higher income families is not an efficient or cost-effective way to reduce the ranks of uninsured children. As the safety net is cast further up the income ladder, it will increasingly substitute government programs and taxpayer dollars for private coverage and funding. In order to avoid significant and increasing crowd out, and to optimize the program’s “bang for the buck,” Congress should abandon its current course before SCHIP expires. Congress should, then, restore SCHIP’s purpose as a targeted safety net for uninsured children in low-income families and work to more efficiently and effectively direct assistance to those most in need.






============================================================
SCHIP and "Crowd-Out": The High Cost of Expanding Eligibility by Paul L. Winfree and Greg D'Angelo WebMemo #1627 Congress is engaged in an attempt to end the federal stalemate over reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is set to expire at the end of the month. Rather than refocus SCHIP as a targeted safety net for low-income uninsured children, the two chambers passed bills to extend the safety net to children in families with significantly higher incomes.

Expanding SCHIP eligibility further up the income ladder is not a good way to help families that lack insurance yet have incomes above the current federal threshold. Enrolling children in families at these income levels is inefficient and will disrupt the private coverage many of them have today. This is because government programs and taxpayer dollars will increasingly become substitutes for private coverage and funding. This policy-induced phenomenon, known as "crowd out," substantially increases the cost of covering uninsured children.

The Heritage Foundation conducted an econometric analysis of the likely crowd out associated with the House and Senate bills. This analysis was based on a modified and extended version of the methodology developed by MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, a leading expert on the crowd-out effect. This analysis found that Congress's expansion proposals for SCHIP could cover as many as 2.4 million newly eligible children, but because of crowd out, the ranks of the uninsured would decrease by only 1 million. This is because, for every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), 54 to 60 children would lose the private coverage that they have today. [1]

To avoid undue costs and ensure that the program effectively and efficiently serves its intended purpose,[2] Congress should change course and focus SCHIP on uninsured children in low-income families. To accomplish this, it should provide tax relief or direct assistance to needy families currently unable to afford to enroll their children in available private coverage.

When Congress reauthorizes SCHIP, it should keep in mind two important points. First, policies that expand eligibility thresholds cause children to lose private health insurance, which is often replaced by public programs. Second, estimates of this crowd out and its costs are significant and supported by most research in the field.[3]

SCHIP and the Crowd-Out Effect
Most of the debate over SCHIP reauthorization hinges on expanding program eligibility to children in higher income families. While expanding SCHIP eligibility would, to some extent, reduce the ranks of uninsured children, these gains would be significantly offset—or even outpaced—by losses in private insurance. As the safety net is cast further up the income ladder, instead of complementing private coverage and reducing the ranks of the uninsured, SCHIP would increasingly become a substitute for it.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently conducted a literature review to estimate crowd out due to previous SCHIP expansions. CBO estimates crowd out for these expansions is between 25 and 50 percent. In other words, one quarter to one half of newly enrolled children would have otherwise had private coverage.[4] Indeed, most leading studies of SCHIP expansions find crowd out of this magnitude. Moreover, it is generally agreed that the magnitude of the crowd-out effect will grow with further eligibility expansions because an overwhelming majority of newly eligible children already have private coverage to lose. [5] Yet recent studies have not estimated the crowd-out effects of SCHIP expansions relative to income eligibility thresholds. To fill this gap in the literature and to estimate the potential crowd-out effects if Congress were to expand SCHIP to children from families with higher incomes, The Heritage Foundation conducted its own econometric study.

Congress's SCHIP Eligibility Expansions and Crowd Out
The Heritage Foundation estimates show that SCHIP expansions have significantly substituted government programs for private coverage among newly eligible children. Moreover, this effect grows significantly in magnitude as children from higher income families become eligible.[6] (See Table 1.)

On the aggregate, for every 100 children newly eligible for SCHIP, between 30 and 35 children lose private coverage. Disaggregating the analysis by income eligibility thresholds, however, indicates crowd out grows in magnitude when the program is extended beyond its intended focus of covering uninsured children in families below 200 percent of the FPL[7] In summary, Heritage finds:

• For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the FPL, 34 to 42 children would lose private coverage;
• For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the FPL, 44 to 51 children would lose private coverage; and
• For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 400 percent of the FPL, 54 to 60 would lose private coverage.

​

The Cost of Senate and House Expansions
Estimating the magnitude of crowd out as a result of SCHIP expansions is important because, as the program becomes a substitute for private coverage, assistance flows to families whose children would have otherwise had insurance and away from children who currently go without. Because crowd out causes the ranks of the uninsured to decrease less than expected on a static basis, it increases the cost to the taxpayer of covering the uninsured. For this reason, despite what some in Congress might think, expanding SCHIP eligibility is a costly way to reduce the ranks of uninsured children.

Under the Senate's SCHIP expansion,[8] an estimated 1 million to 1.2 million children would gain SCHIP coverage, but between 467,000 and 611,000 children would lose private coverage. Due to poor targeting and the relative cost of crowd out, the annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the Senate’s expansion plan would increase from $1,418 to between $2,508 and $2,859. This is 1.8 to 2 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 2.5 times the average cost of private insurance.[9]

​

Under the House's SCHIP expansion,[10] an estimated 2.2 million to 2.4 million children would gain SCHIP coverage, but between 1.2 and 1.5 million children would lose private coverage. Due to poor targeting and the relative cost of crowd out, the annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the House’s expansion plan would increase from $1,612 to between $3,485 and $4,008. This is 2.2 to 2.5 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 3.5 times the average cost of private insurance.[11]​

​

Conclusion
Expanding SCHIP to cover children in higher income families is not an efficient or cost-effective way to reduce the ranks of uninsured children. As the safety net is cast further up the income ladder, it will increasingly substitute government programs and taxpayer dollars for private coverage and funding. In order to avoid significant and increasing crowd out, and to optimize the program’s “bang for the buck,” Congress should abandon its current course before SCHIP expires. Congress should, then, restore SCHIP’s purpose as a targeted safety net for uninsured children in low-income families and work to more efficiently and effectively direct assistance to those most in need.

 

Yes and at least a good portion of those families have health insurance.

If a child doesn't have health insurance it doesn't matter if he's poor, middle class, or wealthy, he ought to have health insurance, and it makes sense that a successful program like SCHIP be extended to help that happen.

I never said all of the poorest have health care. I said there are programs that deal with that.

The bottom line is that how much money a family makes doesn't matter if there are children that are not insured. In the wealthiest civilized nation we ought to be able to insure everyone, but especially our children.

 

I asked him. He said nothing. He said he's cool with the idea.

 

But Bush is much closer to Jesus than you!

 

Actually, you mean, helping less than 2 million kids while the other 2 million are just switching policy and your helping out about 500,000 adults as well - according to the COngressional Budget Office.

This program was meant for poor kids, not middle class ones. Why are dems trying to socialize healthcare without thinking this through?

 

I honestly don't mind kids switching to a govt. health care if it's better. Why are you against that? They should have the best health care available regardless of who provides it. To say that the govt. will take business away from the insurance companies is a cop out. If Insurance companies can't provide a better more affordable product, then they should lose business. That is capitalism, after all. Competition is good. The main idea is that children get the best health care available. If the govt. offered health care is better than what the insurance companies offer, they should switch until insurance companies can put a better program out there.

I also don't mind socializing health care. The U.S. isn't even in the top 5 as far as health care goes. We are behind nations that have socialized health care.

I don't have a fear of socialized health care. I'm not for it automatically but if it will give more people better health care, then we should do it.

 

Do you really think that gov't health care will be better than private? Think about that really hard. It might be cheaper, but think before you say better.

Now, you may want the gov't competing with private industry - personally, I find that disturbing and anti-thesis to a capitalist system. Why not just have gov't issued coffee and produce? Why not socialize all insurance? Car insurance, home insurance, etc.

We already have a socialized education system, and it's the worst in the industrialized world. So you want us to go in that direction for health care? At least now you are showing your true colors - you want a socialized health care system.

Well I am opposed to it. I want a QUALITY health care system first and foremost. I do think affordable health care should be made available to everyone. But it should not compete against private insurance. Health care isn't a right, it's a smart thing to have. And I have gone without Health Care at times because it is expensive. What would I do if something happened? Guess what - life is full of risk.

I would support preventive health care by the gov't for all american children - but this should include nutrion education to prevent obesity, vaccinations, and even sex education for teens. But we don't need to move people from private insurance to gov't insurance....

What we should do is try to find a way to give those that can't afford it means to have health care, not just use this as a way to effectively social medicine.

 

I always find this zeal to exclude people puzzling.

We want healthcare --- but not for him....or her....or those people.

 

We're talking about ****ing children here.

I hate this forum. I don't know why I keep coming in here.

I can't imagine how God looks down on us, a nation of wealth and excess, too wrapped up in our own quest for greed to help those who can't help themselves.

 

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

 

It's been a while since we've had a good "think of the children" thread in D&D.

 

You are right about excess. As in trillions of dollars in excessive debt to fund entitlements and wars and whatnot.

 

says the canadian

 

Since the U.S. doesn't have most of the nation insured under a govt. program, and we are down on the list as far as the quality of health care goes, while other nations that do have govt. control of health care rank higher than the U.S. in medicine, then yes I it is entirely possible for the govt. to provide better thealth care.

As far as a socialized education system your argument contradicts itself. You mention that the U.S. is the worst in the industrialized world. Did you know that the best in the industrialized world has socialized education as well.

So there is nothing to show that socialization is the cause.

Most education is regulated by states, and local authorities far more than it is by The U.S. gov. The federal govt. only funds very specific and limited pieces of the education.

Countries with far more socialization of education are doing better than us.

 

I'm not from Canada! That was satire. I'm really from New York...er Houston..er..somewhere else...If you don't beleive me....come talk to my film crew.

Actually....I am from Canada...which is probably why I find it puzzling that it seems every proposal is evaluated more on whether it might be too inclusive rather then on whether it is inclusive enough.

 

I can imagine it! Read the OT. It's chock-full of judgment for that very thing.

The only parable Jesus ever tells where a man is condemned to hell is for that very thing.

 

private schools and universities have always offered a superior education. This is well known. Just look at the U.S. news and world report rankings.

yes, gov't coverage is better than no coverage, that's why other nations rank higher - but moving people from private to gov't care will hurt quality.

 

You might want to qualify that statement a little with the word "some." I doubt TCU is superior to Cal-Berkely.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/betrayal.html