18/10: The Making of an Entitlement
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Congressional Budget Office--May 2007:
"The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to expand health insurance coverage to uninsured children in families with income that is modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid. SCHIP is financed jointly by the federal government and the states, and it is administered by the states within broad federal guidelines. Since the program’s inception, the Congress has provided nearly $40 billion for it. Approximately 6.6 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some time during 2006, as were about 670,000 adults through waivers of statutory provisions.
"Under current law, SCHIP is not authorized to continue beyond 2007, and the Congress is considering reauthorization of the program this year."
en•ti•tle•ment n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group.
According to the Heritage Foundation, SCHIP is not formally an entitlement; rather, SCHIP is a "capped spending program."
Perhaps Heritage is right in the most technical sense--but the recent debate proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SCHIP, in reality, has arrived as an "entitlement."
Congress appropriated $40 billion over the course of a decade to the joint state-federal program. Now the President wants to increase the outlay by $5 billion (perhaps "up to" $6 billion) over the next five years. The Democratic Congress has proposed and passed a bill that increases expenditures $35 billion over the same period.
Significantly, neither the President nor Republican leadership question the purpose or worthiness of the program.
From the WH website:
"President Bush believes that S-CHIP...should return to its original focus, which is helping those children in need. This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they need. President Bush calls on Congress to pass a responsible S-CHIP bill."
The question is no longer whether the government should provide health coverage for poor children; rather; how much should we expand the program? The President says 20 percent (maybe a little more). Democrats in Congress (and more than a handful of Republicans) say 140 percent.
Of course, it is worth noting that the mainstream media and the opposition have reported President Bush's plan for a modest expansion as callous indifference toward children at risk.
One caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning asserted health care as a fundamental right and observed, "this administration is always touting safety, but how can you be safe if you are not healthy."
Another caller demanded that President Bush bow to the will of the people on this issue. Polling indicates that a clear majority of Americans support the expansion as proposed by the Democratic Congress.
Others asked incredulously how this President can preside over a $600-billion war while he denies a paltry $30 billion for expanded healthcare for the children.
Kudos to President Bush for making a limited government stand--although he has not helped himself with his inability to articulate a coherent principled position. However, it is almost certain, at some point, the President and Democratic leadership will arrive at compromise. My guess is that the program will look a lot more like the Congressional plan than the White House version.
As I have said before, it is hard to argue against better healthcare for children. On the other hand, we should be clear about what has transpired during this session of Congress, another entitlement has been born.
"The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to expand health insurance coverage to uninsured children in families with income that is modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid. SCHIP is financed jointly by the federal government and the states, and it is administered by the states within broad federal guidelines. Since the program’s inception, the Congress has provided nearly $40 billion for it. Approximately 6.6 million children were enrolled in SCHIP at some time during 2006, as were about 670,000 adults through waivers of statutory provisions.
"Under current law, SCHIP is not authorized to continue beyond 2007, and the Congress is considering reauthorization of the program this year."
en•ti•tle•ment n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group.
According to the Heritage Foundation, SCHIP is not formally an entitlement; rather, SCHIP is a "capped spending program."
Perhaps Heritage is right in the most technical sense--but the recent debate proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SCHIP, in reality, has arrived as an "entitlement."
Congress appropriated $40 billion over the course of a decade to the joint state-federal program. Now the President wants to increase the outlay by $5 billion (perhaps "up to" $6 billion) over the next five years. The Democratic Congress has proposed and passed a bill that increases expenditures $35 billion over the same period.
Significantly, neither the President nor Republican leadership question the purpose or worthiness of the program.
From the WH website:
"President Bush believes that S-CHIP...should return to its original focus, which is helping those children in need. This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they need. President Bush calls on Congress to pass a responsible S-CHIP bill."
The question is no longer whether the government should provide health coverage for poor children; rather; how much should we expand the program? The President says 20 percent (maybe a little more). Democrats in Congress (and more than a handful of Republicans) say 140 percent.
Of course, it is worth noting that the mainstream media and the opposition have reported President Bush's plan for a modest expansion as callous indifference toward children at risk.
One caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning asserted health care as a fundamental right and observed, "this administration is always touting safety, but how can you be safe if you are not healthy."
Another caller demanded that President Bush bow to the will of the people on this issue. Polling indicates that a clear majority of Americans support the expansion as proposed by the Democratic Congress.
Others asked incredulously how this President can preside over a $600-billion war while he denies a paltry $30 billion for expanded healthcare for the children.
Kudos to President Bush for making a limited government stand--although he has not helped himself with his inability to articulate a coherent principled position. However, it is almost certain, at some point, the President and Democratic leadership will arrive at compromise. My guess is that the program will look a lot more like the Congressional plan than the White House version.
As I have said before, it is hard to argue against better healthcare for children. On the other hand, we should be clear about what has transpired during this session of Congress, another entitlement has been born.
