SCHIP and Medicare
Most people regard “earmarks” as Congressional graft and corruption. Those sometimes large suitcases of money that Congressman bring home to their constituents. Putting that aside, the list of egregious legislation begins with farm subsidies. But second on that list has got to be Medicare Advantage. In recent history, Medicare paid so poorly that health insurance companies couldn’t make any money selling substitute Medicare programs. So, Congress sweetened the pot. But now, the honey pot is being threatened.
Remember SCHIP? The debate is heating up as the deadline approaches. Such an appealing program--money to buy healthcare for kids who otherwise wouldn’t get it. How could anyone be against such a program? And admit it in public? The big question (as always) is how to pay for it, and one proposal is to take money away from Medicare Advantage. This would, in effect, take money out of private insurance (Medicare Advantage) and put it into a tax supported program (SCHIP). The loser, of course, would be the health insurance industry.
Only a Washington lobbyist could write a letter to the Washington Post (Sunday) opposing current legislation for SCHIP and supporting continued funding for Medicare Advantage. So, how do you oppose motherhood and support subsidies for private industry? Karen Ignagni framed it as “pitting children against seniors,” and it makes interesting reading.
In fairness, current legislation on SCHIP seeks to expand the program, and many feel the bills go too far. Current proposals would probably result in a shift of some children out of paid private insurance plans into tax supported SCHIP plans. It all depends on where you draw the income eligibility line, and how much of a shift you can tolerate.
Always interesting but never surprising to see what politicians here will do, in Congress and in mens’ rooms. Promote popular causes by incomprehensible means--like closing Guantanamo Bay by sending prisoners to Albania. Albania? Keeps you on your toes.
Remember SCHIP? The debate is heating up as the deadline approaches. Such an appealing program--money to buy healthcare for kids who otherwise wouldn’t get it. How could anyone be against such a program? And admit it in public? The big question (as always) is how to pay for it, and one proposal is to take money away from Medicare Advantage. This would, in effect, take money out of private insurance (Medicare Advantage) and put it into a tax supported program (SCHIP). The loser, of course, would be the health insurance industry.
Only a Washington lobbyist could write a letter to the Washington Post (Sunday) opposing current legislation for SCHIP and supporting continued funding for Medicare Advantage. So, how do you oppose motherhood and support subsidies for private industry? Karen Ignagni framed it as “pitting children against seniors,” and it makes interesting reading.
In fairness, current legislation on SCHIP seeks to expand the program, and many feel the bills go too far. Current proposals would probably result in a shift of some children out of paid private insurance plans into tax supported SCHIP plans. It all depends on where you draw the income eligibility line, and how much of a shift you can tolerate.
Always interesting but never surprising to see what politicians here will do, in Congress and in mens’ rooms. Promote popular causes by incomprehensible means--like closing Guantanamo Bay by sending prisoners to Albania. Albania? Keeps you on your toes.
