Is SCHIP really that good?
- Thread starter KingRaw!
- Start date
Blackflag
Junior Member
I like chips with guacamole. .
mmmmmm.......me too.
You provide schooling for children who could possibly afford to get schooled privately. Are you against public education too?
SCHIP generally provides funds to insure children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid but are considered to be priced-out of the private market.
If it really does cover 60K, I was eligible for this for quite some time.... Not now, but heck...
Do you live in Manhattan and are you a child in a family of four?
The states are given latitude to adjust the eligibility requirements to take account of the cost of living such that in places like Manhattan where the cost of living is very high a family of four making 300% of the federal poverty rate can be eligible.
I doubt your family would qualify.
I doubt it would either... Always unqualified for this certainly isn't something that I should be upset about either.
Its for working class families who make too much to get medicaid, but make too little to afford adequate health insurance for their kids.
Apparently Oregon does not think so.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010835
Damn redstaters.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010835
Damn redstaters.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
I'm paying $50 per carton for my smogs out here, so I'm actually thinking about quitting. I cant be spending $150 a month on cigarettes, I could own a Volkswagon for that.
So it begs the question, as when I lived in California, the dual purpose of levying a sin tax to fund a program and reduce usage of such sin is what? Where's the money going to come from when I quit smoking? Answer - you dumbasses that voted for it.
tobacco taxes are indeed a dumb way to fund health care insurance.
We need a simple, straight forward single payer universal system, like the rest of the world uses.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Any sin tax for any reason is an unjust an misdirected abuse of state power.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
In the abstract perhaps not. I find the word "should" to be exceedingly weak, but we'll let that pass for the sake of argument. In the real world, however, there are two problems with your position.
First, it's difficult to determine who can "afford" health coverage. I make considerably more than $60,000 per year yet I'm currently buried under uncovered medical expenses I will be paying off for the next 5 or 6 years, I figure. And yes, I do have private health insurance, from a company with a fine -- and entirely undeserved -- reputation. Don't get Aetna, I strongly recommend. But I digress.
Second, the quickest way to render any government program useless and ineffective is to spend too much time worrying about those who might game the system. The fact is that there will always be a certain amount of fraud in any social welfare program. Okay, but, so what? Are we really willing to deny benefits to hundreds simply in order to prevent one smart individual to get a free ride? If so then I suggest our values are sincerely fucked up.