Posted on 10/09/2007 9:59:15 PM PDT by crazyshrink
Congress should not reward state officials' irresponsibility......... Policymakers must consider the underlying issues contributing to these shortfalls—specifically, some states' chronic fiscal mismanagement, excessive income eligibility limits, and extensive coverage of adults........
Shortfall states are those states expected to exhaust all their available funds. According to the Congressional Research Service, 14 states are projected to have a shortfall in fiscal year 2007: Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
Income Eligibility. The original intent of SCHIP was to help low-income, uninsured children whose families earned too much for Medicaid but not enough to purchase private coverage. The law defines as "low income" those children whose family's income is below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line (FPL), or $40,000 for a family of four.[12] Of the 14 projected shortfall states, seven have set SCHIP eligibility above 200 percent of the FPL.[13] Of those seven, four states (Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey) are at or above 300 percent of FPL, or $60,000 for a family of four.[14] Four states are at 200 percent of the FPL, and three states (Alaska, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) are below 200 percent of the FPL.
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
There is no Constitutional authority for SCHIP.
There is no authority granted for FedGov to be in the health biz, the education biz, the energy or transportation biz, either. Seems like no one in DC much cares about the Constitution any more. Excepting only a handful of true conservative patriots. I had far rather heard W vetoing that bill by saying that he wanted Congress to provide him with the specific cite from the Constitution which authorized such an expenditure of public monies. Both sides are a disgrace.
Both sides are a disgrace.
************************
On this much we agree!!!!!!!!!!
“SCHIP was not designed to be an entitlement program with an open-ended commitment from the federal government. The redistribution process and recent infusions of additional federal funding rewards overreaching, fiscally irresponsible states that exceed SCHIP guidelines.
Before Congress provides another bailout, federal policymakers should consider its effects. At the very least, Congress should differentiate between shortfall states that remain within the original intent of the law and those states that exploit its funding structure and the scope of the program at the expense of federal taxpayers.
States know their federal SCHIP contributions and should plan accordingly. If they choose to exceed these fiscal allocations or the boundaries of the program, they should be prepared to use their own dollars to pay for it.”
This is it, in a nutshell.
***** was not designed to be an *****...
Sounds like a line out of every mad-scientist horror story...
Since when did ANY Liberal program have a design?!
The healthcare organizations that provide SCHIP coverage rarely if ever deny claims. I asked a person who worked in this area for years whether claims were denied. He said that sometimes they are. Then he backtracked and said that it is rare for that to happen because it is in the providers’ best interest and in the state’s interest to cover every claim because otherwise they will “lose” federal funding. If a provider (HMO) denies coverage, then they don’t get any money. They get a percentage of every claim. That’s the way they make money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.