I just read an article about the "terrible" threat to the healthcare of many children in Connecticut. That threat was the possibility that a federal program will not be renewed when it expires at the end of September. The CHIP program provides health insurance coverage for children under 19 whose families earn too much for Medicaid. The people who never met a government subsidy they did not want to continue are up in arms that the program has yet to be extended. Most likely, it will be extended in the next month, but it's worth taking a closer look to see if there really is a need for this.
The program provides free health insurance for children in families with incomes under $62,000 per year. Children in my state of Connecticut whose families earn between $62 thousand and $78 thousand each year get coverage for $30 per month. Think about that for a moment. A family of four earning $78,000 is getting a subsidy for the healthcare for its kids. According to the IRS, 62.4% of those filing tax returns in 2014 had adjusted gross incomes of $50,000 or less. The adjusted gross income is not the same as total household income since some income could be tax free and other income could be eliminated by adjustments like IRA contributions. Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine too many people with household incomes over $78,000 who get their AGI down to $50,000. Put all this together and it means that most likely at least 70% of all families with children qualify for the CHIP program.
Does it make sense to subsidize people with children whose incomes put them in the top third of the nation's income distribution? Even if we want to help make sure that kids get the healthcare they need, isn't there a point at which the parents ought to pay for that care?
In the usual case, Congress never looks at whether or not a program makes sense anymore once it has been passed the first time. After that, it is just something to fund on a recurring basis. Isn't it time, though, for Congress to take a look at a program like this and lower the coverage? Shouldn't there be a limit on coverage so that only children in households below the median national income qualify? It's not a big deal, but shouldn't the program just help those who are truly in need?
The program provides free health insurance for children in families with incomes under $62,000 per year. Children in my state of Connecticut whose families earn between $62 thousand and $78 thousand each year get coverage for $30 per month. Think about that for a moment. A family of four earning $78,000 is getting a subsidy for the healthcare for its kids. According to the IRS, 62.4% of those filing tax returns in 2014 had adjusted gross incomes of $50,000 or less. The adjusted gross income is not the same as total household income since some income could be tax free and other income could be eliminated by adjustments like IRA contributions. Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine too many people with household incomes over $78,000 who get their AGI down to $50,000. Put all this together and it means that most likely at least 70% of all families with children qualify for the CHIP program.
Does it make sense to subsidize people with children whose incomes put them in the top third of the nation's income distribution? Even if we want to help make sure that kids get the healthcare they need, isn't there a point at which the parents ought to pay for that care?
In the usual case, Congress never looks at whether or not a program makes sense anymore once it has been passed the first time. After that, it is just something to fund on a recurring basis. Isn't it time, though, for Congress to take a look at a program like this and lower the coverage? Shouldn't there be a limit on coverage so that only children in households below the median national income qualify? It's not a big deal, but shouldn't the program just help those who are truly in need?
No comments:
Post a Comment