CHIP
Ah, the Children's Health Insurance Program. You will recall this as the program that, when initially adopted, failed to attract enough applicants to spend all of the available money. Then the State had to go out and recruit people to apply for this free health insurance for kids. And they did such a good job, there is now a waiting list.
But that's not the topic of the day. Today we are concerned with the fact that some of the families who receive CHIP benefits work for...gasp...corporations! Yes, that's right, "an examination of state records by the Tribune found that more than 60 percent of families with kids currently insured by CHIP have parents with jobs," according to a recent article in the Great Falls Tribune.
No offense, but I guess I don't see why this is newsworthy. Frankly, I am more inclined to support programs that offer aid to the "working poor," than to those who choose not even to work. So, what's the problem?
Well, according to Phil Mattera, of Good Jobs First, this is a "hidden taxpayer subsidy" to the companies for whom the CHIP recipient's parents work. Mattera doesn't believe that "when CHIP was being designed that people thought that employees of the largest corporation in the world (Wal-Mart) would be participating in it."
Well, so what? So, do we provide CHIP benefits only to those whose parents don't work, thereby removing thousands of kids from the system? Do we discriminate against parents who work for certain companies?
Or, how about the real point Mattera overlooks? Is this really a "hidden taxpayer subsidy?" In other words, who pays the taxes to fund CHIP? Does "the largest corporation in the world" pay taxes? If Wal-Mart were required by government force to provide free health insurance, do you think maybe, just maybe, they'd raise their prices so my grocery bill would go up?
In other words, there's no free lunch. Someone will pay the costs. Once we decide government will pay those costs, by taking money from others by force, there will be inefficiency built in. It's the nature of the beast.
How about this? What if we slash everyone's taxes, and let them pay for their own health insurance? In the Tribune article, the parents all talk about an extra expense of roughly $200.00 a month to cover their kids. What if we reduced their payroll taxes by $200.00 per month and let them buy their own damn insurance? In the competitive marketplace? Hmmmm. It just...might...work!
6 comments:
Since Wal-Mart tends to not give employee benefits this is no surprise. I believe the "working poor" are the ones who should benefit the most from this program. They pay taxes too- why not subsidize the ones who need a hand to keep working and contributing to society? :)
Actually, Wal-Mart apparently does give some benefits, as the woman profiled in the article has her health insurance paid by Wal-Mart. It's just that she's expected to 'chip in' (pun intended) to help pay the expense of her dependents.
And doesn't this bring up another issue, although I'm sure I'll be called callous for raising it. If one makes decisions such that working at Wal-Mart is the most productive use of one's time, how much is one 'entitled' to? In other words, labor is a commodity like anything else and if Wal-Mart can get the labor they need for X, why would they pay Y more than that?
Isn't it up to the laborer to make himself or herself worth more in the marketplace rather than up to us to ensure that a laborer receives a certain level of compensation regardless of the decisions that person has made regarding education, training, etc.?
Actually I can agree. Of course you have to question the job availability & if other jobs are "better" -either in pay, skill or benefits. This then brings up the self-esteem issues of the laborer.
Being the anit-wallyworld type I hope that others would chose a work
goal with higher standards. I don't think I could call my folks or friends excited to say "I got a job- at Wal-Mart!"
Too bad this story didn't detail how many newspaper carriers are on the CHIP program.
Instead of thinking the workers are the problem look at the cost of insurance. If my husband was not active duty military I would be paying over $350 to insure myself & 2 kids with the school district. Insurance is expensive so CHIP is a huge help.
I would like to ask the trib about it's employees' ins.
First, deepmoat had a great point. The Tribune story didn't mention whether any Gannett employees receive CHIP nationwide. Wonder why?
Second, I think two interrelated things have combined to worsen the whole health care situation. First, we have all bought into the mindset that we're all entitled to health care, and we're entitled to it without paying for it. Second, couple that mindset with the fact that so many people do have insurance and thus lack any incentive to shop around or take preventative steps.
For example, look what happened to the price of laser eye surgery once competition was introduced. Heck, it's almost affordable without insurance.
Post a Comment