Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Health Insure for Whom?
Recently, President Bush vetoed a bill that expand budget for health care insure for children that are not eligible for Medicaid. Days ago, in an interview on NPR, a woman stated that her child, Taylor, did not qualify for Medicaid because she was working and making money. She, then asked, if she should quit her job in order to get insurance for her child. I do not know the specific requirements to be eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, but I think that there are many children that do not have health insurance and it is sad that this happens in The United States which is a wealth country with many resources. Why do they (the working poor) not have health insurance? Is it because they are very poor? Or is it because their parents earn sufficient money to feed them, to dress them, but cannot purchase private health insurance? Nothing is perfect, but if you are working trying to provide for your family, you should not have to choose between the things you need to survive or having health insurance for you and your family
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This is a dilemma. It seems as though most government programs geared toward helping the poor are actually keeping them poor as opposed to helping them. For instance, let's say someone was laid off and collected $300 per week for unemployment. What would the motivation be to take a job working 40 hours a week making minimum wage to bring home roughly the same paycheck? My math may be off here but you get the point. Most would opt for the easy money. This thinking prevents people from getting ahead. Just like the woman you referenced, she debated quitting her job to get government assistance. It happens quite a bit in this country. People will choose not to get married in fear of losing benefits or they will choose not to work in fear of losing government housing, food stamps or whatever other programs they are on. If you are willing to live the type of lifestyle you can afford on a government check, and never get ahead in life, go ahead, take the easy money. It perpetuates itself in future generations. For this reason I believe that government programs encourage laziness, inhibit personal drive to achieve and keep the poor...poor. People “play the system” and actually work hard at not working in order to get a government check. I would also venture to say that in some cases it would not be a far stretch into criminal activity. Let’s say you wanted to supplement your income, but did not want it to be reported to the government. What could you do with all the idle time you have from not working? I’ll let you come up with the answer to that one.
However, I also believe that these programs can be good and necessary but should be limited to a short, definite time frame, to assist people while trying to get back on their feet. I would like to reiterate that I believe in assistance, not supporting folks. Maybe cutting off benefits after a given time will motivate people to come up with a solution to their problems on their own. But therein lays the dilemma. Government assistance programs are created with good intentions and then people pervert them and take advantage of them. The next thing you know we are arguing about reforming the system.
I believe families with an income under $87,500 are qualified for SCHIP. That is quite reasonable and also includes families that are in debt. Although, in my opinion a set income shouldn't be established. The worth of a dollar differs state to state.
For me its always been a dilemma. I have always made enough money so that I don't qualify for public assistance, but I don't make enough to have insurance. I feel there is a middle ground in this country, where working people with average jobs, suffer the most. What makes this worse, is that there are people who know the system so well, that they intentionally avoid working full time so they don't lose their benefits. I know there are legitimate cases where people are down and out, and I don't have a problem with supporting them, it just hurts a bit when I know there is such abuse in medicaid, doctors and patients alike, and other government programs. All I can add to this is that we need a legitimate overhaul on our healthcare, which won't happen until there is a change of conscience in this country, and that, unfortunately, isn't going to happen for a very long time, especially with the kinds of people that are running our government and businesses.
Medicaid, I believe, has coverage for the working poor; however, the insured are resposible for a "share of cost", which is determined on financial basis. The share of cost is like a deductible per year. The problem with this is the amount determined for share of cost is way more than any "poor" person can afford. A balance of financial status and eligibility of coverage for different classes of "poor" uninsured must be revised...I am sure there are enough statistics to make this determination.
My mother worked two jobs to raise her four children alone and still struggled to pay the bills. During that time in life medicade was a great help. Now she dosen't struggle so hard, yet she still can't afford health insurance. Because she makes too much money, the kids dont qualify for medicade. Yet bills, and credit card debt aren't taken into concideration. The working mddle class deserves help too.
>Why do they (the working poor) not have health insurance? Is it because they are very poor?
The primary reason is that the official government definition of "poverty," which factors into these programs, is outdated and unrealistic. According to the government if you make more than, say $20,000 for a family of four, then you aren't poor. That number makes absolutely no sense.
>It seems as though most government programs geared toward helping the poor are actually keeping them poor as opposed to helping them.
This conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence. You theorize that programs have this effect on people, but where is the evidence to back it up? As I posted earlier (and we talked about in class), very very few people actually stay on government programs for any lengthy period of time, particularly those programs that provide cash assistance, which have strict time limits.
>For instance, let's say someone was laid off and collected $300 per week for unemployment. What would the motivation be to take a job working 40 hours a week making minimum wage to bring home roughly the same paycheck?
This seems very logical if you take nothing else into account. But if you add in the factor that human nature generally prevents us from being idle and that there is a very strong culture in the U.S. of individualism and self-reliance, you find that very few people do this.
>If you are willing to live the type of lifestyle you can afford on a government check, and never get ahead in life, go ahead, take the easy money.
This is, of course, the counterbalance to your other arguments. The lifestyle you can get on a government check is a very low class, terrible lifestyle. I know, I grew up on it. And I got out of it as quickly as I could. The number of people willing to live on the amount of money the government gives you is very, very small.
>People “play the system” and actually work hard at not working in order to get a government check.
This does happen, but it is relatively rare and if you eliminated all fraud and waste, you wouldn't even notice the difference in the budget.
>I would also venture to say that in some cases it would not be a far stretch into criminal activity.
This is also true. The solution is to prosecute and remove benefits from those who are breaking the law, not cut benefits for those who are doing the right thing but are in bad circumstances.
>However, I also believe that these programs can be good and necessary but should be limited to a short, definite time frame, to assist people while trying to get back on their feet.
And this is they way these programs are designed. Nothing is 100% successful, but these programs are designed with limitations in them.
>Maybe cutting off benefits after a given time will motivate people to come up with a solution to their problems on their own.
Maybe for some, but not for most. The biggest group of people on these programs are children. Another big group is people with mental or physical disabilities.
>Government assistance programs are created with good intentions and then people pervert them and take advantage of them.
This is true of pretty much everything in life.
>Although, in my opinion a set income shouldn't be established. The worth of a dollar differs state to state.
There isn't one set income level for the whole country, it varies by location because of differences in cost of living.
I don't have a "bluemeanie" in my gradebook, so I can't give you credit for these posts unless you go back to each individual post an add your name.
People mention quite a bit how people are ripping off these government programs. Yet, there are people employed just to catch scam artists as these. Infact my father worked for a facility such as that in Tampa, Florida. He saved our country only 2 million working for that facility for 3 years. He actually was awarded for that, therefore, catching that much scammers isn't the norm. The biggest scammers get caught so the country can't be losing too much by people like that.
Medicaid, I believe, has coverage for the working poor; however, the insured are resposible for a "share of cost", which is determined on financial basis. The share of cost is like a deductible per year. The problem with this is the amount determined for share of cost is way more than any "poor" person can afford. A balance of financial status and eligibility of coverage for different classes of "poor" uninsured must be revised...I am sure there are enough statistics to make this determination.
Post a Comment