SCHIP

This is a constituent response from the senior Senator from Texas. I will take the liberty of posting it so as to make a few points since I can't send her a reply.

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue. Texas has the highest number of uninsured children in the nation, with 1 in 5 lacking health insurance. Without insurance, many families are unable to afford routine care for their children, and without medical attention, many illnesses become significantly worse and more expensive to treat. According to the Texas Legislative Budget Board, a condition that can be treated in a doctor’s office in Texas for $56.21 would cost $193.92 to treat in an emergency room, a cost increase of almost 250%. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, a child ineligible for Medicaid could be insured for $1,175. The average hospital stay for a child without health insurance, on the other hand, costs $6,700. This implies that the cost of service to uninsured people is more than the cost of service to insured people. Actually, the direct pay option (patient-doctor/hospital) should cost the "system" less than the third-party option (patient-insurance company/Medicaid-doctor/hospital). We are experiencing this firsthand right now. A certain doctor's services will cost us over $6,000 if we run it through insurance; if we choose to pay him directly, though, it will cost HALF as much. A health insurance agent also told me some time ago that doctors have to "mark up" because Medicaid, Medicare and insurance companies "compel" them to discount their rates. If some bureaucracy told you that they would only pay 50% of your fees, would you "mark up" 100% or would you fire your employees and close down your business?

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created to provide a backstop for children who are ineligible for Medicaid, and whose families cannot otherwise afford private health insurance. The program is financed by both the federal government and the states (Let's get something settled right now; its financed primarily by smokers through the tobacco tax and by all other taxpayers through the income tax.), and each state is given the flexibility to create a unique coverage plan and outline its own eligibility requirements for the program. The federal government contributes 72 cents out of every dollar spent on children eligible for the SCHIP program. This 72 cents can go a long way in providing needy children with routine care, instead of leaving those children uninsured and burdening county taxpayers with all the costs of emergency room care. (What's the difference between burdening county taxpayers, state taxpayers or federal taxpayers? Aren't they all the same!) In fact, one report has shown that health insurance premiums for Texas families with insurance include an extra charge of $1,551 in order to offset the costs of those without insurance.

On January 29, 2009, H.R. 2, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, passed in the Senate. (They only debated this bill for two days.) I voted to reauthorize the SCHIP program because it provides critical federal funds for young Texans’ health care needs (Define the difference between a need and a want. I can understand going to the doctor for a broken arm, but some conditions can be treated at home with a little TLC. Each family needs to determine how far to let something go before seeing a doctor. Most people know a nurse. Ask them for advice. I am certain, though, that if people had to pay most if not all of the cost of their healthcare, they would think twice before going.), which are not currently being met. While the bill was not perfect, I supported a number of amendments offered to improve the legislation. (There were 11 such amendments with only one passing. To her credit, one of these was hers.) The Congressional Research Service projects that, under this legislation, Texas’ SCHIP allotment will rise 72 percent from roughly $550 million to over $945 million in FY2009. (The total cost of this bill rose from $50,000,000,000 to $90,000,000,000, so each state on average received a 72% increase. Where else but the federal trough could you get a raise like that in this economy?!?) This funding will make a significant difference in the lives of families and taxpayers who are already struggling to make ends meet. What about those of us struggling to make our ends as well as their ends meet?

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)

I know it's easy to be this critical as a constituent versus a politician; it would take a lot of political courage to say and do these things on the floor of the Senate. However, instead of weaning this country off of federal teets, we're making them bigger and adding more of them. When will one of these teets ever dry up and go away?

The Government Accountability Office told Congress in September 2008 the following:
"Just ten years from now in this simulation that is based on historical trends and recent policy preferences, 76 percent of every dollar of federal revenue will be spent on retirees and their health care providers, health care providers for the poor, and our bond hold­ers. This leaves little room for other priori­ties, such as national defense and investment in infrastructure and alternative energy sources, and threatens the government's fis­cal ability to respond to emergencies, both natural and manmade."

This is a more real threat to our welfare than climate change. A half-a-degree-warmer planet will not change our lifestyle nearly as much as the big vacuum cleaner that is Washington, D.C.