Statisticians boost effort to block children's health-insurance expansion

[rodeodance]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Thu, Sep. 13, 2007
Statisticians boost effort to block children's health-insurance expansion
Tony Pugh | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: September 13, 2007 08:07:24 PM

WASHINGTON — In its effort to stop Congress from expanding a public health-insurance program for low-income children, the Bush administration has hit on a compelling argument: the obscure but inevitable phenomenon known as "crowd out."

"Crowd out" happens when parents drop their children's private health insurance to enroll them in cheaper, taxpayer-funded coverage through the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that for every 100 kids who enroll in the popular program now, 25 to 50 were previously covered in the private market.

Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has studied crowd out extensively and likens it to snaring dolphins by mistake in a tuna net.

By targeting children whose families earn up to twice the federal poverty level — $41,300 for a family of four in 2007 — SCHIP, the joint state/federal program, has helped to cut the number of uninsured low-income children by one-third since it was launched in 1998.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/19698.html

[madrchsod]

1. i thought the republicans were the family friendly

just goes to show how little i know about the world of the republicans

[salib]

2. OK. I call B.S.

Why would anyone believe that it is negative to provide health care to children for less money.

Just like a Doctor saying that if she gives service for free (because she has someone indigent in her care) then others will have to pay more.

Hey, that is really horrible, right? Giving care to someone who cannot afford it, or needs to pay less. Horrible, right? Just withhold care.

Here, again, is the reason why we ABSOLUTELY NEED not-for-profit health care. Just as the movie Sicko points out.

Get the F**king profits OUT of OUR health care.

[wellst0nev0ter]

3. Yeah, Whatever Happened To The "Hidden Hand Of The Frei Markets"?

If the private insurers are losing clients to cheaper and more efficient plans, then they'll have to improve their own plans, not have sugardaddy Bush 86 the competition provided by the government.

But then again, an actual "free market" never did actually exist, did it?

[Mountainman]

8. Well the free market model would suggest that the private insurers would drop their prices

in order to compete with the government plans and win back customers. Will that happen? When snow ball fights are authorized in hell.

The right uses the free market argument only when it suits their wealth building schemes.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. And that would be a bad thing, why?

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that for every 100 kids who enroll in the popular program now, 25 to 50 were previously covered in the private market."

excellent

[Vinca]

5. What kind of insurance could a family of 4 with $41,300 purchase?

None. Zero. Not if they intend to eat and keep a roof over their heads. I'm so freaking sick of Bush (the faux president whose name I rarely utter) and his intent to destroy this country entirely before his merciful exit. I feel like throwing something.:mad:

[bemildred]

6. Yep, cheaper taxpayer funded coverage would be terrible.

All those families might be able to afford their mortgages if that happened.
:sarcasm:

[DBoon]

7. I thought the private sector was ALWAYS better than the government

You mean families choose government provided health insurance over private plans?

If the government is so terribly inefficient as conservatives say, then how could this be?

Maybe the private plans these families had really sucked.

Maybe instead of crying about government competition, the insurance companies should do something about their plans really sucking.

And if they can't, they deserve to lose business

That's how the free enterprise system is supposed to work, right?

[Doctor_J]

9. Yes, this means "crowding the insurance industry out of the market"

What a shame that a fine institution like MIT would promote fascism. WTF does children moving to cheaper health care have to do with tuna nets?

[Barrett808]

11. The dolphin-bycatch argument does seem strange

I'd like to see the analysis in more detail.

[David__77]

10. So what?

That's my first comment. But second, even if we make it a goal to weed out these cases, there are mechanisms that can be devised to do so. This is not some insurmountable problem by any means.