A recent editorial in the Washington Post explained how the Bush administration has tried to preempt debate about federally sponsored health insurance for children. I include an excerpt:
States were told this month that they will no longer be allowed to enroll children whose families earn above 250 percent of the poverty level unless they can prove that they have managed to cover 95 percent of children below 200 percent of the poverty level and unless they require that children who previously had private health insurance wait a full year without coverage before enrolling in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The debate is a complicated one, since offering coverage for children in higher-earning families risks displacing existing private insurance. But for SCHIP the administration’s income cap is too strict, given variations in the cost of living and the price of health insurance. Its linked coverage target is too hard to reach — few states even come close. A year is too long a time for a child to go uninsured. And the administration’s way of implementing a major policy shift that would affect at least 19 states and the District of Columbia is too highhanded.
[…]
Evidence suggests that families enrolling their children in SCHIP aren’t doing so because it’s more convenient or cheaper than paying the cost of private insurance, but because it’s the only real option they have. The average monthly premium paid by employees for family coverage has risen from $135 in 2000 to $248 in 2006. Meanwhile, the share of companies offering health coverage has dropped — from 66 percent to 61 percent — and coverage is even scarcer at companies that employ a greater number of lower-paid workers.
As long as children go to school, we need to ensure they have access to healthcare as well as food, clothes, and shelter. Without education and those neccessities, the children will likely face poverty when they grow older. In fact, 50% of poor children in the United States remain in poverty their entire lives.
For those who worry about the cost of providing these social services to children, I respond with the suggestion that we use student loans. The student loans can include the costs of quality education, food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare. With a quality education, the child will later earn an income that will allow him or her to pay back the loans while supporting themselves.
For those that worry this will undermine private insurance, I suggest that the children get vouchers that allow them to select a private insurance company. I agree that state-run insurance will undermine the private insurance companies. However, if the state wants to help, I suggest they simply offer vouchers to poor children to buy insurance from private companies.
In the long run, it will cost us more to not insure poor children, because without complete insurance those children may not have the resources to escape poverty.