The $82k won't be the typical recipient, its the absolute limit, and it doesn't apply it all states. But even in all states the limit is well above median income.
Still even in NY state $82k a year is enough that we shouldn't be looking to provide government handouts. It isn't helping out the poor.
As for the "4 of the price of 10" its comes from
"Inevitably, many families simply substitute SCHIP for private coverage. Economists Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Kosali Simon of Cornell University find that, in effect, when government expands eligibility for SCHIP and Medicaid, six out of every 10 people added to the rolls already have private coverage. Only four in 10 were previously uninsured."
nypost.com
Its true that the total spending doesn't amount to 4 for the price of 10, because people who had private insurance can reduce or drop it, but the government has to pay for 10 new people to insure an additional 4.
Also from the same Post article
"...It gets worse. SCHIP discourages these families from climbing the economic ladder. If a single mother of two earning minimum wage in New Mexico increases her annual earnings by $30,000, her net income does not change: She pays an additional $4,000 in taxes and loses $26,000 in SCHIP and other government benefits. Why should families expend that extra effort if it will leave them no better off financially? Expanding SCHIP would pull even more families into that low-wage trap.
Worse still, SCHIP makes private coverage less affordable for everyone. Under Medicaid and SCHIP rules, the government agrees to pay a percentage of what drug makers charge private payers. Economists Mark Duggan of the University of Maryland and Fiona Scott Morton of Yale find that manufacturers respond by raising prices for private purchasers an estimated 13 percent.
All told, SCHIP is a very costly way of helping targeted families obtain health coverage. Fortunately, there are better ways.
Each state forbids its residents to purchase coverage from out of state. That allows each state to enact costly health-insurance regulations without fear of competition from states with more consumer-friendly regulation. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that these regulations increase health premiums by as much as 15 percent.
Congress could make coverage more affordable simply by letting consumers and employers purchase out-of-state coverage. Tearing down those trade barriers would force states to provide the protections consumers demand and eliminate unnecessary regulations. States that don't provide consumer-friendly regulations would lose premium tax revenue to other states..." |
