This week, Democrats have brought forth the Wilkerson family, whose two-year old daughter Bethany is covered by SCHIP and had life-saving heart surgery when she was an infant. On Monday the Wilkerson family held a conference call, sponsored by USAction, a liberal grassroots advocacy group lobbying in favor of the $35 billion SCHIP expansion.
For the record, the Bo and Dara Wilkerson say they make $34,000 in combined income from restaurant jobs in St. Petersburg, Fla. They rent their house and the couple owns one car, which Bo calls "a junker."
A much better choice of families from a strictly political consideration. (Perhaps not so good for an interesting discussion of subsidies.) Like I said before, when I think of these programs I envision people like the Wilkerson's or perhaps those stoner kids in high school all grown up. Personally I am much more willing to subsidize a short order cook and his wife than a college educated couple who chose to open a marginal woodworking business. It's one thing to give a helping hand to people who are working hard and don't have a lot of prospects. It's another to fund someone's hobby job.*
But, I'm not sure there's any way around this - I can watch someone like Bread who worked the minimum amount of hours a week to maximize his free time and travel, while still getting all of the benefits of someone who makes the same amount by working 40 hours a week sorting garbage. The inner state planner in me wants to force Bread to work all the jobs he can if we're going to be handing out bennies left and right, and tax his ass to pay for the poor garbage sorter. But how about families where the mother stays home, even though she could be out earning? Or the entrepreneur who truly just started up? I guess you have to do it straight by the numbers, which means people can game the system in some respects. Such is life.
Another aspect of an expanded SCHIP is that it could damage the various mandatory insurance schemes. Most of the health care reform plans out there involve making health insurance mandatory as a way of forcing young people into the pool of the insured and thus lowering everyone's costs. However, in some states SCHIP is allowing "children" up to age 25 to be covered - which means a lot of young people won't be in the insurance pool. That could screw up the math. I still support mandatory insurance because people should be considering that as a basic cost in their life, not as optional.
By the way, both the Wilkersons and the Frosts were both already covered by this program. The veto would not affect their coverage at all, since it was about a proposed expansion of the program. Shouldn't the Democrats show us a family that isn't currently covered but would be under the proposed expansion?
The current cut-off for most states is 200% of poverty or about US$ 41,300. This seems about right to me. At 300% x poverty rate of US$ 20,650 were talking US$ 61,950 in income. Is there not some level of income where people can pay their own way? Otherwise just nationalize health care and be done with it. And tax the smokers to pay for it.
*He's making $20,000 / year with his woodworking after 15 years in business. Either he's working his ass off for no money or he's not very busy. If he's working 40 hours a week, he's making around US$ 10.00 per hour. Last time I was in California, they were hiring at Quizno's for US$ 8.25 / hour. This guy is a college grad. Do the math.
He also owns the building he works in, which means he doesn't pay rent. From an economics perspective, he should factor in that opportunity cost, i.e. if he quit the business he could make money renting his space. So he's even more of a sucker to keep that business going. (This is coming from a guy who started a beer importing business just to drink good beer. Physician heal thyself! Well, I did close that sucker down.)
Hmmmm, I wonder if the large number of illegal immigrants working in the carpentry field have depressed his wages? This could be a mitigating factor.
He also owns the building he works in, which means he doesn't pay rent. From an economics perspective, he should factor in that opportunity cost, i.e. if he quit the business he could make money renting his space. So he's even more of a sucker to keep that business going. (This is coming from a guy who started a beer importing business just to drink good beer. Physician heal thyself! Well, I did close that sucker down.)
Hmmmm, I wonder if the large number of illegal immigrants working in the carpentry field have depressed his wages? This could be a mitigating factor.
5 comments:
"Shouldn't the Democrats show us a family that isn't currently covered but would be under the proposed expansion?"
No. The Democrats should not be showing any families, much less children. Policy should be based on data, not anecdote.
"He also owns the building he works in, which means he doesn't pay rent."
There is no way he owns the building clear. His monthly is probably 10 times mine.
Good point on the property. I forget that "owning" property usually means having a huge mortgage for most people.
Normally businesses prefer to lease though, since you can deduct the rent.
I agree that policy should be based on data but if you're going to be showing families, then my point stands. I may I request telegenic families with beautiful wives?
It's the showing of families that I find despicable. How do you refute a critically injured 12 year old boy? I'd go find a mentally disabled 9 year old girl who is the daughter of a tobacco farmer.
I was on Free Republic the day the first post came up claiming that the family had plenty of money, with the first point of evidence being that the boy goes to a rich kid private school. I know a bunch of conservative blogs followed up on it.
Talk about missing the point. The Dems exploit a family's tragedy in such a crass manner, and the response from the right is to *attack the family*? Played right into somebody's hands, I'm telling you.
Yeah, it's a cheap emotional shot, but it works because people are humans and like this stuff. I think the people who went overboard should have really checked out everything first - like your point about the mortgage for example, which is very important.
In this case, I think the Frost family is very close to borderline, probably just inside my range of acceptability for a subsidy, which makes the case a good one to think about.
I think I enjoyed it more as a financial planning exercise than a political issue.
"Yeah, it's a cheap emotional shot, but it works because people are humans and like this stuff."
Well I don't have emotions, and I don't like it.
Post a Comment