Covering Children’S Health In The United StatesEssay Preview: Covering Children’S Health In The United StatesReport this essayRunning Head: CHILDREN’S HEALTHCovering Children’s Health in the United StatesCovering Children’s Health in the United StatesThe newspaper article, Federal Study Offers Dire Outlook on Child Insurance, discussed current issues regarding the State Children’s Health Insurance program. A federal study states that within the next year, if Congress continues to spend at their current levels, twenty-one U.S. states will run out of money for children’s health insurance. The findings added to the already pressing needs of bipartisan discussions intended to overcome barriers over expansion of the State Childrens Health Insurance Program. Representatives of the Top House Republicans and senators from both parties are coming together with the goal of revising the bill, picking up Republican support and gaining enough votes to override another veto threatened by the president. States, unsure of federal money, are preparing contingency plans in case the program runs short. Currently, since the program is running dry of money, many states are coming up with waiting lists for the many children who need to participate in the program as well as dropping up to 64,000 children a month from the program. According to the federal study, to continue covering the people currently enrolled in the program would take an extra $1.6 billion just for the current fiscal year (Pear, October 2007).
The State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a national program that helps states provide health insurance to uninsured children with income that is modest, but too high to qualify for Medicaid (Nelson & Duchovny, 2007). In 2007, Congress passed legislation, which would have increased program coverage from roughly seven million participants to eleven million by 2012. Over the next five years, it is estimated that this would have increased the cost of the program from about thirty five billion dollars to sixty billion dollars (State Children’s Health Insurance Program, 2007). However, President Bush vetoed the legislation, principally on grounds that it was too costly and that it provided coverage for families who had sufficient income to pay for their own health insurance (Pear, 2007). Congressional democrats and republicans are currently trying to arrive at a compromise that would attract sufficient votes to overcome another presidential veto.
If such a compromise is reached, the winners will be the additional individuals who will be covered by the expanded program, principally children. Depending on the terms of any ultimate compromise, there may be several different losers – families with children who have relatively modest incomes (less then 300% of the poverty line) which may not be covered, parents of children who may be excluded from coverage, and children of illegal immigrants (Pear, 2007). It is also possible that some private insurance companies will lose business because some individuals who might have otherwise purchased private insurance may secure coverage under the expanded program.
The primary advantage of expanding the program is that many children who might not otherwise receive timely and preventative medical care because they have no insurance coverage would now be afforded such coverage. The disadvantage is that any major expansion of the program will cost a lot of money. The cost may not, however, be as high as it looks at first glance because, if the program is not expanded, many of these children would be covered by the medical assistance program (Medicaid). So, in that sense, the government might save part of the cost of the new expanded program by the savings that result from lower Medicaid costs. The children with the expanded insurance may also receive more timely care so that the greater costs associated with emergency care may be reduced.
It may or may not be advantageous to exclude parents of low-income children from participation in SCHIP. On the one hand, covering the parents encourages them to participate in the program and to provide for their childrens participation. On the other hand, the program is aimed principally at children and covering their parents increases the programs cost. Similarly, it may or may not be advantageous to cover the children of illegal immigrants. Covering such children may encourage illegal immigration, however, most people believe that illegal immigrants do not come to the United States specifically to obtain health insurance for their children. In any event, hospitals may not turn away illegal immigrants who require emergency medical care, so someone is going to pay for such care regardless of whether this program is expanded to cover these children. To the extent that this program substitutes for private insurance which might otherwise be purchased
The ACA and the Affordable Care Act have in fact had adverse effects on the legal immigration of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The ACA, for example, reduced the number of illegal immigrants who came at the time they were lawfully seeking to stay in the United States.
Under Obamacare, in addition to the subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, it has been illegal immigrants who came to the United States without insurance through the use of an Obamacare formulary or a formulary approved and insured by the insurance company in their home country who are eligible for subsidies and benefits, usually the type of subsidies (e.g., federal health coverage tax credits, employer health plans). An Obamacare formulary does not cover the undocumented immigrants who have a family member, spouse, or children under the age of 18, but that spouse, spouse-and-child or, more recently, siblings or their parents might be eligible for these formulary subsidies.
Under ACA, many other illegal immigrants in the past six-month period (such as those who entered the United States at least 17 years old and were illegal aliens in the previous six months) must obtain health insurance for their own families at a family plan, even if they don’t have health insurance. (They qualify under several different definitions of “legal” or “illegal immigrant.” Many states do not allow their parents to qualify for a family plan because of the cost that can come with it. In most states, health insurers will not cover uninsured individuals.)
The ACA also has been a catalyst for some illegal immigrants to get into the United States illegally, as shown in those cases where the person has been charged with a misdemeanor for entering or staying in the country over the past six months. Those charged with a misdemeanor may be charged with felony charges to enter or stay in the United States or for minor charges such as fraud or theft. In these cases, the criminal charge may include criminal activity, the use of violence, and any other criminal offenses. The ACA has also not helped this type of illegal immigrant who is unable to enter or stay in the United States illegally. According to reports about these immigrants including the Department of Health and Human Services, it is likely that these illegal immigrants are not eligible for Obamacare. When other states expand the amount of this illegal immigrant and this can affect the coverage provided to those living in their home country, HHS or HHS may consider making it less costly for any person to fill out a medical marijuana application.
A federal lawsuit can be filed by any federal, state, local or tribal government, insurance company, health plan issuer, or employer, and its actions may be prosecuted under the False Claims Act (not to mention any state statutes or Federal law). The federal government usually will not prosecute the case under False Claims Act. Therefore, many other undocumented immigrants do not qualify for such benefits.
As discussed above, there is no indication that the ACA has helped bring about legal immigration in the United States. However, it has given legal immigrants a way to earn and obtain Social Security benefits which does not appear to have increased legal immigration by means other than the same actions taken during the illegal immigrant amnesty period. In a 2013 interview with the Washington Post, President Obama said:
We hope the United States will become more economically responsible, but we’re not sure about those changes we’re about today. There’s plenty of opportunity in immigration, and we’re not going to be in the situation where we see something like a national problem that is happening in the U.S. now where there’s a large number of illegal immigrants. For me, I don’t think my responsibility in making sure we’re having health insurance or that we’re going through bankruptcy if something is going to go wrong is my responsibility. My responsibilities are to provide the services by which they are able to afford their food, which is a critical service.
Additionally, despite