Easing Big Tobacco's Burden: Does Heller support shifting SCHIP cost to Vets and Elderly?

The Bush Administration’s Happy Warriors Assault on the American middle class continues unabated, with the support of Nevada’s 2^nd Congressional District Representative Dean Heller. USA Today reports that the Administration would like to “negotiate” on the SCHIP legislation; however the bargaining chips all indicate the Republicans’ emphasis on further narrowing the program and limiting the flexibility of state programs.

Chip One: Limit the Eligibility Formula

Some states exclude child support and all deductions for child care expenses from the formula for eligibility. One Republican Congress man is upset that a state might be allowed to devise a formula including deductions for housing or shelter. The Democratic response is that the exemptions and deductions are meant to insure that lower income families don’t have to resort to welfare to get health benefits for their children. However, that might just be the Administration’s point. The SCHIP program was never meant to cover children in poverty; it was designed to help states provide coverage to working families above the poverty line but without the resources to provide private health care insurance. It is rapidly becoming apparent that the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress want to push privatization onto already economically stressed middle class families. And, that stress is very real.

The jobs most often associated with health care coverage are (were) in the manufacturing sector. However, the CBO reported that such employment as of early 2004 was at its lowest point since July 1950, having decreased by about 17.5%. [CBO] As of August 2005 about 70% of workers polled by the AFL-CIO reported that their income was not keeping up with the cost of living. [AFL] The loss of manufacturing jobs and the increase in service sector employment with jobs that do not include health care coverage is already under scrutiny by the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Wisconsin Strategy which notes that: "The bad news is that we found that in the industries that are shrinking about three-fourths of jobs offered health insurance while in the industries that are growing less than half the jobs offer health insurance," Dresser said. So what's the strategy for Wisconsin on this issue? Dresser says economic development must be focused on attracting higher end jobs that come with health insurance and efforts need to be made to protect the remaining jobs we have that offer health benefits.” [WRN] In the mean time the Bush Administration would further restrict the capacity of Wisconsin, and its more seriously affected neighbor Michigan, to offer health care coverage for working families in transition from the old jobs to the new.

Clearly, the Bush strategy here is to ‘brand’ the SCHIP program as a poverty project, more associated with Medicare and welfare than with the needs of the American middle class. The Republicans have long sought to have Middle America identify with their party; however, in this case the GOP finds itself in a bind – seeking to advance the interests of the corporate giants in the insurance industry while attempting to retain the image that it is protecting those in the middle from undue contributions to the poor.

Chip Two: Reverse Position on parental inclusion

The article also documents the Administration’s reversal of its previous support for allowing states to insure parents of eligible children: “Just last year, administration officials testified during congressional hearings that extending SCHIP coverage to parents increased the likelihood that their children would get health insurance too. But Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt now calls the coverage of parents an experiment that took resources away from poor kids. About a dozen states received waivers to cover parents through SCHIP.” [USAT] Again, note the emphasis on the SCHIP program as one for “poor kids,” as if the Democratic legislation were some kind of reverse Robin Hood experiment.

Chip Three: Remove the ‘burden’ from the tobacco products manufacturers and place it on (1) veterans, not classified as disabled, who would have higher co-payments for pharmaceutical products; (2) higher income Medicare recipients who would be required to pay more for prescription drugs and doctor’s office visits. Thus much for “supporting the veterans,” and assisting those in the greatest need with medical care accessibility.

If one is looking for a Reverse Robin Hood experiment this is it. One Bush Administration proposal to pay for the SCHIP program would increase the co-payments paid by non-disabled veterans from $8 to $13, gathering in about $1.6 billion over five years. [USAT] The White House proposals would generate about $10 billion over five years by requiring more from Medicare patients. [USAT] The callousness of this bargaining point is amply illustrated by the demographics of our veterans, and the willingness of the Bush Administration to push off the costs onto the elderly.

The Department of Veterans Affairs reported that as of the 2000 census there were approximately 25.2 million U.S. veterans. 21.1% were under the age of 45, 41.2% were between the ages of 45 and 64; and 37.1% were over 65 years of age. Their average age was 58, and most had a combined family income in the last classification in the economic rankings, i.e. over $50,000. [VA.gov] How much over the $50,000 mark is not indicated in the report. Considering the aging of our World War II veterans, along with that of those who served in Korea and Vietnam, and it doesn’t take much to infer that the Bush Administration would like to alleviate any pressure on the tobacco industry by transferring the burden to an aging (and thereby more medically vulnerable) veterans’ population, augmented in time by the young men and women who are currently in uniform, who may already have received a hit from the President’s veto.

An individual must be at least 65 years old to qualify for Medicare coverage. Some disabled individuals under 65 might be eligible, as might those with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis or transplants. [Medicare] Those who did not pay “Medicare taxes” are required to pay the Part A Hospital Insurance premium set at up to $410 per month. There is a $992.00 deductible with coinsurance costs of $248 to $496 per day. Part B (medical insurance) costs $93.50 per month. The Part B deductible is $131 per year. [Medicare] These numbers should be of particular interest to retired public employees in Nevada since some may not be covered by Medicare. Public employees in 14 states (including Nevada) fall into the PENCSS status and may not have the 40 credits for Social Security and hence full Medicare eligibility. [FPC] The bottom line is quickly reached. The Bush Administration bargaining chip would shift the burden from the tobacco companies onto those 65 years of age or older, and onto to some retired public servants in 14 states who are already required to budget up to $503.50 per month for hospitalization and medical insurance.

There seems to be something not quite “compassionate” about a conservatism that seeks to shift the cost of paying for a middle class health program onto veterans and the elderly.

(Nevada headlines at Blue Sage Views)