Friday, March 13, 2009

The Danger of President Obama’s Insurance for Children (SCHIP)

TAMPA, 3/10/2009 -- Democrats are moving quickly to socialize American health care with the SCHIP expansion. Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute whined, “Shouldn’t we at least talk about it?” The cost to the federal taxpayers is enormous and President Obama has promised to reduce funding in Medicare to help pay for SCHIP’s expansion. Representative Steven King (R-IA) labels SCHIP expansion, “A Cornerstone for Socialized Medicine.”

The biggest problem with SCHIP is the danger to children who sign up for it. Million of children have been terminated off of their SCHIP insurance on their 19th birthday regardless of their medical history. Ron Greiner of warns, “My daughter has MS and the medication alone is $2,500 a month or $30,000 per year. You want insurance on your child that is permanent and portable with a high lifetime maximum benefit of at least $5,000,000.”

Millions of children are expected to switch to SCHIP from their parents’ employer-based insurance. Some employers charge workers $400 a month to insure a child. Ron said, “Employer insurance is too expensive. In Tampa, HSA ‘Individual Insurance’ for a child is less than $50 a month that pays 100% after the deductible on covered inpatient, outpatient and prescription drugs. Like many HSA plans it has a $0 deductible for preventative services.” In Des Moines a child can enroll on permanent HSA insurance for less than $40 a month. Parents can call 877-Save101 to determine their child’s cost.

Ron believes parents don’t need government to have a plan. He tells parents, “Insurance for children is inexpensive. Parents that choose SCHIP are gambling that their child won’t get sick or hurt.” specializes in HSA insurance for the self employed. Many families have HSA health insurance for less than $200 a month, then they grow their savings in their HSA. Ron says, “The HSA is great way to save because the HSA enjoys tax free deposits, growth and withdrawals. IRAs and 401Ks are old taxed accounts. Some people save more each year in taxes, with their HSA, than the cost of their insurance!” enrolled America’s 1st tax free HSA in 1996 when they were called MSAs. is the internet presence of Insurance Processing Corporation (IPC). Not all products are available in all states. Medical underwriting is required.

Reform has begun at

1 comment:

  1. Several leading European and Canadian health economists, physicians and scholars — in Washington recently for the Galen Institute’s conference, “Lessons from Abroad for Health Reform in the US” — met with analysts from the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think-tank leaders.

    They wanted to explain why Americans should be concerned when officials push for government-controlled, universal health care coverage that includes innocuous-sounding but largely intrusive and prohibitive health measures.

    “We were told single-payer health care would be a true liberation for Canada when they enacted it 40 years ago, and the opposite has become true,” says Brian Lee Crowley, president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies in Canada.

    Not only do Canadians face extraordinary wait times to get specialized treatments (the average wait time from getting a referral from a general practitioner to receiving a treatment was 17.3 weeks in 2008), but they also have limited access to new drugs, thanks in part to the country’s “comparative effectiveness” body known as the Common Drug Review, says Brett Skinner with the Fraser Institute.

    In Switzerland, “compulsory health insurance has moved the objective from being access to health care and quality of care to largely cost containment measures,” says Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon who also runs research for the Institut Constant de Rebecque in Switzerland.

    Next door in France, government policies are undermining patients’ choice of care and the private sector’s involvement in health care delivery. “France is on its way to joining the nationalized health care system of the United Kingdom,” says Valentin Petkantchin with the Insitut economique Molinari.

    British oncologist Dr. Karol Sikora says greater government control over the health care system is a bad idea for any industrialized country. “Americans may want some form of universality in health care, but entities like NICE [Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] are nothing more than government-inspired, political rationing tools,” says Dr. Sikora, who has seen his cancer patients receive newer, more effective drug treatments over others simply based on their where they live.

    “Having seen firsthand over many years just how inhumane this system can be, it is remarkable that other countries would even consider it,” Dr. Sikora says in his latest paper presented at the Galen Institute’s conference.

    But indeed, Americans could face similar problems in securing high-quality health care of their choice based on the ongoing efforts in Congress and the Obama administration to centralize health-care decisions making in Washington. The many well-documented experiences of patients in countries that are America’s allies and friends certainly attest to that.