We begin with today's editorial. It's about the "Nanny State Band-Aid" known as SCHIP. Note this paragraph:
This is just more medicinal snake oil cooked up by liberals, because out of every 10 kids who will be added to the SCHIP scheme, six are currently covered by private insurance.Remember the name Michael Cannon. It'll pop up again and again, I assure you.
The new bill includes kids in families of four earning up to $80,000 per year. But the Congressional Budget Office reports that 77 percent of such children already have private health insurance, according to Michael F. Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank.
Like here. It's from October, 2007 and it's a list of suggestions on how to argue against SCHIP. Numbers one and two on the list:
About 60 percent of children currently eligible for SCHIP already have private health insurance, while 77 percent of those targeted by this expansion (i.e., children between 200-300 percent of the federal poverty level) already have private health insurance.Does something look familiar?
Economists Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon estimate that, in effect, 60 percent of children covered by SCHIP expansions already had private coverage.
Then there's this sleight of hand:
Expanding SCHIP could make a bad situation worse by discouraging work. The Urban Institute offers an eye-opening example of the Law of Unintended Consequences:Wonder who said that? You got it. Michael Cannon in September of 2007:"A single mother of two earning minimum wage in New Mexico who increased her earnings by $30,000 would find no change in her net income: She would pay an additional $4,000 in taxes and lose $26,000 in SCHIP and other government benefits," the institute concludes.
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.Note that there's NO reference in Cannon's sentence about the "Urban Institute." But if you add that into The Google search you'll find this (again written by our new friend Michael Cannon):
One thing SCHIP does accomplish is to discourage work. SCHIP and similar programs create enormous disincentives to climb the economic ladder. A single mother of two earning minimum wage in New Mexico who increased her earnings by $30,000 would find no change in her net income: She would pay an additional $4,000 in taxes and lose $26,000 in SCHIP and other government benefits, according to data compiled by the Urban Institute for the federal government.And where does that link lead to? ANOTHER piece by Michael Cannon. Here's the text:
For example, a low-income single mother of two in New Mexico is eligible for a number of income-related subsidies from the federal and state governments. These include the Earned Income Tax Credit, cash assistance, Food Stamps, WIC,22 housing subsidies, child care subsidies, and Medicaid.23 Figure 3 shows what happens if that hypothetical mother increases her earnings. The combination of progressively higher taxes and the progressive loss of government subsidies means that even if she increases her earnings from about $15,000 to $45,000, her net income remains the same at about $40,000.24That last footnote tells the tale:
24 Data compiled using the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Marriage Calculator, available at http://marriagecalculator.acf.hhs.gov/marriage/. The calculator was created by scholars at the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Policy Center (http://www.urban.org/center/ibp/index.cfm).Could that really be? It was just the calculator that comes from the Urban Institute? Any anyway how many single mothers in New Mexico can "raise their incomes" by 30 grand?
Don't you think the Tribune Review should do some broader research instead of relying on ONE Cato Institute guy?
2 comments:
what really bothers me is knowing that people like this KNOW that their statistics are based on fantasy created by themselves to turn people not only against a decent program but fosters negative sterotypes and hate.
what does that make them?
Well, to be fair, one of Michael Cannon's points I heard 27 years ago or so in Labor Economics. It used to be true, at least, that poor people who got food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid would lose these benefits at different rates as their income increased, lowering their incentives to pursue better jobs. That’s why (many) economists have been in favor of a negative income tax, essentially wrapping all or at least most programs into one payment, with a uniform rate of decrease as income increases (medical insurance may be a different matter). This situation has essentially nothing to do with Mr. Cannon's other assertion, that families (with incomes up to 80 grand) that already have health insurance will drop their coverage for their kids and put them on CHIP (that statement is essentially the opposite argument of the other). But obviously Mr. Cannon’s actual objective to argue against SCHIP. I would hope that argument like that don’t have much traction anymore.
Post a Comment