For the record, I'm not opposed to expanding S-CHIP. Then again, I'm not convinced the current proposal for expanding it is correct.

By working within the existing system, S-CHIP does not create any fundamental problems, but it doesn't solve any either. It's really just a way to cover some of the insurance costs for uninsured Americans, while expecting them to pay for part of the bill as well.

Perhaps my opinion is affected by the fact that Paige and I have qualified for North Carolina's version of S-CHIP in the past, but opted not to sign up because the costs and benefits were roughly the same as the costs and benefits provided by our employers's health plans. But if we had taken different jobs, or perhaps owned a business, then S-CHIP would have been a wonderful program.

On the other hand, S-CHIP is paid for by tax money, and we need to make sure we're spending that money wisely. Apparently the current proposal would allow a family making four times the poverty rate to sign up. Of course, the "poverty rate" is a made up number without much justification (like Raymond, "I laugh when I hear or read things like this, because — unlike most Americans — I know what real poverty looks like" and, yes, the fact that we are horrified by an obese poor population implies that our poor are much better off than the starving poor of the rest of the world). Under the current proposal, a family of four earning $80,000 or more could still qualify for S-CHIP. I have a real problem with that. President Bush has suggested changing that to three times the poverty rate ($60,000, more or less), but that's still silly. There aren't many people out there earning $60,000 a year without health benefits. The most likely group would be business owners, and the best solution would then target those business owners and their employees.

Unfortunately, US politics rewards people for more making big, underfunded, promises than for funding the promises they made last year ("I have seen that when the government runs recreation facilities, it almost never spends enough money on capital maintenance and refurbishment. The reason seems to be that legislators, given the choice, would much rather spend $X on a shiny new facility they can publicize to their constituents than spend $X maintaining facilities that already exist.").