In the latest version of the children's health care bill passed by Congress, families with up to $62,000 of household income would get healthcare for their children paid by the government. Should families in the $40,000-$62,000 earning level qualify? $62,000 is three times the poverty level.
Lloyd - Indeed I do know how much it takes to raise a child. Been there 5 times! Paid all of it myself.
Twilight
Favorite Answer
The Federal Poverty Level in 2007 for a family of four is set at $20,650. however, five years ago a family of four needed $32,000. per year to live with only basics being met (medical insurance not included).
The Federal Poverty Level is and has been set way too low forever and does not truly reflect what the actual costs are for a family to survive on. And yes I simply mean SURVIVE on.
Your question did not state how many people are in this family nor if they are self employed, employed by an employer who doesn't provide health care, or how much more it costs to provide healthcare for the spouse (spouses tend to be costly with employer based healthcare).
Since Bush came into office wages have stagnated (exception CEO's), the cost to live has dramatically risen (gasoline doubled, food doubled, clothing greatly increased, utilities doubled and in my case tripled, I guess it depends on where you live, medical costs have risen dramatically) and there are now baby boomers ready to retire.
There are more people living in poverty, more uninsured, and more elderly.
So yes, these families deserve healthcare especially for their children and this $40,000 - $62,000. (most likely gross pay and not net) is not too much. The SCHIP program is not totally free as you might believe. The families do have to pay a premium and copays.
Anonymous
That's like punishing people just because they're wealthy and some people aren't. Sure, some wealthy people find loopholes, but LOTS of wealthy people DO pay their taxes; you can't lump them all together. My in laws are well off, but they worked their asses off for it - my FIL sacrificed a lot of "dad time" with my husband to be a good provider for his family and to accumulate capital. Should they be punished for that more than anyone else? I don't think so. Think about how much you pay out of your paycheck for things like Medicaid, etc. Then add a few extra zeros to the end - that's how much 'rich people' pay for things like Medicaid. I do agree with the celebrity thing, though - if they are such humanitarians, why don't they start at home in their own country? I have often found that puzzling. But again, a lot of them do - you just don't hear about it as much. And if we move to socialized medicine, the "little people" will still pay for healthcare - it's funded by tax money. It really makes no difference- it has to come from somewhere. All this stimulus bill money, blah blah blah and healthcare crap Obama is taking about - WHERE is the money coming from? Who has that kind of money lying around? It sounds great on paper, but it has to come from somewhere - OUR pockets. There is such animosity for the wealthy in this country, unfortunately, and the policies of Obama don't do much to help that. I've never understood how the majority of Democrats can be for the 'little guy' when you consider the outrageous wealth of people like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi (her and her husband's combined assets make her the wealthiest member of Congress, from what I've read), and Obama himself (hello - can we say $1.5 MILLION house??) I don't see how people can identify with that. I know I can't. Perhaps those wealthy people accumulated their wealth not through swindling others, but by saving and working hard to secure their futures. If others did the same, then Medicaid wouldn't need to exist, I bet.
phovisi
Maybe they should qualify it by where you live based on the cost of living. $62K in Columbus, Ohio is a lot of money, however, $62K in Boston, Massachusetts is pocket change. And whether we like it or not we are all going to pay for the health care expenses for the uninsured anyway (everything gets picked up by the taxpayer in the end) so we might as well figure out a plan that works for the benefit of all.
T S
Depends on what size family are you talking about here, and probably region as well.
I imagine raising 5 kids in West Palm Beach or Boca Raton would be rather difficult on $40,000. BUT if you lived, say, in Elizabeth City NC. it would be manageable. Also, political affiliations aside, a lot of folks have trouble living with in their means. Common sense should apply to each case individually.
joe s
If gov't won't act to make insurance companies more affordable, then yes, they should pay for it.
I think you should change the question to this: In the richest and only industrialized country in the world without gov't provided or financed healthcare, should only families making between 40-62,000 dollars qualify for gov't paid healthcare?
I don't know how families making 62,000-80,000 can afford healthcare (those in California, New York, etc.) for their children, considering the cost of living and that just about everything is privatized--so quit whining about this small measure. Clearly, conservatives don't want our class issues alleviated and the public united in any shape or form.
Last thing, the US poverty level is a joke. The word "poverty" doesn't denote or connote total homelessness and dire living conditions, but that's exactly what you have at the US "poverty level."