Should families making $40,000 - $62,000 have children's health care paid by the government.?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

In Pennsylvania, the governor has proposed that ALL children (up to age 19) who are uninsured be eligible for CHIP regardless of parental income. I agree with this in that even if you make above the poverty level, and have what some consider a 'good' paying job (say $50k) there is no guarantee that the employer in question is even offering the employee health insurance as that is the first thing to go when considering their bottom line. As far as providing CHIP to parents who have insurance. Having private insurance disqualifies you from receiving CHIP and if the child in question has a chronic disease, he/she is eligible for medical assistance on top of whatever private insurance there is, because let's face it, paying to keep our future leaders healthy is a better investment than another bomb in Iraq.

Also, if an Iraqi citizen brings his/her child to a military base hospital, the child is treated - no questions asked. If we can treat the families of those we have declared 'enemy combatants' for free, why not our own children?

With inflation in the picture and the cost of living rising. It depends on where you live. $62,000 is nothing in Massachusetts. You are poor if you have children. Even if you don't, you aren't well off. The cost of housing is ridiculous.

You will have an expensive commute to boot.

Doesn't this tell you how dire things are? Wages and salaries are not even close to keeping pace. Currently, it's hard to see how things will change. It seems that it will continue to get worse unless something is done. You cannot rely on companies to do what's right. There aren't enough good paying jobs. We've lost the lucrative manufacturing sector. It's been replaced with the much less lucractive service sector.

Really, the salary requirements should be based regionally. There are vast differences.

Given how difficult it is for young people to find a job, 25 is unfortunately quite reasonable. There are many more specialized jobs now that require experience because employers aren't providing training like they used to.

When I graduated from college, there were so many entry level jobs at companies with training programs. It seems that has all but disappeared. I know someone who's been out of college a few years and still hasn't found a decent job. They can't afford to pay for insurance through work because it takes too much of their pay. They do need a place to live and a car. They have to pay taxes. They have utilities and god forbid if they want to be able to eat too. Believe me, these folks aren't living the good life. I am just thankful that my husband has great insurance at his company that is employee owned. (it's not UPS). Where I work, it's very expensive. If people could afford health insurance then they would have it. People with children need health insurance.

Remember these kids would be going to school with your kids. Don't you want them to have basic care at least?

It's not a handout. They have earned it. Our system is falling apart due to greed and globalization.

Who makes overtime anymore? I don't. I'm salary.

My husband does but he is an exception. He also gets bonuses. He works at a company that is employee owned. That makes a huge difference. There aren't outside investors trying to make as many bucks as they can.

People are already working 3 jobs to try to make ends meet but it's harder nowadays. Things have really turned upside down. I wish people would climb out of the clouds and join us in the real world.

No

Anyone who works should have health care be paid by the government.

We all know the government is really good at being good stewards of our tax money

Right????

<<sarcasm off>>

Anyone think universal health care is good ask yourself why are Canadians coming here?

Social Security is heading for disaster.

The government a program that things taken in drug raids were to be sold had to give it up because they were losing money.

Anyone thinking the government is the solution to our problems has to look no farther than DC and watch what is going on.

No. No one should. What should happen is remove the controls and regulations that artificially inflate costs. Allow policies that have the coverage you want to buy.

This whole thing is about controlling people. When the government gives someone something, it has unlimited demand. This then leads to rationing.

Yes and no. Yes, if health insurance is not offered with their job. For instance, my neighbor is a 40 something widowed women who works 50 hours a week and does not have insurance offered through her work. Because of her oldest child having a genetic kidney disorder, her monthly premium is around $900 month for her and her children. She works hard, has good values, and deserves a break.

No, if health insurance is offered through a place of employment, and the child would be covered. If the child is not covered because of pre-existing conditions, then I believe that the government should provide insurance until the waiting period is over.