I’d like to make a plea to everyone commenting on the SCHIP debate not to fall into the rhetorical trap of talking about the program assisting “poor” kids. This is part of an overall, long-term strategy by the Left to redefine the concept of poverty in a way that includes far more people and moves even farther away from the original concept of true deprivation and destitution.
With few exceptions, Medicaid has long ensured that all poor children can receive health care that is essentially free to them. SCHIP involves children above the poverty line, who should not be called poor. Call them children of modest means, or children in the lower-middle class, or whatever. But let’s not condone the practice of referring to families with 150 percent, 200 percent, or more of poverty-line income as “poor.” They are not.
There is a wrinkle to keep in mind, though: it is true that states are required to enroll “uninsured” children first in Medicaid, if they are eligible for that. So SCHIP enrollment drives do tend to increase state Medicaid rolls, and some might claim that this constitutes an increase in health-insurance coverage for the poor. I don’t. The poor children were already entitled to free medical services, and if taken to any medical provider would have been immediately enrolled in Medicaid and provided those services. In a practical sense, then, they were always “insured,” even if their names were not on a government list.