On October 18th the House of Representatives will attempt to override President Bush's veto of the reauthorization of the federal State Children's Health Insurance Program. In the run up to the vote, our attention is focused on numbers--how many Senators and how many Representatives will vote to override; will there be enough support to reach the two-thirds needed?

NJPP has been analyzing some other important numbers that we hope everyone involved in the SCHIP debate will closely examine. They clearly demonstrate that the negative impact of the veto on New Jerseyans has been significantly underestimated, and call into question the White House's priorities.

First, it is widely acknowledged that the White House version of SCHIP might eliminate 28,000 New Jersey children from insurance coverage. Those are kids whose families have incomes between $40,000 and $72,000. Currently, New Jersey allows all of them to participate in FamilyCare, the state's version of SCHIP. The President seeks to cut off eligibility for families at $40,000.

Here's why the 28,000 figure doesn't tell the whole story. An analysis by NJPP Senior Policy Analyst Ray Castro of the latest Census data shows there are another 36,000 children in New Jersey whose families make $40,000 to $72,000 and who aren't currently enrolled in FamilyCare. They would likely be eligible for this program. As things stand now, the state can run outreach activities aimed at getting them covered. If the White House wins the SCHIP showdown, those kids would be made ineligible. So the total impact on New Jersey is that 64,000 children, more than double the stated estimate, would lose access to affordable health coverage.

The Census data also help make the case for why New Jersey's SCHIP eligibility rules make sense. In this state, 13.4% of children in families making $40,000 to $72,000 have no health insurance. That's noticeably higher than the national average of 10.3%. The high cost of living in New Jersey--a third above the national average--probably has a lot to do with this.

New Jersey's FamilyCare program also covers eligible parents. The eligibility cutoff is $27,000 in income, and 83,000 adults making below that are now in the state program. The loss of just those parents now in FamilyCare would mean the rate of all parents in New Jersey who do not have insurance would increase by about 36%. But, again, SCHIP as favored by the President wouldn't affect only them. The Census data show that up to 40,000 other parents in New Jersey meet the state's qualifications but aren't in FamilyCare. So, sustaining the veto means about 123,000 New Jersey parents have no access to affordable health coverage. Considerable research shows that low-income kids are more likely to enroll if their parents are in the program. So, cutting out parents in all likelihood means the ranks of uninsured children will grow.

NJPP's analysis of the latest Census data also sheds light on the nature of the families helped by SCHIP. Some 80% of uninsured children in the state have at least one working parent. Over half of the uninsured children are in families with two parents present. And about 94% of the working parents of uninsured children have fulltime jobs--yet they still can't afford health coverage

A final set of numbers is worth noting. In vetoing SCHIP, President Bush cited as one reason for his opposition the cost. He balks at paying an additional $35 billion over five years to assist children who lack health insurance. $35 billion also happens to be what the Iraq war costs for two months.

And, when it comes to what the federal government can or can't afford, what about tax cuts that since 2001 have cost the treasury over $1.3 trillion? This year alone, those tax cuts bring over $235 billion in lost revenue. When the tax cuts are fully implemented, the average household making over $1 million a year will get back about the same amount of money that it would cost the federal government to provide SCHIP coverage for 162 New Jersey children in a year. Let's be clear, then. The issue isn't spending, it's spending priorities.

TAX REFORM

WORK & WAGES

BUDGET & FISCAL POLICY

TRANSIT ISSUES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

VOTING & GOVT REFORM

© 2008 New Jersey Policy Perspective