Healthy Kids –I’m Gonna Vote for It.

After studying the voters pamphlet, doing research and watching press and other election coverage, I have decided that I am going to vote FOR Oregon Measure 50, the Healthy Kids Initiative. Although my long standing support for housing programs that help families with children made me a likely supporter from the start, my decision was more difficult that it might have been because there are a number of weaknesses with the ballot measure. While I eventually identified more cons than pros, for me the overall goal outweighed the sheer numerical count of the "cons". (BTW--Sheer audacity of BIG tobacco lobbying efforts were nearly enough reason to vote FOR the measure).

One continuing worry that I have are costs. Federal employee family coverage has a combined employee/employer costs of more than $10,000 a year for ‘standard” coverage (not “High”) coverage. If health care costs for public financing of health care are anywhere close to that, those costs will be substantially more per family than feds pay for housing or food stamps, and substantially more than the Healthy Kids budget. This may mean that fewer families will get served than anticipated, or the package of health care services will be significantly contracted. This in turn could lead to public discontent with government efforts to provide income supports for families.

Pro Arguments

1. It’s time for society recognize that health care important for everyone, especially children.
2. Cost per child is significantly less than insuring adults , including the elderly.
3. Prevention at earlier ages may reduce costs and impact of health problems later.
4. Feds are paying 61% of costs, reimbursement rate for new SCHIP kids will be more than 70%.

Con:

1. Ability to pay stood on its head (Oregon seemingly willing to pay MORE per child out of state resources for children in families with higher incomes than it does for children in lower income families).
2. Oregon no where near fully serving currently eligible children.
3. Funding base for future uncertain. (How elastic demand is for tobacco with new taxes is uncertain).
4. Children are the main, but not the ONLY , beneficiaries.
5. No acknowledgement that feds will pay most of the costs.(nothing new:)
6. SCHIP national expansion may impose additional tobacco taxes, impacting demand within state, and thus reduce tobacco revenue below expectations.
7. Providing public subsidies up to 300% of poverty levels for health care purposes, establishing health care as a much higher priority than housing or other income support programs.
8. Employers are shedding health insurance obligations, shifting burden on government. Employers are likely to later lobby against higher taxes to pay for those services.