Regarding my earlier point on S-Chip, Instapundit asks:
Of course, not debating would have the same effect, wouldn't it?
It's a fair point; I suppose, in the end, it's a judgement call. I think that making this a loud debate frames Republicans as people who want to deny health care to children. On the other hand, I think that if Republicans had let S-Chip go through, that would rob the Democrats of many of their poster children for a broader national system next year. I'm sympathetic to the arguments about creeping socialism, etc; but ultimately I think that this political battle is lost, so it's best to cede quickly.
On the other hand, as I've stated, I'm broadly sympathetic to the goal of providing health care and other goods to children, so perhaps your mileage will vary.
On the other hand, I think that if Republicans had let S-Chip go through, that would rob the Democrats of many of their poster children for a broader national system next year.
That's what they said when the original S-CHIP legislation was passed, no? (The costs of which exceeded expectations because companies dropped health care coverage for their minimum wage employees who could now get S-CHIP subsidized by the government.)
I think that your last paragraph is the most relevant for distinguishing this from the prescription drug bill, since I think that your political concerns apply equally to that bill.
>I'm sympathetic to the arguments about creeping socialism, etc...
Shouldn't S-Chip, or any other policy, be judged solely on its own merits?
I don't really want politicians to base decisions on what makes a good sound bite. I'd much rather they look at whether or not legislation is good or bad and vote on the merits. Just because opposition to the current S-CHIP bill can be inaccurately called opposition to health care for children is not a reason to vote for it.
The current bill adds health care for non-poor children who are already covered by private health insurace, loosens resctrictions on who can get it, and mis-states the cost in order to make it seem cheaper than it really will be.
Instead of urging Republicans to capitulate because it's politically expedient, how about educating people as to the details and facts of the bill?
EI
I think that if Republicans had let S-Chip go through, that would rob the Democrats of many of their poster children for a broader national system next year.
Since this is policy via anecdote anyway, they will only need one poster child for the next round big government expansion. I suspect they can find that many.
I note that all of these strategic concessions come to nothing in the end, Megan. We give "just one more" slice of the salami in the stupid belief that it will satisfy those whose ultimate goal is socialized medicine. It never does - they always come back for more.
This is as good a hill as any to die on, since we are fast running out of hills.
On the other hand, as I've stated, I'm broadly sympathetic to the goal of providing health care and other goods to children, so perhaps your mileage will vary.
And I'm broadly sympathetic to personal responsibility, and having people provide for their own offspring. Your point?
A good medical insurance plan for a family of four costs more than $10,000. This is beyond the reach of most median income American families. If they have medical insurance at all, it usually covers emergencies only. As a result, too many people don't get diagnostic exams. Too many women don't get mammograms or pelvic exams, too many men don't get prostate and testicular exams, and too many people of both sexes don't get yearly eye and dental exams, colonoscopies, and blood tests for cholesterol and diabetes. The ensuing economic cost to the country is enormous.
That people like Earnest Iconoclast can't or won't understand this is inexplicable.
I think that if Republicans had let S-Chip go through, that would rob the Democrats of many of their poster children for a broader national system next year.
Megan, why do you want the Republicans to win? I mean, based on what calculus, looking at what has happened over the past 7 years of GOP governance, and at what the GOP stands for today, and at what the GOP's Presidential candidates stand for (to the extent that they can be said to stand for anything), do you actually think that the GOP is more likely to give you anything that you value -- as a libertarian, an environmentalist, or anything else?
Oh, I'm not voting for them; I just want them to win on this issue.
Now Megan has really lost me: she wants the Republicans to win on this issue by conceding this issue? I'm not sure how that would work.
More generally, if politicians can't do something principled but unpopular 13 months before an election, when could they do it?
I think that making this a loud debate frames Republicans as people who want to deny health care to children.
Frames? Let me accurate-ize that quote:
I think that making this a loud debate exposes Republicans as people who want to deny health care to children.
You're welcome!
I'm sympathetic to the arguments about creeping socialism, etc; but ultimately I think that this political battle is lost, so it's best to cede quickly. On the other hand, as I've stated, I'm broadly sympathetic to the goal of providing health care.-MM
It's sounds as though Megan is saying that she was for creeping socialism before she was against it. Or maybe the other way around.
Regardless, it's always easy to defend some new government program if you look only at the benefits and not at the costs. But all new spending has to be financed somehow. There are always costs.
Eventually more spending means higher taxes, which means more deadweight losses and a lower standard of living. Indeed, the sort of taxes Pelosi & co. prefer thend to be the most distorting and create the largest deadweight losses. Any discussion of a program that doesn't include an analysis of the costs of financing that program is not intellectually serious.
I would support a program designed to subsidize health insurance for poor children. I'm not so excited about subsidizing health insurance for middle-class families. If they can't afford health insurance, then the solution is to figure out why and fix it, not expand a program designed for poor children to cover middle-class families.
If we want to subsidize health insurance for middle class families, then we should start a program to do that and vote on it as such not sneak them into a bill subsidizing poor children.
The vast majority of people in this country who want health insurance have it. Of the 50 million who don't, some choose not to. As a country, we should look at those 50 million and figure out which ones can't afford it and find a solution. The solution should not automatically be to pay for it with taxes, though.
EI
Health insurance that costs 10k/year isn't insurance. It's an attempt to not pay for your own healthcare, which insurance companies price highly for reasons which should be obvious, but aren't, even to dodo-brained leftists.
Get actual insurance that only covers major catastrophes and has a high deductible. It will be cheap. Look at availabel car insurance. You can get liability only, you can get high-deductible and liability, and you can get virtually no-deductible. What people call health insurance is no deductible with oil changes and tuneups included - no wonder it's mind-bogglingly expensive! If you got real insurance where you had to be judicios about your use and pay out of pocket for regular visits and the first part of expenses, you'd pay alot less. You'd be able to get even cheaper coverage if there weren't state mandates to cover birth-control, fertility treatments, massage therapy, etc, etc, etc.
"But it's for the children" is a stupid and evil way to advocate policy. It can be effective, but it can also be fought, especially by mocking it ridiculously whenever it is employed.
If you can't afford health insurance for your kids - then don't have %)#$*$( kids! It's your responsibility as an adult to not bring children into the world if you cannot afford to provide for them. Doing so inspite of your inability to take care of them is evidence of deeply inherent evil in one's personality.
But all new spending has to be financed somehow. There are always costs.
True. However, the past 7 years of runaway borrow-and-spend Republicanism have pretty much annihilated any Democratic interest in being the guy who has to figure out the costs. Back in 1993, the Tsongas/Clinton/Rubin Democrats were all about figuring out the costs. These days, there's a general sense that if we can blow a trillion bucks playing desert soldier for no good reason, we ought to be able to spend a few tens of billions to get all our kids insured. And that the discussion of how to pay for things needs to take place at the global level -- how do we pay for everything, both your toys and mine.
And, Megan, I'm afraid I'm with y81 on this one. Which issue is it you want the GOP to win? Oh, I see -- stopping guaranteed universal health insurance for everyone, I guess. Well, okay, whatever.
Exactly, health insurance does not equal health care . I am confounded by people who think nothing of paying $100/year for oil changes for their car but cannot pay $90 for a yearly mammogram.
I'm pleased to see a lot of sensible comments on this thread. The socialists are getting routed in this debate and seem to be giving up (with the exception of the indefatigible but misguided brookfoe). For they can't explain how it makes sense for the government to provide medical care (or insurance) to those who could afford to pay for it themselves.
Anyway, Martin Feldstein sees quite clearly what is going on nowadays. As he points out, the ideology of the left has little to do with helping the poor:
"I'm broadly sympathetic to the goal of providing health care and other goods to children"
Who is stopping you? Oh, you mean you're OK with spending my money to provide health care and other goods to children. I've done that for my children, thank you. Perhaps you'll pick up the loans for their educations.
You're single, perhaps you should find someone to share your apartment. The money you save would be a big help to me. It's inconvenient, but it's for the children and education. Yes, I make more money than you do, but so what? They aren't kids now, but neither are all the S-CHIP recipients.
You have to be putting us on.
"A good medical insurance plan for a family of four costs more than $10,000. This is beyond the reach of most median income American families. If they have medical insurance at all, it usually covers emergencies only."
I don't think this is true. I have priced this insurance and I think a family of four can buy a reasonable plan for about $6,000. At least in North Carolina. 500 deductable, $15 co pay for medical visits. 70% cost share above the deductible up to a limit of I think $3000 out of pocket. Kids are about $100/mo per child.
This is definitely doable for families making in the 40k range. They may not be able to afford a lot of nice things, but they could definitely afford it. I have run the numbers several times in case my family were in this situation.
I supose it depends on how you feel about the 90% clause. I find the Frosts perfect to point out the absurdity of SCHIP since their economic status links well to the abdonment of the 90% clause. If the Democrats had only kept the 90% clause SCHIP would probably have not been vetoed but they didn't and the case of the Frosts make it clear that the whole thing is not about health care for children but upon buying votes from the middle class.
I wonder how many voters make less than the Frost's but do pay for their own insurance?
Eccdog, you may be right about the cost of insurance. I was researching medical insurance for one of my kids, and I attempted to duplicate the retiree coverage my wife and I get, including the prescription drug benefit.
You are overlooking something about the politics of this. The Bush administration has been spending extravengently, much worse than Clinton. By making a big fuss over a popular spending proposal they can try to get people to overlook their terrible record on spending in general.
For they can't explain how it makes sense for the government to provide medical care (or insurance) to those who could afford to pay for it themselves.
We can explain it, but you apparently can't understand it. It has to do with economies of scale and bargaining power. One more time: in every country in the world with universal health insurance, health insurance is radically cheaper than in the US. The US is the only advanced economy which lacks universal health care. As a result, our health costs are nearly double those of every other advanced economy; our health results are generally worse, with the single exception of cancer survival; and we fail to insure some 14% of our citizens, including I believe 7 million children. The only advanced economy with a system similar to the US's is Switzerland; as a result, they have the world's second-most expensive health care.
But that's an argument about efficiency. In the case at hand, there have been no examples presented of anyone who "could afford to pay for it themselves". You seem to be having a discussion with yourself, which is why you think you're winning.
It has to do with economies of scale and bargaining power.
Economies of scale? I admit that health economics is not my expertise, but I know that in every industry economies of scale eventually run out and you ultimately hit diseconomies of scale. What makes health care so different? There were once serious economists who thought that nationalizing major industries would make sense to take advantage of precisely the sort of economies of scale you're talking about. Their experiment was not a success and most of the countries that tried that privatized once again.
Why? Because you can't neglect incentives. What incentive does a government bureaucrat have to hold down costs or improve quality? When there is competition each competitor fears losing business and therefore has plenty of incentive to watch both cost and quality.
Until you look carefully at the kinds of incentives faced by government monopolists, your analysis is quite incomplete. I don't doubt that governments can impose price controls and rationing to keep the costs of medical care down, but that means long waits for treatment and fewer life-saving drugs, devices and procedures in the future.
I have had experience with both British and American health care, and was not impressed with the former. The hospital was not clean and was generaly short-staffed. Patients were all together in large rooms with no privacy, no televisions, and noone paying much attention to them. It was clear that if you are old there and in need of expensive treatments, they will just write you off. And this was one of the better hospitals in Britain. It does not surprise me, then, to see that cancer survival rates in Britain are so low. You want to believe it is Utopia there, but it ain't.
I'm sympathetic to the arguments about creeping socialism, etc; but ultimately I think that this political battle is lost, so it's best to cede quickly. On the other hand, as I've stated, I'm broadly sympathetic to the goal of providing health care.-MM
It's sounds as though Megan is saying that she was for creeping socialism before she was against it. Or maybe the other way around.
Regardless, it's always easy to defend some new government program if you look only at the benefits and not at the costs. But all new spending has to be financed somehow. There are always costs.
.....
Too true! And, if expansion of S-CHIP is a bad idea how come no one is willing to look at whether or not the program should exist at all! Uninsured kids are the natural byproduct of a libertarian philosophy, no?
I'm pleased to see a lot of sensible comments on this thread. The socialists are getting routed in this debate and seem to be giving up (with the exception of the indefatigible but misguided brookfoe).
Sorry, I've been off in the previous threads. Never give up! Never surrender! We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the blogosphere, we will defend our philosophy!
Anyway, Martin Feldstein sees quite clearly what is going on nowadays. As he points out, the ideology of the left has little to do with helping the poor:
Yes, because obviously our egalitarianism stops at the middle class. When we talk about single-payer universal health care, we mean single-payer universal health care for the middle class. Not for the poor as well. Heck with them!
It's about cutting down those who have, through hard work, through good luck, though more education, whatever it may be, who have earned higher incomes, and it's a, therefore I would say it is an egalitarianism.
How perceptive of Feldstein. In short, it's all about...welfare queens! Middle-class ones, though.
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
This is as good a hill as any to die on, since we are fast running out of hills.
And since you are inevitably "dead" on this issue anyway. Don't worry, we will bury you.
Hey,
The sort of catastrophic coverage you talk about is not available in New York State--the state passed a law saying that ALL health insurance coverage must be of Cadillac quality. No Model-T Fords allowed.
And there's a move afoot, if not already passed, to include mental healthcare as a mandatory coverage, too.
So, in this state, $10K for family coverage in certain high cost areas might be on the cheap side.
One of the most dishonest points made on the conservative/libertarian blog side of this debate was the assertion (widely repeated), based on an online insurance quote service using the Frost's zip code and info based on a generic family, that Mrs. Frost was dishonest when she said that Individual coverage for her family would cost $1200 -- because the online service provided quotes as low as $420.
But these online insurance quotes are LEAD generating tools -- NOT research tools. They are purely and simply a marketing tool for insurers, and no one but the most naive (or, in the case of these bloggers, disingenuous) would believe or assert that the quotes generated can be guaranteed to, or are even likely to, apply to a particular family's real life circumstances. (Certainly the insurance companies wouldn't claim that these are quotes you can count on.) In fact, you can be pretty sure that the lowest quotes apply very, very narrowly. And that when you actually talk to an insurer, and present him with your detailed history, you will find they do not apply to you.
I conducted a test -- I sought online quotes for an Individual Plan in my zip code based on accurate information for me and my husband. The quote from my own insurer, for my actual plan, was more than 1/3rd cheaper than what we actually pay.
Plus, there were results from several insurance companies that do not actually offer Individual plans in our state.
Why were they included? Because those insurers do offer low cost insurance to individuals and families through a state sponsored program for low income workers who do not receive insurance through their employers. These plans are actually Group Plans, not Individual Plans, and that program -- which has a waiting list -- has very strict, low, income requirements. (It can also be very impractical for the self-employed/micro business owner whose income may flucuate from month to month or quarter to quarter -- they may meet the income eligibility one month or one quarter, but not the next, etc.)
I think the reason this particular point of dishonesty disturbs me is because in addition to using it to try to discredit the Frosts, its perpetuators are using it to minimize the real impact of insurance costs -- most especially for those who do not qualify for some sort of group plan.
If you do not believe, for ideological reasons, that health care should be one of the funding priorities for our tax dollars, then say so. Honestly. Don't resort to dishonest tricks.
As a business owner, an entrepreneur, I think that we, as a society and an economy, pay an enormous cost for the ridiculous way we finance health care in this country. Too many people are forced to make economic decisions -- that limit their economic potential -- based on the high cost of health care and health insurance. That's why I think we have to tackle this problem as a society.
I'm happy to hear honest arguments from those who disagree. But I'm sick of cheap rhetoric.
I'm aware that many states are making health insurance illegal and are only allowing the sale of health care prepayment. This is a serious crime of the left that is then used to advocate for furthering government control of healthcare.
Halsey Frost comes from 3 generations of prominent architects, 2 generations of Princeton grads, has many prominent ancestors in Bronxville, has a very prosperous aunt and uncle who live in "Providence and Narragansett, R.I., and Eleuthera, Bahamas."
google halsey frost, corwin frost, frederick g frost, gwendolyn belle corwin, bonnie frost, and james r sebring. VERY INTERESTING
These are not the working poor you're looking for, but rather underperforming spawn of absurd privilege.
These are not the working poor you're looking for, but rather underperforming spawn of absurd privilege.
So the price of having underperforming parents is sickness, injury or death.
What a utopian vision libertarians lay out for the US. How life-affirming is their message of "screw you, your parents should have worked harder" to the poor and sick children of the US. What a surprise that your views are in the minority.
Yeah I am saying that. Because these people don't need the government's help. They need to get their act together, or ask for some more help from their parents.
I would seriously advocate a prosecution of them for not providing the necessities of life to a child before letting them on a government welfare program. I also wonder why the children's care was not provided by their car insurance. The children should have had a state appointed guardian sue their parents for negligence and other assorted torts stemming from the crash that injured them.
I do love how the left wants to eliminate privilege but then can only use Ivy league legacies to advocate for a governmental welfare program. Cognitive dissonance what? Was there not a Vanderbilt, Hearst, Gates, or Buffett that could have been an advocate?
Next Sen. Rockefeller will talk about how his family needs agriculture subsidies so that they can keep the family homestead on PARK FREAKING AVENUE! I know the left is incompetent, but for crying out loud how come they are this bloody stupid?
Hey howls: "I would seriously advocate a prosecution of them for not providing the necessities of life to a child before letting them on a government welfare program."
I would seriously suggest that Hey's parents raised an amoral monster who missed his true calling - being a torturer for Dick Cheney's underground thugs.
Never give up! Never surrender! We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the blogosphere...-liberalrob
It's good to see that liberalrob has been listening to Churchill. Maybe some of the latter's good sense will rub off. Churchill was, after all, a great admirer of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and was probably the greatest foe of socialism who ever lived--whether it was National Socialism, Marxist-Leninism or the utopian socialism that inspired Atlee and his disastrous "New Jerusalem."
I would seriously advocate a prosecution of them for not providing the necessities of life to a child before letting them on a government welfare program. I also wonder why the children's care was not provided by their car insurance. The children should have had a state appointed guardian sue their parents for negligence and other assorted torts stemming from the crash that injured them.
So the libertarian paradise now includes:
- letting sick children die because their parents don't make enough.
- convicting the parents for not making enough to pay for their children's health care.
- having children sue their parents (for what money, I can' imagine) for injuries sustained in car accidents.
I like the idea that allocating some small part of taxes to poor sick children is a heinous misuse of government, while locking up parents who are unable to support their children is fine and dandy.
I know the left is incompetent, but for crying out loud how come they are this bloody stupid?
They seem pretty smart to me. They're not the ones trying to convince the American people that the way forward is to start jailing the poor for not being able to afford health insurance. They're not the ones criticising a working-class family for not mooching off their rich relatives enough.
I am not sure why the Frosts are being used as an example for expanding SCHIP.
My understanding is that the current program covers those up to 200% of the federal poverty level, which would come to $55,200 for a family of six. The Frosts would be in no danger of losing their SCHIP coverage under Bush's plan to continue funding SCHIP at current levels.
The Democrat plan provides for SCHIP eligibility up to 300% of the federal poverty level, or $82,830 for a family of six. This would be $110,440 in New York under their 400% level.
The Democrats need to find a family of six in New York, struggling to get by on $110,000/year and put them on their next radio show to really drive home how much they are affected by Bush's veto.
cdeegan, obviously the Frosts don't need the SCHIP expansion because they already qualified. They were chosen because they show how the program works and what its benefits are; someone who hasn't yet qualified obviously can't testify to the benefits of the program. Why is expansion needed? Because there are 7 million kids in the US without health insurance. Clearly, SCHIP is missing a lot of kids. The states asked for increased funding of SCHIP as a tool to get those kids insured, and part of the way to do that is to expand income eligibility. I don't know whether there are other qualifications that are important here -- for instance, if you make $100,000 a year but one of your kids has a pre-existing condition, you may be unable to get health insurance at a rate you could afford, etc. But you have to keep in mind the general shape of the problem: millions of uninsured kids, and a tool for getting them insured.
Correction: it seems that as of 2006 there were 8.7 million uninsured children in the US, up from 7.7 million in 2004. That represents 11% of all children in the US.
Churchill was indeed a great foe of socialism, but he made no attempt to end Great Britain's national health program during his second stint as prime minister. Neither did any of the other post World War II Tory prime ministers, including the saintly Margaret Thatcher, second only to Ronald Reagan in virtue. Why is that, Isocrates?
Correction: it seems that as of 2006 there were 8.7 million uninsured children in the US, up from 7.7 million in 2004. That represents 11% of all children in the US.-brooksfoe
Greg Mankiw addressed this problem on 9/26. As he points out, the number often cited (47 million uninsured, significantly overstates the problem):
Churchill was indeed a great foe of socialism, but he made no attempt to end Great Britain's national health program during his second stint as prime minister. Neither did any of the other post World War II Tory prime ministers, including the saintly Margaret Thatcher, second only to Ronald Reagan in virtue. Why is that, Isocrates?-Stan
Why? For the same reason Ronald Reagan didn't try to privatize Social Security. It was politically impossible. The British people are increasingly dissatisfied with the NHS, but they seem to believe that the only alternative to state-run care is a kind of Darwinian laiseez-faire in which the poor just perish for lack of care. So they stick with the system they have--and complain incessantly.
But there is another possibility. One can have a private medical system with government subsidies for the truly needy. Thatcher would certainly have prefered such a system. If only she had gotten a few more years, perhaps...
It's unclear from reading Mankiw's post whether he's talking about uninsured adults or uninsured everybody. But this thread is about children, not adults. If Isocrates feels that denying health care to uninsured children is OK under all circumstances because of our sacred right to low taxes, he should say so. And please, don't give me Bush's line about how you can always go to an emergency room.
If Isocrates feels that denying health care to uninsured children is OK under all circumstances because of our sacred right to low taxes, he should say so.
No I don't want to deny health care to poor children. That's why I would offer a government subsidy. What I don't want is to start offering subsidies to middle class or wealthy families who could afford to pay for themselves (I'm not referring specifically to the Frost family--I'll let others discuss their situation).
Help the needy and let the rest fend for themselves. If we had stuck with that idea, we woudn't have Social Security and Medicare programs that are teetering on bankrputcy.
I thank Isocrates for his courteous reply. I agree with him when it comes to adults, but not about the justice of denying children health care because their parents are improvident. And I still wonder what he thinks about Great Britain's health system. If it's so awful, why hasn't it been privatized?
I don't think that many in this debate are for denying any children care regardless of thier parents decisions, but almost no one in the US is denied care today. If you don't have insurance you are still cared for, but you owe the hospital for your debts. Debts that are often forgiven for needy families.
I do think the Frost family is an example of the kind of family that we should not be subsidizing (I don't know if they are representative of the typical family that the SCHIP program expansion is aimed at). And they are eligible under current law not the proposed expansion.
From what I have read. This family makes 40k a year and could likely make more if they chose a different profession as I believe they are both college educated. Even at 40k a year they should be able to afford health insurance. I doubt the 10k number, but even if that is right they can afford health care since they bought their house for 55k so thier mortage is likely in the 4k per year range. Add another 12k per year for food and 4k for taxes and the have 10k left over for clothing transportaion and other. Plus they have something like 450k of equity in thier home which could be tapped without selling it through a home equity line. The fact that people who could have been making more money, could afford insurance if it were a priority, and have assets that could easily be converted into supplemental cash have chosen to rely on the government for assistance is a shame.
Now what to do if the Frost actually did not get health insurance. Well we should not let thier children go without care and I doubt that is what would happen. Instead the Frost would have to pay back the debts they incured due to their financial recklessness. I would guess that the most likely outcome is that the Frost would be put on some payment plan to pay their debts. They then may have to tap the equity in their home or get other jobs. Some debts may be written off or forgiven. This would not be a great outcome either, but the I highly doubt the kids would go without care. But this is a financial matter and we do not protect families from the financial recklessness of their parents at least until the hardship becomse severe. This point would be a long way away for the Frost.
To me a program like SCHIP should be focused on the poor not the middle class. If middle class people choose a reckless path that turns out poorly then we should always give their children care, but handle the payment of the debts incured delivering that care on a case by case basis.
SCHIP provides health insurance, not health care. Again, the two are not equivalent. Nobody is proposing denying children access to health care.
If you do not have health insurance it is no problem to go to a doctor, specialist, or clinic for routine health care. I have been uninsured in the past and it did not bother me much, as a young healthy male. It was a choice I consciously made.
re the 47 million uninsured: at some point, say a single healthy person with income over 40K, you are no longer uninsured but self insured. I think that is the main objection to SCHIP at higher income levels...at what point do we switch from providing insurance to those who simply cannot afford it to those who would rather not pay for it?
"This family makes 40k a year and could likely make more if they chose a different profession..."
Boy, you so-called "libertarians" sure do love that economic "freedom."
A great big messy overly expensive non-sensical health care system that dictates people's economic choices, limits their economic mobility (ability to move from job to job and pursue new opportunities), and squelches entrepreneurship and small business formation, is just fine with you.
A family can also, of course, more easily afford health care if they choose to not have children or to have fewer children. They may also find health care more affordable if the just chose to live in a different part of the country. Hell, the real problem may be that too many families are just choosing to live in the wrong damn country.
Why don't they just move to France?
Fortunately for the short term interest of us all most American families don't have to choose to curtail consumer spending in order to pay for health coverage. They can just keep putting that on a credit card.
And as long as most Americans are willing to accept a perpetual state of indebtedness, I guess you "libertarians" will just keep rejoicing in our economic "freedom."
"A great big messy overly expensive non-sensical health care system that dictates people's economic choices, limits their economic mobility (ability to move from job to job and pursue new opportunities), and squelches entrepreneurship and small business formation, is just fine with you."
That's the first rational argument for SCHIP I've seen in this, or other, threads.
All the other arguments are essentially "why do republicans hate kids?", which is demagogery of almost the worst kind.
Following that reasoning, why don't we provide free housing for kids? You want them to die in the cold, heartless republicans? Why don't we provide free food for kids? You want them to starve to death, evil rethuglicans?
There are already programs to provide food, housing, and medical care to poor kids, the concern among libertarians (and the goal among leftists) is that SCHIP is another step in the ladder to having the government assume full responsibility for all needs of individuals, and tax them accordingly.
Having lived in a country with socialized medicine, there are advantages and disadvantages, but these should be discussed rationally. Of course they won't be, there are too many votes in being a demagogue on this issue.
Who is talking about indebtedness, they have what looks like to me a net worth of about +400k?
"A family can also, of course, more easily afford health care if they choose to not have children or to have fewer children."
Yes having children requirs some sacrifice. I can no longer do all the things I want to because I just recently had a daughter and I have a RESPONSIBILITY to her. I thought serioulsly about this responsibility before having a child.
Forget health insurance, I can't quit my job or open a business that will not make money because I have to put food on the table, a roof over her head, and keep her clothed. I also can't go out to bars, travel or do some of the other things I used to do. So yes I had to give up some of my "Freedom" in order to have my daughter and it is totally worth it.
But I would never ask others to pay for my responsibility if there was any reasonable way that I could meet that obligation. It appears to me that there are reasonable things that many of us do that the Frost could do to meet their responsibiity.
BTW I never said I liked our current system. You put those words in my mouth.
Please answer this question which was asked above and strikes at the heart of the issue:
"at what point do we switch from providing insurance to those who simply cannot afford it to those who would rather not pay for it?"
One side says we force everyone to pay for health care on a national level since there are some who would rather not pay for it and have their family and themselves suffer the consequences (protect them from themselves so to speak)
Another side says we have some level of means testing that requires you to be genuinely needy to get the insurance.
Yes some people can work the system and cut their hours to half time in order to qualify, but there's nothing you can do about that in a means test...you can't tell someone "well you have the ability to get paid more per hour than you are, so no soup for you"
But I do agree with the general assessment that we should be be paying for people's health care/insurance who could otherwise pay for it on their own. Maybe we just need better asset/means evaluation for patients? You get treated under the program, but also undergo a budget/asset/credit check of some sort. If you're not scraping by, you get stuck with a bill and you're wages will be garnished if you don't pay it.
I'm all for handing out free care to poor/needy kids. But when irresponsible parents refuse to pay for their kids, when they otherwise could we need to have some kind of provision with teeth to FORCEFULLY take what was FORCEFULLY taken from others on account of their irresponsibility.
Actually I'm for not forcing anyone in general on this stuff, but since we're already taking money from me to pay for others, we might as well take money from those who are irresponsible and refuse to pay for themselves.
sam writes: "Actually I'm for not forcing anyone in general on this stuff, but since we're already taking money from me to pay for others, we might as well take money from those who are irresponsible and refuse to pay for themselves."
That's fine - I'll endorse that position once every single two-time Bush voter pays me back my share of the money the morons threw away in Iraq.
For some strange reason I'd rather spend money on helping kids rather than murdering them. That's where Bush voters and I part company, apparently.
Lot of ignoramuses around here, but then we have a large number of crazy leftists, so no real surprise.
Failure to provide the necessities of life: the parents demonstrated a willful disregard of the needs of their children by not obtaining health insurance. This is a crime that shouldn't just be for crack addicts or those who leave their children in the car on a 100 degree day. Fairly easy to see where I'm going - to protect children from the extreme negligence of their parents.
Children suing their parents is an exceptionally common thing, especially when it comes to insurance. The description of the accident makes it seem to be a one vehicle incident. A driver who makes a mistake can have a hard time suing his insurance company for his own mistake, since there isn't much liability to one self. Other passengers in the car, even family members, can have torts committed against them by the driver. In many cases it takes a lawsuit or the credible threat of one to get compensation from a car policy. Thus why the injured children should have sued the parent who was driving. These are pretext suits, like the suits against parents by disabled children for negligence during pregnancy or failure to abort. But the children should have under no circumstances been relying on SCHIP for their medical coverage stemming from the accident.
Get some bloody experience and understanding of the real world before debating these things. Calling me an amoral monster doesn't help. I get called worse on a regular basis. Plus, this is a discussion on policy, where morality isn't in play, simply results.
Moe that has nothing to do with anything... You could say the same for every gov. expenditure.
The issue is targeted government dollars to those who don't need it.
We may argue over farm policy or war policy or police policy but how that money is spent on behalf of the entire nation is vastly different than paying for people on an individual level.
sam writes: "Moe that has nothing to do with anything... You could say the same for every gov. expenditure.
The issue is targeted government dollars to those who don't need it.
We may argue over farm policy or war policy or police policy but how that money is spent on behalf of the entire nation is vastly different than paying for people on an individual level."
Like hell it is. The benefits of having a healthy society accrue to the entire nation. There are no benefits from the war in Iraq unless you happen to be a defense contractor.
Universal health care is coming and this discussion will soon be moot, which is a good thing.
As for Hey's "morality isn't in play" claim, I believe him. I don't think he has a morality to put in play.
It is clear to every living breathing animal on earth that the benefits to having a:
well fed
clothed
housed
society are vastly more important than the ability to get health care and insurance. I'm not suggesting insurance is unncessary, but the 3 I listed come first.
You could easily make your argument about those things. Such and such family of 6 makes only 50k a year and they live in shabby conditions, we need to build them better houses, otherwise their kids will start selling drugs. Your reasoning is silly.
Health care is important. It's certainly NOT in the best interest of ALL OF SOCIETY to make sure you get your tonsil problem or backpain or broken arm fixed. Or rather the interest is disproportionately in that individual's interest to get those things taken care of. Certainly we'd like to have a society where people don't walk around with appendicitis and can't get it fixed. But the overwhelming benefit of getting that operation in the vast majority of cases is for the specific individual.
You can't make that claim about Iraq. We aren't fighting there so our troops can get a bigger paycheck. (they get paid no matter what). We aren't fighting there so some oil contractor can get rich. Even the most cynical take on it is we're fighting to secure a highly important resource from falling into the hands of a madman and his sons and future generations of dictators who threatened America (whether or not their threats had teeth is another question).
Regardless you can't just pull in arguments from left field about Iraq as though that's a valid reason as to why we should support health care.
Chris
Eccdogg, it's not all about you.
And it's not all about the Frosts either.
It's about the cumulative affect that these economic limitations (imposed by a disfunctional health care system) can have on the vitality, inventiveness and competitiveness of our economy.
It's about the cumulative affect they may have on the health and stability of our families, and on family formation itself.
Its about the eventual, inevitable social consequences of increasingly limited economic mobility in a society and culture that has long celebrated, and fostered the expectation of, economic mobility.
I appreciate that as an individual you have made a responsible choice based on what is best for you and your family. But I don't think, as a society, we benefit if your choice is the only responsible choice available to most people (who do not have substantial inherited or independent resources).
Political players find it useful to personify various issues. The President makes appearances with a farm family to personify the inheritance tax issue, or uses the daughter of a 9/11 victim to support a security policy. The Democrats use the Frosts to personify the issue of children's health insurance. I think it was former Sen. Phil Gramm who time and time again trotted out the example of a particular printer/small businessman in his Texas hometown to support his arguments on issues like minimum wage, etc., etc. At times, they (the politicians) are hoping to exploit our empathy for others, at other times (welfare queens, etc.) they are trying to exploit our resentment toward others.
Unfortunately, doing so fosters the idea that our position on an issue should be determined by our sense of personal obligation toward, or responsibility for (and the deserving-ness of) these particular individuals and others like them.
But, of course, we don't have any personal obligation or responsibilty to any of these people.
What we have is an obligation, as citizens in a participatory democracy, to consider, in making political decisions and choices, what best promotes the general welfare.
That (whether or not it promotes the general welfare) should be the test of whether a program like S-chip, or any policy proposed in the political arena is one we can support -- not how much compassion, or resentment, we may feel personally toward some people who may benefit from it.
In supporting the general welfare, we are, of course, supporting not only the best interests of others, but also our own -- and the best interest of those who who we do have a personal responsibility for, like our children, spouses, grandchildren, parents, etc.
esmense other than your assumption that it I thought it was all about me or that I have substantial inherited or independent resources a good well reasoned post.
Ultimately while I view it as a valid point of view I do not belive that the role of government is to necessarily to provide for the general welfare.
Instead I believe that in general people should take care of their own welfare whenever possible. In some cases due to bad decisions or bad luck as a society we may need to provide them assistance to insure that they have food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. But this should only be after all other options have been exhausted. The default should be that you provide for yourself.
While I agree that the fact that the Frost are not deserving of SCHIP cannot be used as an indictment of the whole program. The proponents of the expansion of the program put them forward as a typical family affected by the program. If this is infact the case I think the program has been expanded far enough. As I understand it it now covers up to 200% of the poverty level. This seems to be a reasonable spot to cut off benefits.
A big part of the problem is that the two sides are not being accurately reported.
Bush has not been effective in getting across the message (surprise) that he wants to maintain the current SCHIP program with a small increase, while focusing on actual poor children, not adults or the middle class. Media coverage implies that Bush wants to cancel SCHIP and remove coverage from current enrollees.I see example after example in the local news similar to the Frost's, where working poor families are wailing about the loss of SCHIP coverage.
The Democratic side is also not accurately reported; most stories talk about "adding coverage for 8 million children" without mentioning coverage for adults or families at 300-400% of the povery level. Here in Illinois 45% of SCHIP goes to adults and is projected to be over 50% next year.
The average person I talk to about the SCHIP veto really believes that it is all about Bush canceling poor children's health insurance.
Eccdogg --
Nowhere did I assume you have inherited wealth. Re-read the paragraph.
Of course it is the role of government to care for the "general welfare." It even says so in our Constitution (actually the word the Constitution uses is "promote" the general welfare rather than "care for").
We citizens disagree a great deal, sometimes violently, about what best serves the general welfare and how our government (the government we, as democratic citizens, make together) can best meet that obligation. But, as citizens, we do have an obligation to look not only at our own immediate self-interest but beyond our self interest to consider the better interest of the country as a whole (in other words, the "general" welfare). And I think that for the most part that is what people try to do.
From your post, I think you are confusing this "general" welfare with "Welfare." A particular set of policies and programs.
You may believe that a particular "Welfare" program promotes the "general" welfare, while I think that it does not. That's a policy disagreement. Not a disagreement as to whether government has an obligation to promote the general welfare, or whether you and I as democratic citizens have an obligation to consider the general welfare.
Promoting the general welfare, through our government and other public institutions, in no way implies that people have no obligation to provide for their own welfare. Of course they do.
Following that reasoning, why don't we provide free housing for kids? You want them to die in the cold, heartless republicans? Why don't we provide free food for kids?
We do. In the US, homeless families are housed at public expense, or their children are placed with foster families at public expense. The US provides free food to poor kids through food stamps and the school lunch program.
The fact remains that there are 8.7 million uninsured children in the United States. Anyone who opposes expanding SCHIP has a moral obligation to explain how they plan to ensure that every one of those children obtains coverage.
The argument that not wanting to expand a government subsidy for insurance further in to the middle class means that we don't want kids to have health care, or even that we don't want them to have insurance, brings to mind this quote.
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
- Frédéric Bastiat
The Center for Disease Control's National Health Interview survey also provides statistics on the uninsured. They report that 41 million Americans did not have health insurance at the time of the survey (Jan-Mar, 2007). One significant statistic was the trend in insurance coverage of Americans under 18:
% of children w/o insurance
1997....13.9
1998....12.8
1999....11.8
2000....12.3
2001....11.0
2002....10.5
2003....10.1
2004.....9.6
2005.....8.9
2006.....9.3
2007.....8.5
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-big-problem-is-lack-of-health.html#8667166638248161041
source
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200709.pdf
link found at
http://reason.com/blog/show/122737.html
(Note the data is no longer on the Makiw blog because when he disabled comments he apparently deleted all of the old comments, but the reason link has it, and you can find it in a different format from its original source link the cdc.gov link above)