Do it for the kids
Posted by BrianBeware that request when the government is involved. But it is a potent weapon in the quiver of those who favor larger government becaue it uses naked emotion to tear down reasonable opposition. The latest “do it for the kids” spending hike: expanding the State Child Health Insurance Program.
I’ll get into the absurd particulars of SCHIP in a minute, but first I’ll address the justification of any such program. Healthcare for children presents a moral dilemma because it is easy to believe that individuals who have spent a lifetime making poor decisions don’t deserve health care, but it is difficult to deny care for children who suffer the plight of being born to irresponsible parents. The problem is that it is undesirable for people who cannot afford to have children to continue to procreate. It is foolish to encourage such undesirable actions by forcing society to bear a sizable share of their burden. I believe that a reasonable middle ground would be to make long term (>= 1 year) and temporarily irreversible birth control (i.e. not just free condoms) for the woman and the man a prerequisite for any welfare assistance. I’ll be more than happy to help pay for your child’s care as long as I know you aren’t going to compound the problem because you know that you won’t be the one footing the bill. I have enough trouble providing for my own kids in the manner I choose to pay for the offspring of others as well.
The left is of course deriding Republicans who oppose expanding SCHIP funding as anti child. But what exactly is this child friendly program that the Dems are touting? Take a look for yourself.
“It is one of our most important national priorities to cover all Americans, and that should start now with all of our children,” [Hillary] Clinton said July 16.
Of course, it depends on what the meaning of the word “children” is.
Washington already lets 14 states cover 670,000 “boys” and “girls,” up to age 25, some of whom have been drinking legally for four years and voting for seven. Ninety-two percent of Minnesota’s SCHIP budget insures adults.
Clinton’s proposal, like the House Democrats’ bill, would cover children in families up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), double today’s target. Thus, a family of four making $82,600 could receive federal-government medicine. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation’s Rea Hederman estimates, 70,000 “American families are both poor and high-income — simultaneously.” They qualify for SCHIP and the alternative minimum tax.
Madder still, 77 percent of children between double and triple FPL and 89 percent between 300 and 400 percent of FPL already have private health insurance, notes Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon. Nonetheless, the Democratic House Wednesday night approved $47 billion for SCHIP through 2012, 88 percent above its current $25 billion, five-year budget.
Senate Democrats would fund this extravaganza via a 156 percent cigarette-tax hike — from 39 cents to $1 per pack. Heritage forecasts that 22 million new smokers would have to light up by 2017 to keep SCHIP afloat.
So, in summary SCHIP is for the kids. Well, at least the 25 year old Democrats classified as kids who are probably sitting around playing video games while they take the 7-year option as they matriculate through some liberal arts college majoring in a subject that will likely leave them unemployed in the event that they eventually graduate. Oh, and you might be both poor and wealthy. Should I feel bad or happy for you?
Related content:
March 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
[...] definition of middle class so loosely that depending on which metric you used you might be both poor and wealthy at the same time! Mr. Mjumbe doesn’t explicitly state what his own definition of middle class is, so [...]