Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The SCHIP hits the fan

My Congressman--Dr. Tom Price (and that, as my wife would say, is a real doctor)--explains why the Democratic effort to expand SCHIP is, as we used to say, "creeping socialism." Read the whole thing.  

Discussions - 8 Comments

Dr. Tom Price is already a full blown Socialist, because he has already accepted all the moral premises...he is just an intelligent and sensible socialist who recognizes the economic inefficiencies/misalocation of resources inherent in a larger Government program. He isn't arguing Bastiat/Hazlitt...he is argueing Public Good Economics. Anymore most Republicans are just sensible/creeping socialists.

I find it laughable that you would use the words "creeping socialism" as cover for the full blown leaping thing.

But I suppose I am old school...appart from most Austrians and a few people at Chicago, modern Economics is all about "Creeping Socialism" or rather the optimal level of public goods(socialism).

If a words meaning is its use then I can no longer uphold Classical Liberal meanings of socialism...which means that 50 years from now the Republicans will be defending SCHIP from a bolder plan which will be labeled "creeping socialism" as we used to say.....

At least Daniel Bell had the courage to call himself a Socialist!

89% sure seems like a high number of children covered by private health insurance. But so does 8,100,000 (the 11% of children who were not covered by any health care service for the 2005 year from which your Congressman got his info). And only 66% of children were covered the entire year. The 89% is just children who were covered sometime during 2005 (something your Congressman somehow manages to omit . . . He also seems to think 2005 is "current"). See here.



He writes:



This is an income level where, currently, 89 percent of children already have private health insurance. So why would anyone want to do this?

,br>
The only answer can be a philosophical belief that government makes better decisions than parents and families.




Oh really? That's the only answer, eh? Hmmm . . . I thought maybe it might be that people are sick and tired of seeing children go without health care because their parents are irresponsible or can't afford to get a plan due to their economical circumstances. Maybe people don't think its right that they work so hard in some factory somewhere, slowly debilitating their bodies, and then have to pay high medical costs for having spurned on the economy. Or maybe some don't think its right that we should forsake health care for the super-poor (or almost-super-poor) so that we mightily insured can have more choices in regards to particular procedures (and, by the way, choices do not go entirely away with government-run health care . . . that is a weighty assumption your Congressman doesn't back up at all).



This article is not only misleading, but seems to be nothing more than a whine against the "creeping socialism" everyone around here is so scared of. God forbid we curb the free market and socialize some things (after all, look at how awful Europe is! And we all know that socializing our health care system means we'll be exactly like them! ).

Oops. Messed up. Your Congressman says that 89% of children had private health care when he really means that 89% had health care (about a third of them got it from the government). Also, 86% (not 66%) of children had health care for the entire year of 2005.



My bad.

His claim is that at 400% of the poverty level, 89% of kids were covered by private health insurance, which is a different statistic than the one you're citing (89% of all kids--whatever the income level--covered by some form of health insurance). Where he gets that number, I don't know.

The other argument that I take seriously is the way in which funding for this expansion comes out of the Medicare Advantage program, which has stood as an effort to privatize Medicare.

Ah, I see. Noted, with apologies.

We as the people need to make sure all politicians especially the President have their paid Health Insurance revoked. Why are we paying for their health insurance? The Republicans don't support Universal Health care, they call it: "Creeping Socialism." These hypocrites get top notch health care & don't pay a dime, probably go out to dinner with Heath Insurance lobbyists. On top of it they are loaded, this is just absurd!

I left the above comment. I'm self employed I pay $400 US a month for Heath Ins & its going up soon! I have a $2,500 a year deductible for needed tests & hospitalization. I go to Mexico to buy my some of my Meds! We are being ripped off here in the US. I see Medical Insurance & Drug commercials constantly! Their CEO'S get ridiculous salaries & bonuses. Take away politicians health care & the lobbying, its a conflict of interest.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/10939