According to House Republican leader John A. Boehner, offering SCHIP coverage that is superior to available private insurance options amounts to "[d]ragging people out of private health insurance":
Top House Republicans objected to the House Democrats’ plan to finance their proposals, with increases in tobacco taxes and cuts in subsidies for private health plans serving older Americans on Medicare. Republicans say public coverage would in some cases replace private insurance.
“Dragging people out of private health insurance to put them into a government-run program is ‘Hillary care’ come back,” Mr. Boehner said, referring to the Clinton administration plan for universal coverage.
Apparently, free will doesn't exist when it comes to choosing health insurance for children. Tie me to the mast! Don't let me be tempted into government coverage!
(Of course, designing SCHIP expansion so that it covers currently uninsured children rather than displacing existing private coverage is a real issue. But no one is being "dragged" out of private insurance.)
Sarcasm aside from your, "...Don't let me be tempted into government coverage!", a primary objection to the expansion of SCHIP is that it furthers our States' Addiction to Welfare [which] Corrupts [our] Federalist System:
"...Seven states now permit families with incomes as high as $60,000 to claim this [SCHIP] welfare-style benefit. New Jersey leads the pack, having moved its eligibility limit up to $72,000. In January, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D.) went even further, proposing to cover families with incomes four times the poverty level -- $82,600 per year..."
Those that support SCHIP have the responsibility to explain why middle-class income earners should be offered government health insurance when they could otherwise purchase it in the private sector. Furthermore, they should have to explain why an expansion of government is preferable to the existing private alternatives.
Posted by: Porkopolis | July 25, 2007 at 11:46 AM