The SCHIP legislation currently occupying Congress has two primary goals: the expansion of government control over our health care system and the extirpation of nascent free market Medicare reform.
The advocates of expanded SCHIP funding have not, of course, been honest enough to admit this. They still maintain the increasingly risible pretence that this fraudulent legislation is actually about kids.
A paradigmatic example of this sanctimonious pose can be found in Maggie Mahar’s recent post at THCB. The general flavor of her dissimulations on SCHIP is nicely captured in the following false dichotomy:
It will be interesting to see how the Senate—and President Bush—respond to this proposal as they consider the bottom-line issue: who needs the $50 billion more, children who are either uninsured or underinsured—or an industry that is already racking up double-digit profits.
What $50 billion? Well, that’s the price tag of the SCHIP legislation favored by Mahar. The grifters … frauds … reformers pushing this legislation claim they will pay for it by raising cigarette taxes and reducing funding for Medicare Advantage.
The reduction of MA funding lies behind Mahar’s reference to “an industry already racking up double-digit profits.” This is where free market Medicare reform gets throttled in the cradle on the pretext that CMS pays the insurance industry too much.
The advocates of government-run health care have long been fearful of MA’s early popularity and success. Thus, they have been frantically looking for a way to kill it before the voters figure out that free market Medicare reform works.
So, Mahar et al have developed a narrative in which the SCHIP debate is depicted as a Manichean struggle between good (those who care about “the children”) and evil (those who care about insurance company profits).
This false dichotomy allows them to assume the moral high ground while advocating yet another wasteful and ineffective government boondoggle. These people are frauds, and it’s time to abandon SCHIP.
Comments 8
$50 billion is not my number. According to the Congressional Budget Office over five years Medicare will be paying Medicare Advantage insurers $54 billion more than it would cost Medicare to provide services to the same Medicare benficiaries directly. Over 10 years, CBO says the over-payment will be nearly $150 billion.
For full documentation (and links) on all of the points in my argument, please see the longer version of the article posted on http://www.tcf.org.
Thanks– Maggie Mahar
Posted 03 Aug 2007 at 11:26 am ¶Regardless of the precise number, the money would come out of the pockets of the poorest beneficiaries—not insurance profits. This is why the NAACP vehemently opposes MA cuts.
Even worse, much of this money would be directed to adults (as in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, etc.) who can afford to buy insurance or kids from families that don’t fit any rational definition of “poor.”
So, it’s not a matter of choosing between kids or insurance companies. It’s about a bait and switch operation that will only increase the power of government without helping the program’s ostensible beneficiaries.
Posted 03 Aug 2007 at 1:32 pm ¶As loathe as I am to engage you in a “debate”, do you have any evidence that the SCHIP expansion is going to go towards adults? Everything I’ve read indicated that the latest legislation eliminated programs for adults and provided extra funding to cover all of the kids who qualify for CHIP. As you may know (but probably not), states move the CHIP income thresholds and either publicize or don’t publicize CHIP depending on how many people they can afford to cover. Expanding CHIP would allow states to cover all the near-poor children and stop these practices of discouraging enrollment during bad times.
Posted 03 Aug 2007 at 9:47 pm ¶Spike, if you’d like to have an actual clue, you could start your reading here and here.
Posted 04 Aug 2007 at 5:11 am ¶The first link describes existing SCHIP, not the expansion.
The second praises some expansion bills because it keeps the expansion to children and doesn’t try to cover adults. Do you read your links before posting them?
Over at healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com, Bob Laszewski quotes Chuck Grassley like this: Grassley said in response to the President’s veto threat, the Senate Finance deal “refocuses S-CHIP on low-income children cost effectively, using appropriate targeting policies.”
So… again, where are you getting your information that the expansion is going to adults?
Posted 04 Aug 2007 at 3:56 pm ¶It occurred to me today that, according to the Democrats proposed tax hikes, I am “rich,” but according to SCHIP, I am “poor”.
Why hasn’t anyone in the media pointed this out?
Posted 04 Aug 2007 at 7:35 pm ¶Well, I think we know the answer to that, don’t we? The “news” media point out such things only if they emanate from George Bush or some other wicked Republican.
Posted 04 Aug 2007 at 8:57 pm ¶Spike, your original comment included the following question:
Do you have any evidence that the SCHIP expansion is going to go towards adults?
I provided the first link to show that a lot of SCHIP money is already going to adults. Surely, even you aren’t naïve enough to believe that the reauthorization bill is going to reduce eligibility, right? But I guess it isn’t a good sign that you take Grassley’s comments seriously.
The second link was offered as a general education resource, so that your future effusions on this issue would be more informed. Another useful piece can be found here.
Posted 04 Aug 2007 at 9:44 pm ¶Post a Comment