SCHIP: Sense and Sanctimony

Two back-to-back posts at the Health Affairs blog nicely capture the tone of the current SCHIP debate.

Grace-Marie Turner, representing those who want SCHIP to remain a program for low-income kids, offers a clear-eyed assessment of the situation. Sara Rosenbaum, representing those who wish to dramatically expand the program, offers sanctimonious blarney.

The former points out that President Bush is likely to veto the SCHIP legislation when it arrives on his desk, and offers some sensible recommendations for a more viable bill:

Focus on the lower income children most in need … Avoid crowd out … Give more flexibility to states … Avoid new taxes … Correct the funding formulas … Keep SCHIP as a capped funding allocation … Treat states alike …

Juxtaposed against this thoughtful discussion is the moral posturing of Sara Rosenbaum. She professes to be shocked, SHOCKED that congressional deliberations regarding SCHIP are (gasp) politicized.

What one could not possibly have predicted is the ideological vitriol that has invaded the discussion, the most recent example being a WSJ editorial labeling “Schip” as an effort to “expand government control of health care and undermine private insurance.” This particular accusation is astonishing.

Obviously, Rosenbaum isn’t this naïve. Like most supporters of the Democratic attempt to hijack SCHIP (originally a Republican initiative, BTW), she wants to avoid discussing the real issues. Thus, she dismisses all objections to SCHIP expansion as “ideological.?

So, Turner’s sensible recommendations and Rosenbaum’s sanctimonious posturing offer a useful microcosm of the SCHIP debate. Here’s hoping the former approach prevails.

Comments 3

  1. spike wrote:

    You’re nothing if not an ideologue.

    Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 12:23 pm
  2. Catron wrote:

    Brilliant point, spike. Keep up the good work!

    Posted 20 Aug 2007 at 12:35 pm
  3. Matt wrote:

    Catron, since you repeatedly advocate the govt. paying docs more, how does that get paid for if not from increased taxes?

    Posted 21 Aug 2007 at 8:22 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *