SCHIP: Should it be Allowed to Sink?

Michael Cannon, in this op-ed for the New York Post, advocates allowing SCHIP to sink. He correctly points out that the program forces the taxpayer to:

… subsidize people who don’t need help, discourage low-income families from climbing the economic ladder – and make private insurance more expensive for everyone else.

He also reiterates what objective observers have known for some time about the program:

According to a study in the journal Inquiry, 60 percent of children eligible for SCHIP already had private coverage when the program was created …

This means that SCHIP covers “four previously uninsured Americans for the price of 10.? Surely, even a “progressive? can see that this is not cost effective.

It’s unlikely, of course, that SCHIP will be allowed to sink. Still, one can hope that it will at least be restored to its original purpose: covering poor kids.

Comments 2

  1. spike wrote:

    This is funny. From the same journal Inquiry:
    The second study, “The Impact of SCHIP on Insurance Coverage of Children,” used MEPS data from 1996 to 2002 and found that SCHIP’s eligibility expansions significantly reduced the number of uninsured children and increased the number with public health insurance – both for those targeted by SCHIP and by earlier poverty-related Medicaid expansions. Written by Julie L. Hudson, Thomas M. Selden, and Jessica S. Banthin, all of AHRQ, the study found some evidence that the SCHIP expansions led to a reduction in private insurance, but the authors warn that the crowd-out measures were too imprecise to estimate their significance.”

    Of course the resident epistemologist said it’s impossible to prove the SCHIP reduced uninsurance among children. So one of their studies is worth quoting, but I’m sure another study from the same journal is irrelevant, right?

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 12:31 pm
  2. Catron wrote:

    Of course the resident epistemologist said it’s impossible to prove the SCHIP reduced uninsurance among children.

    It’s not necessarily impossible to prove, but most of the the people making that claim have been trading in the post hoc fallacy.

    Posted 28 Sep 2007 at 1:16 pm

Post a Comment

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