George Bush is poised to veto a bipartisan bill (a re-authorization and expansion of SCHIP– the State Children’s Health Insurance Program) that would expand health care coverage to about 4 million children currently lacking insurance. The expansion would cost about $35 billion over five years, and be paid for by tobacco tax increases. A small step, but presumably one too big for Bush. In fact, his counter proposal would actually see at least 17 states losing funding, increasing the number of uninsured children.
What’s his motivation? Numerous possibilities come to mind. Angering the tobacco lobby may not be something he is willing to do, even if children go without health insurance. And then there is the cost issue. Not that Bush has shown much zeal for fiscal rectitude! He has even expanded spending on health care! But there is a key difference. Bush’s idea of health policy reform involves huge transfers of funds into the coffers of the insurance and drug companies. And then there is this statement:
“[S-CHIP is] now aiming at encouraging more people to get on government health care. That’s what that is. It’s a way to encourage people to transfer from the private sector to government health care plans…. I strongly object to the government providing incentives for people to leave private medicine, private health care to the public sector….. I mean, think of it this way: They’re going to increase the number of folks eligible through S-CHIP; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a — I wouldn’t call it a plot, just a strategy — (laughter) — to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care.”
Think about this. It’s best to leave children uninsured than submit them to a government-run program. Of course, all evidence points to the relative efficiency of these programs. Remember that the program designed to entice people to leave traditional Medicare for private plans costs 11 percent more than traditional medicare, and requires a government subsidy to the insurance industry. Medicare devotes less than 2 percent of its resources to overhead, while private insurance companies spend as much as 20 percent on profits, marketing and administrative expenses. So it’s not really about cost, or efficiency, or good policy, or compassion. It’s all about ideology. Just as be joked about the execution of Karla Faye Tucker, he gets a giggle out of the “federalization of health care”.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In