Reason.com
New at Reason
Ron Bailey explains how expansion of the SCHIPS program is just a way to inch us closer to socialized medicine.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Wisconsin: 65 Percent Believe Gov’t Workers Receive Better Retirement Benefits (5.29)
- Wisconsin: 69 Percent Favor 401(k)-Style Accounts for Government Workers (5.29)
- 17 Percent of Wisconsinites Favor Disbursing Retirement Benefits to Gov’t Workers Before Age 65 (5.29)
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
talboito|8.28.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Good.
|8.28.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Woo hoo! And it's going to work, too.
|8.28.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Of course, the fact that SCHIP saves the lives of children is of secondary importance.
|8.28.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Let me get this straight - the Galen Institution knows that for every 100 kids is saves from the horror of public health insurance, 50-75 of them will not go onto a private plan, but will have no health insurance.
And that's ok with them.
BTW, "for all that implies" about lousy government-funded health insurance? Medicare is the most highly-rated health plan in the country. If SCHIP was a system of government doctors providing care in government hospitals, that would be a much stronger argument.
Joshua Holmes|8.28.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Ron Bailey explains how expansion of the SCHIPS program is just a way to inch us closer to socialized medicine.
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't think this needed an explanation. File this under "no duh".
|8.28.07 @ 1:56PM|#
If the government collecting tax dollars so people can charge the government to pay private-sector doctors is "socialized medicine," does that mean that the government collecting tax dollars so people can charge the government to pay private-sector teachers is "socialized education?"
Dennis Moore|8.28.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Rob from the poor and give to the rich.
Stupid bitch.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-cigars_avilaaug28,1,6982905.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
|8.28.07 @ 2:32PM|#
joe: So then you support my proposal to give vouchers to low income people so that they can purchase their own health insurance and their kids' educations from private vendors? Really glad to hear it.
|8.28.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Actually, Ron, I haven't made up my mind about whether it would be wiser to have one big, nation-wide insurance pool, or competing insurers, paid for with public money. Private insurers tend to have absurd levels of overhead. I keep hearing about the wonders of competition, but I don't see those costs being reduced so that the consumers can have lower premiums, so I'm skeptical.
If you're going to have a single payer of medical bills, there is not point in going through the exercise of sending out the vouchers, when you know where they will be spent anyway.
fyodor|8.28.07 @ 2:52PM|#
If the government collecting tax dollars so people can charge the government to pay private-sector doctors is "socialized medicine," does that mean that the government collecting tax dollars so people can charge the government to pay private-sector teachers is "socialized education?"
Well, yeah. Our education system is socialized. And a lot of people don't think it does a very good job, too.
That said, SCHIPS would probably be better described as socialized medical insurance than socialized medicine, per se. FWIW.
|8.28.07 @ 2:54PM|#
fyodor,
According to the definition Bailey appears to be using, the elimination of public schools and their replacement by a government vouchers system would "socialized," too.
|8.28.07 @ 2:54PM|#
First, to put to bed the "Medicare has less overhead" argument. Medicare has less PERCENTAGE overhead, because they deal on a scale much much larger than any private insurers. Also, they do not have collection issues as it is criminally illegal to not pay Medicare so those costs are hidden in other branches of the government.
Ron- excellent article. There are many roads to tyranny, and I fear that socialized medicine is just the lastest attempt.
|8.28.07 @ 2:56PM|#
joe: You have just brilliantly captured the logic the situation, if there is a single payer there will soon be only single provider--all doctors and hospitals may pretend to be independent, but all reimbursement will be determined by a centralized government bureaucracy. Let's call if the National Health Service.
My proposal is that Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP are all turned into vouchers for low income people allowing them to buy their own health insurance from private providers. Better off people will still buy their own insurance without government help. For my detailed plan see my article "Mandatory Health Insurance Now."
|8.28.07 @ 2:59PM|#
fyodor: But don't forget the ultimate goal.
Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ) made this goal explicit when he called the House SCHIP bill "the next step toward universal health care for all Americans."
robc|8.28.07 @ 3:16PM|#
According to the definition Bailey appears to be using, the elimination of public schools and their replacement by a government vouchers system would "socialized," too.
Yes. It is slightly less socialized, in that the means of production (of knowledge) is less controlled by the state, but there is still some state control.
Public schools - very socialized
Public funded private schools - somewhat socialized
Private funded private schools - not socialized
How much the "somewhat" is depends if the state would use its funding power to enforce rules on the private schools, like it did with private universities and grants/loans.
|8.28.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Ron,
I don't think your logic is correct. HMOs reimburse many different providers, without those providers becoming a cartel or monopoly. The government is the sole purchaser of military combat aircraft, yet there are competing firms.
Anyway, the mandatory insurance programs have some things going for them.
|8.28.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Ron- excellent article. There are many roads to tyranny, and I fear that socialized medicine is just the lastest attempt.
I would think that socialized medicine would be a lousy road to tyranny. Too much bureaucracy.
Russ 2000|8.28.07 @ 3:41PM|#
The government is the sole purchaser of military combat aircraft, yet there are competing firms.
For the time being. The number of competitors has declined over time.
|8.28.07 @ 4:02PM|#
No.
So long as there is no socialized medicine, the Democrats can win votes from socialized medicine supporters, and beat it over the head of Republicans "Why don't you want the children to have healthcare?". It is a big Democrat vote generator.
However, if the Democrats actually delivered on a national health care program, they know that FEMA-care would turn into a national disaster. Despite their vocal support for nationalized health care, they are well aware of how disasterous it will turn out in practice. Democrats will be seen as the engineers of national health care failure, and lose lots of votes.
The task for Democrats is to implement token programs like this one, in order to show examples of "progress" in promoting their health care agenda, without making any real changes to the health care system.
The real danger of socialized medicine come from Republicans... Just as Republicans almost universally support non-voucher socialized education, Republicans would be more than happy to adopt some socialist health care program if it means they can rally support for another war.
|8.28.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Well, fix the problem of uninsured children, and there won't be any pressure to put them on SCHIP programs.
C'mon, Libertarians, come up with something!
Looks like yet another market failure, don't it? My my, tsk tsk. No wonder no one votes for you.
Paul|8.28.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Democrats will be seen as the engineers of national health care failure, and lose lots of votes.
Rex, nice try, but something tells me you haven't paid much attention to the political scene-- more specifically, use history as your guide. Scenario:
Democrats, with the help of a public/private partnership between the nations largest corporations and dedicated Democratic Healthcare Crusaders will usher in a crypto NHS scheme. When we get the exact same care that Canada and the UK gets, a kind of political revolt will take place where "reforms" will be demanded. The Democrats will never say "damn, you're right, we really fucked this healthcare thing up, and shit howdy, we shoulda seen it coming. Who woulda figured that we'd have the exact same problems Canada and the UK have when we put in the same system that Canada and the UK have."
No, what will happen is that Democrats will charge that it wasn't properly funded due to "right-wing" or republican-demanded limits to the budget. When the system eventually fails (or more accurately, starts failing to provide basic healthcare despite "universal access"), the Democrats will claim victory, and accuse everyone around them as not going far enough, and as such, the program needs expanding.
fyodor|8.28.07 @ 4:58PM|#
joe,
A school voucher system would still be a socialized system, to be technical about it, although one with more choice than the type of system vouchers are intended to replace. FWIW.
Paul|8.28.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Looks like yet another market failure, don't it? My my, tsk tsk. No wonder no one votes for you.
I think that the point of the article was to show that kids do have private coverage options, but lose it as the government increasingly provides "free" public coverage. Ie, the government is slowly taking over a market which was already working.
If the government provided free Nissan Frontier pickup trucks, then the private sector would no longer sell Nissan Frontier pickup trucks. And, presumably, the general market for pickups would shrink dramatically, because people who might not want a Nissan Pickup, but be in the market for a pickup truck in general will take the "free" Nissan as opposed to the $30,000 pickup truck that they really wanted.
|8.28.07 @ 6:20PM|#
I did a quick read but 50% of the medical coverage only was attributed to medi-care -aid.
What about all the workers of the gov't, they don't pay for their health care, do they?
My employer is struggling to maintain my health care. Why not federal/sate/local tax suckers.
Paul|8.28.07 @ 6:23PM|#
What about all the workers of the gov't, they don't pay for their health care, do they?
No, you do.
My employer is struggling to maintain my health care. Why not federal/sate/local tax suckers.
Which is why your employer will or already is asking the government to pay for it.
This country will never get nationalized healthcare until the corporations are on board. They're getting on board. The meter's running. It's only a matter of time.
|8.28.07 @ 6:26PM|#
I don't trust the government to do what is best for me so I am against national health insurance.
Do you think Bush/Clinton/Obama/Paul know what is best for you?
|8.28.07 @ 6:31PM|#
rick
"What about all the workers of the gov't, they don't pay for their health care, do they?"
Gov't workers pay for their health care out of their pay check but as Paul noted, you pay the workers so you pay for their health care.
Paul|8.28.07 @ 6:34PM|#
Paul know what is best for you?
No, I don't always know what's best for you. Unless you're talking about Ron Paul.
I'm here all week.
|8.28.07 @ 6:39PM|#
Paul
"No, I don't always know what's best for you. Unless you're talking about Ron Paul."
I did mean Ron Paul but you are correct none the less.
|8.28.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Oh, and I am here until a week after this Friday.
|8.28.07 @ 8:34PM|#
I would think that socialized medicine would be a lousy road to tyranny. Too much bureaucracy
What makes you think tyranny and bureaucracy are incompatible?
As to whether socialized medicine is good start on tyranny, lets ask the British how their civil rights are holding up.
robc|8.29.07 @ 8:29AM|#
Well, fix the problem of uninsured children, and there won't be any pressure to put them on SCHIP programs.
There parents should buy them insurance. Problem fixed!
C'mon, Libertarians, come up with something!
I did. It is the parents responsibility.
Looks like yet another market failure, don't it? My my, tsk tsk. No wonder no one votes for you.
Market failure? It works like every other market, if you have the money, you can buy the product.
|8.29.07 @ 9:20AM|#
"I would think that socialized medicine would be a lousy road to tyranny. Too much bureaucracy."
That's the genius of it. It is tyranny based on measures supported by the public, without the need for a real enemy (disease is invisible and random) and it would be impossible to mount a resistance.