Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Robert Novak :: Townhall.com Columnist
Socialized Medicine for "Kids"
by Robert Novak
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What was the biggest suprise of Election Day?



WASHINGTON -- There is no need to wait until a new president is elected next year for the great national health care debate. It is underway right now, disguised as a routine extension of an immensely popular, non-controversial 10-year-old program of providing coverage to poor children. In fact, this proposal is the thin edge of the wedge to achieve the longtime goal of government-supplied universal health insurance and the suffocation of the private system.

The Senate Finance Committee was scheduled to mark up this portentous legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) today [Thursday], but disagreement over the size of the program and how to pay for it forced postponement. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller's version would triple SCHIP's current five-year cost of $25 billion to a level of $75 billion. That would grant federal largesse to more than just poor "kids" (as politicians endearingly call children). An estimated 71 percent of all American children in families of four making as much as $82,000 a year would become eligible, with states also continuing present coverage of adults under SCHIP.

But where to find money to cover the massive cost? Senators of both parties want to raise tobacco taxes, but that well is not bottomless, as existing taxes have reduced cigarette smoking. Instead, House Democrats want to take money from private elements of Medicare instituted by the Bush administration. The overall effect would make three out of four American children accustomed to relying on government care no matter what course their parents take. In sum, SCHIP turns out to be socialized medicine for "kids" (and many adults).

A principal sponsor of the $75 billion program is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose hand is detected in health care struggles the past 15 years. After the Clinton administration's sweeping "Hillarycare" failed in 1994 and contributed to that year's Republican takeover of Congress, the first lady miniaturized her goals by limiting coverage to poor children. Republicans, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch in one of his several collaborations with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, had lost their revolutionary zeal after the government shutdown of 1995 and accepted SCHIP as a fallback position at a beginning outlay of $4 billion a year. It was the bargaining chip given President Bill Clinton in return for him signing the Deficit Reduction Act of 1997.

SCHIP over the past decade has been a beloved "kids" program whose faults were overlooked, much like the Head Start school program. The federal government has consistently granted waivers to permit 14 states to cover adults under SCHIP, which now cost $5 billion a year. Minnesota led the way, with 92 percent of money spent under the program going to adults.

The massive expansion was proposed by Sen. Clinton this year, furthering her promise of "step by step" advancement toward universal health care. Her proposal extends SCHIP to families at 400 percent of poverty (or $82,000 annually). Hatch after 10 years is back again supporting a Democratic program along with Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican. But they want a mere $55 billion (a $30 billion increase), compared with Rockefeller's $75 billion, causing the postponement of today's markup.

The Democratic congressional majority now faces the consequence of its "paygo" mandate to account for higher spending. The Senate's preference for tobacco taxes runs into present overall cigarette taxes of more than one dollar a pack, lower legal cigarette purchases and reduced smoking typified by a 19 percent decline in New York City. More creative funding comes with Rep. Pete Stark's scheme in the House Ways and Means Committee for slashing the popular private Medicare program. That not only would fund an expanded SCHIP but move toward government monopoly over all health insurance.

An indirect but pervasive impact of Sen. Clinton's grand design would be the impact in the same family of children who are insured by the government while their parents are covered privately. Would the children become accustomed to Washington taking care of them? Would the adults drop private insurance? The future is now for universal health care coverage, and President George W. Bush may soon face the decision of whether or not to veto it going into the election year.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Robert Novak (1931-2009) was a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
AGIB
I've responded on my blog.

However, whether you like it or not, people are NOT routinely denied care in this country. And the rationing in countries with socilaized medicine is far more severe than the rationing by insurance companies in thsi countries.

At least that's what all the actual data indicates...

AGIB
"You are more likely to live if you are TREATED for those diseases in this country."

Good of you to concede this.

"You are also more likely to be denied treatment."

That statement is factually wrong. In fact, the norm in countries with socialized medicine is the rationing of care and long delays for treatment with often lethal results. In fact, the frequency of dying in socialist countries due directly to delays in recieving treatment BECAUSE of socialized medicine is (on a per capita basis) comparable to the number of deaths in the US due to delays in recieving treatment for ANY reason (including, but not limited to, lack of insurance coverage)

"Fletch, it;s funny that you talk about data--all I have seen you do is dismiss actual data for various reasons, and then pull your conclusions out of the air."

Here's a piece on the reality behind the the total uninsured figure (the 8.9% figure came directly from your source as did the assertion that it is steadily falling):

http://fletchforfreedom.townhall.com/g/de2e74b4-141c-4d6f-859c-93b4fea25ac2&comments=true#b715b779-d994-47e2-808d-38315a937179

The other study you mentioned heavily factors in cost, insurance coverage (making the same faulty assertions about access to care) and comparison of life expectancy and infant mortality rates that are not compatible. Feel free to examine the underlying study if you don't believe me. If you are interested, the assessment of "whose Healthcae is Best?" - ours - and the incompatibility of infant mortality rates, they will be posted Tuesday and Thursday of next week.

"Fewer and fewer employees offer health benefits, and personal premiums are getting more expensive. This has nothing to do with the rise of the uninsured?"

Real compensation growth continues to be positive. That is, it is rising sufficiently to offset the rise in other costs (including for healthcare). In fact, employer paid benefits have continued to rise at a level faster than inflation.

"Also, how do you explain that the number of uninsured growing in states with very small immigrant influx?"

State data reflects all sorts of demographic issues such as significant population moves, the changing age of the population (younger people are less likely to be insured) and the relative condition of the economy in a given area (as opposed to the aggregate that we are discussing). They cannot be used in preferrence to the national data given sample size and homogeneity.

"Blaming immigrants is just a way to scapegoat and try to deny the real problem."

I wasn't "blaming" anyone. I was merely stating the facts that immigrants tend to be more frequently uninsured and that the population growth in this country has been driven by immigration. Perhaps its cultural; perhaps they simply choose to spend their money elsewhere; perhaps it is due to the age difference. I have made no value judgments of any kind.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.