10/09/2007

Health Insurance for All

This is a story I sort of stumbled on, since I did not hear the President's Weekly Radio Address last Saturday (it is a long story...and a longer drive).

Anyway, Pres. Bush used the address to explain his veto of the SCHIP bill. The Democratic response came from Graeme Frost, a 12-year old boy from Baltimore who explained how much his family needed subsidized medical care.

It turns out that, perhaps, the term 'need' is somewhat subjective. Apparently, this is a family of at least some means, and a reasonable argument can be made that their lack of health insurance results less from poverty than from the decision to spend their money on other things.

I was initially inclined to agree with what I think was the Misanthrope's point, that the whole story says more about Democratic exploitation than the substance of the SCHIP bill, but on further consideration I think there is a substantive angle here too.

The night before the President's address, I was sitting in a pub in Twisp, Washington, having a beer and discussing politics with one of my aunts, one who is, shall we say, slightly to my left. When I asked her why Bush's veto upset her, she said "because we have to find a way to give health insurance to the children."

"Why?" I asked.

"What?," she responded.

"Seriously, why? Why should I be required to care about other people's children? Shouldn't I only have to care about my own?," I countered, tongue only partly in cheek.

She didn't know what to say.

But the whole story about the Frost family illustrates my point. If we are going to raise the level of entitlement beyond those that most would consider poor, we are starting to talk about decisions, about choices. And if the Frost family decides not to spend their money on health insurance in favor of private school or whatever, why should resources be taken away from my kids in order to insulate the Frost family from the consequences of their decision?

"Children in homes like the Frost's don't lack insurance coverage out of a lack of opportunity or resources, but from the choices made by their parents. Freedom entails making choices and living with the consequences." That's true, isn't it?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Members of Congress should widen the discussion to include other policy ideas that could easily bridge the divide. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) and other lawmakers recently started to design a balanced alternative.

Specifically, a reasonable compromise could be formed around three simple concepts:

Anonymous said...

If we are going to raise the level of entitlement beyond those that most would consider poor, we are starting to talk about decisions, about choices.

Anyone remember this?

Montana: Up to 25 for unmarried dependents if their insurance premium would be equal to or more expensive than coverage through their parents' insurance

Can you say Pandora's Box?