Finally Convinced: S-CHIP Expansion in Current Form is Non-Starter
[UPDATE: I've completely changed my mind since writing the post that follows, below. For my current views, see here and here.]
Those of you who are both familiar with my past writing and know me as a moderate will probably shake your heads, in utter dismay and considerable confusion at this development. So be it. But I'm now convinced the vetoed S-CHIP bill was, in fact, bad policy.
To be fair, I took my time on this decision. I read the arguments on both sides with a wide open mind. And in the end, I found I just couldn't bring myself to support the program as it was encoded in the vetoed bill. The reasons why are perhaps best described by these authors, here and here. [For the latter, h/t Shay.]
Sure, I wish the President had more credibility on this matter than he currently does. Sure, I wish the prior Republican majority had been more conservative on spending, less wasteful, less corrupt. But I can no longer use their collective failures as an excuse to abandon the defining conservative principles in which I continue to strongly believe.
To be perfectly clear: Despite this decision, I still embrace a role for the feds in health care. Hell, if it were up to me, there would be five dominant priorities for federal government investment and authority in the 21st century, listed here in no particular order: defense, infrastructure, interstate/international commerce (including clean/renewable energy), health, and education. (I choose those five because I believe they are the five most critical bricks in the foundation of our modern Republic; more on that subject and the rationale behind it, later.)
Net: Don't get me wrong. I want our national government to play a significant role in fixing health care coverage in this country, and I absolutely agree the initial focus should be on the most vulnerable population, namely children. But none of that means I have to accept as a solution a dependency-inducing, responsibility-revoking program like the vetoed S-CHIP bill.
Those of you who are both familiar with my past writing and know me as a moderate will probably shake your heads, in utter dismay and considerable confusion at this development. So be it. But I'm now convinced the vetoed S-CHIP bill was, in fact, bad policy.
To be fair, I took my time on this decision. I read the arguments on both sides with a wide open mind. And in the end, I found I just couldn't bring myself to support the program as it was encoded in the vetoed bill. The reasons why are perhaps best described by these authors, here and here. [For the latter, h/t Shay.]
Sure, I wish the President had more credibility on this matter than he currently does. Sure, I wish the prior Republican majority had been more conservative on spending, less wasteful, less corrupt. But I can no longer use their collective failures as an excuse to abandon the defining conservative principles in which I continue to strongly believe.
To be perfectly clear: Despite this decision, I still embrace a role for the feds in health care. Hell, if it were up to me, there would be five dominant priorities for federal government investment and authority in the 21st century, listed here in no particular order: defense, infrastructure, interstate/international commerce (including clean/renewable energy), health, and education. (I choose those five because I believe they are the five most critical bricks in the foundation of our modern Republic; more on that subject and the rationale behind it, later.)
Net: Don't get me wrong. I want our national government to play a significant role in fixing health care coverage in this country, and I absolutely agree the initial focus should be on the most vulnerable population, namely children. But none of that means I have to accept as a solution a dependency-inducing, responsibility-revoking program like the vetoed S-CHIP bill.
3 comments:
Interesting viewpoint. I have heard about the who Frost thing and it does make me wonder, if this really is a back door way into dropping private insurance for a government program. I am like you in that I think the Fed should have a role, but it should be when the private market is unable to help (ie: out of a job). If the Frost case is true, then the whole talk that this is about poor kids is blown to hell.
Being more libertarian, I do not "want our national government to play a significant role in fixing health care coverage in this country" but I'm backing off on criticizing S-CHIP because you have to pick your battles and this one casts the GOP in a bad light. I'll save my fight for Billary's socialized medicine.
That's where I was, Patrick, a few days ago, but the more I read, the more it seems this is the first stepping-stone to "Billary's socialized medicine," and appearances or not, I think we have to protest now; later may be too late.
Post a Comment