I notice a lot of conservative and libertarian arguments against
expanding SCHIP start off with the line that it's "a slippery slope
to socialized medicine." (That's a direct quote from an email I got
today, plugging this item
at Heritage.) That's a rather weak argument, unlikely to
persuade anyone who doesn't already reflexively prefer
market-friendly policies. A better approach is to argue against
SCHIP directly, as
Michael Cannon does:
Like its much larger sibling, Medicaid, the program
forces taxpayers to send their money to Washington so that Congress
can send it back to state governments with strings attached. Both
programs force taxpayers to subsidize people who don't need help,
discourage low-income families from climbing the economic ladder -
and make private insurance more expensive for everyone
else.
That seems much more likely to resonate beyond the convinced
economic right. Besides, is the slippery slope scenario really
sound? If SCHIP performs badly, won't it
diminish the
support for socialized medicine? It might not, but it would be nice
if someone would explain the
mechanism
of this particular slippery slope.
topics:
Medicaid, Law
