SCHIP and The Slippery Slope | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
SCHIP and The Slippery Slope
by

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.

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!