Thursday, October 11, 2007
Michelle Malkin approvingly links to this by Bruce Kesler.
What could we do with an extra $10,000 a year, if we didn’t have to pay insurance premiums, and instead SCHIP and taxpayers picked up the tab? Fix-up the 24-year old house; Buy a new or recent car; Hire baby sitters and get some additional sanity from entertainment; Eat better than at Jack or the Clown; Put steaks on the table; Have a cellphone, at least for emergencies, and faster downloads; and so on.
We make choices, in favor of frugality and self-responsibility, and can thus afford to continue to pay insurance premiums.
Sure, it’s not easy being a parent, or living in a high-cost area. Sure, it would be nice to live easier. But, is that fair to other struggling taxpayers?
SCHIP should include reasonable asset tests. In all but three states, it doesn’t have any.
(Please note, also, that he's thinking of a hypothetical case where he's two years older and collecting social security)
What does Bruce think about when thinking about CHIPs? Stuff he could buy, and do, for himself.
Because, you know, that's what being financially responsible is all about. If you get assistance getting your kids health care coverage, you now spend it on yourself.
This isn't a smear campaign, right? This isn't an attack on the faceless enemy, right? No, because that's what every responsible person thinks of first when they get coverage for their kid's health care coverage... "what can I do for me", right?
Responsible parents use the money to help their family. Sure, they help themselves as well, so they don't have to follow tips like "if you can't get fresh or frozen vegetables, give your kids canned vegetables, and if there's not enough for you to eat, drink the water from the cans; it'll have some nutrients". (Yes, that's a true piece of advice, I know the woman who gave - and followed - that advice.) With help, they can be sure the whole family eats, and healthy parents raise better children.
What's the difference between folks like Malkin and Serger, and folks like me? They'll attack the faceless enemy, and push the possibilities of fraud and abuse. Don't help folks with health insurance because they might abuse the system.
And I'll say "of course some folks will abuse the system; it sucks, but the alternative is some people drinking the water from a friggin' can of green beans, and lying to her kids about how they already ate, so what's left is all for them. And I'll take the risk of a few people who don't need the help taking it, to avoid the risk of those who really need it having to go without.
Yeah, sometimes that means a family knocking on the door (or even over the theshold) of middle class getting some help, and not having to be afraid of their car breaking down or having to mortgage all their assets and pray that things get better. It means that maybe those people never have to run out of food and face the hard choices of "how much food for the kids, how much can I get by on?" It means that those people are still in the running to make good for themselves, in return for help on one of the biggest, and fastest rising, expenses a responsible family has to deal with.
And it means reducing the burden on the already overburdened health care system, ultimately reducing costs for everyone, by having the government help vulnerable people.