The Cato Institute On The SCHIP Debate: Expand Purchasing Power To Improve Access
The Cato Institute wades into the SCHIP debate. What do you think of their policy prescriptions?
The ongoing battle in Washington over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) has become a cause celeb for Democrats and a public relations nightmare for Republicans. “President Bush doesn’t support children,” Democrats cry. “Expanding SCHIP puts us on the slippery slope toward government-sponsored healthcare, Republicans retort.
When it comes to children and healthcare it’s hard to have a rational, measured conversation. However, the bold folks at the Cato Institute are trying hard. Not only have they challenged New York Times columnist Paul Krugman to a debate, but they believe expanding SCHIP does not solve the access problem. Instead of throwing “more money at the issue,” Cato's Michael Cannon suggest's
the following:
“Eliminating SCHIP and letting people purchase coverage from out-of-state is a better alternative. The latter would enable families to avoid unnecessary regulatory costs, which the Congressional Budget Office puts at about 15 percent of health premiums. That would benefit SCHIP-targeted families most of all. And it would do so without raising anyone’s taxes, showering subsidies on non-needy families, pulling families into a low-wage trap, or increasing the cost of private insurance. As for eliminating SCHIP, when Congress cut non-citizen immigrants from the Medicaid rolls, contrary to all predictions the number of uninsured non-citizen immigrants actually fell. Why wouldn’t SCHIP families, who are more affluent, fare even better?”
This policy prescription represents the ultimate in “consumerism.” Cato believes we should ask families to purchase policies on their own. Is this a good solution to the problem of uninsured children? Since we’re here to debate ideas, I’d love to hear whether you think this one would work.
Previous: What A Simple Question Reveals About The Barriers To Health “Consumerism”
