Government insurance expansion wastes tax dollars

The Denver Post published my letter on Thursday:

New insurance law wastes taxpayer dollars

Re: “The governor’s first two years; Two views of his energy level,” Jan. 4 Denver & The West story.

The Post reports that Gov. Bill Ritter “signed a law that … could result in as many as 50,000 more children being enrolled in state health- care programs.” Actually, most of the newly enrolled children already have insurance, and the program fosters government dependency.

The new law wastes tax dollars. Its net effect is to insure four kids for the price of insuring 10. How’s that? More than half of newly eligible children already have private health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that “for every 100 children who are enrolled in public insurance, 60 children lose private insurance.”

Worse yet, programs like SCHIP discourage parents from advancing their careers and earning higher wages because they might forfeit their government benefits. Parents are thus caught in a “low-wage trap.”

Ritter shouldn’t force taxpayers to fund such a program while truly worthwhile charities could do better with voluntary donations.

Beware Udall’s health care policy

My contribution to the November 1, 2008 Daily Camera Editorial Advisory Board. (printed version)

Beware Mark Udall’s health care policy. He evaded a simple question in the Camera’s Candidate Profile: “Should the federal government follow the lead of Massachusetts and have a mandatory health care plan?”  His website clarifies: “I believe a requirement for health insurance coverage … will increase the distribution of health care costs over the entire population.”

He’s right, but this is wrong for consumers.  Mandatory insurance forces you to pay for other people’s health care at the expense of your own. When politicians force you to buy insurance, they decide what policy is acceptable, not you. They pander to special interests by mandating that your insurance include expensive benefits you may not want.

Consider Massachusetts.  The Boston Globe reports that residents whose insurance does not meet regulations “could face a hefty tax penalty.” Too bad for those who like their current policy.

Would Udall want this, or Massachusetts’ other problems?  Massachusetts authorities will “probably cut payments to doctors and hospitals” and “reduce choices for patients,” reports the Globe.  It also reports that “the wait to see primary care doctors in Massachusetts has grown to as long as 100 days.”

Udall also supports expanding SCHIP, government-controlled insurance for kids. For every ten kids in SCHIP, six drop private insurance. That’s unfair competition. Worse yet, SCHIP is a “low-wage trap” that punishes recipients for increasing their income.

But for politicians, SCHIP expansion can help create a generation who votes for politician-controlled medicine from cradle to grave. Just get them addicted as children.

Governor Ritter holds children hostage to gain government market share

A March 5 article in Face the State quoted me in Medicaid expansion:

According to Brian Schwartz, a healthcare policy expert who testified before the 208 Commission, Ritter’s plan to increase enrollment in state sponsored insurance programs is only going to grow government unnecessarily and hurt Coloradans in the long run. “The children’s health plan is like the kiddie version of Medicaid,” said Schwartz. “Instead of passing more laws that unfairly compete with private companies and put people on crappy plans, why doesn’t the government look at what it is already doing make insurance so expensive?”

As I’ve written before, Medicaid is a horrible program that keeps the people is “aids” in a state of depending on government for lousy medical care. This blog post by Cato’s Michael Cannon (& challenge to Paul “everyone who disagrees with me has evil intentions” Krugman) includes several references on why SCHIP (Medicaid for kids) is a bad program.  Cannon has also written about it in the USA Today and a longer briefing paper. A good moral case against SCHIP is here.