Why not to support the expansion of SCHIP
Snow cones are like communism: it’s a great idea in theory, but it never works out in practice
– Andy Whittin
This week, President Bush vetoed the expansion of the SCHIP, a healthcare bill that would have effectively given children who aren’t poor enough to qualify for MedicAid but aren’t rich enough to buy health insurance health coverage. It would be paid for by increasing the cigarette tax. Bush vowed to veto the bill on the grounds that it would be too expensive and it would be the first stop to socializing healthcare.
While this law is a great idea in theory, it would not work out in practice. Here’s why:By tying such an important bill (at least to the democrats) to a tax, these supporters are failing to see the long-term problems that will come along with such a bill. The President was right veto because it is too expensive. Cigarette tax, like most taxes that are tied to sales, is a tax that mostly effects the poor. (If you’re confused about this, consider reading up on flat taxes.) As you make cigarettes more expensive, you will encourage more and more smokers to quit smoking. (By the way, a large percentage of smokers are in the lower tax bracket.) As more people quit smoking, let money is available to fund the healthcare. And since the democrats are determined to provide this socialized healthcare, they will more than likely increase taxes again to compensate for the lose of funding. This cycle will repeat itself until cigarettes become prohibitively expensive.
And now, there’s a problem. No more smokers, but a lot of children needing healthcare. By this time, the population of children needing healthcare will have expanded. Where will this money come from?
Where else? More taxes. But who to tax?
If you are going to use a tax, I think a more socially responsible thing to do would be to tax fast-food restaurants. Places like McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, et al are contributing to children becoming obese. (Actually, at the alarming rate this is happening, I’m beginning to wonder why there isn’t more hoopla about this in the same way as global warming.)
In the end, who suffers? The children and the poor. Most people don’t see this because the short-term benefits are so obvious. I see this tactic similar to people that sell snake oil. It’s a great product because it makes you feel better…but in the end, snake oil doesn’t do anything except get you drunk.
So while the democrats vilify the President, they push the attention off of this fact that ultimately shows who they really care about: socially assassinating the President.
Once you take away the smoke and mirrors, once you take away the policital saber rattling, you’ll begin to see that the democratically controlled congress doesn’t really care about important issues. All they care about showing the President as a baby-hating, murderer protecting, war mongering monster.
And in the end, isn’t that all that matters?