In Which We Are Condemned As Big-Spending Quasi-Liberals (on SCHIP, No Less)

Dale Franks at QandO is bitterly complaining about my complaint that the Democrat Congressional leadership and its handful of Republican allies have a provision in their SCHIP expansion bill forbidding SCHIP families from making use of FSAs and MSAs offered by employers, even if such employer-based plans meet the families’ needs in the most economical manner.

I think Franks is a bit overheated, and consider his allegation that the view I summarize above means my colleagues and I advocate more government spending to be ludicrious, but judge what he wrote for yourself:

So, that’s the ground they’ve chosen to die on. SCHIP must be allowed to subsidize MSAs and the like.No complaints about a massive expansion of the program. In effect, it’s a complaint that the program doesn’t go far enough, so that it covers their preferred health care reform, too.

First, this is just silly. You will never, ever win against the Democrats by claiming that they’re too stingy with the people’s money, or that their benefit programs aren’t far-reaching enough. Quite apart from the fact that no one will really believe you, the simple response is that the Democrats actually want to dole out “free” government health care to everybody, and it’s the Republicans that are opposed to it. So, this email embodies a stupid tactic.

Second, I look at this stuff, and I think, “The battle’s over. We will never stop the expansion of government.” Even “conservatives” can no longer find it in themselves to offer up a principled stand against an expansion of SCHIP.

It’d be easier on everyone if we just bypassed the next fifteen years, and proceeded directly to mailing in 90% of our paychecks to the government, and simply be done with it.

The remaining 10%, of course, we can keep, and use to blow on hats, or whatever other little trinkets we’ve decided to trade in our liberty for.

I posted a response in Q and O’s comments:

“No complaints about a massive expansion of the program”? “Even ‘conservatives’ can no longer find it in themselves to offer up a principled stand against an expansion of SCHIP”?I take it you did not familarize yourself with our body of work on SCHIP, and simply assumed we hadn’t said the things you are condemning us for not saying.

Take a look at these sometime:

SCHIP Expansion: Socialized Medicine on the Installment Plan

Should Most of America’s Kids Be on the Dole?

The SCHIP/Frost Affair Continues; Paul Krugman Calls Me a Busybody

SCHIP, Graeme Frost, and the Bloggers

Socialized Medicine by Stealth: Panel Calls SCHIP Expansion ‘Bad for Kids, Families, and Taxpayers’

It’s Socialized Medicine, All Right, And We Don’t Want It

Congress’ SCHIP Deception

SCHIP Expansion in Perspective

An SCHIP Fraud? Boy Who Delivered Democrat SCHIP Rebuttal May Not Be Low-Income

Reverse Robin Hood: Congress’ Regressive SCHIP Expansion Would Tax Poor to Fund Health Insurance for Middle and Upper-Middle Class

And there’s our SCHIP website, which contains nothing except principled stands against an expansion of SCHIP (except the poll, which had a ‘no expansion’ result until DailyKos and Democratic Underground told their followers to go vote in it).

The argument in our press release is that despite the Democratic leadership’s claim that its members respect families like the Frosts, they really don’t trust them at all. That’s a far cry from “claiming that they’re too stingy with the people’s money, or that their benefit programs aren’t far-reaching enough.”

By the way, taking FSA and MSA options out of SCHIP wouldn’t save taxpayers’ money. Recipients who want these options wouldn’t be thrown off the dole. They’s just get a more government-laden, and quite likely more expensive to the taxpayers, form of welfare.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.