Updated 12:19 pm.EST, Mon November 23, 2009

Opinion|Sun, Feb. 08 2009 08:05 AM EST

Giant Steps Toward a Gov't Takeover of the Health-Care System?

By Richard Land|Christian Post Guest Columnist

The new SCHIP legislation is nothing less than a vehicle to advance “socialized medicine” by stealth. The program’s purpose, when it was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, was to assist in subsidizing health care for children in families whose incomes made them ineligible for Medicaid but who couldn’t afford private health insurance.

The public insurance program, which was crafted to provide insurance coverage for children of working-poor families, may soon grow dramatically, nearly tripling in size by 2013.

Under the SCHIP legislation, the program has experienced the kind of expansion-in-purpose only possible in Washington, D.C. Under the new legislation, families with incomes of up to $84,400 for a family of four will be eligible for government-subsidized health care for their children. Consequently, people with incomes higher than most American families will now have children eligible for health insurance subsidies originally intended for low-income families.

The new SCHIP legislation also will make it much easier for some states to increase eligibility for SCHIP-subsidized health care even for families who earn over $100,000 a year in family income. It is estimated that somewhere between a third and a half of the children signed up under the SCHIP expansion will be children who will have been taken off the private insurance rolls and put on government-subsidized health insurance.

A January 2007 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests SCHIP is “crowding out” private insurance, as their research revealed that for every ten children added to the public rolls, six had been covered by private insurance. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Congressional Budget Office estimates 2.4 million individuals will forgo private insurance coverage and opt in to the public program (SCHIP).

Wouldn’t the nation’s children be better served by targeting the truly needy for expanded health assistance rather than encouraging some in the middle class to move their children off private insurance and onto government programs?

The only rational explanation for deliberately designing programs to take children out of private health insurance and put them on government-subsidized insurance when they come from families making sometimes from $84,400 to over $100,000 a year is to provide a foundation for an increasing government takeover of the health insurance system by using children as a “Trojan Horse” to introduce government takeover of healthcare, i.e., “socialized medicine.” That may well be what the Congress wants to do, but they shouldn’t think that we are so foolish as to not recognize what they are doing.

Efforts in Congress to fast-track passage of an economic “stimulus” package coupled with expansion of the children’s health-care program (SCHIP) seems to confirm suspicions that a government monopoly on health care is the congressional majority’s goal. Taken together, these two pieces of legislation would give liberals a sizable down payment on nationalizing health care, according to The Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation notes that while private spending on health care is declining as a percentage of total funds spent, the federal government’s share is rising.

Kimberley A. Strassel, in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, called the bill that was ostensibly crafted to revive our economy “a behemoth that has allowed Democrats to speed up the takeover of health care under cover of an economic crisis.” Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike

    Are these just feelings or can you substantiate this claim of yours?

    If only I could escort you to Algodonas, Mexico and show you how a true capitalist system works for meds, dental and optical care (not one shread of government intervention) yet excellent prices and caring personnel. Folks from all south eastern Arizona go back time and again for such excellent, reasonably priced health care. They pay out of pocket rather than bother with the burden and expenses of insured health care in the states.

    Snowbirding Canadians love to go there as well. We also get many Canadians visiting here who complain about not receiving the health care in Canada that we receive here. Socialism is a step in the wrong direction.

  • Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    philo;
    You make some interesting points and ask a good question. For a Christian there is the solution from a Biblical basis, for a Humanist the solution is government. I hope the following helps your understanding. If you are a Christian I would strongly encourage you to read the references I posted here.

    The problem is that socialized medicine violoates a number of issues. 1) The legal violoation of the Constitution, where the military is authorized socialized medicine is not. 2. Socialized medicine violates God's order of sphere sovereignty. It would be well worth your while to read Abraham Kuyper to appreciate this Christian worldview topic. http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH99/NH9901d.html and http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/kuyper_lecturescalvinism.html
    3.) Socialism violates God's moral order. Suggest you deeply understand Romans 13:1-7 and then read Jon Bastiat's The Law to grasp this topic. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

  • mike »
    Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mr Mathew

    I totally agree with you. the health care is used now for profit instead of healing the sick.
    when profit comes before the healing of the sick, people's lives are destroyed. for those who make profit do not care about others.

  • Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:39 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Those of us who live outside the U.S. find it rather odd that in a rich nation like the U.S. there is so much paranoia about implementing a national health care system.

    Constant references to the term "socialized medicine" makes it sound like it was communism. If something is government funded, then does that make it "socialized?" Then the army is also socialized, the highways are socialized, etc. What makes medicine and healthcare so special that it can't be funded? From outside the U.S., it appears that big dollars in the medical community and pharmaceutical companies are what is blocking it, using the bogeyman term of "socialized medicine" to cause fear.

    Especially in a time of recession, not having to worry about health care is a wonderful blessing. National medicare in Canada was started by a Baptist minister turned politician who was concerned that there was not equal access for all. Universal healthcare started in the province of Saskatchewan in 1946, and by 1961 all ten provinces had universal healthcare, so this is not new but considered a given of a compassionate society for 48 years. Universal healthcare is not perfect, needing tweaking with changes in society, but it's certainly light years ahead of what was previously available and seems to me honouring of what Christ said: "The sick need a physician."

    If I'm not understanding what the fear is in the U.S. about universal healthcare, please enlighten me.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Is it possible that government intervention in medical care, beginning in the mid 60s, could be the major culprit for the costly mess it is in?

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Even though we boast that our medical system is the best
    in the world, on the other hand we have failed to
    admit an open fact that the system can take anybody to
    the bankrupty court when they are discharged from the
    hospitals. Are we better off than the Canadians or
    the British citizens in health care? I do believe in
    free enterprise, but what is happening in the medical
    industry is a total monopoly created by the Doctors-
    hospital-and pharmaceutical companies. If the U.S. has
    a better form of medical care system, the people will
    be living healthy and longer.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a