Open letter to supporters of Colorado SB 160
June 2nd, 2008 | by admin |- Stephen Kapanos, Vice President Public Policy & Advocacy
- Bill Lindsay and Penfield Tate, Health Care Committee, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
- Elisabeth Arenales, Esq., Director, Health Care Program, Colorado Center on Law and Policy
Mental Health America of Colorado, Colorado Center on Law and Policy, and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (among others) support Colorado Senate Bill 160, which expands eligibility for taxpayer-funded government-controlled health insurance for kids (Child Health Plan Plus - "CHP+"). To my understanding, you are at least partly responsible for this policy position, and I am curious about your responses to the following questions:
1. By supporting taxpayer-funded health insurance, you are advocating that it be a crime not to fund this program, which is essentially a government-run charity. What do you authorize the government to do to those who peacefully refuse to cooperate or participate in funding this program?1
2. Would you be willing to incarcerate your neighbor he does not pay taxes to support your preferred government-run charity? That is, are you willing to knock on your neighbor’s door and threaten to place him in prison if he does not donate to your preferred government-run charity (Medicaid and CHP+)?
If this question strikes you as odd, I ask because this is what government agents will do to people who peacefully refuse to cooperate with your idea of expanding government-run charities.
If you are OK with law-enforcement officials sending people to prison for not complying with Senate Bill 160, then I imagine that you would not object to participating in the enforcement yourself. Surely people who support laws against robbery would try to thwart a robbery if they thought they could without great risk to themselves. The same should apply to those who support using government power to force their neighbors to support government-run charities.
3. If taxpayers face prison if they choose not to donate to a government charity (CHP+), are they being ethical when donating? If someone forces you to do – what others consider to be – the right thing, it is moral? 2
4. Do you know that the National Bureau of Economic Research reports that “For every 100 children who are enrolled in public insurance, 60 children lose private insurance"? That is, government insurance crowds out private insurance. Some parents stop buying their children insurance when they can get it for "free", that is, at taxpayer expense.
5. Do you know that Medicaid, SCHIP, and CHP+ ensnare recipients in a low-wage trap : aversion to seeking higher-paying jobs for fear of losing "benefits"?
6. What about other good causes? What makes your version of supporting mental health for kids so important that it’s a crime not to fund it? Does this not take money away from voluntary non-government charities (such as these ) that must earn donations?
As a taxpayer, you are surely paying for someone else’s notion of a good cause that you’d prefer not to support. If you had the choice, you might not voluntarily fund abstinence programs or the War on Drugs, for example. If so, wouldn’t you rather be able to spend your hard-earned income on a cause you truly believe in? If so, why not extend this courtesy to others?
7. Here’s a way to do that: What would you say to dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations to non-government charities that assist families with the medical and insurance expenses? This way, taxpayers who prefer Medicaid and SCHIP to non-government charities can continue to fund them. The threat of lost tax revenue would give Medicaid, CHP+, and SCHIP strong incentive to effectively and efficiently assist families in need and foster their independence.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Brian T. Schwartz
1 Thanks to Michael Cloud for the phrasing of this question.
2 Economist Walter Williams has said something similar. (via The Moratorium Site )
tags: Colorado health care, Medicaid, SB 08-160, SCHIPWhether you talk about crop subsidies, bailouts or disaster relief, the list can just go on and on. If I take $20 from you by force and help somebody downtown who is sleeping on a grate, if I do this privately, I go to jail and most Americans agree that I should go to jail. But when an agent of Congress comes up and takes your $20 and helps somebody downtown, they applaud that. Both acts are taking what belongs to one American and giving it to another American to whom it does not belong. That is as reprehensible if one person does it or if 1 million people vote to do it. It is wrong.
