GOP’s Mike Coffman supports welfare state
January 21st, 2009 | by Brian Schwartz |For an example of how Republicans support the welfare state, consider the reasons Congressman Mike Coffman’s (Colorado, District 6) opposed the expansion of SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. From his website:
Congressman Coffman cosponsored an alternative plan, the SCHIP Plus Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that under the Democrat version SCHIP will cover 2.4 million children who are already covered by private insurance.
“Instead of focusing on the children who are most in need, the new Democrat SCHIP legislation still allows the program to include childless adults and higher income children while removing the safeguards that are designed to prevent illegal aliens from fraudulently enrolling in it.”“I support the Republican version that extends the SCHIP program for 7 more years, requires that 90% of lower income children be covered before children from higher income families are, requires that legal immigrants reside in the country for five years before being eligible, and provides protections against illegal immigrants signing up for benefits.”
So basically, Mike Coffman supports a government-controlled insurance program for children, but just not the one Democrats wanted. And people expect Republicans to support a government limited to protecting individual rights? Coffman appears to accept the Marxist premise of the welfare state: that one person’s need is a claim on another’s wealth, and that government can use force to transfer such wealth.
At least Coffman pointed out that SCHIP expansion covers children who already have insurance. But he does not even mention that
- It’s wrong to force people do donate to charity.
- SCHIP unfairly competes with voluntary charities.
- SCHIP promotes government dependency.
Instead of more government programs, Coffman could endorse a charity tax credit that would take money away from wasteful programs like Medicaid and SCHIP if taxpayers prefer to fund to a charity that earns their donation. He could support the Health Care Choice Act that would allow people to buy more affordable insurance available in other states. He could also check out “Sinking SCHIP” by Michael Cannon and the very accessible chapters on health care (7 and 
in the Cato Institute’s Handbook on Policy.
Is it any wonder government social programs keep expanding when Republicans in Washington continue to support big government? (See also here and here.) This all reminds me of what F.A. Hayek wrote in Why I am not a Conservative (1960):
tags: Colorado health care, Hayek, Mike Coffman, Republicans & health care, SCHIP…the decisive objection to any conservatism … is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.
