Comments on: Two Sides to Every Story?

By: Achilles

Achilles — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:19:55 +0000

Frank Pasquale questions how the proposed alternatives to SCHIP will be funded. It’s obvious that SCHIP will be funded by selling government securities to foreign investors, imposing an involuntary tax on future generations. Does anyone think that deficit spending is superior to waiting for private initiatives to be funded through voluntary contributions?

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:21:01 +0000

..Ok – so why doesn’t the concerned John Corzine just have New Jersey pay for it. I don’t mean to be flippant about this but either NJ is a net giver to the federal treasury or a net taker. If it’s the former than we should cut their federal taxes in such a way that they can tax themselves even more to spend in a way they believe appropriate; if it’s the latter, tell me again why the citizens of other states should have to subsidize NJ’s own when most people elsewhere don’t live in housing justifying a mortgages of $2,400/month (at 8% interest over 30 years that’s a $250,000 mortgage).

Let’s remember, NJ’s coverage under SCHIP – at 3 1/2 times the poverty line – is the highest in the nation. We are not morally bound as a nation to make John Corzine look like a humanitarian

By: merevaudevillian

merevaudevillian — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:20:36 +0000

I don’t think it’s an issue of a community-funded alternative or private charities giving away health insurance. Instead, I think most private initiatives focus on pulling people out of poverty, equipping them for employment, and then helping them secure jobs. If they’re gainfully employed, they have a much great opportunity at receiving benefits, including health insurance, or at the very least having the ability to purchase insurance plans on their own or place money in a medical savings account.

There’s no question that sometimes people say they “can’t afford” private coverage. But another function of private initiatives can be to teach budgeting and money-saving techniques. Too often, we think that a family can’t possibly live on $50,000 or $60,000, when frequently the money shortage comes from financial lifestyle choices, not financial inability to purchase insurance.

I acknowledge that private initiatives may be an perfect solution. But it’s certainly within the realm of imagination to think about private initiatives that help individuals receive health insurance.

By: Michael Risch

Michael Risch — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:41:29 +0000

I’m still waiting to hear the other side of this story…

I can understand that there might be disagreement about whether limited funds should be spent on SCHIP or somewhere else, but to claim that private charities will provide health insurance for children or anyone else seems pretty far fetched. I also think that tax deductions would have to be tax credits to do any real good, and probably refundable tax credits to boot. I don’t see that happening either.