The (Conservative) Devil's Advocate

I'll start off by saying that I do support increasing health insurance coverage to children that would otherwise not be covered.

That said, a few things need to be made clear:

(1) I disagree with your remark about allowing for government coverage is to let "Americans being able to choose for themselves."

Let's be serious here. You're talking about this expanded coverage being paid for by either an increase in cigarette tax or cutting in pointless defense spending, so I take it that the expanded group would be able to enjoy the coverage for free or at a very discounted rate.

I'm not sure how that's realistically just "giving Americans more options." Let's see, do I pay ridiculous amounts in private insurance and copays, or not get my kid any insurance, or have the government pay for my kid's insurance practically for free?

Hmmm.... tricky... How can one be forced to face with such difficult decisions?

Coming down to it, it's a question of incentives VS needs. I'm not saying that these families are greedy government-program bloodsuckers; it's just that as laid out this program's goal is not to provide more American families with options, but to assist those unable to get insurance to be covered.


(2) One of the points raised is that more middle-class families are becoming eligible for this insurance program, presumably because the "middle class" is falling behind in relative and/or absolute terms.

If that's what the problem is -- the income & wealth inequality and the shrinking of the "middle class" -- shouldn't we be tackling that directly head on, rather than trying to fix the problems that result from it? If there's a leak in my glass, should I be dabbing away the water that drips out, or try to fill the leak?

I'm certain this comment will bring attacks left and right. First is that some see offering expanded insurance coverage as a way of filling the leak. Second is a question of whether it's possible and realistic to talk about filling the leak anyway, so what we can do as a government is to clean up the water mess.

I'll leave my rebuttal for when the attack actually comes my way.


(3) It bothers me that every time a group or individual is trying to push for a program that they hope implemented, they inevitably point to a cutback of bad / useless programs, or raise punitive taxes in activities that they deem should be "socially condemned".

The truth is, for every inefficient program which funding should be cut, a handful of aspiring programs would already have put their claims on it.

Inefficient status quo often preserves because it's unclear (& puzzling!) to the politicians how to reallocate the freed-up cash, in addition to fighting resistance from groups that benefit under the existing bad program. When we make decisions difficult for them, they end up choosing inaction, because that at least minimizes attacks.

There just needs to be more creative ways to raise revenue for one's cause -- at least for there to be any hope of being implemented.