jonathan-cunningham asked: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21068421
I wouldn’t get excited about one study abstract. Mortality rates aren’t really a great metric to measure the effectiveness of insurance programmes anyway. Still, I do not doubt that those who directly benefit from SCHIP don’t….well… directly benefit. But surely you will realize that there must be some negative effects of this programme, that there is some cost always associated with a benefit. If we devoted the entire GDP of the US to the goal we could drive childhood mortality to zero. But that would be preposterous because the costs of such an endeavour are obvious. I contend that in the long run those costs will eventually find their way to those least able to avoid them i.e.: the poor.
As for my heartless mockery of the Bob Cratchetts of the world, well, anecdotaly, I grew up in the 1990s. I was a fairly sickly kid too and my parents weren’t exactly rich. I don’t recall dying, though I might have come close once or twice. Somehow my parents and I managed to muddle on through without government help.
Do you really suppose that SCHIP is both the best and only way to prevent children from dying? Is it not reasonable to suppose that some other method of helping low-income families might not work better?
I do.
