• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

We are inching along, but not as quickly as we (or you) would like. If you have already donated, thank you so much. If you haven’t had a chance, consider skipping the coffee this week and drop CounterPunch $5 or more. We provide our content for free, but it costs us a lot to do so. Every dollar counts.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Squaring the Circle on Children and Health Care

Talk about ideology. Earlier this month president Bush, who initiated an education program entitled No Child Left Behind, vetoed a bill that would expand the SCHIP program to provide health insurance to an additional 3.8 million uninsured kids. Where is a critic to begin?

Whatever rhetoric the Bush regime uses will not change the fact that millions of children will remain without health insurance. This is tragic in its own right, and in the richest country in the history of the world it should provoke widespread outrage. It is even more contemptible in the context of Bush’s apparent concern with the life chances of children, which follows from the “equality of opportunity” credo and is encapsulated in his No Child Left Behind education initiative.

In the conservative world view to which Bush appeals, where individual outcomes in the labor market are an exclusive result of human capital and motivation–rather than, say, class structure and unequal access to important resources–the only government intervention necessary to guarantee equal opportunity is to ensure relatively equal educational opportunities. The main thing is to invest in children’s education. And here, even conservatives agree, there is some role for public education (school voucher advocacy not withstanding).

But the highly oversimplified conservative world view ignores the possibility that unequal access in many areas, including health care, may undercut efforts focused solely on education. Indeed, as sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen, an expert on social policy and the welfare state, has noted, a large body of comparative research on socio-economic mobility indicates that reforming and improving education systems has a relatively minor effect on improving equality of opportunity (as measured by mobility).

For example, cross-national studies from the OECD Program for International Student Assessment indicate that social origins and family conditions have a much stronger effect on socio-economic mobility than education systems. As Esping-Andersen explains in the Summer 2007 issue of the popular sociology magazine Contexts, “the seeds of inequality are sown prior to school age on a host of crucial attributes such as health, cognitive and noncognitive abilities, motivation to learn, and, more generally, school preparedness.”

The issue of children’s health is intimately interconnected with the issues of education and equality of opportunity. Children who fall behind early in health have already begun on unequal footing. But scrutiny of the Bush veto hardly stops here. I would like to briefly shine two different lights on the proposed SCHIP expansion, one concrete and another more abstract.

First, then, what are the relative costs? Expanding SCHIP to cover the additional 3.8 million children was expected to cost $35 billion over five years. This is a large number, but it needs to be put into perspective. It is just 6% of the total amount spent on the so-called war on terror since 9/11 ($610 billion). Comparing the projected annual cost of the SCHIP expansion ($7 billion) with public spending in 2006, it is just 0.3% of the total Federal budget ($2,568 billion); 2% of the defense budget ($419.3 billion); 13% of the education budget ($56 billion); and 56% of the budget for the failed war on drugs ($12.5 billion). According to the Congressional Pig Book, 9,963 projects were identified in 2006 appropriations as earmarks, or pork-barrel spending of local or special interest. These projects cost $29 billion in 2006, over four times the yearly cost of expanding SCHIP.

Second, what about the bogeyman of socialized health care? Ideology is a powerful thing: conceptual frames have a powerful effect on how people think about the world. The Bush regime, like the conservative movement more generally, has masterfully used Orwellian language to frame policy debates. Think of the Healthy Forests program that expanded logging in protected wilderness areas, or the Clear Skies program allowing increased industrial air pollution.

Behind the Orwellian doublespeak remains a rigid ideology that is a tool of class warfare. Only by viewing the situation in these terms can we understand how the No Child Left Behind president vetoed SCHIP. If the program were extended to give an additional four million children health coverage, it would not be a railroad switch sending our economy off to socialism. Now, I would argue that getting on such a track would be the best thing for the health of the American society and the world. But in any case, modern economies are complex combinations of private enterprise, institutional regulation, and government intervention. Old tropes about “free market versus socialism” (read: Soviet Union or China) only retain currency for their ideological value.

All modern capitalist economies are highly regulated in a number of ways, but in ways that benefit powerful capitalist classes yet are ideologically coded as “private sector,” “free market,” and so on. Consider the American health care system. We spend twice as much, per capita, as the single-payer, government-run programs in other capitalist democracies. Yet the American system is hobbled with layer upon layer of bureaucracy and riddled with inefficiencies. It requires a very effective dominant ideology to instill in the population a preference for a highly inefficient American-style system over a government-run program, which we know from the experience of most other capitalist democracies is less expensive with better health outcomes.

Politicians in twenty-first century America should be working to make sure all of its residents have health coverage, not continually obstructing any progress by using the ideological scare tactic of the socialist bogeyman. We should begin with the nearly four million children who are currently without coverage, but we should not stop until we have a more efficient and effective health care system, whether this is administered by the public or private sector.

MATT VIDAL is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. He can be reached at mvidal@irle.ucla.edu.

 

More articles by:

Matt Vidal is Senior Lecturer in Work and Organizations at King’s College London, Department of Management. He is editor-in-chief of Work in Progress, a public sociology blog of American Sociological Association, where this article first ran. You can follow Matt on Twitter @ChukkerV.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
October 23, 2019
Kenneth Surin
Western China and the New Silk Road
W. T. Whitney
Stirrings of Basic Change Accompany Protests in Haiti
Louisa Willcox
Inviting the Chief of the Grizzlies to Our Feast
Jonathan Cook
The Democrats Helped Cultivate the Barbarism of ISIS
Dave Lindorff
Military Spending’s Out of Control While Slashing It Could Easily Fund Medicare for All
John Kendall Hawkins
With 2020 Hindsight, the Buffoonery Ahead
Jesse Hagopian
The Chicago Teachers Strike: “Until We Get What Our Students Deserve”
Saad Hafiz
America’s Mission to Remake Afghanistan Has Failed
Victor Grossman
Thoughts on the Impeachment of Donald Trump
Binoy Kampmark
Celebrity Protesters and Extinction Rebellion
John Horning
Spotted Owls and the National Christmas Tree
October 22, 2019
Gary Leupp
The Kurds as U.S. Sacrificial Lambs
Robert Fisk
Trump and the Retreat of the American Empire
John Feffer
Trump’s Endless Wars
Marshall Auerback
Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
Trump’s Fake Withdrawal From Endless War
Dean Baker
Trump Declares Victory in China Trade War
Patrick Bond
Bretton Woods Institutions’ Neoliberal Over-Reach Leaves Global Governance in the Gutter
Robert Hunziker
XR Co-Founder Discusses Climate Emergency
John W. Whitehead
Terrorized, Traumatized and Killed: The Police State’s Deadly Toll on America’s Children
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World Partnership for Ecopolitical Health and Security
Binoy Kampmark
The Decent Protester: a Down Under Creation
Frances Madeson
Pro-Democracy Movement in Haiti Swells Despite Police Violence
Mike Garrity
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Challenges Logging and Burning Project in Methow Valley
Chelli Stanley
Change the Nation You Live In
Elliot Sperber
Humane War 
October 21, 2019
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Wolf at the Door: Adventures in Fundraising With Cockburn
Rev. William Alberts
Myopic Morality: The Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Sheldon Richman
Let’s Make Sure the Nazis Killed in Vain
Horace G. Campbell
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Jim Kavanagh
The Empire Steps Back
Ralph Nader
Where are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Poll Projection: Left-Leaning Jagmeet Singh to Share Power with Trudeau in Canada
Thomas Knapp
Excuses, Excuses: Now Hillary Clinton’s Attacking Her Own Party’s Candidates
Brian Terrell
The United States Air Force at Incirlik, Our National “Black Eye”
Paul Bentley
A Plea for More Cynicism, Not Less: Election Day in Canada
Walter Clemens
No Limits to Evil?
Robert Koehler
The Collusion of Church and State
Kathy Kelly
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Charlie Simmons
How the Tax System Rewards Polluters
Chuck Collins
Who is Buying Seattle? The Perils of the Luxury Real Estate Boom
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail