An op-ed by Adam Thompson in the Des Moines Register indicates that Iowa is close to passing an Obama-type mandate on children. The piece mentions that of Iowa’s 50,000 uninsured children, 27,000 are already eligible for “Hawk-I,” the state’s SCHIP program. One might think that such a rejection rate would be seen as a failure of state government, but, no, government is incapable of failure in some eyes. So this is a failure of parents, and now they must be mandated to enroll the kiddos, even if they think the program is useless.

And while we are mandating, we might as well hit the other 23,000 Iowa families as well. But, Mr. Thompson hesitates – “By itself, such a mandate would be problematic. It would be patently unfair and bad public policy to require low-income, uninsured families to purchase private insurance.” But the state Senate has come to the rescue. People will still be mandated, but they will only have to pay “an affordable percentage of income” as a premium. Problem solved!

Mr. Thompson also notes that this program is not the end. Indeed, it merely “lays the foundation for achieving quality and affordable health care for all Iowans.” Left unsaid is exactly who will pay the difference between the “affordable percentage of income” for some and the actual cost of providing the coverage. But the answer is implicit. Once everyone is mandated, and once we have killed off the idea of a premium bearing some relationship to the cost of coverage, what will stop us from requiring that higher-income people pay more than the cost of the coverage so that lower-income people can pay less?

Indeed, why stop at health insurance premiums? Is it “fair” that rich and poor both pay the same price for a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas? Of course not! No one should have to pay more than “an affordable percentage of income” for anything! And off we go to the Sovietization of the American economy.

Greg Scandlen