This post of Reihan's is very good:
I'm late to the story of the Frost family, but it perfectly illustrates the tension between "pro-family" conservatism and "anti-statist" conservatism....Here's my question: Would the world really be better off if, say, the four Frost children saw far less of their parents than they already do? I ask because we could imagine a world in which the Frost parents worked (even) longer hours a jobs that provided health care benefits, which would take an emotional toll not only on them but on their children, particular in light of the impact of the car accident. The children of parents who work night shifts, for example, tend to do worse in school, and they tend to have more behavioral problems. And we're talking about run-of-the-mill families, facing no sudden medical catastrophes.
Let's forget, for a moment, that the family actually couldn't procure insurance because the children suffered such grievous injuries in the car crash. The family's options would be:
1) Work more, so the children get less time with their parents.
2) Try and find a job with a corporation that provides benefits.
3) Sell their assets, like their house. This seemed to be the right's advice to the family, what with all the commentary about their $200,000 home.
Forgetting that two may or may not be possible, depending on the father's skills, the regional economy, and the luck of the draw, here's what we think families should do for health insurance: Sell their home, become absentee parents, or close down their small businesses. So health coverage is working against asset ownership, good parenting, and entrepreneurship. Something is truly wrong here.
