George W. Bush, Philosopher
The President is threatening to veto a bipartisan Senate proposal to increase the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. His opposition is on “philosophical grounds.â€
Bush’s philosophy, like everything else in his Administration, is dogma. In this case, the moral principle is that “when you expand eligibility…you’re really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.”
At least he is consistent. While overseeing the worst-managed war in American history, he is defending to the death one of the worst health-care systems in the world.
The program in question, which costs the federal government $5 billion a year, helps provide health coverage to 6.6 million low-income children. Another 3.3 million would be covered under a proposal by Senate Finance Committee, which is supported by such Republican radicals as Sens. Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch, among others.
But the President is adamant. “I expect people to speak out,†he said in a Washington Post interview about the bill and health care. “I also have my own points of view and feel very strongly about a lot of issues.”
His philosophy has deep traditional roots, perhaps best-expressed by one of Charles Dickens’ most memorable characters. Asked for money for the poor, his answer reflected the guiding Bush principle: “Are there no prisons…and workhouses?†If he were alive today, Scrooge might have added, “And no HMOs?â€
Cross-posted from my blog
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “George W. Bush, Philosopher”
Wow. So there isn’t anything tied to this bill like “Bring home the troops in 120 days” or anything? He’s just denying children health coverage? Thats some philosophy. And I thought he was merely incompetent.
[...] Clark Link to Article george w bush George W. Bush, Philosopher » Posted at The Moderate Voice » [...]
His philosophy is that America can easily afford tax breaks and almost unlimited defense spending for 2 wars . He expanded the bureaucracy to create the unwieldy DHS and NIA, yet thinks the scope of the federal government should not be expanded in this instance. Why? Because the parents of these children dont’ vote Republican.
I agree that denying health coverage to children is a bad thing.
But I respect that fact that President Bush is willing to credit his refusal to give children health coverage to his governing philosophy.
Elections have consequences.
This is my favorite line:
“you’re really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.—
Actually, they aren’t people they are children. And they wouldn’t be switching because they don’t have any now.
Nice example of Republican “family values”.
Keep in mind that Jesus is his favorite philosopher.
Keep in mind that some states (MS) have closed their programs to new applicants when the fund is out of money. The feds won’t help, and the governor won’t acti, because he says it’s a federal responsibility.
Kids that qualify are left out, even now.