Suffer the Little Children…
As the cost of the war in Iraq approaches $200 billion a year, President Bush is threatening to veto a bipartisan bill to provide health insurance for children of low-income families because it will cost $12 billion a year rather than the $6 billion he approves.
The added funding would increase the number covered to 10 million from 6.6 and, unlike war costs, would come not from all taxpayers but those who add to health risks with a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes.
According to the President, it isn’t the money, it’s the principle of the thing. At his press conference this week, he explained the “philosophical divide.â€
“Democratic leaders in Congress,†he said, “want to put more power in the hands of government…I have a different view. I believe the best approach is to put more power in the hands of individuals by empowering people and their doctors to make health care decisions that are right for them.â€
The decisions the President is talking about have nothing to do with actual health care–treatments, medications, etc.–only money: Do private insurers keep collecting one out of every three dollars spent for their overhead and profit? Or does Congress bypass them to make health care available for more of the poor?
Next week will provide a reality test for this kind of posturing with the lives of American children. If Bush vetoes the increase, will enough Republicans join in overriding it?
Cross-posted from my blog
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Suffer the Little Children…”
The people who oppose a decent health care system for this country constantly invoke their desire to leave decisions in the hands of patients and doctors. In truth they want to leave those decisions in the hands of private insurers except for those who can afford treatment without insurance. And let us be honest and admit that the financial incentives for the insurance companies are not ones that encourage approving treatment if they can avoid it.
While we are being honest why don’t we just add that many people want others to fork over
a percentage of their hard earned money to subsidize the poor choices and bad habits of others. In the end these discussions always devolve into the typical partisan talking points.
Since we are concerned about truth why don’t we also admit that taxes will rise substantially to take care of any such program.
Lets also admit that there is very little honesty involved in this latest debate involving “healthcare for poor children ” since it includes people who are well above the federal poverty lines
I’m sorry, but I don’t see that insuring children as ” subsidizing the poor choices and bad habits of others”. As long as you are talking about subsidizing poor choices, we are already doing that under President Bush- we are paying 9 billion a month for a war that was entered into waged for 4 and 1/3 years with nothing but poor choices. We are all suffering as a country because of his poor choices and bad habits- including his habit of rewarding big donors and punishing dissenters.
The money spent to insure poor childre, at a tiny fraction of that cost is surely is a better investment in America’s future than that. By Bush’s admanance in standing up for conservativbe principles- he reveals that his compassionate conservatism was nothing but a cynical ploy, especially when the first 6 years of his administration operated without a single veto for a spending bill..
Yes, MichaelF, everything you posted was a partisan talking point. As far as the dishonesty is concerned, let’s discuss the dishonesty of the federal poverty guidelines in this debate. The plain truth is that the reason this plan includes people above what the guidelines define as poverty is that living is expensive in this country compared to undeveloped countries and the definition of poverty is a lowball one given what it costs to pay for a place to live, put food on the table and meet other expenses. In addition there are many people working hard, not making “poor choices” or indulging in bad habits that don’t have health insurance or the funds to pay for health care without it.
But some people feel all cozy if they point out that it’s really all the fault of the evil nasty people who did it to themselves. Even if it isn’t true for nearly as many people as they’d like to claim. It just justifies doing nothing.
Those who oppose health care programs make a terrible miscalculation. .
When there is one sector of society without adequate health care, it brings all of the society down. When illness prevents working, the ill aren’t contributing via taxes, and the burden is larger for the rest. When those who can’t pay end up in the hospital, their expenses are distributed among the rest. The list of ways that we are paying now because we don’t prioritize health care for everyone goes on and on.
Investing in a healthy and well cared for citizenzy is acturally a cost saving measure in the long term. It’s just unforutate that those making the poor choice of preventing health care programs in the past have made the rest of us pay for their short sightedness.
The CHIP program expansion will cost an extra $6-7 billion/year – less than a month of war costs. It is indefensible that children receive less than adequate health care. They are not the ones making poor choices and are blameless for their condition.
I would argue that investing in the long term health of our children is far more important than the $50 billion/year Senior Part D drug benefit. Of course seniors vote and children don’t and that is why we have our priorities screwed up.
“Democratic leaders in Congress,†he said, “want to put more power in the hands of government”
Says the Unitary”barefoot” executive, says the “decider” in chief, the “commander” guy. Question is, what power, not the amount. More spin cycle from the Bush League.
Philosophically speaking, though, Bush has achieved true knowledge, in that he knows nothing.