Hey George - It’s Health Care for CHILDREN
I may as well jump in with both feet and christen the new blog with my first mean-spirited, vitriolic, diatribe about Gorgeous George. (Hardly mean-spirited or vitriolic - I speak only the truth.) On Wednesday our cowardly, gutless leader vetoed a bill that would have expanded a key insurance program for children. Let me repeat. CHILDREN. The legislation would have offered health-care coverage to an additional 4 million children of the working poor. The primary reason he cited for this veto is cost. Let’s talk about what his administration spends hourly on the war in Iraq.
Gee, should we spend our money (and don’t forget for a minute that it is OUR money) preventing and treating illnesses in children. Or conversely, is OUR money better spent maiming and killing American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. For me the answer to this question is a no-brainer.
Bushie’s veto ties the hands of individual states who desire to expand health coverage for families. Many democrats AND republicans have denounced this decision as unconscionable. The big question is, “Can the democrats muster the two-thirds support necessary for an override. The republicans have a golden opportunity to convince a doubting public that they truly are capable of bipartisanship and moral decision-making.
Laughs, Lessons and Language
1. Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
2. Always take your pets with you when car shopping. SIZE DOES MATTER.
Meghann Says:
I am astonished by this one too! We are paying huge BlackHawk salaries so that they can kill Iraqi civilians, and not play nice with our military, while sick children all over America are left needing medical care. It is time that we get our priorities in order!
Mayday Says:
(meghann, i assume you mean blackwater security, not blackhawk helicopters?)
as much as i dislike most of what president bush does, i have to agree with his veto here. yes, it sounds really bad to veto a bill dealing with children’s healthcare, but SCHIP is really a gap program that extends into middle class income brackets (it covers uninsured children whose families make too much to be covered by medicaid). Extending this program offers an dsincentive to corporations to offer healthcare to employee’s dependents - in this sense, moving us towards more nationalized healthcare.
I think the money here is more efficiently spent on improving (or slightly expanding) medicaid - the folks at that level face much harder decisions in regards to paying for health care than would be covered by the bill in its current form.