| By Ben Yelin - Sep 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pm EDT |
Yesterday, in a display of cynicism and extreme ideological rigidity, President Bush held a press conference to say that he will Veto a bill that expands the popular S-CHIP (State Children's Health Care Program) because it will lead us to the dreaded socialized medicine that all these crazy liberals are talking about. He added that the plan raises taxes (it doesn't, unless you smoke cigarrettes) and that it covers children whose parents make as much as $83,000 a year (good!). The program is set to expire on September 30th, so the need to reauthorize is urgent. The President says he supports a reauthorization, but does not want to expand the program. Under Bush's plan, there will still not be enough money to cover all of the children eligible of SCHIP coverage.
Americans shouldn't be fooled by Bush's despicable press conference yesterday. This is a bipartisan bill that passed with a veto proof majority in the Senate. Conservative stalwarts such as Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley adamantly support SCHIP expansion. Yet, President Bush is so tied to his market based ideology that he will be denying millions of innocent American children access to Health Insurance. This bill is not socialized medicine, though some of us wish it was. It will simply add funding to a succesful, popular program, that allows states to invest in the health of its children. Expanding coverage to lower/middle income Americans is exactly the right thing to do. Millions of middle class Americans cannot afford health insurance because they are squeezed by declining wages and high energy prices. All of this while hedge fund managers are swimming in dollar bills. It is only sensible to take this moderate action, to make sure that 13 million children are no longer punished by their parents' income level.
Even worse, Bush tried to blame this on the Democrats in Congress, saying that he wants to extend the program, while his opponents are "playing politics." Give me a break. Expanding health insurance to children in a bipartisan, cost effective way is the furthest from playing politics that you can get. Playing politics would be if you threatened to veto a bill simply because you are so fundamentally against the idea of government health care that you can't think clearly. He should be ashamed of himself. As should any member of Congress who votes to uphold the President's veto.
Support our Children
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Also, beyond a certain point, don't cigarette taxes become a bit unseemly?
Sure, it makes sense to have a disincentive for smoking by making it more expensive. That's the proper role of government.
But by the time cigarette prices are already artificially insanely expensive, the people still buying them are going to be the ones who are addicts who need a fix no matter what the price -- and thus, irrational decision-makers.
When we're bleeding these addicts for all they're worth, how is that much better than what the Scientologists do, or any other group that preys on human weakness for their own benefit?
cigarette taxes = cult-like religions based on science fiction novels?
The difference is that Scientology would promise increased rewards to the person engaging in irrational behavior, while cigarette taxes provide an increased incentive to the rational person to avoid irrational behavior (or, in other words, to give non-smokers a further reason not to become smokers), and promise a negative result for the person engaging in irrational behavior. Scientology's schtick would thus encourage irrationality ("give us more money = the paradise world of Xeenob!"), while cigarette taxes would thus discourage it ("give us more money = pollute your lungs and create a public health burden!"). In other words, we're not preying on the weakness, but seeking to discourage it (and, in some instances, offset the cost of treating incidental illnesses like childhood asthma that are a result of it).