Bush Slaps Children in the Face with Heartless Child Healthcare Veto…

tzmos_bush_penn_ap.jpg 

President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation that would expand a children’s health insurance program by $35 billion over five years. The program called, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), was designed to fill the gap between families who made too much to qualify for Medicaid and too little to provide health care for their kids – the key word being kids. Bush said he vetoed the bill because it was a step toward “federalizing” medicine and inappropriately expanded the program “beyond its focus on helping poor children. I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system.”

Inappropriate? Wasn’t the point of all this to make expanded health coverage for children appropriate? 

What’s not appropriate for old George, is that the program would cut into insurance companies’ profit pie. The government’s policy should be “to help people find private insurance” Bush said.

Ahh! Now that makes more sense! The corporate pay-masters think it’s a bad idea to cover all kids who need it under a federal program, so they just let their puppet president wield the veto sword. I’ve got it now.

The disgusting part is that the bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support in the Senate and House of Representatives. “I think that this is probably the most inexplicable veto in the history of the country. It is incomprehensible. It is intolerable. It’s unacceptable,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy. I’m with you Ted. No matter what faces these heartless Republican bastards, they simply will not throw the middle class a crumb – not even to kids. The Senate voted 67-29 last week to expand the program and has the required 2/3 for a veto.

“It’s very sad that the president has chosen to veto a bill that would provide health care to 10 million American children for the next five years. It is a value that is shared by the American people across the board,” Nancy Pelosi said. House Democrats also were quick to compare the bill’s $7 billion annual cost to the money spent each month on the Iraq war. Where were these ‘fiscal conservatives when we went to war in Iraq? There was plenty of money then. Maybe we should ask the Chinese for the money again? Hell, they already own us like a pet dog anyways, so lets just finance this too! 

Of course there are just enough narrow minded House Republicans that agree with our moron president to quash any override. “The public can see that we’re playing more political ‘gotcha’ than we are at really solving problems,” said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri, who said the legislation contained “all of these little hidden gizmos, among other things that we’re going to provide health care to the children of illegal immigrants.”

Okay, what if the illegal immigration coverage gets dropped?

Akin also said the bill would have led to “a massive expansion of, basically, ‘Hillary’ socialized medicine,” a reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and her unsuccessful health care efforts in the 1990’s. Gee, I guess you’re right Senator Akin. We are playing ‘Political Gotcha.’ If Hillary is for it, it must be bad – and we can’t give her any momentum for 2008 now can we?

In response, Democrats denied the bill would provide coverage to illegal immigrants and denied Akin’s charge.

I checked the language – the Democrats are right – so that makes Akin and every other Senator who voted against this bill an petty obstructionist and a liar.

What these anti-American middle class Republicans do not grasp is that healthcare is simply out of reach for many people in this country and that situation is only getting worse. Under this legislation, 4 million to 8 million more children will be covered.  It would only cost a maximum of $12 billion for the next five years. We’re spending over $2 billion a week in Iraq.

Sen. Orrin Hatch is as conservative as it gets, and he split from the president. “It’s very difficult for me to be against a man I care so much for,” he told his colleagues on the Senate floor before the vote. “It’s unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue.”

A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted September 27-30 found over 70% surveyed favor the program. 

Critics have said their concern is that parents might be prompted to drop private coverage for their children to get cheaper coverage under the bill. Can’t these knuckleheads get it through their thick skulls that the people who would be helped by this bill HAVE NO DAMN INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY CAN”T AFFORD IT!!!!! There is no switching to be done! We’re talking about the working poor here! They’re among us all and they just want to help their kids! What do we have to do with Bush and the rest of these jackasses who simply cannot wrap their simpleton heads around this issue – whip it into them with a stethoscope until they finally get it?  

…of course given the sexual behavior of some of these guys as of late…they might enjoy that.

Advertisements

Posted on October 3, 2007, in Abuse of Power, Corruption, George Bush, Health Care, Human Rights, Iraq War, Politics, Social Policy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Damn! Orrin Hatch and I actually agree on something? Are the pigs flying yet?

  2. Well said, well said! How could he? And defend a despicable action like this by saying that he wants to “hold the line on federal spending,” give me a break!

  3. Elizabeth Schmitz

    From Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com

    With regard to all of this SCHIP business, the Economist tries to account for the rationale behind the President’s veto, noting:

    “Neither fiscal restraint nor the veto pen has characterized President George Bush’s time in the White House. America continues to run a deficit, and Mr. Bush has vetoed only three bills in his whole tenure. But now that he has a Democratic Congress to battle with, the president is promising to be tougher.

    Mr. Greenstein [of the Centre on Budge and Policy Priorities] speculates that the president is really trying to force Congress to attach the health care tax-incentive proposal he unveiled in January. An aversion ot government-run health-care programmes and new taxes—a tobacco-tax increase would fund the SCHIP expansion—may also be driving Mr. Bush’s opposition. Or he may simply be trying to reestablish his credentials as a fiscal conservative”

    In adding to Bush’s reasons behind the veto, I argue that moral reasoning also played a role. I base my analysis off of the book Moral Politics by Berkeley Linguistics Professor George Lakoff. Lakoff argues that the liberal/conservative split over key issues is based on more than just partisan politics—he argues that these differences “arise from radically different conceptions of morality and ideal family life—meaning that family and morality are at the heart of American politics.”

    Lakoff offers two structural models for the ideal family—the Strict Father model and the Nurturant Parent model. ‘Conservatives’ tend to prefer the former, ‘liberals’ the latter. From these differing conceptions of the ideal family, arise different moral systems for discerning what is good.

    Lakoff characterizes the Strict Father model as:

    “a traditional nuclear family, with the father having primary responsibility for supporting and protecting the family as well as the authority to set overall family policy. He teaches children right from wrong by setting strict rules for their behavior and enforcing them through punishment…He also gains their cooperation by showing love and appreciation when they do follow the rules. But children must never be coddled, lest they become spoiled; a spoiled child will be dependent for life and will not learn proper morals.”

    If you accept Lakoff’s thesis, then President Bush’s veto of SCHIP makes perfect sense, assuming he adheres to the Conservative/Strict Father moral worldview (a pretty safe assumption I’d say, noting the President’s deep devotion to a conservative strain of Christianity, which espouse traditional family values).

    The President would see SCHIP as undermining the ‘traditional’ family that his whole moral system is based upon. He would see SCHIP as transferring the responsibility of providing for the family from the father to the government. This diminution of the father’s authority strikes the heart of the Strict Father moral worldview. If this primary tenet is struck, then the whole moral conception loosens and waivers. In vetoing SCHIP, the President may believe that he is maintaining the very foundation his moral system—the authoritarian patriarchal father figure.

  4. Elizabeth,

    What?

    Let me offer a more efficient explanation if I may.

    Bush is in bed with large, ‘for profit’ health insurance lobbies who are fighting national healthcare initiatives as if they were the “Black Plague.” How does that sound to you?

  5. Kip,

    They’re flying, but they’re conservative pigs so they don’t have wings or anything like that – too much work. They go private carrier first class 🙂

  1. Pingback: Health Tips Blog » Bush Slaps Children in the Face with Heartless Child Healthcare Veto…

  2. Pingback: Health » Bush Slaps Children in the Face with Heartless Child Healthcare Veto…

  3. Pingback: Personal Finance » Bush Slaps Children in the Face with Heartless Child Healthcare Veto…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: