Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Distilled Hypocrisy

Today we learned that the same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)

The news is everywhere so I'll remain brief. Apparently Lord "deficits don't matter" Cheney's pals don't earn sufficient profits helping kids who can't afford health insurance get medical care. After seven years of squandering trillions, all of the sudden, something is too expensive.

For Lord Cheney, nothing is too expensive. Expense has nothing to do with anything. If this money were going to Hunt Oil, Cheney's pet couldn't sign the thing fast enough.

Bush took four years to veto something - scientific research with stem cells. Now he vetoes health care for children, citing cost.

Even the filthy GOP Congress has misgivings about this one. Ratchet the anger up another notch.

ADDITIONAL REMARK 1:30 PM: Of course this is about serving Cheney's friends, in this case big HMO and the insurance industry. We're getting close to 10 million kids without health insurance. Right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation consider health care for poor children equal to socialism, and the insurance lobby sees it as cutting into their profits.

To make sure even more kids go without insurance, the White House in August short-circuited the legislative process by issuing a "guidance" that prevents states from assisting them. Even under the current plan, kids in Vermont, Oklahoma, and Louisiana would lose their insurance.

Alan Weil, director of the National Academy for State Health Policy, said, "It's outrageous. The dirty secret is that the Administration had been approving states to do what they have now told them not to do."

Even his Bush had his way to simply extend as is, coverage would have been cut below prior levels in terms of number of children helped.

3 Comments:

Blogger Dustin said...

While I didn't agree with the way SCHiP was funded, I thought it was an overall good bill. The excuse he gave for vetoing this bill was pretty mealy mouth in my opinion. The reasons he gave expose the source of the veto, something along the lines of millions dropping private insurance to use it.

The people who have insurance are not likely to drop it, and those that don't can't afford it, what's the problem? In any case I have never thought medical care fits into the free market model, after all, who chooses to get sick?

10/03/2007 10:39 AM  
Blogger Sirocco said...

What you forget, x4mr, is that "Deficits don't matter" is only _part_ of the credo.

The actual, full rule is:

"Deficits don't matter as long as the money is used to promote foreign adventures and redirect money into the pockets of close personal friends and allies."

When you get the full context, the SCHIP veto makes complete sense.

10/03/2007 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Francine Shacter said...

My understanding is that the tobacco industry objected to SCHIP, also. For those in the Republican party that carry on about "The War Against Drugs", may I remind them that there are two very addictive unregulated, drugs sold over the counter - no questions asked, except for age - that no one worries about: tobacco and alcohol.

10/07/2007 11:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home



SOMETHING ELSE