Beginning this post with a witty comment is very difficult given the substance it is about to cover. I thought about claiming that George Bush doesn’t care about children, reminiscent of Kayne West’s hilarious statement. He probably does care, he just has trouble showing it – much like the deadbeat unaffectionate father.
The point of this post is to analyze why Bush deems it necessary to use but his FOURTH veto of his extended presidential career to strike down health care for children. On another saddening note, 2 of his 3 earlier vetoes were of bills reducing restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
Some mechanism inside George Bush’s brain isn’t working correctly. This veto is both bad politically, and bad policy. His rationale for the veto is that it insures too many people, making it an abhorrent $35 billion “middle-class entitlement.” He seems to use that phrase with disdain. MSNBC:
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.
The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.
Although unrelated, but interesting, is a statistic in Time Magazine this week, A Nobel-Prize winning economist an a Harvard scholar found the amount of the Iraq war per minute is about $500,000. Per minute. That includes other sources, probably including British costs along with the countries of the coalition of the willing, among other factors. In my Windows-provided calculator calculations (assuming the $2 billion cost per week), it costs the U.S. alone $198,412 per minute on the Iraq War.
Moving on, responding to Bush in the point-by-point analysis that State of Nature has come to adore:
1.) The bill is too costly. When you take other government programs and compare them, see above, this is like 3/$1 candy bar sales at the gas station. Honestly, I can’t take this claim on with the usual bull-at-the-red-cape zeal that I usually would. I don’t know if it is overly costly or not, I don’t know what a reasonable price would be, and if this project is over or under that price. So, I will just point to the Senate who voted 67-29, including 18 Republicans. And to the House where 50 Republicans joined Democrats for a 265-159. The bill is going to be paid for a by a 61 cent raise in tobacco taxes.
2.) This program goes beyond it’s original intent. Who cares? Perhaps the original intent was wrong, or incomplete. Isn’t a plan that accomplishes more rather than less an improvement on the original? The original intent of our beloved cell phones was not to text, watch movies, play music, and make calls. But I don’t think anyone would trade their cell phone for a Zach Morris-style behemoth, even if it does cost more. The original intent was to help only poor people. This helps some lower middle class families who don’t have the money to pay for health-care. Or at least don’t have to break the bank to do it.
3.) This may entice people to switch to government coverage. Oh no, we’re all communists now! I better get out my red drab clothing and my Marx literature. Mother Russia, embrace me.
So, maybe people wouldn’t mind the government running some health care. Instead of private companies being in charge of doling out the money for my coverage, why not the government? Don’t Republicans love choice? Wouldn’t that be a choice for some people? Not all will have a choice, but Mr. Bush’s objection seems to imply that some of those that could be covered would have a choice.
This is a very complicated issue in some respects (philosophically, ideologically), and a very simple one in others (insuring children that couldn’t get it otherwise).
Vetoing this bill will not suddenly give the uninsured the choice to choose their provider as Republicans would like to believe. These people can’t afford to make a choice like that. Many can’t afford any insurance period.
Boot Straps for Sale!!!! Contact the White House for more information.
Unsurprisingly, he wielded his veto pen in private, behind closed doors, and without fanfare.
