posted by Damozel | You kind of have to hand it to Bush for the way he doesn't ever seem to mind looking like exactly what his detractors say he is, particularly when it comes to a principle like protecting insurance companies.(Washington Post)
Somebody's got to do it. After all, someone's got to look out for them or they might not be able to survive in this dog-eat-dog world of ours. And if a few children go without basic health care for their sake, that's the price of doing business. And after all, perhaps we should give him props for just coming right out with it. How many politicians/elected officials would admit that they're willing to see kids go without health care based on a philosophical objection not universally admitted to be self-evident?
President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.
The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House.
"I support the initial intent of the program," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post ... "My concern is that when you expand eligibility . . . you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government." (Washington Post; links in original)
Okay. I know. Bush's opposition has to do with the way in which the objective is achieved rather than the objective itself. But that's not the point. We're talking about ensuring that the parents of sick or injured children can afford to take them to the doctor. They really shouldn't have to choose between paying the rent and buying groceries, and taking care of children. Surely, the insurance companies are big enough to look out for themselves. And don't they already have plenty of money?
Note that this was bipartisan legislation. Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley asked him to reconsider his opposition. (Washington Post) The two Republicans helped negotiate the legislation on the Senate Finance Committee, partly because it was the result of a compromise; they fear that the Democrats will now propose a much more costly alternative. (Press Release) In a joint press release, the two Senators said :
The S[tate] C[hild] H[ealth] I[insurance] P[rogram] program has successfully provided insurance to more than 6 million children who otherwise would not have access to health care for the last 10 years.
“Tax legislation to expand health insurance coverage is badly needed, but there's no Democratic support for it in the SCHIP debate,” Grassley said. “My goal is to work for a broad-based tax policy initiative to address the fundamental problems of rising health costs and the uninsured. In the meantime, our SCHIP initiative in the Finance Committee takes care of a program that’s about to expire in a way that’s more responsible than current law and $15 billion less than the budget resolution calls for.”
“I respect the President’s desire to craft a fiscally responsible plan for providing health care to the children of the working poor, who urgently need SCHIP to continue,” Hatch said. “But compared to the $60 billion alternative presented by Democrats, this deal is a conservative compromise. It also addresses many of the concerns conservatives have with states which are covering adults and children with well-off parents with SCHIP funds. The President knows I want to help him change the tax code to expand health coverage. I’ve met with the Administration several times about this. Unfortunately, that plan is a non-starter with Democrats, and we need to act on SCHIP before it expires this September.”(Press Release)
Naturally, Democrats are all up in Bush's face about this. Rahm Emanuel, Chair of the Democratic Caucus, professes to be "bewildered." (Washington Post) I'm sure he means "secretly overwhelmed with glee" at how this might end up reflecting on all the unfortunate Republicans who are running for election in 2008. (Washington Post) Or is this too cynical? Because what he actually said was pretty good and really did seem filled with disappointment and wonderment: ""This is the chance for him to finally be a uniter and not a divider," Emanuel said. "You have consensus across party and ideology, and a unity on the most important domestic issue, health care -- except for one person."" (Washington Post)
Incidentally, Bush also saw off Carmona and his complaints in fine style.
"I can't speak to some of the complaints the surgeon general made. . . He worked energetically in his job. And, obviously, at some point in time, he became very disgruntled and spoke out about it. But ours is an administration that attracts very smart, capable people. I'm very interested in their points of view, and I expect people to speak out. I also have my own points of view and feel very strongly about a lot of issues."(Washington Post)
Yes, he does, doesn't he?
RELATED BNPolitics Posts.
- Healthcare Outrages
- My health insurance blues
- Michael Moore: Can You Forgive Him?
- The Muzzling of Carmona: Other Reactions.
- Ex-Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona: "Muzzled." (Updated!)
LINKED, QUOTED, OR CITED:
- Christopher Lee, Bush: No Deal On Children's Health Plan (Washington Post)
- HATCH, GRASSLEY RESPOND TO BUSH VETO THREAT OF CHILD HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (Press Release)
ALSO:
Comments