How Much Does Bush Hate Kids? This much!
CNN reports that George Bush has vetoed a second bill expanding the funding of the SCHIP program for poor/uninsured kids. Why is it the so-called “godless liberals” seem to be the only ones interested in, oh, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, taking care of widows and orphans. You know, all that stuff Jesus was so keen on. How on earth did the Republican party become the evangelical Christian party? Does anyone even read the Bible anymore?! Oh I forgot…they only read the smiting bits.
And I hate the excuse that I hear for vetoing these sorts of bills and for trying to block a national healthcare system: “It’s a step towards communism.” Oh, come on! We all know communism doesn’t work. We’ve seen the fall out and aside from a few overly-idealistic college students I think most of us are over it. But a healthy pinch of socialism in certain areas doesn’t seem to have done those European nations with longer life spans, better education and job security, and shorter work weeks any harm. And who benefits by having millions of people uninsured? No one. They either get treatment and can’t pay for it, go into debt, and drag the economy down with them, get the government or charity to pay for it once the situation becomes acute, which is more expensive than insuring them beforehand, or get no treatment and are unable to work (going on welfare) or die (and allowing that to happen only further weakens the moral fiber of our nation and shreds our credibility).
It’s not like we’re free from the taint of socialism anyway. What do you think the public school system is? Badly run socialism. Technically, anything that people are compelled to contribute money to for the benefit of all (irregardless of how much they themselves contributed to) is socialism. But we have deemed these form nots only acceptable but necessary to have a healthy, cohesive society. Why not healthcare? I would think that would be the first thing we would want to take care of. When people go to a underdeveloped country or into a crisis situation, they don’t start by building roads and raising an army…they start by providing food and medicine to everyone, followed quickly by education. That’s is where our priorities should be.
The words of one evangelical Christian republican voter on NPR the other day chilled me- “I’m tired of paying for someone else’s child to have breakfast at school everyday.” It shows not only a very un-Christianlike lack of compassion, but a lack of forsight. When other people’s children starve, it brings us down as a group. And the more children who grow up with out food and medical treatment and a good education, the more sick, uneducated, and probably bitter adults we will have a few years down the road. That’s bad for the economy, bad for the crime rate, bad for our intellectual standing in the world, and bad for our national conscience.

Woohoo? Liberals?
That’s the Grumpy Old Party for you.
So Bush is going to hail “No Child Left Behind” as a success on account of having ensured that all the poor ones die before they can skew the statistics?!
We have a nationalised health service. It’s not great. People wait a while for treatment. MRSA is a common problem. But for all that I am reassured that if I need life-saving treatment I don’t have to hand over a credit card. If we want the luxury of being able to schedule our surgery, often faster treatment and a guaranteed private room we can have private medical insurance for about £40 a month.
And for that I’m happy to pay out a significant proportion of my salary. A lot of it also goes towards the state pension and income support if I need it. And on the grand scheme of things I’d far rather know my money was feeding “someone else’s child” than funding an illegal war.
Bush makes Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel look a lot better though…
This is what happens when a government is taken over by a group which cares more for ideaology than people.
Good points, Julia. There are so many countries with nationalized/single pay healthcare though…and no two of them are exactly the same. Canada’s is shot to hell, while Japan’s is (from what I understand) completely wonderful. There’s no one way do it…and almost anything would be better than what we’ve got.
40 pounds a month for private insurance? Ha! that’s like, what, 80 dollars US? They told me it would be $600 a month for me to get any sort of decent coverage privately.
Yes, $80. Bearing in mind I pay about £100 ($200) a month in national insurance (which is supposed to go to funding pensions, income support and the NHS), it’s still a better deal than US medical care. And dental care is free…
I guess we save because no medical insurance covers emergency treatment – that’s all NHS. And as it’s the emergency stuff that’s really expensive insurance companies don’t have to factor that in. Some insurers don’t include cancer care. And no insurer includes maternity.
But they’re all different, agreed.