But no issue is as simple as it seems. And sometimes what seems like the obvious, simple solution may provide a short term fix, but will not really address the problem.
So the SCHIP idea works like this: health care is too expensive, so let's have the government cover the costs. It is a noble plan, and I admire the Democrats motives. But, as I said a couple posts back, opposite opinions do not mean opposite goals or motives.
Bush and the Republicans don't hate kids, they just don't think government expansion of health care will truly fix the problem, and they think it can make things even worse. People such as myself believe government expansion will harm the overall quality of health care. And the net result would be more children dying.
When something is too expensive, we must ask why it is too expensive. And liberals may roll their eyes when this conservative says that government is the problem, because it seems that that is the excuse every time. But at least some of the time that is true. As the pachyderm points out:
In Manhattan, an individual cannot purchase health insurance for less than $10,000/year. Clearly, that is a problem with NY laws, which do not permit managed care organisations to charge lower premiums to healthy 25-year-olds than to the elderly or the chronically ill. A 30-year-old, nonsmoking, female resident of SoCal, however, can get basic coverage for approximately $600/year.
What's frustrating about the issue is that so many people look on the surface and see it as the caring Democrats being shut down by the "couldn't care less about children unless they are in the womb" President Bush. I'm not saying there is no worthy debate here, because there is, but it still requires further analysis.
Unlike the strict libertarians, I'm all for the government helping people who cannot help themselves. Not everyone can afford health insurance. But before helping people out, we must examine why such a problem exists in the first place. Cut down spending before asking for more money.
Normal people do this. If I look at my budget and find out I am in the hole every month, I would examine my budget and find out where I could cut costs and if there are any unnecessary expenses. If our family worked like government however, my wife would immediately demand that I get a 2nd job so that we can afford to feed our son.
8 comments:
The entire S-CHIP expansion costs 41 days of the Iraq war. Also, it has great support by economists and Republican governors because it SAVES money. Do you really think that fiscal conservatives and GOP stalwarts like Grassley, Hatch, Lindsey Graham and others would be for this if it wasn't an overall economic boon?
S-CHIP was, I remind you, largely a Republican invention in the '90s as an alternative to more expansive healthcare plans by Democrats. Democrats were initially skeptical--but it has WORKED enormously well. So well that it has won over practically all comers.
Bush's reason for vetoing S-CHIP expansion is to LOOK like a fiscal conservative--when his administration has bled money at every turn for years. The Clinton Admin. was, whatever its other faults, was truly fically conservative.
The data on S-CHIP show no good reason for the veto.
But I didn't come here to argue S-CHIP. I came to alert you to this
http://levellers.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/transforming-capitalism-social-entrepeneurs/ and invite your response. Check out the links, first.
And I can;t wait for Hillary's plan that will no doubt include forcing people like me to buy unreasonably expensive health care with I am sure near worthless subsidies from the government.
John, I say the following NOT to support Hillary. I prefer Kucinich's universal single-payer Canadian style plan. But Hillary's plan, largely copied from John Edwards' plan out much earlier, specifically DOES NOT force one to give up private insurance.
Also, unlike her 1993 blunder, it doesn't try to do Congress' job for it. It outlines the principles and let's lawmakers legislate--only spelling out what would pass and what wouldn't. That's a huge contrast to her previous unwieldy, complicated, and pre-fabbed package that died.
But the S-CHIP question is separate. It is endorsed by labor and business leaders, by healthcare workers and by most governors. It is endorsed by educators (healthy children learn better), police and the courts (healthy children who are learning are less likely to get in trouble or turn to crime), etc.
Do we need to tighten our federal budget belts? Yep. But not around the necks of children. They should be prioritized in any moral budget.
Bush has said he will sign only a reauthorization that includes no new money--but, given inflation, that would mean CUTTING over 5 million children from the S-CHIP rolls.
Can you see why this seems like not caring? It may be, as Chance says, that he believes in helping children some OTHER way, but then he should have weighed in on the debate MUCH sooner. GOP lawmakers like Orin Hatch and Lindsey Graham repeatedly sought White House input on this legislation--and got ZERO until the bi-partisan plan was finished and Bush didn't like it.
This WILL result in more GOP losses in '08.
"John, I say the following NOT to support Hillary. I prefer Kucinich's universal single-payer Canadian style plan. But Hillary's plan, largely copied from John Edwards' plan out much earlier, specifically DOES NOT force one to give up private insurance."
From what I heard it was similar to the plan passed under Romney in Mass. that forces those of us in a certain income range (i.e. those not poor enough to get total coverage under Medi) to buy health insurance with only the insistence that if tens of thousands of people are now buying health insurance prices will no doubt come down.
"DOES NOT force one to give up private insurance"
Like I said, I didn't think she would force me to give up private health insurance. The opposite. She would force me to BUY health insurance.
No one can be forced to buy health insurance, John. You can be forced to buy car insurance (or give up driving), and you can be forced to insure your children, but if you want to gamble on having perfect health forever, you don't have to buy health insurance--either directly or through taxes for universal care. You can move to a desert island and die.
What you have no right to do is to keep others from getting healthcare for the sick--which benefits everyone. That kind of me at the cost of the common good violates the social contract.
And Chance, what you don't do is look at your budget and decide to balance it by cutting out the budget for your son's food and clothes so that you are sure to have money for a new high tech security system or to gamble with (defense and the stock market).
Family budgets are moral which put children's needs first. The GOP's idea is to run up huge debts by giving away prizes to the rich, borrowing like crazy, and then spending on war and weapons (being bilked by war profiteers and mercenaries in the process) while letting bridges and levees collapse.
Everyone has to balance budgets, but moral people put children's needs first.
People are always accusing Democrats of being "tax and spend liberals." It seems to me that Republicans are "borrow and spend" folks who, every once in awhile say "we have to tighten our belts"--and do so around the necks of the most vulnerable while giving away more no-bid contracts and free loot to the super-rich. THIS is fiscal responsibility?
It's no wonder that more and more business leaders are leaving the GOP.
Congratulations, dahlin - you're internationale:
http://europehealth.blogspot.com/2007/10/zoostation-ich-knnte-nur-auf-schip.html
Wow.. FI-nuhl-ee. ( In the Homer Simpson voice when he finds out he wins the nobel prize).
Post a Comment