Non-existent Center for children who can’t read good
Apparently childrens don’t learn.
Oh Georgie, you’re going to be leaving soon—why don’t you just make it easier on us? By choosing to veto the reauthorization of S-CHIP, or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Pappa Bush probably jumped into the deepest hole since he said people “misunderestimated me,” or I don’t know since maybe invading Iraq. In his own words:
“I happen to believe that what you’re seeing when you expand eligibility for federal programs is the desire by some in Washington, D.C. to federalize health care. I don’t think that’s good for the country. I believe in private medicine. I believe in helping poor people—which was the intent of S-CHIP, now being expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the federal government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance. I don’t want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers.”
Hmm.
Bush syllogism:
1) I believe in private medicine.
2) I believe in helping the poor
3) Therefore the poor can afford privatized health care.
Right. What’s funny is that Bush’s approach to health care has only underlined the need for “socialized” medicine in this country.
More from this category
- Election 08: The GOP Response — It Is What It Is
- Off the Bus: On-the-Ground in Florida Battleground
- Riffs&Revolutions: Michael Gonzales on novel ‘Mercedes Ladies’
- The Week in Gossip: What’s Berry, Berry Sexy?
More from this author
- Daily Round Up! Mix n’ Match QuotEdition
- Daily Round Up! Mystery Edition Part Deux
- Daily Round Up! Maoist Re-education Edition
- We Like Likke Li
Subscribe to this author
I’m not sure I follow your logic. One might also say he is in favor of privatized grocery stores and he wants to help the poor so he comes up with food stamps, which clearly keeps the grocery stores privatized and does not assume that the poor can afford privatized grocery stores (on their own). The same reasoning could be used for health care.
Although Bush’s logic and judgment usually leave a lot to be desired, I actually think that most of the passage you quoted from him is well stated for the position that he is taking. (It probably reads a lot better than it sounds when he says it.) Whether you agree with his position for keeping medicine privatized is another matter, but I really don’t see any flaws in that passage.
I think her logic is pretty sound. The bill wanted to increase the eligibility cutoff for S-CHIP up to 4 times the national poverty line. The below is a poor copy and paste from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml but you can see that a household of 4 (e.g. 2 working adults and 2 children) must have a combined annual income of $20,650 or less (!!) to be considered living below the poverty line.
Ok, so you increase that to $80K and all of a sudden, it sounds like some pretty well-off people who can afford privatized health care are all of a sudden eligible for government handouts. But when you consider this is only for their children, and that a basic surgery can cost upwards of $10K, and that many items are not covered by the private insurance sector, all of a sudden, it seems less ludicrous.
I think Bush completely contradicted himself in saying that he cares about the poor because he obviously is adhered to the below figures when referring to “poor” people and has no awareness whatsoever of the struggles that a lower middle class family (two teachers, for example) with two children can face when they get hit with a large bill for even something as simple as arthroscopic shoulder surgery (I had it, it cost $27,000). Sure, maybe some people making $79K a year will try to get their kids flu shots covered, but does that really outweigh the real need here? And can the organization not regulate its candidates at all?
His proposed $5 billion increase in funding to the program wouldn’t even cover those currently enrolled now over the next five years, so it’s not likely that people close to that $80K threshold would even qualify, or receive immediate benefits, even if the $35 billion bill he vetoed gets pushed through if Congress can muster up enough votes to overturn the veto.
Bush thinks we’d be offering socialized handouts, but in reality, we were just trying to cover those already in need, and expand coverage to those obviously in need. Bush obviously did not dig this deep in his analysis and was obviously channeling Big Med lobbyists in his rationale, as all of his other Republican presidential candidate counterparts do when speaking on the subject.
Persons
in Family or Household 48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $10,210 $12,770 $11,750
2 13,690 17,120 15,750
3 17,170 21,470 19,750
4 20,650 25,820 23,750
5 24,130 30,170 27,750
6 27,610 34,520 31,750
7 31,090 38,870 35,750
8 34,570 43,220 39,750
For each additional
person, add 3,480 4,350 4,000
I was referring to Shazia’s syllogism that if
1. I believe in private medicine, and
2. I believe in helping the poor
then this implies (or Bush believes) that:
The poor can afford privatized health care.
As I think I showed in my first post, this does not follow.
Whether the bill itself is a good idea or a bad one is a totally separate issue. Mischaracterization of an opponent’s thinking and motives is a cheap and intellectually lazy way to make a case for or against a bill or policy, and it poisons the atmosphere of compromise, which is essential for a democracy to work. Whether it’s the Republicans calling the Democrats unpatriotic because they don’t support the patriot act, or the Democrats calling the Republics callous and uncaring of the poor, it’s all the same. I don’t believe that the Democrats are unpatriotic, nor that the Republicans have no concern about the poor. The two sides have different approaches to solving problems (and they certainly prioritize the problems differently, no doubt) but it’s the approaches to solving the problems and the priorities that should be debated, not perceived motives of the other side.
There are no opponenents here–just an honest look at words vs. action. If privatized health care could truly benefit the poor more than socialized medicine, would the top issue on the election platform still be healthcare reform? There’s a concrete difference an idea in theory and an idea in practice, and so far the administration has failed on showing any practical reform.
Sure, I’ll agree with that on principle. But what are you thought on the bill itself? If you look at the facts, I don’t think her post is a complete mischaracterization of Bush’s rationale at all.
Shazia: Quite honestly, I think health care reform is a top issue not because the poor are having problems with it, but because the middle class are having problems. Sadly, issues that affect only the poor are rarely top issues in elections.
As for whether socialized medicine is better for the poor than privatized medicine, in the short term, yes I think there’s little doubt of that. In the long term, it’s quite debatable. Looking at European nations with socialized medicine it’s no coincidence that unemployment is about double what it is in the US with GDP usually significantly lower as well. These factors have very serious consequences for the long-term sustainability of such a massive government-run program, and the program can do no good for anybody if the government (the people) cannot afford to pay for it. The Soviet Union had socialized medicine, but it collapsed. Even China has reformed its health care system and the poor don’t have the same services as before. How long do you think it will be before Germany and France will be forced to make very serious changes to their social programs because they are unsustainable as they are?
I would also like to point out that the government can get involved in health care without socializing all of medicine. What I think would be more doable (able to be passed into law), and better for country in the long run, is to socialize not the medicine (hospitals, doctors, etc..) but the insurance coverage. I suspect Bush is against this as well and I think he’s dead wrong about that.
Chris: My thoughts on the bill itself are mixed. I think it’s a good bill and would have liked to have seen it passed for the sake of those affected. However, I think the veto will actually speed up the eventual passage of real health care reform for everybody by energizing the middle class to take action.