Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Bush Makes Clear Why a Health Care Revolt is Needed

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (5 fans)
- Advertisement -

President Bush has not directly commented on filmmaker Michael Moore's SiCKO and it's devastating critique of the U.S. health care system. He doesn't have to.

The President made clear which side of health care progress he's on when he recently stated his intention to veto a Senate bill to increase funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The bipartisan bill proposes to put another $35 billion over five years into a program designed to help families who cannot afford health insurance but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.

There are currently about 4 million children enrolled for health coverage under SCHIP. There are also an estimated 10 million children in the United States without any health insurance. But what is George Bush concerned about? He fears more government money for the health of uninsured children would hurt the private insurance companies. “When you expand eligibility, you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government," says Bush. In the spirit of Ronald Reagan, who in the early 1960s saw Medicare as a step toward totalitarianism, the President warns that increased funding for children's health is a path to full-blown government health care.

Actually, it would be nice if that were true, but it's not. The Senate bill would still leave millions of children uninsured, as the New York Times acknowledged in its July 22 editorial. But it's also ironic that Bush frames his opposition to the Senate bill in such ideological terms. After all, the President does support funding SCHIP, if only at a rate that increases funding by $5 billion over the next five years. So maybe the real lesson here is that government-run health care is okay with Bush as long as it's never quite adequate health care. Because with inflationary health costs, the President's proposed funding level will translate into even more children abandoned to the land of the uninsured. In California, say some officials, an estimated 200,000 children may be dropped from the program next year under the current funding limits.

Listening to the President, you just have to ask: What is so damn holy about insurance companies? Should their profits always take precedence over children's health needs? Or maybe it's just that the President is concerned about the cost to government? But what's an extra $35 billion over five years for children's health when compared to the $8.4 billion a month the Iraq war now costs the United States? Indeed, the $5 billion SCHIP currently receives annually in federal funds equals only about three weeks of the war's costs.

But perhaps the President is also concerned about the bill's proposed excise tax on cigarettes? Actually, considering that next year's military budget is $499 billion (this doesn't even include the Iraq and Afghanistan war budgets), taxing consumers who smoke hardly seems necessary. Even less necessary when you consider the potential resource in reversing the decline in corporate taxes, from 33 per cent of collected federal taxes in the 1950s to less than 8 percent today. But you get the feeling here it isn't the consumers the President is concerned about. After all, we do know former Surgeon General Richard Carmona recently told Congress the Bush White House pressured him to not give the tobacco companies a hard time by testifying about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

- Advertisement -

Irony seems to bleed from everything this President espouses that has anything to do with principles. Bush cautions the public about the dangers of government health care, while recovering from his own first-rate, government-paid colonoscopy. Bush sings hymns to the power of free-market solutions, but does nothing while market forces create a nationwide crisis of affordable health care. If unemployment reached 20 percent, which is the percentage of children in Texas without health coverage, it would be called a Great Depression. But we live in times when dynastic corporate families run the country based on the implicit notion that in this life there are winners and there are losers. And if you can't afford competitive health insurance, well, then, those who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths do officially “care” about you, but they also know you're just one of the losers. All 46 million of you.

In her new book, "The Real Wealth of Nations," cultural historian Riane Eisler cites research that the cost of just one U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile could feed 50 million children or open 340,000 health centers. Now put that thought in the context of last year's study by economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz that estimates the eventual direct and indirect costs of the Iraq war will exceed $1 trillion and possibly reach $2 trillion, assuming U.S. military operations continue in Iraq until 2010.

Just imagine what could be done for American health care with even a fraction of the money wasted in Iraq. Instead, nearly one in seven Americans go without health insurance. Instead, the vitality of the health care system is defined less on humanitarian terms than by quarterly indicators, stock trends, CEO mega-salaries, and patients who are called “customers.” It's a telling contrast: While affordable care is increasingly elusive, health care companies are a hot sector for venture capital investors, outpacing all other industries according to the San Jose Business Journal.

In the United States, many of the 10 million children without health coverage could be covered under SCHIP, but are not either because their state doesn't participate or has finance-driven enrollment caps, or because families are not aware of their eligibility. Certainly the medical care children receive can be critical to their health over a lifetime. But where there is only human need the President sees a dangerous political precedent.

Why do we put up with a leader whose SiCKO ideology blinds him even to the most basic needs of children?

- Advertisement -

 

http:www.HarrisMedia.org

Mark T. Harris is a writer living in Portland, Oregon. He is a featured contributor to "The Flexible Writer," fourth edition, by Susanna Rich (Allyn & Bacon/Longman, 2003). His blog, "Writer's Voice," can be found at www.HarrisMedia.org.


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

NATO in Chicago: Protests Are Here to Stay, and the Warmakers are Afraid

Where Are the Slander Merchants Taking Us?

Sinead O'Connor: Music's 'Uncooperative' Celebrity

SiCKO and the Health Insurance Rip-Off

Mitt, Mormons, and Money

The Progressive Sensibilities of James Garner

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
It should come as no surprise that Bush is more wo... by walley on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 8:23:31 AM
It is absolutely amazing that in a country which p... by bird on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 9:56:42 AM