Thursday, October 04, 2007

How Bush Lost Sight of the Children

Of all the commentaries I've read on President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, this piece (click on title for link) by one of my heroes, the Reverend Jim Wallis, is the most eloquent.

10 comments:

Emily said...

Jim Wallis always sums it up for me.

I don't understand why the President was so against this legislation. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Political? I don't know... what on earth does he have to lose, it's not like he can run again...

Having been among the "working poor" in my adult life, and having had small children at the time, I understand why this is so badly needed.

I am fortunate to have good health insurance now, but back then it was a struggle to even get a throat culture or a prescription for ear infections when one of my children were sick. At times it became a decision between a prescription medication or food for the week.

Most of America's working poor is only a paycheck away from losing everything. I saw SCHIP as a way to help those families stay on their feet.

I really don't understand what America is coming to. And while I understand the argument that government "can't" take care of everybody, it at least has some kind of obligation to help those who can't help themselves... like the little kids who don't choose to be born into their situations.

Nikki said...

Some people think healthcare is a commodity and not a community responsibility.

To not provide coverage to at risk children is reckless policy--which is typical of this administration.

Jess said...

we disagree on this one, rob. hospitals don't turn away sick kids. i'll save you my sob story, but i found a way to pay for my own health insurance when times were tough. i didn't ask for a handout from strangers to take care of kids i chose to create. i've been the "working poor" and i made it happen. healthcare IS a commodity. i have a hard enough time taking care of myself. why is your health, your kids' health and anyone else's health MY responsibility?

i don't think it's my responsibility to insure other people's kids. call me heartless, but i don't like this bill and for the first time in a LONG time, i am in agreement with president bush. did i just say that out loud?

i understand this is feel-good legislation..."it's for the kids...let's do this for the kids who don't choose to be born..." blah blah blah.

i'd rather spend see the U.S. spend 60 billion dollars on education and birth control.

Joe said...

Healthcare is a commodity, I agree. But is is one that has changed over the last 50 years. It is not as reactionary as it once was, and so insurance is no longer the right way to address the problem. We need to be focused on preventative care. Insurance companies are great for covering for the risks in life. They will cover your car in a wreck, but not the oil changes or tune-ups. Healthcare is no longer just covering for the risks of health catastrophes, it is about maintaining a high level of health.

And while we don't all have cars, we all have bodies to keep healthy. So since we all need it, we can all go in together we can have it for a lower price than if we all purchase it individually. Right now we are paying to support the overhead and profit margins for hundreds of insurance companies. Having a single middleman (government) that is working to keep benefits high and break even rather than many who are concerned with the bottom line will save money. Finding small problems before they become big will save us all money as well, because when people who can't afford a doctor visit to nip a health problem in the bud end up with an emergency surgery we all end up paying for it.

Lastly, to those who say government can't be as efficient as the private sector, you're wrong. We just need to hold our representatives way more accountable than we do now and start to vote them out at the first sign of incompetence. Right now they dissect issues looking for answers that will play well instead of work well.

More government isn't a solution for most issues we are facing but in this situation it's our best tool.

Thanks for reading my 2 cents,

Joe Crockett

Rob said...

What do we disagree on Jess?

democrat said...

That's because George Bush just wants take take from the poor and give to the rich.

Jesus would never want the poor little children to have a doctor.

That's big government!!!!

less government? said...

Republicans wrong once again.

The republicans want the government to tell you who to marry; but they don't want the government to protect you from Republican Senators while you use the public toilet....

Jimmy Carter when he went into the office, the debt was 4 trillion.
When he left office the debt was 2 trillion dollars.

Under Regan and Bush Sr the debt went up to 6 trillion dollars.

Bill Clinton’s debt when he gained power was 6 trillion dollars.

Bill Clinton when left office, the debt was 3 trillion dollars.

George Bush's debt is now over 9 trillion dollars!!!!!

Your REBUBLICAN LESS GOVERNMENT is BULL SHIT.

Richard W. said...

yeah, what l.g. said!

jess said...

my bad rob...i thought you had posted this...

i am not in favor of the schip bill.

see you in logan next week??

Nikki said...

Hospitals won't turn away a sick kid, but they will send you a $10,000 bill.

If you can't pay, not only do you have an ill child, but now your credit has been ruined, making it even more difficult to buy a home and try getting ahead in this world.

Also, did you hear about the lady in LA who bled to death this year on the floor of MLK hospital? She didn't have insurance and no one would provide her care. Onlookers called 911 to try getting an ambulance to take her to another hospital.