Metamorphosis

Posted by on . 14 comments.

The compassionate conservative starts with a well-intentioned biblical injunction: “Suffer the little children to come unto you.”

Maybe because he has half his mind on other stuff, maybe because he has a short attention span, or maybe because he’s only a half-baked compassionate conservative at best, he manages to forget the second half: “Suffer the little children…”

Loses a minor irrelevant word somewhere along the way (“Suffer little children…”), and absentmindedly picks up a punctuation mark, and this is where we end up: “Suffer, little children!” That’s George Bush for you in a nutshell, I think:

The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

The program, which insured 7.4 million people at some time in the last year, is set to expire Sept. 30.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said: “The president’s senior advisers will certainly recommend a veto of this proposal. And there is no question that the president would veto it.”

The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children.

(Statements rearranged, in a generous act of copy-editing.)

Comments

  1. JollyRoger says:
    July 17, 2007 at 8:58 am

    Only fetuses and white women in permanent vegetative states evoke any “compassion” from these “conservatives.” If you don’t fit into wither of those categories, you’re on your own.

  2. Biff Jr says:
    July 17, 2007 at 10:32 am

    Spending federal dollars to “insure” those that have no insurance is a joke. Most hospitals provide care to the uninsured, regardless of their ability to pay. Just walk in to any hospital emergency room and witness the illegal’s with the sniffles, the indigents with headaches, the welfare kids with the stubbed toes packing the waiting rooms. The problem is the government has stuck its collective nose into the mix and fouled the system for everyone. The 7.4 million people, that were supposedly insured, were simply used as a justification to send millions upon millions of dollars to “Friends” in the insurance industry. The federal government might, at times, be able to identify our country’s social problems, but RARELY can they do more than exacerbate the problem when they get involved. They are just too far removed from the situation. The Fed needs to be seriously pared back, and all resultant funds be handed back to the state and local institutions who deal with these issue on a daily basis.

  3. sac says:
    July 17, 2007 at 10:51 am

    The point of insuring the uninsured is so they won’t use the emergency room as a wellcare service. Emergency room care is the most expensive form of healthcare and should be used only in, duh, emergencies. Covering the uninsured would mean less emergency room use and hence, less money spent on caring for those people. In addition, those people would be more likely to visit their doctors for check-ups, meaning less catastrpohic care for that group, meaning, you guessed it, less money spent. Then everyone can hold hands and skip off into the sunset.

  4. JimC says:
    July 17, 2007 at 11:05 am

    Insuring the uninsured through tax dollars is a band-aid not the solution. The cost of health care is expensive, yes, the solution is to fix the reason behind high health care costs not throw money on the fire.

  5. mirth says:
    July 17, 2007 at 11:13 am

    Stuff like this makes me wanna holler.
    Of course I disagree with Bush, but I also disagree with Baucus. Why should an a select group of Americans be taxed to fund this program? Because it’s an lazy fix to go after demonized smokers instead of proposing an across-the-board tax in an election cycle or taking it from the seemingly bottomless money pit of available funds for wars and war machines, billions of which can go missing and nothing is done to force accountability.

    sac: nice reply.

  6. matt says:
    July 17, 2007 at 11:35 am

    The cost of health care is expensive, yes, the solution is to fix the reason behind high health care costs not throw money on the fire.

    please, oh great health care expert, bless us with the real reason costs are so high. i’ll wait.

  7. D-day says:
    July 17, 2007 at 11:38 am

    ERs are the primary healthcare giver for the uninsured (although expect bill collectors to be a callin’) and that is the worst of possible healthcare solutions. If you are uninsured, one sickness can set you back for years if not bankrupt a person entirely. Some of course, take their chances and end up dead.
    Bush doesn’t care of course. The term “compassionate conservative” was just a sound bite. A ploy to get elected and nothing more.

  8. sac says:
    July 17, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    sac: nice reply.

    Agreed.

  9. matt says:
    July 17, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    If you are uninsured, one sickness can set you back for years if not bankrupt a person entirely.

    maybe you haven’t read the bankruptcy bill lately.

  10. JimC says:
    July 17, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    please, oh great health care expert, bless us with the real reason costs are so high. i’ll wait.

    So are you agreeing at least that high health care cost is the problem?

    Problem with creating a tax to pay for the uninsured is that what happens when health care cost rise? Naturally more taxes are needed, and so on and so on. There is no incentive to fix the problem (lower costs) just keep piling money onto the band-aid.

    There are several factors that contribute to high health care costs, all of them is for the love of money. Drug companies, insurance companies, HMO’s, malpractice insurance, frivolous lawsuits, etc, etc.

    Creating a tax based health insurance program addresses none of these problems. However, I am in favor of a short term band-aid if in the bill, money is allocated to addressing the real problems and finding a long term solution, one where the Government isn’t the provider.

  11. JollyRoger says:
    July 17, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    Spending federal dollars to “insure” those that have no insurance is a joke. Most hospitals provide care to the uninsured, regardless of their ability to pay.

    Praytell, who do you think PAYS for that? Do you think a magic fairy sprinkles diamond dust on the hospitals? News Flash: WE-you and I-pay for that. Since the uninsured wait till they are desperate to seek care, we pay a lot MORE than we would if they were insured. Don’t you Chimpletons do anything beyond parrot the talking points?

    I don’t blame you for posting anonymously, “Biff.” If I was spewing this tripe I wouldn’t want people to know who I was either.

    I get so weary of the endless, mindless wheel of long-shot-to-pieces RNC trips.

  12. sac says:
    July 17, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    There are several factors that contribute to high health care costs, all of them is for the love of money. Drug companies, insurance companies, HMO’s, malpractice insurance, frivolous lawsuits, etc, etc.

    Creating a tax based health insurance program addresses none of these problems. However, I am in favor of a short term band-aid if in the bill, money is allocated to addressing the real problems and finding a long term solution, one where the Government isn’t the provider.

    You’re right in that private healthcare is nothing but a business that exists to turn a profit. You advocate a solution lowering the costs of healthcare that doesn’t involve the gov’t, but how is that possible when lowering costs, and therefore, profits, are anathema to any business? What outside force other than the gov’t could convince the healthcare industry to lower costs? People are generally too consumed just trying to get by to form any kind of effective movement th counter the healthcare industry’s pricing practices. Especially when it comes to their health.

    The only solution I see is universal coverage. Take the brunt of healthcare costs away from businesses and shift it to the gov’t. Our taxes would most likely rise, but probably not by, for instance, the 450 bucks a month I pay for my family’s health insurance. This would help individual people as well as businesses, many of which are saddled to the breaking point by the cost of covering current and former employees’ health insurance costs.

  13. sac says:
    July 17, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    btw, I have no problem with the fact that my solution would mean that part of my taxes would pay for those who don’t pay taxes. That’s unavoidable and not something I would consider a dealbreaker. It’s a baby/bathwater analogy.

  14. matt says:
    July 17, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    So are you agreeing at least that high health care cost is the problem?

    what is the matter with you? honestly, it’s something serious.

    There is no incentive to fix the problem (lower costs) just keep piling money onto the band-aid.

    there’s already no incentive to fix the problem. insurance companies can charge “whatever the market will bear” and then people have to fight to have their care covered. the insurance companies profit on denying care/benefits, and they are doing a great job of it.

    There are several factors that contribute to high health care costs, all of them is for the love of money. Drug companies, insurance companies, HMO’s, malpractice insurance, frivolous lawsuits, etc, etc.

    frivolous lawsuits. of course. but we’ve written about this before. but what do you care? it’s a republican talking point, so let it fly. “insurance companies, HMO’s, malpractice insurance” are all the same exact thing, insurance companies. between the insurance companies and the drug companies, they got everything they wanted, in some cases actually writing legislation, in the first 6 years of the bush administration.

    Creating a tax based health insurance program addresses none of these problems.

    yeah, except for providing care for those who can’t afford it. sure.

    look, i’m not necessarily for this bill or any other bill. but the simple fact is that until we have single-payer, bills like this will come up because those without insurance have to have relief. and i’m so sorry to inform you, the market will not sort this out because it has not sorted this out given a long time to do so.