Monday, September 24, 2007

Bush to veto child health bill

While President Bush never met a "defense" spending bill he didn't like, he's drawing the spending line on something he views as far more objectionable than the bloated military-industrial complex.

Congress is debating a bipartisan bill that would expand a state-federal partnership to provide health insurance for kids. President Bush has promised to veto the bill.

His objection?

Bush has attacked the compromise bill because it would expand [health insurance] coverage to some middle-class families....

SHOCK!

HORROR!

[A]s health-care costs soared, states began to grapple with knowing that many families - especially in urban areas where the cost of living was higher than average - had trouble paying for private health insurance even though they earned more than twice the poverty level.

Despite Bush's objections, the bill has cross party support.

Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, a conservative Republican who was one of the creators of the program, says that is well short of providing what the White House says it fears: government-financed health care for the middle class.

Bush likes to brag about how GIs are building hospitals in Iraq. It would be nice if he shared the same concern for the health of American children that he pretends to have for young Iraqis.

5 comments:

Mark said...

"It would be nice if he shared the same concern for the health of American children that he pretends to have for young Iraqis."

Speaking purely on constitutional grounds, I see more justification for building hospitals abroad, as part of a military strategy to win the hearts and mind of a population being wrecked by an insurgency, then providing healthcare to children here. There, I said it. (Not that building hospitals there, at this rate, will win the war in Iraq.)

And for the record, I'm as tired of neocon militarism and their moral bankruptcy as I am of politicians who speak of "doing everything for the children."

Brian said...

Mark,
I take your point. But at the same time, what is the basis for your seeing a strict constitutionalist basis for "building hospitals abroad" or "a military strategy to win the hearts and mind of a population being wrecked by an insurgency"?

Personally, I make no bones for my support for health coverage for all Americans, not just children.

Scoop said...

President Slappy needs to start "winning the hearts and minds of Americans" and stop screwing us over.

Mark said...

In the course of a war, it may be necessary to defeat an insurgency, and defeating an insurgency requires depriving them of their base of support, which very often means the locals. You don't exactly need constitutional justification to win a war. I am speaking in broad terms about general military strategy, and not trying to limit it to Iraq. But if you want me to limit it to Iraq: I say no more federal money for the Iraqis, and no more federal healthcare money for American children.
Heh... almost makes for a catchy campaign slogan.

Brian said...

"You don't exactly need constitutional justification to win a war"

No, but you do need a constitutional justifice to wage a war.

Or at least you used to.