A recent NYTimes story hasn't gotten nearly the attention it deserves:The fight over a popular health insurance program for children is intensifying, with President Bush now leading efforts to block a major expansion of the program, which is a top priority for Congressional Democrats.I should be used to the incredibly cynical machinations of the Bush administration by now. But an increase in the cigarette tax to pay for health care for poor kids? Who besides Bush/Cheney would oppose this? The Marlboro Man/Darth Vader?
[...]
Administration officials have denounced the Democratic proposal as a step toward government-run health care for all. They said it would speed the erosion of private insurance coverage. And they oppose two of the main ideas contemplated by Democrats to finance expanded coverage for children: an increase in the federal tobacco tax and cuts in Medicare payments to private insurance companies caring for the elderly.
[...]
In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said it was "absolutely essential" that Congress renew and expand the program. Like many Democrats, he said Congress should increase spending by $50 billion over the next five years - the amount decried by Mr. Bush as "a massive expansion."
Take action now and tell Sen. Warner and Sen. Webb to support this moderate, pragmatic proposal.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the House Democratic Caucus chairman, said he is "bewildered" that Bush is fighting the expanded funding for a program supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. "This is the chance for him to finally be a uniter and not a divider," Emanuel said. "You have consensus across party and ideology, and a unity on the most important domestic issue, health care -- except for one person."
How about soccerdem's assessment that this just verifies the fact that Bush is a scumbag. His family values:
1. If you have money you don't have to bother the government with healthcare assistance for your children and that's a good thing!!! Everybody needs work harder to get more money...
2. If you have money you don't have to worry that you will have to join the military for an income and be sent to die in Iraq.
I thought no one in their right mind, when given a choice, would choose government insurance over private coverage. After all, the opponents of universal health care say that we couldn't see our own doctor, health care would be rationed, we would have to wait forever in a doctor's office or to get elective surgery. The Canadian, French, and UK systems are notorious for limiting care and the people in their own countries hate their system. Doesn't the Bush argument here completely undercut that? And if people did choose government health care, even if it acknowledging that it is "inferior" to private coverage and glorious market forces, because of price, doesn't that mean that affordable coverage is more important than "seeing your own doctor", and the Dems should get behind a real effort to insure everyone, ignore the insurance industry funded attacks and provide a more affordable system by eliminating paper work and insurance company bureaucracy and the bureaucracy hospitals and doctors' offices need to fight insurance companies? Especially since even Bush says that price is a more salient factor than coverage and care options.
I actually am beginning to think that a lot of unexpected people (like, say, small business owners) would welcome a government program of single-payer universal health care. It would cost less money, it would be cheaper to administer, it would help businesses to recruit and retain good employees. Why, it might even solve some of the angst over immigration. (Once, that is, we got past the initial flood of patients who had postponed medical care because of cost, a problem that it took the British about two years to get over).