2008 Woodie Awards
Failure to Communicate: A sincere word with 31 percent of America
Luke McIntyre
Issue date: 10/9/07 Section: Opinions
As of this writing, 31 percent is the number of Americans who approve of the job our president it doing. If they think themselves decent people, those in the approving crowd should reconsider their position.
I say this because last week Bush's last straw was pulled, or fell, or did whatever it is that last straws do. Maybe they do the same thing that some children statistically do when they don't have health care: die.
Around nine million children in the U.S. don't have health care. Our compassionate conservative president was presented with a bill last week that could have put 3.4 million more children on a program targeting families who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but still can't afford private health insurance, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The bill would have boosted the program's budget by $7 billion a year for the next five years, which might sound like a lot of money, but unlike a lot of congressional actions this one was already paid for by a proposed raise on federal tax on cigarettes. That federal tax rate, formerly 39 cents per pack, would be increased to a full dollar. (Keep in mind that the vast majority of taxes on cigarettes, and the reason you pay eight bucks a pop in some places, is purely state tax.)
Bush vetoed the bill. His argument against the bill breaks into two areas, shortly before breaking down completely: it costs too much, and it's a step toward socialized medicine.
Bush is the same man who requested $140 billion for Iraq in February, and recently requested $190 billion more for a war that's costing us several billion a week to finance. Bush is also the man who championed the most expensive increase of all time to federal health care, Medicare Plan D, just barely a year ago. (In addition to that, none of us really seemed to notice three weeks ago when Congress increased the debt ceiling from $8.9 trillion to $9.8 trillion.) Argue the veracity of these expenditures all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the price tag on the health care program in question is a drop in the bucket of federal funding.
You can also argue Bush's principled stand against socialized health care all you want, but does it matter? Two separate university studies published this year revealed that children who leave SCHIP cost states more since they seek medical attention solely in emergency cases-a parental and financial decision no doubt-and their lack of routine medical care results in emergency cases more often. It's the obvious result of not being able to afford a doctor: you ignore a health problem until it goes away, or gets worse. Unfortunately for kids a lot of their problems don't go away, they do get worse, and often it's when they could be stopped early by routine checkups.
Whether you're pro-socialized medicine or not, whether you think this program even fits that description or not, you have to agree that all children need to receive proper medical care, and in this country that means being insured. Children have to be insured, and keeping insurance from millions currently without on the basis of political disagreement is unthinkable. Whatever system we create for children applies only to children, the ones who can't make their own decisions and shouldn't be made to suffer for adults' disagreements.
Normally I would agree that identifying supporters of the president as indecent people is an ad hominem attack, but in this case the decision is so clear-cut that it does come down to that. Bush's facts aren't there. He's wrong, and not even wrong in his usual "God love him he's trying so hard" kind of way; he's wrong for the wrong reasons. This is the reason Bush is catching criticism from both sides of Congress, and the reason the very republican and very conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch when speaking about Bush's veto told The Washington Post, "Frankly, I think the president has had pretty poor advice on this. I can answer every objection that they've made, and I'm very favorable to the president."
This isn't the oversimplified argument that we've heard from democrats on the issue, that Bush simply hates children, and it's certainly far away from the defense some republicans are spewing, that the program sets a precedent and puts us one step closer to nationalized medicine. What each side means, of course, is that they've come up with their best defense of or attack on the president. That's entirely missing the point. The point is, if for just one cliché and "oh god I can't believe I'm saying this" moment, can't we focus on the kids?
There are a lot of reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the president on many, many things. Issues like the Iraq War are bigger than any single line of argument can encompass, and many of them aren't arguable in a political way. I hail from a military town, so like a lot of you I've had a steady stream of familiar faces preparing for, going into, and very luckily coming back from military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since they began. That shapes my opinion of the war like I'm sure it does for most of you, since at this point in the conflict we'd be hard-pressed to find someone not personally touched by it. I get that. Not every issue can be boiled down to one "yes or no" question that splits us like a red and blue map of the U.S.
But this one can.
I say this because last week Bush's last straw was pulled, or fell, or did whatever it is that last straws do. Maybe they do the same thing that some children statistically do when they don't have health care: die.
Around nine million children in the U.S. don't have health care. Our compassionate conservative president was presented with a bill last week that could have put 3.4 million more children on a program targeting families who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but still can't afford private health insurance, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The bill would have boosted the program's budget by $7 billion a year for the next five years, which might sound like a lot of money, but unlike a lot of congressional actions this one was already paid for by a proposed raise on federal tax on cigarettes. That federal tax rate, formerly 39 cents per pack, would be increased to a full dollar. (Keep in mind that the vast majority of taxes on cigarettes, and the reason you pay eight bucks a pop in some places, is purely state tax.)
Bush vetoed the bill. His argument against the bill breaks into two areas, shortly before breaking down completely: it costs too much, and it's a step toward socialized medicine.
Bush is the same man who requested $140 billion for Iraq in February, and recently requested $190 billion more for a war that's costing us several billion a week to finance. Bush is also the man who championed the most expensive increase of all time to federal health care, Medicare Plan D, just barely a year ago. (In addition to that, none of us really seemed to notice three weeks ago when Congress increased the debt ceiling from $8.9 trillion to $9.8 trillion.) Argue the veracity of these expenditures all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the price tag on the health care program in question is a drop in the bucket of federal funding.
You can also argue Bush's principled stand against socialized health care all you want, but does it matter? Two separate university studies published this year revealed that children who leave SCHIP cost states more since they seek medical attention solely in emergency cases-a parental and financial decision no doubt-and their lack of routine medical care results in emergency cases more often. It's the obvious result of not being able to afford a doctor: you ignore a health problem until it goes away, or gets worse. Unfortunately for kids a lot of their problems don't go away, they do get worse, and often it's when they could be stopped early by routine checkups.
Whether you're pro-socialized medicine or not, whether you think this program even fits that description or not, you have to agree that all children need to receive proper medical care, and in this country that means being insured. Children have to be insured, and keeping insurance from millions currently without on the basis of political disagreement is unthinkable. Whatever system we create for children applies only to children, the ones who can't make their own decisions and shouldn't be made to suffer for adults' disagreements.
Normally I would agree that identifying supporters of the president as indecent people is an ad hominem attack, but in this case the decision is so clear-cut that it does come down to that. Bush's facts aren't there. He's wrong, and not even wrong in his usual "God love him he's trying so hard" kind of way; he's wrong for the wrong reasons. This is the reason Bush is catching criticism from both sides of Congress, and the reason the very republican and very conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch when speaking about Bush's veto told The Washington Post, "Frankly, I think the president has had pretty poor advice on this. I can answer every objection that they've made, and I'm very favorable to the president."
This isn't the oversimplified argument that we've heard from democrats on the issue, that Bush simply hates children, and it's certainly far away from the defense some republicans are spewing, that the program sets a precedent and puts us one step closer to nationalized medicine. What each side means, of course, is that they've come up with their best defense of or attack on the president. That's entirely missing the point. The point is, if for just one cliché and "oh god I can't believe I'm saying this" moment, can't we focus on the kids?
There are a lot of reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the president on many, many things. Issues like the Iraq War are bigger than any single line of argument can encompass, and many of them aren't arguable in a political way. I hail from a military town, so like a lot of you I've had a steady stream of familiar faces preparing for, going into, and very luckily coming back from military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since they began. That shapes my opinion of the war like I'm sure it does for most of you, since at this point in the conflict we'd be hard-pressed to find someone not personally touched by it. I get that. Not every issue can be boiled down to one "yes or no" question that splits us like a red and blue map of the U.S.
But this one can.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Samantha
posted 10/10/07 @ 3:49 PM EST
Good article Luke. Healthcare, especially to uninsured American children is a necessary, and Bush and his advisors are simply wrong to think children should be pushed aside. (Continued…)
Post a Comment