|
||
Conservative Honesty
There's been plenty of conservative dishonesty during the debate over expanding children's health insurance. But every so often, conservative honesty speaks up loud and clear, and helps us make an informed choice between two visions for America.
ThinkProgress today reports on the latest conservative attack on a family enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Last week it was the Frosts. This week, it's the Wilkersons.
Refusing to be intimidated by the attack of the Frosts, the Wilkersons featured their two-year old Bethany, who was born with a heart defect, in a new ad supporting SCHIP expansion.
The National Review's Mark Hemingway participated in a conference call with the family, and reacts thusly:
On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been talking about having children since before they were married. She further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was "unmanageable." From there she took a job at a restaurant with no health insurance, and the couple went on to have a baby anyway, presuming that others would pay for it and certainly long before they knew their daughter would have heart defect that probably cost the gross national product of Burkina Faso to fix. But not knowing about future health problems is the reason we have insurance in the first place.
In the conservative vision for America, the only people who should choose to have children are people that can afford health insurance. Or in other words: "Pro-Life (If You Can Pay For It)."
Hemingway continues:
Now, pause for a second. Are you reading this at your computer at work, in a job that you don't particularly care for or even downright detest because you have a spouse and child that depend on you? You wouldn't be the first or last person to make that choice.
In the conservative vision for America, if you feel trapped in job you hate, congratulations! You've achieved the American Dream! Declare victory and get back to your misery.
For Dara and Brian Wilkerson, the fact that they don't have health insurance is less about falling through the cracks than the decisions they've made. We know that Dara is at least capable of getting a job with insurance -- so why does she not have one now?
Uh, maybe because it's getting harder and harder to get a job with decent benefits?
That may be hard to Hemingway to accept, if he buys the conservative line that our economy is as strong as ever. But facts are facts -- at least, outside of ConservativeWorld.
The honest conservative response to seeing the struggles of working class Americans is to mock them.
And the more honest conservatives are about their cold and callous vision for America, the easier it will be for American voters to make informed decisions about where we should go as a nation.
It's time to make a choice about children's health insurance. Tell your representative: override the veto.
More blogger reaction to the attack on the Wilkersons from LTB (A Long Tough Blog), The Progressive Perspective and The Supreme Irony of Life.
An earlier, slightly different version of the above was originally posted at the Campaign for America's Future blog.
Follow Bill Scher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billscher
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Sure, it could be taken out of our defense budget, but that is not the first place I would take it from. It's amazing to me that the Dems can try to add $28 billion dollars in pork to the defense spending bill WITHOUT raising taxes, but they can not find a way to come up with $35 billion for the KIDS they say they care about.
That doesn't seem a little off to all of you liberals? $35 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US economy, we should not have to have higher taxes to come up with that.
THAT is what Bush vetoed, NOT the kids, like you emotionally charged libs argue.
Sure, it could be taken out of our defense budget, but that is not the first place I would take it from. It's amazing to me that the Dems can try to add $28 billion dollars in pork to the defense spending bill WITHOUT raising taxes, but they can not find a way to come up with $35 billion for the KIDS they say they care about.
That doesn't seem a little off to all of you liberals? $35 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US economy, we should not have to have higher taxes to come up with that.
THAT is what Bush vetoed, NOT the kids, like you emotionally charged libs argue.
Bush's idea of fiscal responsibility is laughable but I'm not laughing. Tomorrow he'll demand more money for the war. Is that your idea of responsible -- or moral?
Not to mention his bareface lie about it covering families up to $83,000 income. He knew better - that was a request by New York that got turned down by his admin, and had NOTHING to do with the Bill. Thankfully, his lies aren't being believed (finally!).
Think of this - in all this I don't see much discussion of the fact that doctors and hospitals end up treating accutely sick but uninsured people every day. They in turn eat the costs and raise their prices, or take tax deductions to cover it. How is that not a hidden tax?
In the Republican world, is it acceptable for the doctors and hospitals to just turn these folks away and let them die?
We need to stop talking about this problem like it's a philosophical issue and start talking about REAL problems and how to address them.
I just received word that a dear friend of mine will lose her job after 17 years with her company. Her husband, who she met at work, lost his job at the same company last year. They have a 2- Year -old daughter.
Their primary concern is health insurance, because after losing his job, he started his own business, and they rely on her health benefits.
I wish our conservative friends would get out of the discussion of "platitudes" and come in to the REAL world. This is the world where people get laid off and have catastrophic health issues crop up.
Here are some basic facts
1. People become unemployed even if they did everything "right."
2. Insurance does not cover everything, and it denies a LOT of claims for sometimes the worst of reasons - case in point:
My wife needed a procedure for which there was no local provider "in network." So after agreeing to pay for out of network costs for a provider near us, our insurance company renegged and found a provider who they claimed could perform the procedure. The fact was that this provider, by his own admission, had only ever participated in 3 of these procedures and had not done it himself. The provider we were going to has personally done thousands of them. Just because I have insurance does not mean my insurance company gives two $h_ts about my wife.
This is the REAL world... not a place where your conservative "boot-strap," "personal responsibility" philosophy resides. All that stuff is great in a BLOG, but in this world, people lose their insurance and get sick.
Not one of you liberals that are bashing conservatives have thought about the idea of finding the money elsewhere, besides ANOTHER freaking tax?
Not one of you pointed out that just a few months ago, the DEMS tried to add $28 billion in pork to the defense spending bill WITHOUT raising taxes, but they HAVE to raise taxes to come up with $35 billion for the kids they say they care so much about.
It's a political stunt used by the Dems to bash the Repubs and call them heartless and callous. We can find the money somewhere besides RAISING TAXES.
Wilson- You're right. We would have plenty of money for children's health care if Bush and the neocons hadn't lied us into this war in Iraq. They did, however, so I propose that we raise the money by rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. And also we get the hell out of Iraq.
1. Many of the people of the "tuff nouggies" school ('if you can't afford it, then don't do/have/need it [healthcare, schooling, children, food, clothing, shelter]) tend to be well-insulated from the effects of poverty (I belive Rush Limbaugh has a $280 MILLION contract or the like - I don't think HE has to worry about medical/dental care; and because HIS gluetus maximus was WHITE, RICH AND CONSERVATIVE, HE did NOT see the inside of a CORRECTIONAL FACILITY like MOST poor and minority people would have for the same offense!)
2. The ones who believe in this Social Darwinism and are NOT rich have BOUGHT into the wealthy's paradigm (kind of like Stockholm Syndrome, don't you think)? The enemy is NOT the corporation who makes money hand over fist -(and BY THE WAY, I LIVED IN HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT for over 6 years, and I WORKED FOR TRAVELERS, CIGNA and MASS MUTUAL - DON'T TELL _ME_ that INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE _NOT_ PROFITING!!!!) - no, the ENEMY is the "illegal immigrant", the "minority", the "working woman" or the "lesbian/gay/bi-sexual/transgendered person"
3. The Old Testament, in apportioning the land among the tribes of Israel, CONSTANTLY WARNS against "oppressing the poor, the orphan and the widow" - people were NOT to glean every LAST grain from their fields, but were to LEAVE SOME for the poor, so they could feed themselves; the MERCHANT was NOT to have DISHONEST weights and scales to cheat the poor - Scripture is VERY CLEAR about how the poor should be treated and that the RICH HAVE A RESPONSIBLILITY TOWARDS THEM.
Who is oppressing the poor? The poor are getting well taken care of, just go to a country where there is really poverty. The rich are taking care of our poor as are the middle class and everyone in between. When are the poor going to start taking care of themselves? They won't as long as the handouts keep coming.
Your second point is pointless, so no response to that. Other than you bashing the corporations that provide jobs, health care and opportunity to better lives, it just makes no sense.
Point 3 - I am not Rush Limbaugh, I do not have anywhere near his money, I am still making 5 figures in my salary, living pay check to pay check, just barely paying my mortgage, my insurances, my college debt, my car. So, I can TOTALLY relate to those barely making it, but you know what, I don't ask and definitely don't EXPECT my government or anyone else to bail me out.
I've worked for:
Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)
CIGNA
Travelers
Mass Mutual
Northrop Grumman
and I'm still currently employed, so I don't have a problem with corporations. I just have a problem with them making overweening, uber-alles profits.
I have a problem with a society that values B2's (and yes, I worked on the B2 Program at Northrop Grumman), Tridents, Seawolf-Class submarines, multi-BILLION dollar weapons systems over the Common Good (as understood in Catholic theology) - why is it okay to drop NEARLY A TRILLION on a Trident, but cavil over some child, some adult getting healthcare?
What does the F-22 do that the F-15 and F/A-18 don't? Having Tridents, B2's, and F15's did NOT prevent 11 September 2001, but NOT having JUSTICE for the Palestinians and SECURITY for the Israelis contributed to the animus of much of the Muslim world towards the West.
Let's experiment: Let's keep the weapons systems we have now, institute a Manhattan Project II to make the United States energy independent by 2017, rebuild our infrastructure (resulting in jobs and prosperity for people who can then AFFORD healthcare, etc), establish a Palestinian state with SECURITY for Israel and JUSTICE for the Palestinians, disentangle ourselves from the Middle East - and I suspect the United States would be MUCH better off.
So I take it that the neocons stand is simply "no children if you can't afford them". I don't know if I agree with that but their stand seems a bit illogical in view of human nature and our evolutionary past to procreate the species? After all it's in the bible isn't it?
Isn't it also true that they condemn pro choice leaving that corrective avenue closed off. Do they not advocate abstinence only closing off pregnancy prevention right up front? I guess these neocons just want everyone else to live a serf's life devoid of any pleasure to service their needs and desires - at least for one generation. And as the servicing class diminishes so to should the ruling class to maintain the correct ratio.
To diminish the ruling class personally I think that their leaders should set the example. I feel that the entire bush family should subject itself to tubal ligations and vasectomies so that the clan is removed from the gene pool.
The best indicater of a country's greatness is the wellbeing of its most vulnerable people.
Less money for wars. More money for sick kids.
In an ideal world (not this one), people who shouldn't have children, and I think there are many, wouldn't. But we don't live in that world, and ours is full of people who are having a hard time taking care of themselves and their children. It is the system we have created and bought into and benefited from, so we have no choice but to help, even when we feel less than generous.
That said, enough about welfare cheats and people who take advantage by gaming the system. While there is plenty of that going on, social welfare costs are but a drop in the bucket compared to corporate welfare in all its forms.
You know, of course, that there are scads of politicians who can think of nothing else than how to give breaks to business, agriculture, financial interests, anyone who will contribute to their re-election campaign fund. You know it is true.
I guess I am heartless bastard. If you can't afford your kids, you shouldn't have them.
I think it is assanine to think that you should be able to vote yourself money from the treasury.
Voting yourself money from the treasury??
Isn't that basically what the corporations have set up?
Okay. Let's say tomorrow one of your kids requires a heart transplant and it is going to cost you $200,000 out of pocket. Should I just say, "well you obviously couldn't afford a kid so you shouldn't have had one" and then just walk away?
No, you pay for health insurance which will cover most, if not all of it and then walk away.
I have health insurance for my child.
I have two points here that I would like to make.
First, Inflation today is rampant and hardly anyone in the government talks about it.
I remember a time when a can of Campbells Soup cost 33 Cents...today it costs $1.29
College costs are enormous now....not even counting the best schools not to mention all those other costs in between.
Health care costs are also enormous and worse than just $1.29 per can of soup....
50 years ago, on the day I was born, my doctors
didn't think I would survive, I was so small.
Back in those days, Massachusetts would paid for all my expenses for the first 3 months of my
life as I grew stronger inside an incubator.
In fact, I became a Ward of The Commonwealth
and in reality it means that I had quite a number of Godparents...those who took care of me
and the entire state of Massachusetts.
I very much doubt today that ANY hospital does
as much.
And as far as I am concerned Conservatives
should shut their mouths because they are so
wrong.
Again, Mr. Scher, you leave out the fact that America is about working hard and making the right choices throughout your life.
There are millions of people that can not afford to have children, but continue to do so. Then it goes even further and you have people having more kids just to grab more money from the government. When are we going to stop rewarding bad choices and behavior? It MUST stop!
If you can not afford to cover your child with health insurance than you should not have a child right now. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Why, as you liberals label, is that heartless?
It's not, it's called being responsible....yup, I said it libs, RESPONSIBILITY. And guess what? It is not my responsibility, it is their responsibility. I am so tired of liberals labeling "conservatives" as heartless and cold simply because we believe in individuality and personal responsibility.
Since when has that NOT been part of the American Dream?
See Bill Scher's Profile
Unlike conservatives, I do not see any choice for a woman or couple whether or not to have a child as an opportunity for someone else to judge that as a "wrong choice." Further, I don't believe a child should go without health insurance because of any decision a parent made.
The Wilkersons and the Frosts are both two-income families that are working hard but still can't afford health insurance, the exact sort of families the bipartisan-backed SCHIP was designed to reach.
Conservatives always say they just want encourage personal responsibility, but when hard-working families still can't make ends meet, the conservative response is to attack and mock them anyway. That says to me that conservatism isn't really interested in personal responsibility, but is looking for an excuse to mask the ideology's true callous nature.
But it is a "wrong choice!" Now we just overlook bad choices and give rewards anyways? What!? If you can not afford to have a child, you do not have a child. If you can afford to buy a house, but can't afford to insure it, you don't buy it. If you can afford to buy a car, but can't afford to insure it, you don't drive. I don't understand your logic at all.
I don't know the Frosts or the Wilkersons. But I do know that the Frosts were covered by the program as were the Wilkersons. So they were covered, what's the problem? Now the Dems want to EXPAND it to people that don't need it. I wish I had it so good. To have a house, a business, two kids in private school regardless of scholarship or not, living in a city with all of the luxuries of that, etc.
And anyone who has had a medical bill they can not pay, the hospital bends over backwards to make payments easy for you. If it takes years to pay off, well, the choices you made have put you in this situation.
I am not denying that both families are hard working, but obviously they needed to do more. If you have a family, you MUST support them, no matter what. My grandfather worked 3 jobs to raise his family, my father worked 2 jobs for the longest time. They both paid for their own insurance and their own family.
Enough with the handouts!
Never made a bad choice in your life. Nothing but right choices! Oh my god, I've finally found god! How do I tithe thee Wilson33?
No, I have made PLENTY of bad choices and I have paid for those bad choices. I am still paying for a few of them. So please, your arrogance and ignorance is blatant, but not relavant.
Geez people, we are taught from an early age that your behavior and your choices have consequences, both good and bad. But now that your an adult, eh, the gov't will bail you out.
No, actually I have made PLENTY of bad choices in my life. But I PAID for those and am still paying for some of those. Me, I paid for them, not the government.
I feel that people that cannot afford their own fire brigade should not have help if their house catches on fire. And what's with all these highways? If you can't afford a helicopter then just stay home! I am setting up my own navy , air force and army to protect my family.
Really what is insurance, anyway? Asking people to put money into a fund they may never use. My auto insurance, which I've never used, is going to pay for a bunch of idiot drivers that probably deserve the injuries they receive. Sounds like a socialist plot to me.
JeffDeVore, nobody's saying the government shouldn't have certain responsibilities. Obviously, building and maintaining roads is one of them.
And it's obviously a good idea for the government (local) to maintain the fire department, but your argument doesn't really follow. The fire department is to homeownership what the emergency room is to healthcare – immediate help in a catastrophic situation that's fairly unlikely to occur. Health insurance, on the other hand, is more analogous to homeowner's insurance. Once you've been cared for at the emergency room (and everything that may come after), somebody has to pay. Likewise, once you've been rescued by the firemen, you may still find your house destroyed. Who will pay to rebuild it? If you've been responsible, you have homeowner's insurance for that.
Clever analogy about auto insurance. However, the difference between private auto insurance and goverment sponsored insurance is that with private, you're able to choose your insurance carrier, with all the options you value (or can afford). Also, the insurance company values your business, and knows there's lots of competition out there VYING for that business, so you're apt to get better service. When the goverment becomes the sole provider of ANYTHING... well, surely you can connect the dots.
Are you against abortion? If so pay up and shut your mouth about who is responsible. You can not have it both ways to say your party is the party of family values but it's OK to chuck money into Corporate welfare and spend tons of money on war and build up other countries while ours is falling apart, but hey let those who need help oh my don't have children because the GOP only helps corporate funding the rest of you pick yourself up by the boot straps and hell if your kid dies or you do, you really weren't needed in this country anyway. Your party makes me ill.
Wow, knowhelpnow. I'm not sure where to start addressing your incoherent diatribe, so I won't. If you'll read my post above yours (were you responding to that?), you'll see that I make no such statements or claims. I'm not even sure what you mean by "chucking money into Corporate welfare." Am I against abortion? Absolutely. Does that mean I think it should suddenly be made illegal? Absolutely not. Our culture is way too far gone for that. People's hearts and minds would have to change dramatically, and I don't see that happening as long as bile like yours above is what's passing for "liberal compassion" these days.
How is our country falling apart? YOU think that because you are a sheep who believes all of the "sky is falling" stories that are out there. Last time I checked this country was still the best, most powerful, richest country in the world. Last time I checked, millions and millions of people are STILL (with all of our problems) trying to get in here.
Hmmm, I wonder why? Maybe because people that aren't from here realize that we are the best country to live and thrive in.
With all of our welfare programs set up by bleeding hearts Dems, unfortuately, we are now attracting those that just want to take advantage of that.
If labor unions had not been weakened during the Reagan nightmare, there would be fewer slob employers who reduce workers to receiving public health assistance.
But the GOP always blames the victim, even when that victim is a sick, helpless child.
Only the Republican Party would attempt to rationalize spending 3 billion dollars A WEEK on a fucked up war and bitch about spending 7 billion dollars A YEAR on health insurance for children. What planet do these guys live on?
It seems like the woman had a choice of working, having insurance but no kids or not working,having kids but no insurance. I think that sucks.
No, she probably could have worked, had insurance and had children, but CHOSE not to do it that way. They took a risk and that risk did not pay off.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
