Republicans Deny Health Care To Children To Protect Insurance Companies

It comes down to who you think the government should protect - citizens or corporations. It's as simple as that.

Republicans voted against a health plan for kids, and Bush promises a veto, and they say this is because it doesn't protect private health insurance companies. So the kids don't get health care coverage.

News story: Bush: Kids' health care will get vetoed,

But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care....

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage -- not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

Newt Gingrich elaborates on this philosophical divide,

Fundamental questions over which direction our country takes on health care are at the heart of the discussion over SCHIP: Will we as a nation embrace a consumer-centered, market-driven health system or a government-run, European-style approach?

It isn't about the kids, it's about protecting corporations.

Should decisions like this be public (us, you and me, the people deciding together what is best) or private (corporate and one-dollar-one-vote systems)?

Question: Who is our economy for, anyway?

Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson

Comments

[cynubie]

01:35 AM on 09/23/2007

Gee, you almost seem surprised Mr. Johnson. This is an administration that will engage in high level policy negotiations with leading oil companies, but then not tell anyone in the country (even though it affects EVERYONE in the country) what the policy is or how it was arrived at. Big Pharm can stroll through the doors of congress and write their own legislation. Even Hollywood got congress to intensify the punishments for piracy 100 fold, yet it takes years to affect an ethics investigation. Even in the face of a threat to National Security, that part in the oath Dubya and Co. took to protect against enemies--pidgeon-holed to utilize the military to engage in a policy of oil containment instead of terrorist containment. Seems the Iraqi parliment might get more done if they had more to do then be badgered into signing an oil agreement that gives away half the country's oil to several large US oil firms and one British one. Yes, it will be so much more orderly when the big corporations fight it out in "Rollerball" type tournaments instead of having to bribe politicans to do their dirty work.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Jens Erickson

[Plowboy]

10:31 PM on 09/22/2007

The normal theory of government says that it exists to, provide the PEOPLE with needs that individuals cannot always prtovide for themselves. Hence, a national health care system is a legitimate concern for governments.
But our CORPORATE governnment concerns itself with guaranteeing profits to those wealthy enough to influence the political success of its incumbents. Hence, the holiness of insurance company demands.

[dgkerns]

09:29 PM on 09/22/2007

And to protect tobacco companies!

[peonyharp]

08:24 PM on 09/22/2007

How is it that we can fund a war (that nobody wants except those who profit $$ from it), but we can't afford to take care of our most vulnerable and dependent citizens -- children.

And anyone who sits in judgment saying don't have children if you can't afford insurance, let me tell you something: I HAVE insurance! It's still a struggle because while the premium goes up and up (along with ALL co-pays), the insurance covers less and less. God forbid you have a child with a chronic illness.

NOT A SINGLE CHILD IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD GO WITHOUT FOOD, A HOME, OR HEALTH CARE. As adults we are all responsible for the well-being of children, here and the world over.

How the current "leaders" in government can act so reprehensibly toward those who cannot fend for themselves is unforgivable.

[locanicole]

07:01 PM on 09/22/2007

OK, I'll bite...lets follow the natural progression of your philosophy...the government would no longer support public education...if someone robs you no police to investigate, no courts to prosecute and no DOC to incarcerate...and religious charities would only serve their own...oops, sorry, that one is already a reality...I think it's called faith based initiatives...sounds like a perfect world....and then you can take it all with you when you leave this world...PERFECT

[Outsight]

06:32 PM on 09/22/2007

Nice try, Jay. But the head-in-the-ground approach is what's been going on for years and it hasn't worked. As for you not covering someone who cannot afford to pay their own way... I have news for you. You will anyway. Because they won't have health insurance, they won't get preventative care. Which means your tax dollars are going to pay to try and fix them when they show up in emergency rooms. And it'll end up costing you more.

[bethinCary]

06:30 PM on 09/22/2007

Yet they can spend $15 billion on a border camera system by Boeing that does not work.
They can lose $12 billion in Iraq.
They can give Musharef $12 Billion-for not catching OBL.
They can lose 190,000 in weapons in Iraq.
They can pay Blackwater a much higher pay than our own military.
These same contractors can charge as much as $28 per meal in Iraq.
They can NOT charge the OIL companies who are making record profits.
They can NOT charge the top 10% income earners-instead taxing the middle class.
Is there any wonder with these skewed priorities why this country is in the fiscally irresponsible shape it is in. Becasue GW does not give a damn about the middle class or poor.

[darker]

06:23 PM on 09/22/2007

Bush-Cheney Republican actions are about:
USA = WELFARE STATE FOR THE RICH. Screw everyone who is not a rich $$$$$$$$$$$$ political contributor.

BUSH-Cheney methods destroy family life & all opportunities for the un-rich, and create a avast ongoing WELFARE STATE FOR THE RICH.

Bush-Cheney's support creates war profiteers, disaster opportunists, unregulated insurance, robbery by big oil, profiteering by prison builders, private armies, etc.

If you do not fit into the category of multi-millionaire/billionaire, or war-profiteer, to whom Bush shovels Taxpayer Dollars by the trillions, you should think now about getting out of USA.

Or else, don't let your VOTE get stolen by FRAUDULENT electronic voting machines and FAKE IMAGE MAKERS resulting in horrors like GWBush.

[oldpotsmuggler]

05:43 PM on 09/22/2007

Who is more important to the future of America, our kids or our insurance companies? Dude, your problem is you just don't have your priorities straight.

[JAYFRTTT]

05:21 PM on 09/22/2007

Look, I'll make a deal with you. I'll pay for my insurance and everyone else pays for their own. I do not want to support families who cannot support themselves. Why should I have to cover for someone just because they cannot afford to pay their own way?
Sure I feel sorry for them, especially the children who had no say into being brought into situations where they cannot be cared for by their primary providers(parents). But, if we take a hard stance maybe this generation coming of age now will realize that they cannot have children without planning for them. This means thinking things out in advance before that test strip turns blue and not three years later when they have 3 kids and onlt two teets.

[MrMike513]

06:17 PM on 09/22/2007

I got mine, screw everybody else.

Nice Personal Philosophy you have there. I hope you don't consider yourself a Christian, because that's NOT what Jesus would say.

[cassandra]

06:52 PM on 09/22/2007

Jayfritt,
Sorry your mother neglected to take a test strip. As for those who need medical care, children especially, they should have help. God help you if a poor , uninsured person without insurance coughs on you and you contract....oh, I forgot, you have full coverage.