Could You Explain a Vote Against Children's Health to the Children?
For those in U.S. House or Senate inclined to sustain a presidential veto of a bill that will provide basic health care to more than 3 million additional American children, ask yourselves this question: Are you willing to explain your decision to a schoolroom of fragile young children who cannot afford treatment for whooping cough or measles, leukemia or juvenile diabetes? Are you willing to explain this to them, human to human?
The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly for an expanded children's health care program (SCHIP), 265-159. President George W. Bush has said he will veto any expansion of the program, and supporters fear they will fall short of votes necessary to override Bush's veto. And what's Bush's reason for the veto? Well, SCHIP works, and because it works it may lead the nation toward (gasp!) a health care security plan that doesn't measure the nation's health or moral standing by the size of private health insurance company profits.
Bush has a point. If 10 million American children are made healthy through a government managed program, the next thing you know some more of the 100 million or so uninsured or under-insured Americans might recognize that their health has been sacrificed on the altar of a private insurance industry that didn't even exist 70 years ago.
That's right. The property and life insurance industry didn't want to get into health insurance because they couldn't figure out how to make a profit. Insuring houses was a piece of cake. Only a few burn down, after all. And the companies get all those premiums from all those people whose houses don't burn down. Life insurance worked because premiums paid to a company over a lifetime could be invested, earning more for the company than would have to be paid in death benefits. But health? Heavens, everyone gets sick, everyone ages and weakens. Benefits would be paid continually to everybody who paid premiums. Where's the profit in that?
Then the insurance executives figured it out. By excluding the tired, the poor, the sick and the wretched refuse from coverage and by denying claims to those who had purchased coverage, tidy profits could be made. Funny thing is, this was not really capitalism any longer, since it is an industry that makes money by NOT delivering the service it is paid money to deliver. It is not protection. It is the protection racket, and sooner or later all of us get kneecapped. Even the children.
Now closing in on 70, the modern profit-first health insurance industry (Blue Cross started pooling health care payments for Elks Lodges and Lions Clubs in the 1920s; the modern industry was born in the 40s) is nearing the average American life expectancy. Maybe it's time to exclude that industry from the Congressional insurance it purchases with millions in premiums, I mean contributions, paid to politicians. We'll exclude the industry because of its pre-existing condition: cold-hearted greed. (The Rockridge Institute will soon launch its Health Care Security Campaign to thoroughly explore these issues, and you can sign up to be notified when it begins.)
But that possibility is not yet on the table in Congress. The lives and health of three million children are. We're talking about the simple and straightforward expansion of a popular and effective program that Americans of all political stripes and economic circumstances support.
But it appears some members tremble at the thought of defying the most unpopular president in modern American history.
So I return to my question. Are you, our elected representatives to Congress, afraid of explaining to the children that their health must be sacrificed? Would you tell them that once upon a time there was Adam Smith, who revealed the existence of an "invisible hand" and a "free market" that would ultimately make all things right and just even while creating temporary injustices? Or would you tell them that if God has not provided them the resources to treat their illnesses that you, a mere mortal, should not provide what God has refused to give? Or would you say you cannot deny a campaign contributor's demand?
What exactly would you say to that schoolroom of children? How could you explain to them that they will have to bear the illnesses and the deaths of their friends without your help or the help of millions of Americans who are willing to help but who you keep at bay by starving SCHIP?
This is how advocates for SCHIP should frame the issue. The health insurance industry earns its profits by denying adequate health care to 100 million Americans, including millions of children who can't be blamed for their own economic circumstances. To sacrifice the lives of those children to any abstraction about the role of government or the magic of a supposedly free market is immoral and inhuman.
If an elected official cannot muster the courage to explain their anti-SCHIP vote to the children themselves, in a public setting we all can witness, then they must vote for the bill, and, ultimately, vote to override Bush's veto.
I promise it will be much easier to explain yourself to Bush than to children whose lives and health you are tempted to condemn.
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 I could explain it. Like this.
Well kids the fact is the expansion of SCHIP has nothing to do with providing you healthcare. In fact its really just a thinly desguised plan to cover middle class adults and people who can already afford their own healthcare. See kids the SCHIP expansion is designed to give people who pretend to care about you enough power to ensure that the life saving and innovative treatments that have kept you alive so far will never again be developed by the US medical community. They want our system to be as slow, unwieldy, and unrersponsive as the medical systems that allwoed over 10,000 people to die from heat exahustaion a few years back. Not only that, but if these bad people get their way than anyone whose overweight, or who smokes, or eats meat, or whatever other habits are considered unhealty will be completly barred from access to healthcare so that these self righteous know it alls can enforce their views on you and your families. Meanwhile children theres been a proposal on the table for over 2 years that would ensure every single american can get access to healthcare but since the proposal doesnt involve a government thats allowed to tell you what to do and when to do it they fought against it tooth and nail. Thats right kids, you could all be in good hospitals right now but the bad people would rather see you die than let you and your families makeyour own decision.P
Why should I have to pay for YOUR damned fire dept if your house burns down?
Why should I have to pay for YOUR damned roads and bridges... I dont have a car!
Why should I have to pay for YOUR brats to go to school? My kid is in private school.
What has become of us as a people, people? We take care of each other, because we live in a civilized society, and it is in our best interests to do so.
But therein lies the trouble. We as a society seem to have forgotten the benefits which accrue if we look after the interests of one another. We are losing our civility in this country while we worship at the feet of corporate interests.
"Are you willing to explain your decision to a schoolroom of fragile young children who cannot afford treatment"
Sure! Tax cuts for those making 364 times as much as their employees are important, children aren't.
How do you feel about Medicare and Social Security olephart? I know you earned it. It is always the haves that complain the loudest about the havenots. I am sure if your child were in need of care you would not place some CEO with a golden parachute above their welfare. Maybe you would and in that case welcome to the Republican party.
Wow! Where is your heart? It really is sad when the commenters on this blog are so biting and mean-spirited - it really goes to show the extent our nation is divided. Health care for all - period. That is humane. Not having to lose your home because someone within your family becomes ill and your insurance gets tapped out. Not having to wrestle with your insurance company when they deny a much needed procedure. Because in the end, despite economic levels, we all bleed the same and we all can bleed out.
When you put insurance profits ahead of children it is a travesty. I agree Primadonna. If you can't take care of the weakest among us than how can we call ourselves civilized? It is a disgrace the richest country in the world puts such a low priority on the health and welfare of their citizens and their children no less.
I am sure everyone that complains about this bill and voted against it fully support corporate welfare.
Here's the problem with healthcare today. The country spends $2T in 2005. For 300M people, that's $6,600 for every man, woman and child every year.
Doctors are making some money. Insurance companies, believe it or not, make crap returns. Where is all this money going?
Overwhelmingly we have a small segment of the population that is consuming a massively disproportionate amount of healthcare.
It's not uncommon for a family of four to go 20 years with perhaps a few baby deliveries and a broken arm here and there. What, $50K? But during that 20 years, there are four other people in the health care system spending $2M.
If you want the government to take care of you if your healthcare bills exceed $10K in any one year, then that can probably be worked out. We can all pay to cover those that get hit by bad luck.
But if you want health care to cover all the costs every time you have a sore throat, then the money situation just doesn't work out, and it never will.
Bush and his supporters would rather spend the money for the war in Iraq.
The money spent to date on Iraq doesn't come close to covering even six months of health care for this country.
Your statement indicates you have no clue how expensive healthcare is.
you have no idea what you are talking about. In America, with private health care, we spend 7k for every man woman and child. In Europe and Canada, the figure is a little less than 2k.
And my doctor makes housecalls.
The health insurance industry still calls the shots. Expect them to maximize their "contributions" to all lawmakers.
We as Americans need to demand Medicare for all citizens and nothing less. Let the major Democratic presidential candidates know that their half assed hybrid health plans suck and that it is time to enact universal coverage. Medicare For All makes a great campaign slogan.
Do you have any clue what Medicare pays a medical doctor for a breast surgury consultation? $30. Do you have any clue what Medicare pays a medical doctor for a breast surgury operation and 90 days of follow-up care? $300. An electrician will charge you more than that to install an additional wall socket in 45 minutes.
Do you have any clue how much $/hour a medical doctor makes under medicare AFTER the doctor has paid his or her overhead? The answer is less than zero.
Medicare is a certain recipe for good doctors to quit.
Do you me to explain it to you like a child?
Your mommy and daddy didn't plan and can't really take care of you. I know mommy and daddy have cellphones, computers, 2 car leases, cable TV with all the channels, gym memberships, a $5 starbucks every morning. But they can't afford health insurance for you and expect everyone else to pay for it instead.
Glenn, can you explain to children how risking their health care in order to further your desire for forcing a socialist, big mama, left wing health care plan upon America is right?
I mean, please! Do you still think after all these decades that ramming the left wings agenda down America's throat requires nothing more than saying "It's for the little children"? That the voters are simpletons who can be manipulated endlessly by simply uttering the magic phrase "Think of the little children"?
Stop USING the little Children as a political WEAPON to expand your political agenda and THINK about the little children.
Middle income people do not need to dump private health care and suck up government health care.
Oh, that's right, we aren't allowed to talk about what's really going on here.
Let me clue you in too....PRO
Stop pretending that profit is evil and that the government is where we should turn for all of our needs.
I guess the schools are left wing, the police dept is left wing, the fire dept is left wing as well... also the sewer treatment plants that provide you with water, and all the roads, bridges, and highways as well....
You, sir, have been brainwashed - and you really need to rethink your idiotic stance on this issue. It is NOT in our social nor economic self interest to NOT make sure our population is healthy and educated, and it is not a matter of "liberal leftism".
The US is the ONLY industrialized country without socialized medicine. It is inconcievable to every other civilized country in the world.
We also have the highest rate of infant mortality, and one of the shorter life spans.
We spend over THREE times per person than any other country on health care, with far worse incomes.
MOST of our healthcare money is not spent on CARE. It is spent on shareholders and administrative pay.... and these profits are earned NOT by providing care, but by denying care to those who actually DO have insurance.
Well there you said it Mr. Smith....S
Seems you liberals can just sell universal insurance so you are finding ways to sneak it in on us when you think we are not paying attention.
Why do you people always feel the urge to run my life....ca
I meant to say..."See
I know...my typing sucks.
There you go again, with the reverse Robinhood. Those rich people are rich because they worked the hardest and are the most virtuous. You forgot slavery, sweatshops and bigotry. Convenient to demonize the victim as you do.
Oh yeah. How about the kids of dead Iraq war veterans. Guess you think that they should just go out and get a paper route, huh?
By the way, Bill Gates supports this legislation
Nearly 10,000 soldiers died while Bill Clinton was president. Helicoptor crashes, jeep rollovers, infections, shot during training, drown, etc. Being a soldier is and always has been a dangerous job.
My guess is you didn't keep track of soldiers' deaths much while Clinton was in office. Why dod you suddenly care so much? I mean, it's great that you do. My hope is that you will vote to raise military spending to ensure soldier's families have what they need and that safer equipment can be deployed.
First of all, I was in harm's way doc. Look at my sign on: USNA73. I know more about soldiers' death than you know. I have always cared about ALL Americans. That's why I try to make a difference.
I only used Iraq as my example because it is current. I had to live through the now second greatest political/war debacle: Vietnam. I don't give a crap which President is in office.
Oh great now all the deaths can be blamed on unsafe equipment, which ironically is true under the Bush administration. Bush and his cronies knew or should have known that the equipment they were issuing was inadequate. When it became apparent to everyone they were poorly equiped what did they do? Why Dumbsfeld proclaims "You fight the war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had". What pearls of wisdom. The people in charge of seeing to the preparation and supply of the fighting force before the war blame their incompetence on the soldiers that are dying.
This is where I am different than the conservatives on this site, if it had been someone I voted for that pulled the same crap Bush and his cast of clowns pulled I would be clamoring for his impeachment and apologizing to anyone who would listen about how sorry I am for putting such an incompetent fool in office.
But conservatives never admit mistakes even when they make one after another. They blame others, refuse to take responsibility and bury their heads in the sand when the truth is unavoidable. With a constituency like that it is no wonder Bush is the failure that he is. He perfectly reflects the hypocrisy and ignorance of those that support him.
They voted against children's health care because they knew they were going to need another $190B for the occupation.
Wait till you see what they don't vote for after we attach Iran.
SCHIP still requires premiums and co-pays. Medicaid does not.
Does that mean that people that support SCHIP don't care about the kids on that program? After all, they're being covered by a lesser health insurance program. How would you get up in front of a classroom of kids and explain that to them?
"You see, kids, everybody's different. And we divide you up into different categories, and we only give the best insurance coverage to the ones we like most..."
If you're going to argue this from a moral standpoint, then you had better do it right. You should argue that EVERY child get the best insurance available. What's so hard about that? Bill Gates' grandkids, and the Walton's grandkids too.
Let me guess, "It costs too much, Invisible Hand, Market forces, blah blahblah, blah..."
So there you go. You want the utopian dream of everybody gets the best care. In order to achieve that you have to repeal the laws of supply and demand. The invisible hand is there no matter what system you adopt. Just ask the citizens of England or Canada - their care is rationed and it will only get worse - all because of that pesky invisible hand.
You can say blah, blah, blah all you want....ma
Market forces are about the distribution of scarce resources. You tell me how income redistribution changes the basic supply of anything..
Ok. Ask me. I live under universal health care. It takes me a week to see my doc for a regular apt. But if I am sick, my doctor makes a housecall. That day.
If I am really really sick? The city sends a doctor to my house.
Emergency room? Well, so far, Ive only had to take my boy one time. No waiting. He was examined by a team of docs, was given and ultrasound, and we were out in 2 hours.
So - now that you have talked to someone who HAS univerasal health care (and has also had great insurance in the US, with unlimited spending allowed...
And I live in Italy - a country KNOWN for its chaos and disorganization.
You should watch less TV and talk to more real people.
It does seem to me that everyone should be subject to the tax to provide this insurance. I think if everyone was subject to this tax, (including adults who have no insurance either), then it would be fair. However, penalizing smokers only, to pay for your children's health care, seems to be less than reponsible.
Politicians are always figuring on the angles, not what's the best, but how can they look good. Then there is the maneuvering to make someone look bad. In that case the democrats have fashioned their bill so above the percentage increase endorsed by the president they have forced him into a veto. As such they are in a win-win situation. Pass and the cem congress gets the credit, get vetoed and the prez in the culprit. It's something the majority pulls on each other no too infrequently.
What if I do not want to pay the tax? Why is it you can make me pay?
Why the hell should smokers have to pay for it?
Don't we pay enough already in exorbitant taxes that do not go for what they said they would when they instituted them?
De fund the damned war and use that magic from nowhere money to pay for it and I would be for it.
Let's make a deal. No smokers get Medicare benefits for all the heart disease, COPD and cancer they present at age 65. We use that money for children. pure amd innocent, suffering from a genetic disease. The we educate them that smoking CAUSES disease.
You guys just don't get it, do you?
"Let's make a deal. No smokers get Medicare benefits for all the heart disease, COPD and cancer they present at age 65"
Sounds cool to me, but only if I get back every penny I've every paid in cigarette taxes and all the social security taxes I have paid over the years.
And don't even get me started on the "medicare" tax deduction that one day back in the 80s just mysteriously appeared on my paycheck stub.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
