I have said (well, I think I have, anyway) that the actual on-the-ground definition of the President’s so-called “compassionate conservatism” is simple mean-spiritedness (arguably with a patina of racism thrown in). Case in point: the veto threat of a bill that would expand health coverage for uninsured children that has strong bipartisan support. The President’s rationale? It will “encourage people to switch out of [holy and sacred] private insurance”.
Let’s think about that: providing health insurance (administered through popular state programs, btw) to uninsured children would encourage people not to insure those children who they are already not insuring. Got it? Let ‘zem have private insurance!
We won’t think of the expense that may be dumped on to states and private hospitals, for example, to treat these uninsured, or of course, the public health implications or long term social costs from everything from illiteracy to crime associated with inadequate children’s health care… I mean… they’re poor, right? Not likely to hire lobbyists or tax lawyers, now, are they?
The President is also somewhat annoyed that his own proposal, an ice-in-the-winter addition to tax deductions for health insurance costs, doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Also… the President doesn’t want to pay for health care for 3 million children (actually, he wants to gut the existing program that already covers around 3 1/2 million children, and then gut the proposed expansion to around 6 1/2 million children) by increasing the excise tax on cigarettes…
So instead, good old American self-reliance kicks in… these children should go just get their parents to buy them health insurance.
Zut alors! Let’s just say that Marie Antoinette had nothing on the President.
tdog
Recent Comments