Blunt is talking about backlash to Democratic efforts to override President Bush's recent veto of a bill passed by Congress to expand SCHIP, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a federal and state program that is supposed to provide health insurance to children in families with incomes too great for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to afford private insurance. But see, Blunt is not talking about kid's health care per se, he's actually talking about getting reelected, along with his Republican pals.
Congress has been pissing and squabbling over SCHIP for a year now. Nobody can seem to agree on anything, as usual, apparently investing in the future of our nation is difficult. However, when it comes to limiting Americans' fiscal future it's a whole lot easier - it only took a month to hammer the Patriot Act all the way through Congress and up to the President for signature. How much do you think that act has cost us to date? We could fund health care for every single American kid, with money left over, for what NSA is spending on monitoring those same kids' phonecalls, email and myspace accounts.
Bush and Congressional Republicans called SCHIP "fiscally irresponsible."
You know, I've read the bill, I've listened to the arguments both for and against it, and truthfully I don't know if it's 'fiscally irresponsible' or not. What I do know is this - we never seem to have enough money for things that really matter, things like health care for all Americans, access to decent education, the homeless problem, the hungry, manned space exploration, etc and pick your own issue.
But, somehow we always seem to have plenty of money for Blowing Shit Up. Why is that? Our fearless leaders are always willing to take out a loan on our kid's future so we can go off to war, but we're never willing to invest in our own country's future. Why is war okay, but health and education 'fiscally irresponsible?'
Look, I don't want America to become some socialist welfare state, but Goddammit, if the lower middle class (the majority of Americans) goes broke paying for their kids' health coverage, what kind of future do those kids have? Surely this is at least as important as the 'War on Terrorism' or whatever we're calling this adventure now.
Attention Republican Idiots: You know what's fiscally irresponsible? I tell you: getting us into this mess, with no plan to get out and turning the whole thing into some bottomless, tax funded feeding trough for your pals in the defense industry. You know what's fiscally irresponsible? This:
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
Republicans aren't worried about the amount of money they're spending in Iraq or Afghanistan, so long as Blackwater and Halliburton voters keep raking in the dough. Dipshits like Roy Blunt suddenly are all about a 'principled stand on spending,' probably because poor kids tend to grow up to be Democrats. I guess if those kids want even minimum health care, they can join the Army and go to Iraq - but they better hurry, because, if experience is any guide, pretty soon funding Veteran's health care is going to get pretty dammed expensive indeed, and then you watch if guys like ole' Roy don't start blustering about a little more 'fiscal responsibility' when it comes to funding it.
So Representative Blunt made the cut, in spite of so much stiff competition for the title.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of thing makes my blood boil, too. I've been very fortunate to always be in a position where I could ensure my kids received quality health care. I can't imagine being forced to choose between taking my sick child to a doctor and paying the rent.
Of course, I'm also a statistical outlier when it comes to politics - a career designated military member in the upper middle class...who's a (gasp!) Democrat.
I don't know what to support in terms of Universal Health Care. The idea of people suffering because they can't afford care is abhorent to me, but I don't want a socialist solution, either. I'm looking forward to learning about the various "solutions" our presidential candidates will come up with.
Well, it's early in the week, so maybe he'll get shut out - Sen Craig may open his mouth again this week, anything is possible.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm a statistical oddity too, career military, from a dirt poor republican family (yeah, weird huh?) who is neither republican nor democrat, and usually doesn't like independents either.
Like I said, I don't want the nation to become a welfare state, but damn, we've spent more on committees and political bullshit than it would have cost just to send these kids to the dammed doctor. It irks me. My folks scrapped bottom and went without (I can't tell you how many nights my mom ate Johnny cake for dinner) just so us kids could have school clothes and dental work and see the doctors once in a while. Both my mom and dad are suffering medical issues now, because they couldn't afford to take care of themselves and us kids back then. No parent should have to make that choice, especially since we can always seem to find the money for war. Goddammit, if we can afford a war, we can afford to help people with health care, if we can't afford both - well, then it's time to decide what's more important. That would be 'fiscal responsibility'. And placing your reelection bid over your citizens? Well, that is why Blunt gets the nomination this week.
Jerkoff of the Week may become a regular feature here at Stonekettle Station.
Hm. Jerkoff of the Week. Sounds fabulous, dahling.
ReplyDeleteCan we make suggestions, or is this one of those "FooeyU" things?
By all means, make suggestions. The FooeyU is happy to entertain any suggestion for blog topics.
ReplyDeleteOur health plan when I was growing up was "don't get sick." Fortunately we didn't.
ReplyDeleteMy parents had to choose between health care for us and health care for them. My father went entirely without. We got full-quality orthodontics that I didn't know to appreciate back then. My father pulled his own teeth with pliers.
Yeah, maybe someday someone in the leadership ranks will realize that you can't declare war on concepts, and do something intelligent with our tax money, like take care of its people.
Sitting here in the middle class, having crawled my way up from working class, I'm not all that bothered by the idea of socialized medicine.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that for the past six years I've had six different employeer based (partially paid by employees) plans. This year I (and everybody else here) have to give a full medical history for one company to just give us a quote (yeah, let's see, blue wire goes here, red comes around and connects to the terminal...).
We're all wondering just what weird shit is going to get pulled with out insurance this year. Remember when Managed Care and POP systems were going to solve all out problems. Yeah, so much for that. We're back to catistrophic coverage for four times as much. Gotta love how we keep having to relearn how to make wheels on this issue.
I've got nothing against socialized medicine, Steve, in principle. I think it's a Goddammed shame that in a country as rich as America there are citizens, both adult and child, who are without access to health care or event a decent meal once in a while. But, what I have a major issue with is how socialized medicine would be implemented in this country - to wit: 90% of the funds would go to lawyers, administrators, and other such bean counting parasites instead of, you know, actual health care. It is long past time to clean house on capital hill. Personally, I think everybody in congress and the White House should be denied access to any kind of government health service (specifically Bethesda and Walter Reed) and instead have to take their kids downtown to the metro city emergency room. Just like every other poor assed, non-insured American. Maybe then we'd see some common sense.
ReplyDelete