There is no excuse for a country as wealthy as ours to allow innocent children to go without access to basic health care. And if policymakers take steps that result in a net increase in the number of children without access to care, they have a moral duty to find a way to fix that problem immediately. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush administration is morally responsible for what happens to the children who lose access to health care as a result of these new rules. If any of them die or suffer permanent harm from a condition that could have been prevented with routine care (and it's bound to happen), the Bush administration bears the blame.
While I think they are terribly misguided about the realities of health care policy, I understand that there are people out who, for principled reasons, believe that it is important to limit the role the government plays in providing health care to its citizens. And I understand that these folks believe in their hearts that if the market were simply left to work it magic, we'd soon find ourselves in a health care utopia where every child had top notch care. I know they don't mean any harm. But people like this need to realize that this isn't some grand experiment. We're not dealing with hypotheticals here. When policies like this are put in place, real children--ones with real hopes and dreams and fears--are made to suffer. Some even die. And that is unconscionable.
Opponents of government-funded health care often argue that most of the uninsured in this country are so by choice. Putting aside the merits of that (very weak) argument, it is undeniable that children do not choose to go without health insurance. They have no say in the matter. It is therefore unacceptable to treat children as pawns in a struggle over policy principles.
pulled from Left of the Dial
My piece: Again, they leave out some rather pertinent facts. The SCHIP expansions, if it went to 300% of the poverty level (which it would in Ohio, at least)means that a family of four making $60,000 (roughly) would be eligible for government funded health care.
Think about that. $60,000. Um, that's a pretty good chunk of change right there. As we have seen in the past EIGHT posts, where there have been actual numbers and statistics provided, expanding government health care is not a panacea for all our problems. In fact, it often makes thing sworse, like in the cases of CF kids in Australia.
Sure, kids do not choose to go without health care. But at the same time, adults should not be having kids that they cannot support! How about we start telling people tro stop having babies when they're 15 and unmarried and living in poverty anyway? How about we tell them to give the babies up for adoption? Why don't we address the root of the problem instead of saying that government needs to pay for the health care of everyone in America. If you start paying for kids who parent(s) are making $60,000 a year, then what's next? Oh, gee, it's coverage for those who make $70K and then $80 K. And then it's a government system like we have in England, Germany, etc., which, as we have seen, is so effective. Months for chemo therapies, crumbling hospitals, etc.
Yeah, lots of kids suffer and die. I see CF kids die, all the time, at Children's. And yes, we should prevent that--by funding research. How about we stop sending millions and millions of dollars to fights AIDS, which, is really preventable? Don't have sex! Don't use dirty needles! (Or don't use drugs in general...) I mean this isn't hard.
But the Left won't hear of it. We have to fund AIDS. We have to fund all these other things. As they say in The American President, "Government is choosing."
Yeah I probably sound like some cold-hearted conservative freak, but you know, I'm sorry. I want to see continual innovation in American health care. I want to continue to know that when my doctor orders a CT scan, I'm going to get it within the nerxt 15 minutes, not the next 15 days or weeks. When I need to see a specialist, we can arrange it quickly. If I need to get a bronch, I can get it within the hour, not within a month or six. That can make all the difference in the world.