After President Bush's weekly radio address Saturday the Democrats used a 12-year-old kid who needed medical care after being hurt in a car accident to attack Bush's opposition to expanding a federal health care program that serves poor kids.
The president is opposed to the expansion, as are most people who can do basic math, or at least use a calculator, because it will use tax dollars to provide medical care for millions of adults and children who are nowhere near being poor, and in many cases already are covered by their own medical insurance. In other words, it is necessary only if you believe in a Big Brother government, not because it will serve people who aren't covered and can't be in any other form.
The use of a kid who doesn't know he is being manipulated is reprehensible, and drew plenty of comment in the media. But not enough, which probably was the intention behind using him in the first place.
All I heard from the Democrats on the Sunday talk shows was how this expansion is "for the kids." Anyone who has ever voted on the school budget in their local community has heard this refrain every single year, and it usually is a harbinger of big increases coming, usually for big bureaucracy, and little to nothing is actually "for the kids."
Maybe while useful idiots like New York Senator Chuckles Schumer is fooling himself into believing that taxpayers are really buying his line, he can think about how he and his cronies are using a kid to sell a lemon of a program to unsuspecting adults.
Or yet, maybe Chuckles the Schumer can explain how using a kid to kill a country through slow strangulation of the taxpayers is different from Third World militias kidnapping kids not even in their teens and forcing them to carry weapons and kill their countrymen while the adults sit on the sidelines. Frankly, I don't see a difference except in the speed of the execution.
I am well aware that there are children in this country who are under insured, or uninsured, and their parents don't make enough money to buy them adequate health insurance. But they already are covered by this program in its current form, and others, but the expansion being pushed in Congress goes way above those living at or below the poverty line.
It is just another step toward mandatory socialist health care, which not only is inadequate, it doesn't work, costs way more and in the long run deteriorates the quality of medical care available to US citizens.
Don't think so? Check out Canada or France and see what they are getting for their unbelievably high tax dollars.
Ask why so many Canadians pay tens of thousands of dollars to come across the border to get fast and effective care, including major surgeries, instead of having to wait forever and possibly too long in some cases, under the Canadian government system.
I also had to wonder why it was that a kid who was injured in a car accident wasn't adequately covered under the automobile insurance of one of the drivers. Their policies might have had limits on the amount available for medical care, but once responsibility for the accident was established a reasonably competent lawyer should have been able to sue for more under other sections of the policy, or even outside the policy if necessary.
Or, was the kid riding in a car driven by an uninsured driver? Or was there another factor at play keeping him from accessing the full amount of the insurance policy? Maybe the White House or GOP members of Congress don't want to ask these questions, but they seem pretty obvious to me, and someone should ask them, so I will.
I have said in the past that I believe in safety nets and I do. It appears that adequate medical safety nets are available for Americans who are living at or below the poverty level.
But this expansion is for people who are making way above the poverty level. If people who are making incomes that are twice or three times higher than the poverty level can't prioritize their budgets in such a manner so they can purchase adequate health insurance, why should I have to pay for it through increased taxes?
And please don't bore me with this nonsense that the program is going to be funded through a whopping increase in taxes on tobacco products. Smoking is decreasing across the board, the government at all levels is trying to reduce or eliminate it, so that translates into fewer tax dollars to fund this expansion.
Which means the taxes will have to come from somewhere else. Which means, more taxes on us. By us I mean the average working Americans, because you can bet your butt that the people who are pushing this program aren't going to be the ones paying for it.
The White House should be hammering the hell out of the nonsense aspects of this further expansion into Big Brother government. We have a whole new team there now, so let's see what you have. Bring it out to the voters, make these points and don't worry about backlash.
The only backlash you'll see from educating the public on the real reasons behind this expansion will come from Socialist Democrats, and that is coming anyway. So go for it, and don't sweat the small stuff.
Sunday, September 30, 2007