Sunday, April 01, 2007

Bush against expanded child health insurance


Maybe Bush is all for No Child Left Behind unless its left behind to wither and die. Or at the very least go without the medical treatment allowing them to live a decent life.
The Bush administration says it will strenuously resist Democratic plans for a threefold expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, ensuring a clash with Congress over the most important health care legislation being considered this year.

Administration officials said that much of the new government coverage proposed by Democrats would simply replace private insurance, and they expressed concern about a sharp increase in the proportion of children covered by public programs in the last decade.

Dennis G. Smith, the federal official in charge of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, said 45 percent of all children were now covered by the two programs, up from 28 percent in 1998.

I'm not sure if Smith is bragging about that 45%, but I sure as hell wouldn't. It means the government of the world's richest country doesn't care about most of its children.

The Dems want to spend $75 billion over the next five years. Of course Bush wants to spend that $75 billion on 7 more months of delivering death in the Mid-East. In either case, death is involved and I would prefer it not be our children, our troops nor innocent Iraqis.

Labels: , , , ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Eli said...

Dubya is simply exploring creative alternative strategies to improve student-teacher ratios.

4/02/2007 03:04:00 AM  
Blogger Librocrat said...

eli - That's hilarious. I thought a similar thing about sending in the "surge" of troops. A year ago, 150,000 wasn't a big enough number, but c'mon, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died since then, so it all evens out.

Spiiderweb - I feel bad for the Democrats. Everything they were put in office to accomplish, they can't because our "president" has a boner for himself. And they're letting down the people who voted for them, but it's not entirely there fault.

Granted, they could do more, but without the 60% to override the veto, it makes sense they try to make less sweeping legislation.

4/02/2007 03:35:00 AM  
Blogger spiiderweb™ said...

Eli, I hadn't thought of that.

Librocrat, I'm disappointed with the Dems right now. I didn't expect much because Bush is still there and their majority is so slight, but I held out hope.

4/02/2007 07:14:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home