Bush makes false claims about Congress' attempt to shore up SCHIP

As you all are probably aware, one of the most contentious and relevant issues to Americans today is the issue of healthcare. There's a good chance you've all heard the statistics about how many American families do or do not have coverage of any kind. Well, as expected, the rhetoric from both sides of the issue has begun to heat up in this latest partisan debate as the Democrats attempt to provide coverage through a variety of forms of legislation(many now calling for universal coverage not unlike many European states and other modern industrialized countries like Canada or Australia), while the Republicans continue to espouse the notion that increasing government spending of any kind in the way of health care, is a step in the direction of "socialized medicine," a position anti-thetical to their principled "smaller government."

However, not suprisingly, the Republican rhetoric about "socialized medicine" being the first step toward what I can only imagine to be a totalitarian regime run by a dictatorial surgeon has been expanded now to include even moderate expansions of existing federally funded state health insurance coverage for children, whom (I'm guessing in the minds of at least this Administration) are clearly planning a communist revolution now that they are going to grow up healthier thanks to greater access to health services.

Now I'm the first person to claim that I know little about the various plans put forth by even the most ardent Democrats regarding healthcare. When you are unable to afford it, it really doesn't matter what the plans are... they are still out of your price range. I imagine I'm not unlike many Americans in that sense (despite the most basic of services that are admittedly available to me as a UCSB student -most services of which I am still relatively ignorant of). Not being either an expert or one of the insured, I've taken it upon myself this year to truly understand how health care works, why it doesn't, and whether or not the Democrats are in fact what the Republicans would like to make them out to be - power hungry, immoral corrupt bureaucrats whose interests include taking freedoms away from the American people and threatening our very way of life. Now again, I'm no expert... but if any of you thought I just described Alberto Gonzales, the Department of Homeland Security, or anyone else in the existing Administration, then you're as reluctant as I am to buy into the criticism pointed at the Democrats for their latest moves to fix the State Children's Health Insurance Plan - SCHIP.

What I can say with some authority is that when you expand coverage by 3.8 million uninsured children with modest subsidies ($35-50 billion extra) in funding to existing infrastructure, you're probably not bringing down the market system, or drawing down the $11 trillion in GDP this country produces annually, or setting the foundations for a communist regime. (Keep in mind, the Democrats see the majority of this subsidy coming from increased cigarette sales tax to the tune of $.61 a pack - sorry smokers.) Seeing as how none of our current European allies and industrialized neighbors who endorse socialized medicine on a much broader scale haven't collapsed into Stalinist-like regimes, chances are neither will we. In fact, a good argument could be made that the healthier the children in this country, the greater the chance of increased productivity over the course of their lives. Another good argument to counter the claim by many Republicans that this funding is temporary since a .60 cent spike in cigarette packs might lead to fewer smokers thus eventually less funding for the program, would be that fewer smokers means fewer health-related diseases that in fact, cost the average taxpayer more (think cancer and heart disease) than it would cost them to pay .60 cents for everytime they drove their car.

But as is par for the political course, our rationally-challenged president, for the political interest of those who have the most to lose from ethical moves in this direction (i.e. the tobacco lobby), would have you believe that shoring up healthcare for children would somehow A: increase the tax burden for families who apparently don't already have worse financial woes relating to medical costs (though the bill doesn't actually place tax burdens on the average family, only the average smoker), and B: cause an exodus of existing privately insured families to give up their superior coverage (think Kaiser Permanente) through private insurance in favor of standardized government care (your local planned parenthood). If you believe this, you probably think Iraq is going smoothly. His views have thus far reflected the general Republican position on the matter, and since giving children greater health coverage is clearly the beginning of the end for America, Bush is "wielding his veto pen" in order to ensure the safety of our democracy. Now while I'd call "shenanigans!," perhaps it's best I provide you with some information to help you make your own judgements on the matter. So here's a couple of links to help explain Congress' attempt to shore up and increase the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program):

http://www.cbpp.org/9-17-07health.htm

^This is a site you'll see me reference often. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/) These guys are amazing and are used by most economists and policymakers as a source of non-partisan or independent statistical modeling. I've personally met Paul Krugman, economist and columnist for the NYT, and asked him what site he and other colleagues used to source from. They go here. Their only competitor is a conservative thinktank called the Heritage Foundation, whom Krugman chastised for skewing their numbers in the statistical models they use to confirm partisan preconceptions. It's long, but you will be doing yourself a big favor by reading it. Where this site excels is that their analysis is not too thick to read.. high schoolers could get it.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html

^Here's factcheck's review. This one will pretty much tell you how Bush's press conference was one of the most misleading interpretations of the new Congressional bill. Again, an independent perspective of the facts.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-25-07health2.htm

^Another post from the Center that answers the critique the White House has made in the last week over this whole debate.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1635.cfm

^Here's that conservative think-tank, the Heritage Foundation's position on the SCHIP. This will give you general arguments they have that somewhat concur with Bush's public criticism. However, as you read this, you'll note that even Factcheck.org dispels a number of the assumptions this site puts forth. Which is sad given that this article was put forth by a PhD. who doesn't seem to address the obvious misgivings that the non-partisan Factcheck researchers did. See what happens when you get tenure?

More to come on this one gang.. I'll stop now since my first post has become an abridged novel. I'll leave you with this thought. Why is the political party that advocates morality so without it when it comes to funding children's insurance programs that have been proven effective and efficient and simply need to be expanded through appropriate funding?