Med: Too pissed to study…

September 22, 2007

As we’ve stated before, Clegal and I are situated on quite opposite sides of the political spectrum. He is our resident conservative, so I guess that makes me the tree-hugging hippie. We’ve also said that despite this separation, this blog was not going to be about our political differences but rather about medicine and law; however, sometimes they all overlap. And this is one of those cases.

Right now I’m having a hard time studying for histology because I’m just too pissed off at something that I just read on–President Bush has vowed to veto a bipartisan children’s health care bill that provides funding for kids in families that slip between the cracks. As described in the article:

“At issue is the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires September 30.”

President Bush claims that the Democrats–forgetting of course that this has pretty widespread Republican support–are being “irresponsible” for pushing this program that he says is too costly…irresponsible because they should know he will veto it. He goes on to say, “Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point.” WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN? How is CONGRESS risking health care coverage for children when HE is the one that is going to veto this. I’m generally not a stupid person, so I’m going to go ahead and declare that the flaw in logic is on W’s end and not mine.

President Bush says that the funding–which is coming from an increase in a cigarette tax–is “too costly.” So what is this HUGE number? Let’s try $35 billion.

Yup, that’s right. President George “$400 billion Iraq War” Bush thinks that $35 billion is too much money to provide health coverage to children in families having household incomes that fall in the gap between “Medicaid” and “Can afford Private Insurance.”

Can someone explain to me how this makes any fucking sense?

Granted, I shouldn’t be directing too much anger toward Clegal, considering he MUCH PREFERS domestic spending over ANYTHING overseas (even including the Iraq War). But seeing as that he’s our conservative blogger on Malpractice, I’d really like to hear his opinion on this matter. Also worthy of discussion is that fact that…IN GENERAL, the USA is spending way too much money–I’m not going to deny that. But how can we spend $400b on an unjust war, and then deny $35b for insuring children’s health?

This is why I can’t stand it when people claim “It’s ok that there weren’t WMDs…Saddam was still a bad leader and we did right to remove him from power.” FINE…but at what cost? We sure could have funded a lot of domestic programs with that $400 billion.

Read the article for yourself here:

EDIT (From

Bush’s False Claims About Children’s Health Insurance

The president mischaracterizes congressional efforts to expand the SCHIP program.


President Bush gave a false description of proposed legislation to expand the 10-year-old federal program to provide health insurance for children in low-income working families.

He said it “would result” in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn’t true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what’s in the current law.

He also said the program was “meant to help poor children,” when in fact Congress stated that it was meant to expand insurance coverage beyond the poor and to cover millions of “low-income” children who were well above the poverty line. Under current law most states cover children at twice or even three times the official poverty level.

The president also says Congress’ expansion is a step toward government-run health care for all. It’s true that some children and families with private insurance are expected to shift to the government program. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a shift is relatively low considering the number of uninsured these bills would reach.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: