Our Children

The United States House of Representatives sustained President Bush's veto of a bill that would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) by 35 billion dollars, and benefited over 10 million children--including providing coverage to almost 4 million American kids who currently don't have any medical insurance (to provide some sense of scale, covering 4 million kids costs about 5 weeks in Iraq).

These are kids we're talking about. Not even assistance to families or parents with kids, JUST THE KIDS. And why? Because the President thinks that this will encourage people to use public insurance instead of private insurance. Of course, this program is only available to children whose parents can't afford insurance for their kids, or those whose parents are affording it only by making tremendous sacrifices.

At a time when every industrialized nation manages to provide healthcare for virtually all of its citizens, 45 million Americans--almost one out of every six of us--goes without. And why can't we cover these people? The White House tells us it's because it would encourage others to drop private insurance and go on public plans. But riddle the American public this, Mr. President, what's so bad about that, if the private system is failing so badly that about 15% of us can't get insurance? And this is where many Republican leaders, not just the President, stand by a policy even dumber than the RIAA's business model of suing its customers: they blame the uninsured. Their stance is that Americans who aren't covered by already existing public programs, with very few exceptions, should be able to easily get insurance on their own, through employers or the private market.

So why are they uninsured? You'll get answers like "they don't want to be insured" or "they mad bad decisions and should live with the consequences of their actions."

Fine. Let's take a break from reality for the minute and temporarily grant those assumptions. Let's take them as given. Uninsured Americans don't want insurance or don't deserve it because they screwed up, and the government can't bail everyone out. But what about their kids?

Would any responsible parent making a low to mid 5-figure income decide that their kid shouldn't have health insurance? If parents really were deciding that for their children, what percentage of them should be tried in a court of law and have the kids removed by child services for dangerous and criminal levels of negligence? And what about the parents who screwed up, who can't get insurance because of their bad decisions? Are we really going to visit the sins of the father upon his sons? Do the daughters of financially ignorant mothers deserve to live without medical care? Do we really say that there are children in our country who deserve to die because they contracted a dangerous illness the same year their parents lost their jobs?

That's what's been happening, and that's what 229 House Democrats and 44 House Republicans were trying to stop. 273 people tryied to protected millions of those whom our leaders call "our future," thwarted by one man's veto and enough party loyalty to make it stick.

What do I say to this? Maybe only rich peoples' kids are our future? Please don't reelect these congressmen? I don't know what I CAN say to this. I think this isn't a job for me, but a job for us. We need to let people know this isn't what we sent them to Washington to do. I just wish I knew how. If anyone does, let me know soon, because the House leaders are going to make a few changes and try again. I'm looking forward to that.