Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Shame, shame, shame (children's health, anyone?)

Bush vetoes SCHIP.

And the BBC puts this in its top three headlines, but the Associated Press (at least as filtered by Yahoo) does not.

7 comments:

johnieb said...

Sorry to hear that, though I have seen AP sausage made, as well as noted your informed comments on their international editing.

It's very difficult to find a newspaper to read with one's Bible these days in the U S. As with most community institutions here, the individual must now build her own, usually with overseas sources. The difficulty is, so little of what happens elsewhere seems ever to intrude on U S awareness, especially in politics.

Put no trust in Princes, (nor, therefore, their Principalities, I suppose); faith in American community is one thing I miss.

Padre Mickey said...

NO HEALTH CARE FOR YOU!!!!!
You little punks!

George W. Bush, Super Christian

Kenneth Wolman said...

As one who at age 63 who has lived without health coverage for almost two years (pray God that soon will be over), I am scratching my head over why and how one can draw an artificial line between children and their parents, guardians, et al. If someone said Universal Health Care or National Health, I might be more inclined to get warm-blooded about this. That way you'd really know it's me, ha-ha.

Oh...this veto stunt was not just disseminated through the BBC or Guardian, it was also on NPR, WCBS, and even the most pernicious of talk radio stations, WABC in New York (flagship station of Rush, Sean, and that ilk), complete with the Drunken Fratboy, aka the Talking Chimp, gibbering on about how a government program for kids will take them away from the glories of private insurance. Sweet Jesus. What private insurance does he mean? Was I out of the room when did Oxford or Kaiser Impermanente lower their rates?

The only thing for which I can pray is that Bush has so damaged the Republican party through this act of political suicide that they won't assume high office again for the next 50 years.

The veto is a direct attack on Hillary and a way of flushing her out. I wish I cared about that part. Sadly, I am so fed up with this woman and her repulsive consort that I cannot possible consider voting her them (yes, them) next year. Hillary simply strikes me as out for Hillary above all. The best evidence is myself: I know the type because I am one. I'll bet you thought I was going to say it's because I am really a closet sexist. I wish I were.

Forget Hillaire Antoinette, as someone once illustrated her years ago in a doctored photograph when her husband was President. I want National Health in this country, not some sentimentalist sop meant to appeal to people who see children with Keane eyes from the Precious Moments gift shop.

As long as this blog is run buy a devoute Episcopalian and attended by a few more (I am not, I am a devout self-server as I said above), I have to look at Bush and these guys and roll out my WWJD bracelet. Better yet, as an ex-Jew I'd love to see what Moses would do to these guys. I picture Dathan and Abiram and I pray again....

Jane R said...

Ooh, my old buddy Ken is on a roll.

Well, as of this morning several Republican senators are working to salvage the bill. They are, the radio says, concerned about the next election. It would be nice if they were concerned about the humans involved, but hey, bad motivations can lead to good results -- as we all know.

I'm with you on universal health care, Ken. Or as feminist ethicists and theologian Mary Hunt has succinctly said, "People should have health care because they have bodies, not because they have jobs."

johnieb said...

Indeed. Which aptly describes me: "unemployed, with healthcare."

Kenneth Wolman said...

"Or as feminist ethicists and theologian Mary Hunt has succinctly said, 'People should have health care because they have bodies, not because they have jobs.'"

That is the best statement of the argument I've ever seen, heard, or read. Just because.

Yes.

johnieb said...

That was very good, wasn't it?