Socialized medicine? It

By Weekly Archive On Oct 2, 2007

You
can tell a lot about a president by the bills he vetoes.

The
veto, as set forth in the Constitution, is the president’s ultimate
weapon. It’s the one time he can tell Congress to buzz off.

The
veto, then, is used only when the president feels so strongly about
something he believes he must block it at all costs. Now consider the
vetoes of George W. Bush. In seven years, he’s vetoed only two bills:
legislation to bring troops home from Iraq, and legislation to
increase federal funding for stem cell research. Now he has vowed to
veto a third: a bill expanding health care for children.

Yes,
you can tell a lot about a president by the bills he vetoes: You can
tell George W. Bush doesn’t care much about saving human lives.

Bush’s
veto of the children’s health care legislation is his most cruel and
cynical yet, especially for the reasons given. First, Bush complains
expansion of the program will cost $35 billion over five years. A lot
of money, to be sure — but far less than the $190 billion Bush wants
to spend next year alone in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also, knowingly
and incorrectly, contends that Congress would allow families making
$83,000 a year to apply. The fact is, because of the high cost of
living in their state, New York officials did ask permission to
extend the program to families in that income range, but were turned
down.

After
arguing cost, Bush dredges up a tired old red herring: providing
health insurance to kids, he warns, puts us on the slippery slope to
"socialized medicine." To which I respond: "Socialized
medicine? Bring it on!"

The
phrase "socialized medicine" is an old smear, dating back
to 1945, when President Harry Truman became the first president to
propose universal health care. He was opposed by the American Medical
Association, which — in the early days of the Red Scare — easily
convinced Americans that letting government get in the health care
business was the first step to godless communism. In trying to pin
that charge on today’s children’s health program, George Bush just as
dead wrong.

The
State Children’s Health Insurance Program, created by Republican
members of Congress in 1997, has been phenomenally successful. A
partnership between states and federal governments, it already covers
6 million poor children. Its expansion, which Bush has vowed to veto,
would cover an additional 4 million kids — with an income limitation
of $41,300 for a family of four. The program works so well that
extending coverage is supported by 43 out of 50 governors, including
most Republican governors.

In
Congress, the bill also has broad, bipartisan support. Its champions
are Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of
Utah, hardly godless commies. Ironically, this year’s legislation is
also supported by the AMA, apparently no longer afraid of "socialized
medicine," and the big insurance companies, who don’t make much
money selling insurance to the poor anyway and would prefer having
the federal government handle it.

As
for "socialized medicine," we crossed that bridge a long
time ago. Medicare today successfully serves over 45 million seniors.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has 8 million veterans and family
members enrolled in its health care system. Both are well-managed,
highly-effective and cost-efficient examples of "socialized
medicine."

Coming
from George W. Bush, the charge "socialized medicine" has a
particularly hollow ring. This is the man, after all, who considers
"No Child Left Behind" the crowning achievement of his
administration. That program, too, is run by the federal government,
in cooperation with the states. What is "No Child Left Behind"
but a case of "socialized education"? How sad that Bush is
willing to test kids for math, yet refuses to test them for
hepatitis.

By
raising the red flag of "socialized medicine," Bush is just
trying to hide the real issue, which is: What is the true
responsibility of government? Certainly, if government has any
responsibility at all, it includes helping the poorest and weakest
among us. If we refuse to take care of our kids, for God’s sake, who
are we?

Perhaps,
as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested, Bush’s problem is simply
that he’s reading his Bible upside down. When Jesus said "Suffer
the little children to come unto me," he didn’t mean "Make
the little children suffer."

Bill
Press is host of a nationally syndicated radio show and author of a
new book, "How
the Republicans Stole Religion." His
email address is: bill@billpress.com. His Web site is:
www.billpress.com.