| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
12 Oct 2007 07:01:53 PM |
| Object: |
Who's Afraid of Sick Kids? |
Who's Afraid of Sick Kids?
By Joe Brewer
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 12 October 2007
When is a twelve-year-old boy with brain damage a threat? When he
exemplifies the good a government program can do when it provides
health security to middle-class Americans.
Graeme Frost is such a boy, and his existence challenges the
notion that health care is a privilege only the wealthy deserve.
That's why conservatives are afraid of this little boy.
Conservatives want the popular and successful State Children's
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to fail. They fear that if the
government helps sick children, more people will start to believe it
can ensure health security for everyone. Here's a newsflash:
Government can ensure health security for everyone. Governments do
exactly that in every other wealthy nation in the world. We just have
the bizarre misfortune of living in a country where profit motives
stand in the way of adequate care. (The Rockridge Institute will soon
launch its Health Care Security Campaign to thoroughly explore these
issues, and you can sign up to be notified when it begins.)
You can see the conservative argument clearly in the way they
attack young Graeme Frost. In its essence, it is this:
Health care is a privilege that must be earned. If you earn
enough to provide for your family but are denied insurance, you must
give up all comfort and security to pay for medical treatment. Sell
your house. Let insurance companies snatch your savings. Only when
you are destitute will it be appropriate for our government to help.
This is how it is presented on the web site of conservative
blogger Michelle Malkin, the most prominent flame thrower on this
issue:
"But Mark Tapscott's point remains: [P]eople make choices and
it's clear the Frosts have made the choice to invest in property and
a business, but not in private health insurance. The
Maryland-administered version of the federal SCHIP program, by the
way, does not impose an asset test on applicants."
There is great practical irony in the conservative position.
People of modest means must choose between "investing" in either
health care or a home and business. In their world, the parent who
goes for a home and business (which provide the child with those
other things you need to live like food and shelter) over health care
and then goes bankrupt when their child gets sick deserves it because
they are bad parents for not providing the health care. The idea that
a family should be shackled to an insurance premium instead of being
able to better their lives by buying their own home and starting a
business is perfectly OK to them.
As a progressive, I believe government can and should provide
both protection and security to its people. Programs that work should
be encouraged. Especially when they are for those among us who are
least able and most in need. We have an obligation to care for sick
children.
Besides, the alternative is unacceptable. My colleague at the
Rockridge Institute, Glenn W. Smith, pointed out the moral bankruptcy
of refusing children the care they need. He asked those who voted
against SCHIP:
"What exactly would you say to that schoolroom of children? How
could you explain to them that they will have to bear the illnesses
and the deaths of their friends without your help or the help of
millions of Americans who are willing to help but whom you keep at
bay by starving SCHIP?"
Will the success of SCHIP embolden us to push for greater health
security for all? I hope so.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101207N.shtml
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
