When a child is enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), the positive results can be dramatic. For example, after asthmatic children are enrolled in Schip, the frequency of their attacks declines on average by 60 percent, and their likelihood of being hospitalized for the condition declines more than 70 percent.
Regular care, in other words, makes a big difference. That’s why Congressional Democrats, with support from many Republicans, are trying to expand Schip, which already provides essential medical care to millions of children, to cover millions of additional children who would otherwise lack health insurance.
But President Bush says that access to care is no problem — “After all, you just go to an emergency room” — and, with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership, he’s declared that he’ll veto any Schip expansion on “philosophical” grounds.
It must be about philosophy, because it surely isn’t about cost. …
And you’ll see why at the link.
Is a philosophy morally acceptable to you that would deny healthcare to children simply because it doesn’t want government doing it? Is it “of the people, by the people, for the people”? Does it, my Christian friend, bear any resemblance to the example of Jesus Christ? Is it even, my socially conservative friend, pro-life?
Tags: healthcare, conservatism, pro-life, religious right, schip, veto, Monte Asbury
Subscribe to comments with RSS.