Health Care and Children
I am not aware of all the circumstances of the current debate in Washington regarding health care for children, nor am I informed well enough to comment of the veto exercised by the President. I am certain all concerned have the benefit of their convictions.
A few notes:
1) the running total on the Iraq war is about $460 billion, and the tab is open.
2) by some estimates the total financial fraud total for the Iraq war may be as much as $80 billion through 2006. This may be on the high side, so let's say the range is somewhere between $40-80 billion.
3) The non-offset costs of the current administration's tax cuts(as implemented and without extension, they have an effective life span of 2001-20017) are projected to be $2 trillion. With interest to service this "non-offset cost", the total expands to $3.6 trillion. The benefits of these cuts are heavily weighted to small percentages of the population.
4) The childrens' health initiative, vetoed by our president, would cost $60 billion over five years and serve 10 million children--$1200 per child per year.
Ummmmmm . . . .
What would Jesus do?
Uhhhhhh . . . .
More challenging (as my youngest when she was 8 years old once asked me)
What will you do?
4 comments:
What would Jesus do? He'd be sure the children could come onto him. He'd greet the children in the synagogues and he'd do what was available at the time to be in the best interest of everyone.
War has never served a 'best interest' for very many. In our parish, I know there are parents who are wondering how to afford the antibiotic for their child after surgery next week. I know that the medicine will be paid for but it won't be through insurance. Yes, they have the insurance that repays the cost in time....10 to 12 weeks..that is nearly 1/3 of a year. If its not available....then is it truly insurance?
By veto, all of the children who loose health care are being abused. Deliberate child abuse by the President of the United States. Shame, shame.
Peace be with you.
Simplistic solutions are often just that ... simplistic. As a nation, we must be stewards of our resources, and the executive and legislative branches must be careful stewards ... just as our Vestry must carefully manage and allocate our church's resources.
It is disingenuous to say assert that maintaining an expensive war (what would Jesus have done in respect of Pearl Harbor ?) justifies spending even more on every good cause ... Lines must be drawn, and Congressmen must be prepared to become unpopular in doing so, the same as a parent, a Bishop, or a church Vestry, etc.
It is also disingenuous ... one might well say sheer demagoguery ... to accuse the President of "deliberate child abuse". A quick look at the facts quickly reveals that funding of the S-CHIP program has risen dramatically under this President's administrations, that the vetoed bill would classify families with an annual incomes as much as than $60K and more ($83K in NY)as "poverty level", rich enough to force them to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax !!). Is this a wise thing to do with our nation's resources ?
There are respected economists who assert that S-CHIP coverage replaces private health insurance 60% of the time, and the rate can be much higher depending on how a state’s plan is structured. The proposed expansion of S-CHIP would mean replacing even more private dollars with taxpayer money. Is this a wise thing to do with our nations resources ?
Under the House version of the expanded S-CHIP bill, the $50 billion expansion would be financed in part by cutting government payments to Medicare health maintenance organizations ... robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were. Is this a wise thing to do with our nation's resources ?
Now, does the President want to turn his back on "the children" ? Hardly, he has consistently proposed expanding SCHIP by $5 billion by 2012 and limiting enrollment to children from families at 200 percent of the poverty level. In other words, more than before, but in his view with an eye toward careful allocation of resources. Moreover, upon the exercise of the veto, he has pledged to work with Congress to extend the S-CHIP program and achieve a good piece of legislation through negotiation and compromises on both sides and to try to find the funds for any increase.
So, while reasonable people can disagree with the reasons for the President's actions, one would hope they would do so reasonably. It is hardly fair (one might even say, much less "Christian") to accuse him of "direct child abuse" ... or even of being callous or indifferent to "the children".
Now the first writer above (our rector?) slyly asserts that "by some estimates" the total financial fraud might be a staggering figure (and then generously cuts that in half in some Solomonic gesture) and implies that somehow the result justifies the expanded S-CHIP legislation ! I applaud the writer's "careful" choice of words ("careful" is being used euphemistically), but challenge the writer to respond to such inquiries as 1) aren't there "some estimates" that suggest far, far less, 2) are there "some estimates" that would peg the total financial fraud from the non-war operations of the federal government of any administration ... business as usual ... as significantly higher, 3) would there be any such funds at all if the war were stopped immediately, 4) would spending any amount equal to any part of those estimated funds for the expanded S-CHIP legislation have any effect of reducing that "staggering figure", 5) isn't this type of argument merely subtle demagoguery designed to distract, etc, etc
The writer refers to the "non-offset costs of the current administration's tax cuts" and implies that these "costs" would pay for the expanded S-CHIP legislation if the tax cuts were reversed. There is little attention to the fact that, because of the economic revival caused by the cuts, the government takes in more tax monies than it did prior to such cuts (not surprisingly, the same as happened with JFK's tax cuts in the early 60s)!!! Hmmm, wonder why this wasn't mentioned ...
(Nor did the writer mention that the "small percentages of the population" benefiting from these tax cuts extend well down into the range of families who would be entitled to the benefits of the expanded S-CHIP legislation)
Now ... what would Jesus do ? Hmmm ... I know for sure I don't have the qualifications to do more than guess. Maybe He wouldn't resort to such measures as accusing Caesar of "direct child abuse", maybe He would say something about casting the first stone ("Shame, shame"), maybe something about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's ... Somehow, though, I suspect He would shy away from the approaches stated by the writers above, especially if He knew He was "not aware of all the circumstances of the current debate" and that He was not "informed well enough to comment" ... I suspect he might have reminded us that there is much each and every one of us might do directly without waiting for Caesar to do it for us ... and then extracting payment from those "small percentages of the population" ...
But then these are simply my thoughts ... hopefully expressed reasonably. Thanks ...
vote for someone else...
Why don't we teach our children the basics of the US government's sources and use of funds in social studies classes?
I would venture that very few citizens' who have reached the age of majority have even the slightest understanding of the manner by which our government spends funds or the sources of the funds spent.
I don't advocate nitpicking expenditures, but how can we evaluate policy matters without also knowing the financial impacts and the financial environment?
Post a Comment