But it's still hard to grasp the notion that anyone could come to this conclusion:
With even more Americans uninsured than in the '90s, Congress seems inclined to expand [the S-CHIP program] so that it can cover more people. Under a new bipartisan proposal in the Senate, s-chip funding would increase by $35 billion over the next five years, allowing it to reach many of the children who still lack insurance.
But Bush, backed by some of his more conservative allies, wants no part of this. He's willing to reauthorize the program, but he also wants to restrict it--by, among other things, limiting eligibility to only those people who are below 200 percent of the poverty level. Under his counterproposal, at least 17 states would actually lose s-chip funding, meaning that more kids and families in desperate need of medical insurance would go without.
Why the resistance? Money, for one thing. . . But the fight is also philosophical. Bush and his allies object that, for every ten people who gain insurance through s-chip expansions, between two and five fewer will get private insurance--since employers, particularly those with low-income workers, will be less likely to offer coverage once the public alternative is available.
How does this break down?
A) Massive spending ($500 billion and counting) and 'more government' is forgivable if it's for a vanity war that kills tens of thousands.
B) Much less massive spending ($35 billion) and 'more government' is unforgivable if it provides basic health care to American citizens.
Forget G-Dub being judged a great man by history-- he'll be the luckiest man in history if he isn't judged a drooling idiot, a vicious misanthrope, or both.