Monday, September 17, 2007


First thing. OK. After this weekend's redemptive and restorative activities on the field, you may now discuss Michigan football with me.

Second thing. I am excited by the sudden focus on Universal Health Care from several of our Democratic candidates. Clinton launched her plan today. I'm particularly intrigued by two of the choices she offers: having the same menu of health care from which to choose as Congress, and having a choice similar to Medicare.

The pundits seem to find the plan very similar to the Edwards plan, which has received not enough notice but much praise. That's great, as his plan already had me thinking twice about who I'll support for President. Based on numbers both large and entirely anecdotal, health care is rapidly becoming the biggest issue in the campaign for me. Beyond the war and how it's handled, there is not much that will sway me more for one candidate or another.

Clearly, I don't want this decision to be left in the hands of Republicans. Their current leader, Dubya, recently opined while discussing his planned veto of health care coverage for children, "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."
Compassionate conservatism, indeed.

To answer those Republicans who say it will cost too much, read my lips, no new taxes, etc: I heard someone on Sunday wisely say, "We're already paying for it." Adding to that wisdom, I say that if we can afford to spend billions and billions of dollars
killing people in Iraq, we can afford Universal Health Care.

Obama's plan is disappointingly wimpy, with no individual mandate--meaning no requirement that everyone have health insurance. He may change his mind and jump on the bandwagon. But both Edwards and Clinton have been riding this one for a long time. And Edwards is definitely committed to it. He has said that on his first day in office, he will "submit legislation that would pull health insurance for the president, members of Congress and all political appointees unless they pass universal healthcare within six months."

Thing Three. At least Obama has signed onto to another issue important to me: no more war funding without troop withdrawal deadlines attached. The gutless manner in which the Democrats have folded on this again and again is so disappointing. They've let Bush & Co. define what setting such a limit on war funding means for months now.

Hello? The public is not quite that stupid, folks. We can actually understand that the Republicans are manipulating feelings when they suggest that limiting war funding is like stranding soldiers without supplies. And we can also hear those cloying "don't let Congress make us fail by pulling us out before victory" wounded vet ads without our heartstrings tugging our reason out the window. Can't we?

We have far better uses for our money than killing Americans and Iraqis when no earthly good can or has come out of it. Perhaps we could consider taking care of the sick and educating our children, for starters. And, if we take away the tax cuts for those above $200,000, we could actually pay for the former.

Knitting calls.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, and notice how they don't provide preventive procedures (e.g., colonoscopies) in the Emergency Department. Because Bush is part of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, he was able to obtain this type of care but wants to deny it to others.

12:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home