Another campaign pledge in the dustbin?

[mack]

More from our Compassionate Conservative President:
From the Bush-Cheney website:

          Health Care and the Uninsured

                      There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current Administration took office. Governor Bush will reverse this trend
                      by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families. His plan will provide them with a $2,000 refundable health credit so
                      that they can choose health plans and physicians that fit their needs. He will also make it easier for small businesses, which employ 60 percent
                      of the uninsured, to obtain lower cost insurance through associations. Finally, Governor Bush will remove federal regulations that restrict state
                      flexibility in designing and implementing programs for the uninsured. Governor Bush will put the consumer, not the government, in charge of
                      health care decisions. 

And now that he’s President:

NYTimes:Bush Budget On Health Care Would Cut Aid To Uninsured

The New York Times 4/4/01
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, April 3 – President Bush’s budget will propose deep cuts in a
variety of health programs for people without health insurance, administration
officials said today.

Deleted …
…
…
UncleBeer sez: The reminder of the article may be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/04/politics/04HEAL.html

Sorry to bring in the whole article, but I know some people have a problem with the NYT.

Anyway, somebody please tell me why this is a good thing. Or is the NYT just lefty propaganda?

Either his timing’s off (maybe announce his new proposals, if they exist, BEFORE the budget cuts) or his campaign stance was just a load of BS.

Also, if the general idea is to shift the cost of healthcare of the uninsured to the states, then wouldn’t the states have to raise taxes? And wouldn’t that negate any federal tax break you might have had?

And to those of us who complain about foreign MDs who have trouble speaking english - Is that because we have an oversupply of US trained doctors in family practices?

Fortunately this is just the proposal, but isn’t this just pouring gas on the fire? Is Bush going to counter these cuts with new programs? How is this going to benefit healthcare in the USA?
Guest Moderator’s Notes: Do not post copyrighted articles on this message board. Besides being a violation of the user agreement, it’s a violation of U.S. law. Please when quoting use only small portions, which fall under “fair use” laws and provide a link to the original work if possible. Thank you.

From the NY Times website:

Copyright Notice
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
All rights reserved.

All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

From our User Agreement:

You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.

[Edited by UncleBeer on 04-04-2001 at 11:37 AM]

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by mack *
if the general idea is to shift the cost of healthcare of the uninsured to the states, then wouldn’t the states have to raise taxes? And wouldn’t that negate any federal tax break you might have had?

So? That doesn’t counter the idea that these matters should be left up to the states.

And to those of us who complain about foreign MDs who have trouble speaking english - Is that because we have an oversupply of US trained doctors in family practices?

Er, these foriegners are the US trained doctors of which the article speaks. Remember affirmative action? There is also a massive government program in place to educate foreigners on how to be doctors – the idea being that they will go and be doctors back home. Most of them stay here, though. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it isn’t fair to people born here who would like federal aid to become a doctor themselves.

Is Bush going to counter these cuts with new programs? How is this going to benefit healthcare in the USA?

Bush has proposed a huge prescription drug package for seniors. That will be big bucks for the pharmaceutical companies.

As for doctors refusing to help people who don’t have money, a pox on their houses.

[Needs2know]

Mack…I really think that HALF the country should stop being shocked and outraged at the decisions this administration is making. It’s really too late now for that. The only recourse we have at this time is to make a commitment to get out and vote in the upcoming state and local elections. Then between now and 2004 perhaps ALL Americans of moderation will be fed up with this right wing agenda. In the mean time we will have to do our best as a country with what we have. Hopefully some of these policies will not do but so much damage in 4 years. I know that is small comfort if you are uninsured, looking for help to send your kid to college or living in a town with arsenic in the water. Perhaps once some of these policies start to really hit home then people will get up, go out and vote. Instead of letting the rest of us do it for them.

Needs2know

[jmullaney]

Needs2know is right. Since these are all hardly problems which require federal intervention, there is no reason you need to wait until 2004 to do something about them. I’m certain you have local elections coming up before then and hopefully you will have the option of voting for people who will be willing to solve these problems as they should be solved. Although the Democrats have long since sold out to their corporate sponsors, the Green party is continuing to field candidates willing to work on helping the poor and the disenfranchised without playing silly political football games.