http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/washington/25health.html?th&emc=th
A bill that is set to pass in Congress, but has to get by a threatened veto by President Bush, is an example of how skewed our government's priorities are. The bill would cover four million children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. The overwhelming majority of those on the rolls are in low-income families.
Yet some how, Bush calls it “an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American." The reason that somehow seems logical in Bush and other replublican lobbyist's heads is that the bill itself is 'too expensive'. Yet we have the money to invest in our military and not the health of poor children in America? We say we're protecting ourselves by investing in this 'war on terror' (which I am skeptical even to consider a war), and these are the ramifications.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
True: This war is getting out of hand and we need to focus on our own people now. We need to get help to those families who need health-care but can't afford it. along with other problems that are overshadowed by the fighting in the middle east.
False: This war needs to continue because without it change will not happen within Iraq or other countires for that matter.
I do not understand the stigma related to government-run health care. True, in our economic system it would not work, but if run by a good government, wouldn't that type of health care be the best for the country's health?
Post a Comment