Eat The Kids!

U.S. House Dems are crafting a response after the Bush Administration's threat to veto version of a Senate bill that would expand government health insurance for kids, reports The New York Times.

The push comes after President Bush rationalized keeping the State Children’s Health Insurance Program funded at $35 billion rather than $65 billion over 5 years because the administration opposes expanding the role of government where the private sector can offer solutions.

And he doesn't want to raise taxes by 61 cents a pack to fund health insurance for low-income kids whose parents make too much money to qualify for Medicare. Granted, the program is meant for households who can't afford private insurance either.

Another rationalization found in an AP story is that Bush doesn't want expansion of federal government. ????????????? see Iraq, No Child Left Behind, Dept. Homeland Security, CIA interrogations...

The Senate's, bi-partisan proposal is slated to expand coverage to 3.3 million kids. That could put a large dent in the $8.3 million without insurance. Considering Bush doesn't send the bill to the sinker.

Meanwhile the Administration is implying things like:
You know what those kids need? Private, tax-free savings accounts, so that they can pick and choose, spend wisely when they need those insulin shots, x-rays, and checkups. Got strep throat, well, make sure you save your money so that you can get the penicillin you need, rather than the penicillin you want, or hope to have.

Can't your parents make do with their allowance?

By the way, Bush recently got a colonoscopy payed by the U.S. taxpayers, they even removed a few polyps from his rich sphincter. Maybe Jane Public can do the same if she'd saved enough money instead of trying to use bloated government services.

Can't you accept personal responsibility? Jeeze...

Contraception, helping rape victims, and the old guy in the sky

Davidoff at the Cap Times reports about the discord between state Republicans regarding a bill that mandates emergency contraception at hospitals. This before an assembly vote on the matter.

The fact that it only applies to rape victims has likely made the bill more palatable to conservative groups such as Wisconsin Catholic Conference and Wisconsin Right to Life, who are not opposing the bill. Regardless, some state senate Republicans voted "ney" as part of a tiny minority.

The assembly vote is not certain as there is a slight Republican majority. The bill's co-sponsor state Rep. Terry Musser, R-Black River Falls, and ally state Rep. J.A. Hines, R-Oxford, are concerned about the political viability of their party in the next election cycle.

I'm pleased that state Sen. Mike Ellis and state Rep. Dean Kaufert, both Republicans from my hometown of Neenah, made the good sense decision to support it.

Kaufert has a nice bar in Neenah as well, delivering Spotted Cow and delicious chicken tenders...

Shoving it down our throats, toilet.

Judith Davidoff over at the Capital Times points out the friction between Medicare part D and Wisconsin's very own SeniorCare.

"They have been out to get rid of all the state plans and we were the last one standing," Doyle said in the article. "This is all about the Bush administration trying to make people believe Medicare Part D is a great program."

Doyle asks for an extension of the popular SeniorCare Program, as the giant Monolith Medicare encroaches on the state.

I can't blame him. Bipartisan health care plans put forth by Wisconsin's own Sen. Feingold and Rep. Baldwin have asked for more state leverage. The idea is that health care is best left to local management rather than a federal mandate.

Studies have shown the state program to be more cost effective. As reported by the Wisconsin State Journal, a 2005 study by the Wisconsin chapter of AARP found that a person with an annual income of about $15,000 and $1,000 in annual prescription drug costs would save $632 each year under SeniorCare compared to Medicare Part D.

SeniorCare also allows seniors to negotiate lower prices by forming a purchasing pool, while Medicare Part D prohibits bargaining pools.

So why do the feds insist on having it their way?

Greater policy autonomy to the states used to be a Republican philosophy, particularly attractive to fiscal conservatives. But it is no more.

The Bush Administration has warped conservatism to his own mold. The Medicare debate follows a series of attempts by feds to spend billions on policy that gives rights to Washington bureaucrats. And Wisconsin rebellion has been mixed.

Last month the New York Times reported on Madison's refusal of federally mandated phonics reading program in favor of local curricula that focus on context, meaning, as well as pronunciation. It cost the Madison Metropolitan school district $2 million in federal aid, but reading scores are better than the national average.

Also, the Administration attempts to ban gay marriage and civil unions failed. Unfortunately, Wisconsin's progressive tradition took a nap as a constitutional ban was voted in last November.

At the federal level, Bush repeatedly blasted big government in 2004 as a way to get reelected. But time and time again he's expanded the government to new levels, even beating FDR. It's no wonder that conservative support is waning, a lame duck as he wanders through the beginning of his seventh year in office.