October 04, 2007 ... The Schip candidate.

When President Bush vetoed the Schip bill (State Children's Health Insurance Program) he did so on the grounds that the bill’s implementation would motivate middle-income earners to abandon their private health insurance plans, since they would effectively be paying double insurance to pay for the Schip on the basis of ‘buy one, give one away.’ The veto has caused the outbreak of much political rancour in both the Republican and Democratic camps due to the third rail combination of poor kids and healthcare, allied to the argument that if $700-billion dollars can be frittered away to free Iraqis from a dictatorship so that they can fight each other to the death over which clan will gain the golden apple of central government, a mere fraction of such expenditure could be better channeled towards Schip.

However, no matter whatever Peter is robbed to pay whatever Paul, this is not a valid argument. If President Bush had been thinking more soundly, he would have vetoed Schip and proceeded to dismantle the federal interference in all the healthcare programs including the FDA. Only by doing this can he hope to make healthcare more affordable for poorer kids and lift the unnecessary burden of excessive healthcare costs form middle-income earners.

As it now stands though, by simply cherry picking a comparatively easy target in order to make Hillary--Hillarycare II--Clinton’s Presidential campaign more difficult, with the possibility of a Republican candidate being enabled to reintroduce Schips to make him or her appear more appealing to the electorate, is politics no better than that which pertains to present day Iraq.

Leading by example is often cited as good practice when trying to encourage others to follow a proper path. Unfortunately, simply vetoing Schips is only a good example of how to gain an outcome of ‘bads’.