October 5th, 2007 by Nick Jacobs Leave a reply »

Nick’s note: Our dog, Brody, died today, and so, with permission from myself, here is an updated version of a blog that I wrote a few weeks ago for another website:

At our hospital, the decision to treat or not to treat will remain the same: We will treat.

The Washington Post’s Christopher Lee wrote recently that,

“If anything looked like a sure thing in the new Congress, it was that lawmakers would renew, and probably expand, the popular, decade-old State Children’s Health Insurance Program before it expires this year.”

This surely seems like a dream come true for any politician, something that creates a health care safety insurance program for children who otherwise might not have the coverage or financial wherewithal to pay for this care.  What politician would even consider vetoing an already established program that offers health insurance for kids?

Interestingly, President Bush did veto it.  It’s important to note that his veto was not because he is concerned that this program doesn’t work. He has acknowledged that S-CHIP works very well.  He has also indicated that he would not veto it because it is fiscally irresponsible. In fact, this plan is, overall, a very reasonable expenditure. Yes, he objects to any expansion of the plan, but, it appears that this was not the only reason for his veto.

It seems that Mr. Bush’s decision to take this stand is ideological.

The program is diametrically opposed to his philosophy of government.  If you take care of kids, and that plan works, then you can take care of adults, too.  Expansion of government is not something that this president embraces.  But the administration clearly continues to embrace the Iraq war, and that costs money, lots of money.

  From The New York Times, January 17, 2007 by David Leonhardt:

“…For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign” a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds…”

It truly is all a matter of ideology?



  1. Rita Schwab says:

    Sympathies on the loss of your dog. We do truly love our pets, and they become part of the family.


  2. Concerned Citizen says:

    Nick, by way of observation, I don’t think the Bush administration is opposed to the expansion of government in the least for its own purposes. The aggressive, beligerent foreign policy that it persues, called “neoconservatism” isn’t in any way conservative. The enormous military expenditures it entails, the heavy-handed coercion of other sovereign countries, and the shocking erosion of civil liberties that it entails are MARXIST and SOCIALIST, *not* conservative.

    There’s been quite a bit of good ink spilled on this subject. Google “neoconservativism” for some links.

  3. bariley says:

    I am so sorry for the loss of your beloved dog. I have two dogs ages 16 and 15 and try not to think of the day they are no longer with me. Google “Rainbow Bridge” for an uplifting thought in this time of sadness for you and your family.

  4. Otha Spudis says:

    I have been observing your own blog for a month or so and have acquired a heap of valuable data. I’m undertaking to own my very own blog even so I’m sure its too general and I would like to focus more on smaller topics.

  5. whole of the UK but of course most of our work is in London .

Leave a Reply