The Bush administration: So “pro-life,” they’ll violate federal law to deny health care to children

Don’t you just love how much “pro-lifers” care about babies once they’re born?

The Bush administration violated federal law last year when it restricted states’ ability to provide health insurance to children of middle-income families, and its new policy is therefore unenforceable, lawyers from the Government Accountability Office said Friday.

Anti-choice Republicans were concerned that the children’s health care program would “crowd out” private insurer’s ability to make lots of money. And so the White House rejected a proposal from New York that would have covered an additional 70,000 children.

Gotta love the GOP: Where the concern for life ends at birth.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

10 comments for “The Bush administration: So “pro-life,” they’ll violate federal law to deny health care to children

  1. Gina
    April 19, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Well, clearly we have to think about those poor, struggling insurance companies…

  2. April 19, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    I love shit like this. I gave birth recently, and while discussing finances and future plans with my husband, said “If we had universal health care, I wouldn’t have to go back to work. Isn’t it hilarious that the political party that would most like to see me staying at home with these babies is the same party that is doing their damnedest to ensure that I can’t afford to?”

    The neocons just hate it when all us uppity womenfolk work outside the home and love to tell us that we’re screwing up our children by having jobs, but they certainly don’t want to make the system friendly to the working poor, or to parents in general, either.

  3. April 19, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    If there’s so much money to be made by selling affordable health insurance to poor families, why isn’t anyone doing it?

  4. LadyTess
    April 19, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Right on, akeeyu!

    You truly hit the nail on the spot. From what i know of american society if you want to have a family beyond you and your spouse then you both need to have full time jobs. And only a small portion of the population can do that successfully.

    “Get back in the Kitchen, bitch, because money grows on trees!” Someones delusional.

  5. ripley
    April 19, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    TP each of those words individually has meaning but that sentence makes no sense at all. did anyone say there was money to be made by selling affordable health insurance? THe point is there is NO money to be made selling affordable health insurance. THAT’S WHY HEALTH INSURANCE SHOULD NOT BE A PRIVATE PROFIT-SEEKING INDUSTRY

    If you can only understand motivations in terms of money, TP, think of it like this: there’s money to be made, overall, in terms of national productivity, by having a fricking HEALTHY SOCIETY and having families that can afford to spend time with their kids and a people being less stressed out all the time because they can afford preventative healthcare and vacations and sick leave and parental leave. There’s money to be made because healthy people work harder and more productively.

    I’m happy about the prospect of lower infant mortality rates (we are THIRTY-SEVENTH in the world?!?), better health for the poor, fewer chronic illnesses, fewer medical crises, less crowded emergency rooms, a less demeaning healthcare experience and a higher quality of life. But if money floats your boat, there would probably be more of that too.

  6. #7buslady
    April 19, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    trailer park was being sarcastic, ripley.

    she was making the point that the Bush admin’s excuse for cutting the S-CHIP programs (that it would steal customers away from the insurance companies) is baloney. Because if there was a really a market in that area, the insurance companies would already be pumping it for all the money they could.

    her point was that the insurance companies and the GOP are obsessed with money, not that she’s obsessed with money. sheesh.

  7. April 19, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Sounds a bit like “life begins at conception and ends at birth.” Ugh.

  8. April 20, 2008 at 7:25 am

    Same old “pro-lifer” story – life begins at conception, no abortions, but as soon as you leave the womb, you’re on your own, kid. WTF?

    As much as I despise religion in general, at least some organisations like the Seamless Garment are consistent in their views, and include economic injustices as well as the more obvious big ticket problems, like war and executions.

  9. April 20, 2008 at 7:50 am

    Well, if you don’t force the poor to have too many children, where are you going to get the next generation’s troops? By the time they survive to adulthood, they’ll sure have to be combat-ready.

    And yeah. I did actually choke on how not-quite-sarcastic that was.

  10. April 20, 2008 at 11:17 am

    AJL: Ouchies. That was… acidic. Lime juice on the eyeball kind of acidic.

Comments are closed.