|
Try this out on the nay-sayers next time...
"Kids-first" isn't just the right thing to do, but it's also a great way to put the Republicans on the defensive. This works in a few ways. Firstly, the Republicans who believe in the sanctity of laissez-faire market theory in all things, even health care, can make the argument (with some success) that if people can't afford health care, that's their own damn fault. Not so with kids. Babies, toddlers and teenagers have no say in whether their parents are rich or poor. Thus, their health should not be held to answer to the wealth of their parents, or lack thereof. Thus, this program is an effective counter to the "let them eat cake" arguments forwarded by the likes of Norquist.
Secondly, when the anti-choicers are out there telling poor folks how they need to have their babies, plans like this will make them put their money where their mouth is. If all children in America are covered, this will decrease the incentive for abortion. Arguing against such a plan makes the anti-choicers seem like heartless hypocrites who aren't willing to meet nervous mothers halfway.
Thirdly, for those DUers who support nationalized health care for all, this is a step in the right direction. As some of you pointed out in the other thread on this issue in GD, seniors already have Medicare, which isn't perfect but is better than nothing. The poor have Medicaid. Now, if children are covered by "kids-first", that's three major segments of society under government health care protection. From there, covering everybody isn't so far away, and thus such a plan may be more acceptable for those on the fence about this issue.
Kids-first is good policy and good politics.
|