I am disgusted that Rep. Jindal has announced his intention to cast his vote to override Pres. Bush's veto of the enhancements to SCHIP. First, I must tell you that my two kids would probably be covered by SCHIP; I still don't want it.
The expansion of SCHIP is the next step toward socialized medicine. Those of you who want that are happy. I'm afraid. Not as much for myself as for my children. For health care in America to degenerate to the levels of health care in Canada, the UK, Cuba and other nations with socialized medicine would be a disaster. Where would foreigners go for the best medical care in the world? Where would Canadians go when they can't see a doctor or can't get treatment?
I wish Rep. Jindal would reconsider and not vote to override the veto. Not that that would prevent socialized medicine, that is inevitable. Not that is would earn him votes, although it probably would (especially with women). But that is is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately socialized medicine is coming. I might not see it, but my kids will. It will create two systems of health care in America. One that waits for government to pay for it. The other that pays for faster, better treatment out-of-pocket. Prepare to be in the latter category. The former won't be pretty. Even now, you can find doctors who only take cash. I wish I could. That would be my doctor. They are tired of dealing with the insurance paperwork. I'm not even counting the doctors who do not accept Medicare. That, along with my social security payments, might as well go into a hole in the ground. I'll never see any benefit from that money confiscated from me.
I guess I sound pretty heartless to deny government health care for kids. But at least I have James Madison on my side. How about you?
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."