NYT

‘Family Friendly’ White House Proves Less So for Many Aides

0
Miami Herald

Honduras quits Organization of American States

 0
Don Surber

Would Galileo buy global warming?

 0
AP

Mrs. Obama bringing glamor to Moscow this weekend

0
WaPo

Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare]

 0
All Headlines »
 

It’s “Bush hates children” day in the media, leftosphere

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on August 21, 2007 at 11:12 am

The top item at Memeorandum is a story that made the front page of the NYT today. The headline reads:

White House Acts to Limit Health Plan for Children

If you go to the NYT link, though, they’ve revised the headline to read as follows:

Rules May Limit Health Program Aiding Children

The headline from the Washington Post:

New Bush Policies Limit Reach of Child Insurance Plan

From the liberal McClatchy newspaper, we read that Bush is responsible for the lead paint we’ve been seeing in various items imported from China:

Efforts to crack down on lead paint thwarted by China, Bush Administration

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration and China have both undermined efforts to tighten rules designed to ensure that lead paint isn’t used in toys, bibs, jewelry and other children’s products.

Both have fought efforts to better police imported toys from China.

I’m sure there’s a lot more to the story than meets the eye on that one, but for now we’ll just stick to the unfolding drama about Bush not liking kids enough to let more of them have access to health insurance, which is being played out at several far left blogs, per the Memeorandum link. This argument has been dissected and debunked before, but McQ over at QandO does it again here. An excerpt:

Of course it is being characterized as an attempt to deny poor children “free” health care. It’s not. It specifically denies the attempt, by some states, to raise the bar for acceptance to 400% over the poverty rate which means the inclusion of some households making $80,000 a year and “children” up to the age of 25.

Read it all, and you’ll understand why the mischaracterizations of Bush’s argument against expanding this benefit are blatant misrepresentations designed to demagogue and ridicule, rather than to inform and discuss the issue.

Joe Gandelman, I blogger whom I respect, has unfortunately fallen for the mainstream spin on this story hook, line, and sinker. Come on, Joe. Bush might be many things to people who don’t like him, but he is not someone who hates children and wants to ‘deny’ them healthcare. This is just like the old “Reagan wants to starve school kids” lie the left and the media perpetuated back in the early 80s. It wasn’t true, of course, but the media ran with it, just as they are doing now with Bush’s ‘denial of healthcare’ for ‘millions’ of children.

Never underestimate the media’s patented ability to shill for the Democratic party when it comes to issues revolving around the poor, weak, sick, needy, kids, ‘minorities,’ and the elderly. This issue is a classic example of that.

In: Clueless Wonders, Congress, Healthcare, Media Watch, President Bush, Social Issues | Email This Post | Print This

RSS feed for comments on this post.

96 Responses to “It’s “Bush hates children” day in the media, leftosphere”

Comments

  1. Baklava says:
    August 22, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    Tommy,

    Because the intent of the program is to help people who are poor. People who aren’t poor should be responsibly and should go them more efficient route.

  2. Ryan says:
    August 22, 2007 at 7:46 pm

    Bak,

    If a true comparison in administrative costs of each were made, one would also have to include IRS costs when it comes to Medicare.

  3. Baklava says:
    August 22, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    When you create dependence on government – dependence grows.

    That is not compassion.

    When you reform and provide incentives for being responsible then people become more responsible, they actually prosper and children benefit.

    Evidence from Welfare reform in the mid 90’s..

  4. Great White Rat says:
    August 22, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    A couple of points here…

    1. When you subsidize something, you always get more of it. Expanding “free” medical care to people making upwards of $80K per year is going to result in a lot more people wanting it…not because they need it, but because it’s free and someone else is paying for it. So why not use the emergency room to take out that splinter…it won’t cost you anything! That’s already happened in many places where this sort of giveaway program’s been tried.

    2. Except it’s not free, of course. The taxpayer will get shafted once again with this program. And if you think their cost estimates have any connection with reality, you’re wrong. Every time the left has proposed a new government health care program – Medicare, Medicaid, take your pick – their estimates for the cost have been low by a couple of orders of magnitude. Tommy, for one, still apparently believes in Santa Claus – all you need to do is “expand Government health coverage” and presto, no more problems. It materializes out of thin air, I suppose.

    3. I’m bemused by the Lindata’s appeal to compassion for our poorest citizens, when the program expansion would water down the care for them. Note the focus of the administration’s position:

    Administration officials said the changes were aimed at returning the focus to low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage, the Times said.

    In other words, let’s provide these services to those least able to afford them. I’d think your well-placed compassion would have you supporting that. The program expansion has one obvious objective: buying votes with new freebies. Given the choice of using the money to help the poor get medical care or to help the politicians get votes, I’m all for the first option. What about you?

    4. Baklava’s right – government operations are intrinsically less efficient than private organizations doing the same job (obvious exception: military or police functions), as they have little incentive to manage costs.

    And to bring this back to the original point of ST’s post, what we have here is the MSM shilling for another big government boondoggle and casting aspersions on the idea of making some sort of attempt to focus scarce resources on those who need them the most.

  5. Sister Toldjah says:
    August 22, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Check out the picture Google News displayed next to articles about the issue of expanding children’s healthcare here.

    Coincidence?

  6. Great White Rat says:
    August 22, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    ST, I’m sure that was just a coincidence. I believe the MSM when they say they’re impartial.

    Now where do I sign to buy that bridge in Brooklyn again??

« Older Comments