The USA Today is reporting that Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt informed them of Bush's intention to achieve universal health coverage before his term expires.  The move may sound surprising at first, but not only does it offer an opportunity for Republicans to co-opt a main source of Democratic popular support , it provides Bush a chance to do what he loves to do best:  spend taxpayers' money.

With Clinton's plan unveiled earlier this week, all the major Democratic candidates have proposed a framework for expanding health coverage at a projected annual cost between $100 and $150 billion a year. 

Coverage is mandatory, but lower income individuals will be receive government assistance to cover the costs.  Clinton's plan would cap individual medical spending as a percentage of income, shifting more costs to people who use less services.  Edward's plan includes mandatory check-ups and mandatory treatment:  failure to comply may result in the loss of all government-provided benefits (but it won't get you out of the bill).

Although medicine and universal coverage are not causes one typically associates with Republicans, we have to remember to "follow the money."  Bush had no problem signing off on the largest single expansion of Medicaid since its inception, the $100 billion a year prescription drug benefit.  Pharmaceutical companies, insurance firms, and doctor's lobbies are big contributors, and like any contributor they expect some return on their investments.  Does it really effect the people if the spending occurs under a Republican or a Democrat?

Details of the Bush proposal are not available yet and althought it may not be much different from what Democrats have proposed, it may very well affect perceptions and polling numbers and which exact corporations get the biggest part of the cut.  If Bush is successful in implementing universal health insurance coverage before the elections, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will have lost a significant piece of their campaign platform.  They would undoubtedely focus their campaign efforts on finding flaws with Bush's plan such as labeling it as corporate welfare or otherwise framing it in reference to class warfare rhetoric.  

There is no real risk to Republicans that they will lose voters on this one, regardless of their claim to smaller government and free market philosophies.   Unless Ron Paul makes serious gains in the next month or so, small-government conservatives will enter the general presidential election trying to figure out who is the lesser of two evils.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.