You can’t go wrong with W—not when he dusts off his philosopher’s cap and gets to thinking big-time, chin in hand. This is a pose to take seriously because it’s not a pose—it’s what you would call the position of compassionate realism. See–he’s compassionate toward insurance companies and realistic toward health care because it’s clear health care is not necessary for children or it would be in the constitution.
Anyway, they can go to the emergency room for every ailment, big and small, and we will all be glad to foot the bill their parents can’t pay. True, it will be more expensive than underwriting their health care but it won’t be in the budget and it won’t offend our national philosopher.
Besides–what else can W do when it comes to choosing between the children of low-middle-income parents and the ceo’s of high-upper income insurance companies? Is it fair to judge him when the the future of our nation has nothing to do with the future of non-affluent children but, rather, the future of rich ceo’s?
You might argue that it won’t damage insurance companies if W supports health care for such children because if their parents can’t afford to buy health or any other kind of insurance how could it cut into insurance profits? But come on, people–get real! W is our very own philosopher-king-president (are we lucky or what?) and as such should be supported whenever he’s philosophically for or philosophically against anything.
I shouldn’t have to tell you this.