What else matters, after all?

Without comment, Robert Pear writes in his NYT article Lacking Papers, Citizens Are Cut From Medicaid about the thousands of American citizens, mostly children, going without medical insurance, and in many cases treatment, because they don't have the documentation required by a new law. ("As Barry E. Nangle, the state registrar of vital statistics in Utah, said, “The new federal requirement has created a big demand for birth certificates by a group of people who are not exactly well placed to pay our fees.”") Towards the end of the article is this devastating quote that pretty much sums it all up (my emphasis:)

The principal authors of the 2006 law were Representatives Charlie Norwood and Nathan Deal, both Georgia Republicans. Mr. Norwood died last month.

Chris Riley, the chief of staff for Mr. Deal, said the new requirement did encounter “some bumps in the road” last year. But, he said, Mr. Deal believes that the requirement “has saved taxpayers money.” The congressman “will vigorously fight repeal of that provision” and will, in fact, try to extend it to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Mr. Riley said. He added that the rule could be applied flexibly so it did not cause hardship for citizens.

Nice touch at the end, because of course the law isn't a rule and it quite obviously can't be "applied flexibly." But note that the big thing - with that trumping "but" - is the saving money. And what else matters?

Also, however, please note something else. Tens of thousands of people have lost coverage, and more have been denied it. And how is this characterized? As "bumps in the road".

Bumps in the road.

We've seen this same tactic put into place to curb "voter fraud" - and again, what happens? It's the poor and elderly, who don't have passports or birth certificates, and can't afford to get them and can't afford to travel to distant country seats to apply for papers, and who are often afraid, and given the history of the country often justifiedly afraid, of making such applications - it's these people who get hurt.

But against the specter of the swarming hordes of illegal aliens no poor Americans can be allowed to stand. After all, the new Republican Party is built on tax cuts for the rich and "being able to buy what you want". Giuliani, for instance, thinks offering a tax exemption will allow people to shop for health insurance. What you do with people who don't pay taxes because they don't even make $12,000 a year doesn't occur to him. Brownback also favors a tax break, because he doesn't think it's fair employers shoulder part of the cost. This works for the self-employed who make some money, but again ignores the working poor trying to get by on minimum wage who don't get employer-offered health care. These plans are among the best of the GOP and none of them face the facts: lots of people don't have health care, not because they're feckless, not because they're stupid, not because they're freeloaders, but because they can't afford it. Bush is dead set against the working poor getting the chance to get their kids on Medicare because, well, because they might stop paying for private health insurance if they have the chance. So between them, the president and the GOP-controlled Congress of the past six years have thrown Americans off the Medicare rolls in tens of thousands.

All this talk about illegal immigrants is, in part, a smokescreen. The GOP needs an outside enemy to demonize, needs someone to attack to unite the country behind them, and leprous, violent, resource-sucking immigrants make a pretty good one. But the fact is, the GOP doesn't care about Americans who don't meet their standards, either. It's not acceptable to say that any more - so far we have progressed - but it's fine to talk about collateral damage and necessary sacrifices against some Evil Enemy.

Sound familiar? It should.