Santé!

"All the experienced sages have likened the taking for inessential expenditures of more money than they can endure from the peasants to taking from the foundation of a building and transferring it to the roof." -- Sari Mehmed Pacha, eighteenth-century Ottoman official

Keeping up with the American Presidential campaigning in Paris is sort of like seeing a foreign film with English subtitles; my entire focus is directed into maintaining a grasp on the major issues as they unfurl through the Anglo and French press, but the subtler themes (i.e. petty ad hominem attacks and analysis of hairstyles and dental work) generally fall between the cracks of when my eyes darted between the script and the actors. Which is a blessing, since most of the mud-slinging that slips through the translator's collander is what I like least about American political debate.

The issue of health care is one such obvious morsel which, as far back as I can remember, has patiently remained at the forefront of campaign rhetoric, but, as if on cue, fades into a cynical sunset once the elected victor sets up shop in the White House. I'm hoping that 2008 will prove revolutionary. As I dutifully read articles on the Senatorial exchanges regarding implementation of a health care bill that would insure poor children access to health care, however, I'm transformed into an incredulous rageaholic: "But some Republicans, citing estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, say that the costs over 10 years for the SCHIP program will be $112 billion.

'This is unsustainable, and we don't pretend to sustain it in the bill," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, during the committee markup. "We shouldn't be making a promise we can't keep. People will be relying on us.'"

First, I don't think there are too many Americans left who would blink an eye at an Administration that didn't keep a promise. But more importantly, I think a lot more Americans (myself included, but then, I already live in a country where at least 20% of what I earn is redistributed to insure that fellow citizens have access to doctors and medication) would be willing to see their tax dollars rerouted to support a program that would insure that "poor children" won't suffer needlessly because their parents can't afford health insurance. I don't think it's completely naive to think that Americans would rather see their taxes spent on raising a healthy future generation than on wars based on fallacious intelligence and the resultant psychiatric care required for the soldiers coming home from Iraq with PTSD.

The Nation would probably agree with me on my belief in Americans' capacity for charitable acts: "It's Easier to Insure Pets than Kids". Hell, even the media surveillants at Gawker, the epitome of cynicism and jaded bystanderism think something is up.