|
| Posted by: sarge33rd
- [99331714] Sat, Sep 22, 2007, 14:45
Bush vows veto of "Childrens Health Bill"
"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."
To which the Pennsylvania Gov. responds:
In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.
But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.
Too expensive??? Compared to what? 45 minutes of combat ops in Iraq????? How much did your tax cuts cost us??????
Arrogant bstrd needs to go....NOW.
|
| | | 1 | holt
ID: 587112719
Sat, Sep 22, 2007, 15:48
|
sarge, it looks like you're just wanting to see the "HE'S KILLING THE CHILDREN" side of this.
But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.
"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.
the bill has nothing to do with poor children. those families are already covered by medicaid. this deals with middle class families who don't carry health insurance or don't carry enough coverage. those who oppose the bill view it as an end-around to start implementing a federal health-care program.
Bush's statement that this bill could cause people to move from private health coverage to government coverage makes a lot of sense (unless you view Socialism as being the ideal form of government).
I think you're way over the top here sarge. One of the reasons Bush was elected was because people trusted him to take this kind of stance against the move to federalize the health-care system.
|
|
| | | 2 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Sep 22, 2007, 15:55
|
I come from a family where Dad made "too much" fpr assistance, and too little for private insurance. 1 dead sibling later (leukemia) and it took my folks almost 30 years to payoff the medical bills.
Shrub isnt looking out for anyone who doesnt make 250k/yr or more. Never has, never will. He wasnt elected/relected to guard against growth in the government. Hes expanded the government more than anyone else in the past 100+ years. Dont fool yourself. He's a bstrd and couldnt give a sh*t for the VAST majority of the American people.
|
|
| | | 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 0846227
Sat, Sep 22, 2007, 16:33
|
This was never a program for poor children only. Bush was thoroughly fisked by FactCheck.org on this and other points he tried to make.
As a family enrolled in this program, I'll have more to say on this. Suffice to say, children, not war in Iraq, should be our focus.
|
|
| | | 4 | Tree
ID: 32802218
Sat, Sep 22, 2007, 19:06
|
One of the reasons Bush was elected was because people trusted him to take this kind of stance against the move to federalize the health-care system.
well, i think the reason he was elected was because he was able to fool Americans into thinking he actually cared about them and this country.
back on point though, is this statement from Bush: "Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed."
so, stop grandstanding, and veto the damn thing. do your job, instead of telling congress how to do theirs.
this has been the shift in policy for Bush since the Republicans were trounced in November. because he no longer has his Republican brown shirt majority do the job for him, he has to accuse the Democratic run congress of wasting time and money.
Congress' JOB is to bring forth the bill as best as they see it. Bush's job is to sign or veto. instead, he's choosing to paint them in the manner he is, and that's a big part of why congress is spinning its wheels on a lot of things.
one of the greatest days in this nation's long history will be when Bush is finally gone.
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 0846227
Sat, Sep 22, 2007, 19:20
|
One of the reasons Bush was elected was because people trusted him to take this kind of stance against the move to federalize the health-care system.
This attempt was dead for years before Bush was elected. In fact, for the 2000 election Bush supported CHIP as a block grant program, essentially throwing money at the states to let them be flexible enough to do the job (ala Minnesota, who was very successful in the 90s in reforming their system this way).
Supports returning CHIP to its original design as a flexible block-grant program to provide states with the freedom to innovate and expand coverage of the greatest number of eligible uninsured.
As noted here in this September 2000 article:
Universal access to health care coverage all but died as a hotbed issue after the Clinton administration's plan for a government-run system was defeated in Congress in 1994. But Gore and Bush have found plenty of other health care topics to spar over during the general election season, including rival proposals for a so-called patients' bill of rights; prescription drug coverage for seniors; keeping the federal Medicare program solvent; and tax breaks to help offset medical expenses.
|
|
| | | 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 368192311
Sun, Sep 23, 2007, 23:08
|
Another group slaps the president around a bit.
Rep Grassley, I think, was being a bit too nice IMO when talking about Bush's objection to an eligibility level with no basis in reality.
|
|
| | |
|
|