First off, the program is still funded. Bush vetoed the EXPANSION of the bill.
Second, consider some shortfalls of the bill:
- It is funded by tobacco taxes. This tax was sold as way to reduce smoking, but how much sense does it make to pay for a GROWING entitlement with SHRINKING revenue base?
- Congress refused to write in a provision that states must cover ~80% of children before they could begin to cover adults. I thought this was about "the children"
- In some states, families would be covered that make up $83,000 a year. Most states would cover families making up to ~$60,000 a year, or three times the poverty rate. Why should they take resources away from me and my family to pay for the children of people making more money than me?
So, when in ignorance you claim "Bush vetoed poor childrens healthcare", what you are really saying is Bush vetoed an expansion to an existing program that would have covered 23 year old Manuel, whose family income is more than $65k a year!
2007-10-04
03:36:53
·
21 answers
·
asked by
Time to Shrug, Atlas
6
in
Politics