Is denying healthcare to children a popular political position to take?

Question

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071801434_pf.html

I can't fathom why Bush wouldn't want this program to go forward. Any ideas?

KAVE, supporting the "initial intent" and actually supporting the bill are two different things.

Answer 1

He objects to the expansion of the program that will provide health care to children. He is sticking to his principle that private enterprise is better than the government in providing health care for children.

he said "that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance."

In fact however, his principle doesn't really apply in this case, because these children are poor children without any chance of getting health insurance from Insurance companies.
He could actually, have the federal government pay for the Insurance and have the Insurance companies provide (underwrite) the coverage.

Answer 2

The amount of money Bush has spent on his illegal war would Pay for everyones health care for a long time, and then get added to the Social Security Fund as well!
A National Health Plan would not work! But the trouble with having health problems now , is all the Insurance companies charge too much, and pay out too little! Medicaid, and Medicare are a joke! When people are reduced to lying in order to get the meds they need,because those stupid plans don't work, something is terribly wrong. and it needs to be fixed!

Answer 3

What I read is that families with incomes up to $80,000 a year are eligible to receive federal insurance if they give up their private program. That's a little excessive, eh? Who really benefits other than their employer, I mean, do you know people making $80k who don't have health insurance as a job benefit? Do you think their companies will re-imburse them the savings or pocket the profit while the tax payers pay?

The financing structure isn't a tax on the rich, its a 20% tax on cigarettes. Think about it, who is most affected? People who make little money and smoke. Its a regressive tax, ie: it takes a higher percentage from the poor/middle class than from the rich. It would be like putting a fifty cent tax on each bottle of beer or a dollar on each gallon of gas (and that gas tax has been proposed by the Dems already).

They talk good. The details stink.

Answer 4

He claims to no longer support the bill because the Democrats wanted to add something to make people earning up to 80,000 a year eligible for help with their childrens healthcare. Bush is a despicable human being, one month of his war in Iraq would have covered the additional cost.

Answer 5

Why is it significant that many of Bush's staff and cabinet appointees are former pharmaceutical company executives as was GW's father, former President George Bush? These corporations are voraciously patenting the earth's life forms-its plants, bacteria, viruses, animals, and even human genetic lineages. Reproduction of plants, animals, and humans may eventually be totally controlled by these corporations, genetically altered, recombined into chimeric life forms and exploited for profit.

The Human Genome Project, as it admits on the very first page of its website - http://vector.cshl.org/eugenics.html , is derived from the eugenics movement in the US and Nazi Germany during the first half of the 20th century. The Eugenics Records Office at Cold Springs Harbor NY-where American eugenics started, was built by the Harriman family, the Bushes' Wall Street business partners in funding Hitler. This is the new frontier of colonialism in the 21st century-the total domination and exploitation of the earth and everything on it, the New World Order both former President Bush and Adolf Hitler so frequently called for.
http://www.rense.com/general7/gw.htm

Texas Medication Algorithm Project
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/mhprograms/TMAPover.shtm

"Designed to prevent veterans having access to weapons when Nazi Bush declares martial law on America!"

Answer 6

Bush just doesn’t care. This proposal has bi-partisan support because it is a good idea. Bush would rather protect private insurance companies than provide health care for children. We certainly understand where his priorities lie.

Answer 7

Yes, I know why, a family that makes 60,000 a year should NOT get free health care. That's what it boils down to. My wife and I make far less that that threshold, and work for small companies, but they do provide insurance. If I could make 60k and still get free health care I would take it in a heart beat, my employer could give ME the money he now spends on insurance payments.

Answer 8

Children of middle- and upper-income families already have health coverage, most likely. My son does.

I see absolutely *no* reason why I should pay for anyone else's children to have coverage when no one else pays for mine.

Besides...the proposed money would come from an increase in the tax on cigarettes. By extension, someone who *doesn't* buy cigarettes is choosing *not* to fund health coverage for children.

Answer 9

It would increase the deficit and not make healthcare available to everyone, not just the children. (Not that he gives a hoot about our healthcare crisis.)
Yet, it is perfectly fine to drive the US into slaughtering our youth and taking us into bottomless pits of debt for an imperialistic war. I wonder if this makes everyone wonder where his priorities are?

Answer 10

Well the constitutionality of it is questionable. Tell me where in the Constitution Congress has the power to spend money on health care? We need to get back to basics and providing health care for children is not the way to start our path back to responsibility.

More importantly, whatever happened to parental responsibility in this nation? Shouldn't parents have to take care of their children? This might sound mean and revolutionary, but people should not have children unless they can afford them.

I am 21 and about to head to law school. I cannot provide for children at this point even if I had the right girl picked out. I want children someday, but when I can provide a nice existence for them.

If you cannot afford to care for children, do not have any until you have a better financial situation.

Also, why should I be forced to pay for others health care? I understand the rational for public education, but it does not apply to health care.