the frequency of asthmatic attacks declined on average by 60% and their likelihood of being hospitalized declined more than 70%, when the children are enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance program.(schip).When democrats, with the support from many republicans are trying to expand this scheme to cover uninsured children, bush says he would veto that proposal.
2007-07-31 07:43:53 · 8 answers · asked by geyamala 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'll answer your question with a question:
Who do you want to pay for it?
2007-07-31 07:46:58 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It's not about the money! Here's a quote from my local newspaper: "But President Bush says that access to care is no problem -- 'After all, you just go to an emergency room' -- and, with the support of the Republican leadership, he has declared that he will veto any SCHIP expansion on 'philosophical' grounds." In fact, one of the plans Bush opposes, the one approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee, would cost less over the next five years than we will spend in Iraq in the next four months. And it would be fully paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!
2007-07-31 07:55:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bush says that he will veto the SCHIP bill because he's afraid that it will work. He thinks it is a part of federalization of health care and will lead more Americans away from private plans. According to Bush health care access is no problem "after all, you just go to the emergency room". Bush is in favor of subsidies to Medicare Advantage, a privatization scheme that costs 12% more per beneficiary than traditional medicare. With Bush it's not about providing medical coverage or even saving taxpayers money. It's about protecting private HMOs.
2007-07-31 07:56:10 · answer #3 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's a shame he would veto that health care is important.
As far as you will pay, maybe there shouldn't have been a tax break if it meant health care would not be expanded for children. In the long run we all pay if an uninsured person is in a state hospital, our bill rises to cover theirs. Do you really want your child in school when a child has not had their vaccines? When illness start to break out in classrooms and your child becomes sick, won't you pay? Not to mention this is children we are talking about you have no choices. All children should have medical insurance!
2007-07-31 08:00:25 · answer #4 · answered by doxie 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
He didn't say he would veto ANY expansion. He is against the gigantic expansion that the House is considering as a political ploy. He has already said he could live with the Senate version, which expands the program by $35 billion (in contrast with his proposal to expand the program by $5 billion).
The whole story is always a good one to tell.
2007-07-31 07:49:09 · answer #5 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because the bill (as i understand it) would be expanded to cover dependents of illegal immigrants, and frankly, hard working tax payers are getting tired of having more and more of our money taken from us by the government in the name of the "CHILDREN". Temporary health care to get a family thru a tough time, absolutely, cradle to grave health care by the federal government, no thank you. I can take care of my family without the government doing it for me and something everyone should be required to do.
2007-07-31 07:51:24 · answer #6 · answered by ken 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It might cost money...who cares that the war is costing 12 billion a month.
cvq is a perfect example of a Republican...don't help kids, but make sure we keep the war running
2007-07-31 07:48:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course -- anything that benefits Americans, or that takes money away from his pogrom and jihad, must be stopped.
2007-07-31 07:47:30 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋