Why Bush resists child health bill?

Question

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p01s03-uspo.html?s=hns

Answer 1

it covered more kids than it needed too and quite frankly, we can't afford it as a nation, even with the 61 cent tax

this is a political football so republicans can blame democrats and democrats can blame republicans

dont be fooled rove,

dont be fooled

Answer 2

Chuck Schumer - Democrat from New York was on the political talk show yesterday. Basically what this has become is a large bill that is taking us down the Universal Health Insurance path. People like myself who are paying for health insurance at work will be eligible under this plan. So I pay about $150 a month for my benefits. Under the new SCHIP rules, I am eligible for this. Why? I can afford this on my own.

So basically what is going to happen is that I am capable of getting this insurance on your dime. Why should I pay for it? I make almost 6 figures but I will take it for free if I can. I would not because I don't want the government calling shots for me.

That is the problem here. This is a political move by the democrats to make Bush look like he does not support children's health. Look at your question. You are falling for the democratic party line.

Chuck Schummer said that this is an election year issue. They would continue to send this bill unchanged to Bush until they get enough votes to override the veto. No surprise, they want to make Bush look bad.

Answer 3

You got brilliant answers. It's all about the long term effects of such a reform. Not harming kids as the Democrats will pursue. Just political wrangling. Inflated with personal agenda's of some and just another nail to the invisible coffin they build for Republican's via Bush. No solutions, no compromise. Pelosi should have that widebody aircraft and fly far, far away. She has lost her grip. But, it is a election season. Sliced between two crafty Clinton's. What else would we expect?

Answer 4

Parading 12 yo kids and red wagons still doesn't change the fact that it's not the Gov't responsibility to take care of you...

I have kids and I pay for them to got to the Dr. No Co-pay...Cash...$56 a visit. So far this year I have spent over $500 on their healthcare...Insurance for that same period would have run over $2100....How much would it be if it was run by the Gov't? It's your job as a parent!! Not something to be abborgated to the Gov't!!!

Answer 5

Sorry i f people think the government should stay out of healthcare. Why is this such and abstract thought? The bill you're talking about wants to creat federal healthcare for kids who already have it. Can you not see the problems with this? If not go back to school, you're not done.

Answer 6

Because like all republicans, Bush hates the children:)

Bush supports a smaller version of the bill. The democrats know he will veto it and then bash republicans in next year elections.

Answer 7

Because the upper limit of this bill is 72k, and if you make 72k you don't need a government assist to get health insurance.

I know, I know, Bush hates kids.

Answer 8

Its actually a rather simple reason. Why should Jane Taxpayer have to foot the bill for children that already have medical coverage? The bill was designed to provide coverage for children that are part of families that cant afford health care coverage. Not to allow parents to drop private insurance coverage when they can clearly afford it.

Answer 9

SCHIP is already in place, and has been since 1997. This current bill requires that more money be put into the program by means of additional taxes . . . again, ADDITIONAL TAXES . . . . I hope that the resists it!

Answer 10

The proposal moves this initiative beyond the original scope of the program at great cost. It is sad when Congress uses children as political pawns........