Bush Supporters: I don't get this. Please help me to understand..?

Question

Why Bush would veto a bill to provide health care coverage for children whose parents make too much to get Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance? Yet, we are willing to pour $191 billion dollars to stabilize someone else's country?

Even Republicans helped the bill get passed and he vetoed it immediately. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health;_ylt=Alk6oeo8Na_uVKRgaS4EDmis0NUE

What the hell? Thanks.

I have insurance through my job and so does my husband. We are very covered, but I don't understand why he wouldn't allow assistance to children from lower income families.

Daniel - "The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance."

Is this break when people file their taxes at the beginning of the year? If so, how do they come up with the money when the health care is actually needed, the year prior? For families who are in that segment where they literally live check to check, with no extra income, what do they do when their kids get sick? Thanks.

Senior citizen - It says "families earning as MUCH as $83,000 a year." What about the others who make significantly less, though not enough to qualify for help from medicaid?

Maybe they're talking about people self-employed who are making over 80Gs.

KIB-Are you always condescending and arrogant? I'm a grown woman, a mother and a wife. If I choose to say "HELL" I will do so! This is not the 50s, Mr. Cleaver. Women are not quiet, pretty things that sit in the corner knitting and sipping tea! The nerve!

The audacity to be judged by some old man on the use of the word HELL.

Answer 1

What is at issue here are a few important facts regarding this program (which already exists). First, there is the fact that this program is providing health insurance for many adults not just children. A recent audit revealed many of those adults were making over 75k per year and still were enrolled in this program!

What is also at issue is that this bill was specifically crafted to fool the casual observer while in fact providing free or low cost health care insurance to illegal aliens.

It was brought up during the committee hearing (I was watching on C-SPAN) by a republican that one particular clause states that "No part of this bill is intended to provide free or low cost health insurance to undocumented immigrants." Past precedent has shown that that statement means absolutely nothing. (You see, it may not have been "intended" to do that but that is what it is going to do.) It was suggested that the statement be amended to read "Undocumented immigrants are prohibited from receiving any free or low cost health benefits this bill provides." That provision was voted down.

The President cannot only veto the parts he does not like. He must sign the whole bill or veto the whole bill. Congress then has to further massage it to the President's likeing or come up with enough bi-partisan support to override the President.

Some Republicans voted for it and some Democrats voted against it. This is done for purely local political considerations. The purpose of this particular iteration of the bill was to provide the Democrats with a jucy tidbit for their supporters while forcing the President to look bad vetoing a bill for "the children". (that president is a real meanie).

.

Answer 2

It was a well intentioned bill that was sloppily done. It mandated 10% of the monies involved would automatically go to Indians. That isn't fair in my book. It also allowed a family of 5 making $40,000 per year to qualify; most jobs that pay $40,000 come with health benefits already.

There are already programs that allow poor people to receive health care at little to no expense. This measure was simply a political ploy meant to undermine the republican party. Bush vetoed it, the media doesn't reoprt any details and merely says vetoed a bill to give poor kids health insurance. Actually read the bill, which is terribly confusing I tried reading it earlier today. With media coverage glossing over details and making Bush sound evil, and the republicans by association, the democratic party is bolstered in appearance without really doing anything.

Regrettably none of the riders involved were mentioned, which may have led to the veto. The president by law can't veto riders, but must veto everything or nothing. How else to you think pork barrel spending works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMY
Brazil's alternative fuels will lead to starvation in Brazil on a greater scale than is currently the case. It involves destroying food products in order to make fuel. Let's think about that one again; food or fuel, which is a better idea. Land base is limited, which means you can't simply grow more without destroying the soil. Trust me on this one I've grown up around farms all my life and my family and I have raised our own vegetables for as long as I can remember.

Answer 3

Since when can't someone making 80,000 a year not able to afford health insurance. While I was in nursing school my family, that would be 5 of us lived on less than 32000 a year but we still managed to afford health insurance. The bill would have also covered illegals and I don't want my hard earned tax dollars going to someone that isn't even a citizen of the US.

Answer 4

the cap was too high on the high end of the required incomes for the families to be considered "poor".

It was an attempt to get a foot in the door to universal health care, and Bush did not want that to happen. I'm sure many Republicans also agreed with him on that.

Do you honestly believe a family with both parents working and earning $40,000 a year each is too poor for health insurance for the family?

I do feel sorry for the truly poor kids who Bush's action of vetoing of this bill will affect the most though.

But like most everything that happens on Pennsylvania Ave these days, it's all about politics.

Answer 5

I'm certainly not a huge Bush fan, but quite simply, this time around his plan is much better than the one on the table.

The bill he vetoed provided for a much larger government base with very little incremental effect on the number of children covered. Bush's plan to offer tax breaks for those who cover their children through private means is a much more sane proposal.

Read here for more details:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070927/cm_usatoday/opposingviewpresidentsplanisbetter

Answer 6

I am sure if there was a way to give healthcare to the poor kids without people taking advantage of it Bush probebly would have passed it.

Unfortunetly giving away free healthcare to "poor" kids opens the doors to illegals and those who can afford it but can find a loophole to get the freebieto save them more money by not paying for it.

Answer 7

First off we already pay for poor kids. This is to extend the program to the middle class up to 82k. (this amount make you rich by Democratic standards). This will become another irresponsible entitlement such as welfare did. Just who is going to pay for this anyway. Also, there are many abuses of this program. Do some investigation of New Jersey and how it used the funds. This is a first step towards socialism. Tell me how it is not.

Answer 8

you are full of info or resentment one of the two.......thing is with these bills there are so many little additives in them hidden in a bunch of legal garble.....u give this bill the thumbs up and you may have givin something you werent aware of the green light. and my question is how Insurance will help??? you have to pay them before they can pay you OR i have to pay them before they can pay you....if people would just be good neighbors and donate then taxes wouldn't be so high and neither would medcal bills or caar payments.... Insuance is not a savior it is a hinderence.....

Answer 9

Do you always swear when you talk? Its not very ladylike but perhaps your just a female and not a lady. Can you tell me who is going to pay for that bill? As far as you statement about the 191 billion, have you looked into other areas that the government is spending money. If your mad now just you wait till you find out the rest of the story. You know if your idea flys, in about 10 years we can rename the country to the USSA. United Socialist States of America. I remember when about 50 years ago, (when it was really nice to live here), that Socislism was a bad word, kinda like the one you use.

Answer 10

This is a managerial move so that Hillary Clinton can get elected and continue the administration's greater policies. The Healthcare issue is being pushed to the forefront for the elections despite the fact that the most important issue for people not just in the US but in the world, is the war in Iraq, massive immigration problems, and a declining economy.

That is why President Bush is being the bad guy. So that Hillary can be the good one.