Why does Pres. Bush want American kids to remain sick?

Question

President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health

What's the deal? Do other conservatives support this veto of a bill to provide health care to American kids? Where's that patriotism you guys always talk about?

The president's alternative is to renew SCHIP by spending an additional $5 billion over the next five years. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says this wouldn't even support coverage of kids already in the program.

Bush says the bill would distort SCHIP's low-income focus by extending coverage to families making up to $83,000 a year. Grassley and other backers insist the bill does no such thing. As under current law, a state can ask to go that high, typically because it has a high cost of living, but it still needs the administration's permission.

The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Answer 1

Because he is stubborn. Many people support this bill on both sides but if Bush does not have it his way then nothing will ever pass. He was willing to spend billions of dollars on the war but not for sick kids. It really sickens me that he would veto this bill!

Answer 2

If far left liberals like you had the ability to think and reason, they would not be spuing out stupidities like the ones contained in this and many other political questions posted by you.

You are just repeating the garbage you hear and read from the liberal far left press ideologues and politicians.

And, yes, I support this veto. Our government is already too big and to intrusive. The American government does not exist to solve these problems. Parents are supposed to provide health insurance for their kids, not the government. Those are the false promises of socialists and communists regimes- promises they invariably never deliver.

Answer 3

I stood up and applauded when I heard he gave it a big, fat veto. It's one of few things he's done right in the past year.

People seem confused by simple economics, or they simply didn't read the darn bill. This bill was supposed to be for Schip renewal, which is a health care program for POOR children. Nowhere is it said that we don't care about those who truly can't afford it.

The Democrats tried to institute universal health care and the biggest tax increase in written history attached to this bill, for children of families up to 80,000 dollars a year of earnings. Anyone who makes over 40 can darn well afford their own insurance. This bill would have added some 35 billion dollar price tag in addition to what we already pay for the Schip.

You know, instead of all this whining about the defeat of entitlements, how about people go get JOBS and pay for their own children. Imagine that. Be careful though, we wouldn't want you to exert yourself.

Answer 4

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.

according to the politico
Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.
In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”



The document reported by Politico exposes the true basic intent behind liberal proposals to cover portions of the population with a new Big Government entitlement - to create a precedent for covering the entire population with that entitlement.



Let's underscore that last sentence. Bush doesn't want to end S-CHIP, nor does he want to freeze its funding level. He wanted to increase funding to the program, but Democrats wanted to increase it seven times more than Bush's proposal -- and they wanted to slap a highly regressive tax onto the public to fund it. In effect, the Democrats wanted to take money from the poor to subsidize health insurance for middle-class children.

Answer 5

I don't care for Bush and his gaffes, but his vetoing a bill for more children's health care does not mean he 'wants American kids to remain sick.' You are taking it too far with a statement like that. Perhaps he thinks it's not in the budget or something else slightly reasonable. Cut out the drama.

Answer 6

Illegal children and 25 year olds and wages of 80 k like a pig socialisim with lipstick is a pig with make up. The poor children have nothing to do with this socialist pig of a bill it is Hillary care with make up.Did you like that comparison?

Answer 7

Ohhh.....the way over the top dramatic leftist spin machine had better oil their bearings before theres a total seizure!
Ignore the reasons of Bushes veto, and accuse him of:

Hating poor children.
Wanting kids to be sick.
Insert your made up Bush hating line here.

We are going to see a lot of milage come out of this from the anti-Bushies.

LOL!!

Answer 8

So the health-care and pharmaceutical industries can make a profit off children's sickness.

Answer 9

Oh, please. I would technically qualify for the program, but I'm not sick all the time, nor am I wallowing in a disease-ridden environment. I'm pretty sure most kids are in the same situation I am. Patriotism, actually, has everything to do with it: we are so patriotic that we don't want our country to turn into a socialist state.

Answer 10

It's not up to the government to pay for the children's health care, it's up to the parents. Don't blame Bush if you're on welfare and hop in beds just to get pregnant for more welfare money. I've seen it way too many time in my 50 years.