Do conservatives agree with Bush's veto of child health care coverage?

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

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. Backers of the bill insist it 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.

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.

Do you agree with Bush's veto?

Answer 1

The $80,000 figure is a talking-point lie to enlist the support of people who do not know better.

No family with that income would be eligible unless there were very special circumstances. Those circumstances are determined by each state. The top income figure was set so that states had the LATITUDE to cover a handful of special cases where children that need insurance can't get it.

The bill is entirely paid for with tobacco taxes.

According to Bush, it will take revenue away from private insurance companies and replace it with government paid medical care. This is also a talking-point lie. The program does not prescribe how the states pay for medical care. But what most states do for most beneficiaries is pay for or subsidize private health insurance. This bill has the full endorsement of the insurance industry because it creates more insurance customers rather than talking them away.

So by pretending that this is a costly program that provides free health care to any family making less than $80,000 and takes customers away from private insurance the President justifies his actions to the ill-informed.

But the truth is, this President is taking an ideological stand at the cost of the health of American children. I wonder why he did not do that 2 years ago with the medicare prescription bill (which really is unaffordable). Could it be because seniors vote and children can't?

Answer 2

it fairly is genuine that well-being insurers are between the only communities in the well-being care industry with an interest in controlling expenses (carriers needless to say prefer them to pay extra and sufferers are in many cases divorced from the fee of well-being care and so don't have a great form of interest in reducing expenses). it is likewise genuine that the main motive force of well-being care expenses in the U. S. isn't the coverage companies. although, they do make well-being care extra high priced. in the U. S. our scientific coverage is presented particularly by inner maximum for income companies which compete with one yet another. This opposition leads them to have plenty extra effective overhead than government presented coverage plans the two in this u . s . or different worldwide places do. Insurers spend an undesirable lot of money to do issues like weed out undesirable well-being risks, charm to new subscribers, layout fancy new well-being care plans to grant customers etc. maximum of those expenses are the two a great deal decreased, or maybe eradicated, under government run insurers, subsequently foremost to decrease known well-being care spending.

Answer 3

Yes. The federal government should not be in the insurance business. The program would be expanded to people who can afford insurance. It is a back door attempt to get to socialized medicine. Social programs are anti-conservative.
The uninsured number is bogus. The number of people who want insurance and truly cannot afford to buy it is about 8 million.

Answer 4

Yes, people forget where the government gets it money, from tax payers. If people paid less taxes and the government stop paying the medical bills , then health cost would be cheaper and people could afford insurance.
Look at food prices, its is high because of people who use food stamps.

Answer 5

Yes, indeed, I am completely sick and tired of liberals belief that they need to take care of me from the cradle to the grave. I don't want any of their controls held over my head. IMHO, congress need to be severely haltered and made by the Supreme Court to do only those things they are allowed to do, and nothing more. As we live now the congress breaks the law every day, making them nothing more than common criminals.

Answer 6

Yes, like I said when you asked a similar question, it's not up to the government to pay for the health care of children, it's up to the parents. If they can't swing it then they shouldn't have the children.

Answer 7

Yes, I do .. This is not about poor children it is a push for socialized medicine.. I agree with taking care of the poor children first

Answer 8

I don't agree with it entirely, but I certainly don't take it as "Bush hates children, wants them to get sick" rant the left is throwing out. If you're making $80,000 a year you can afford health care for your children.

Answer 9

DEFINITELY NOT!!!! the thing is he doesnt understand what it feels like to have no health care. (he can pay for any operation he wants) Other ppl, like myself and my family, have NOTHING so if i go to the hospital, WE'RE BROKE!!!!!
He doesnt understand what it feels like to be terrified of getting hurt or coming down with something.

Answer 10

I'm not a conservative, but I agree with Pfo. A family earning $80,000 a year can certainly afford their own health insurance.