English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I don't understand.

2007-10-03 09:42:44 · 25 answers · asked by Snowflake 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Don't say I'm jumping to conclusions. I truly want to know. Whoever made that comment, you're the one jumping to conclusions reading something into the question that I didn't say.

2007-10-03 09:54:48 · update #1

25 answers

Regardless of how poorly written the bill was (which I agree it was) the amount of money that Bush was complaining about, was a drop in the bucket compared to how much MORE Iraq is going to cost the taxpayer next year.

In my eyes, he was foolish to veto it, considering how many wasteful pork barrel-laden bills he has signed in the last 7 years. And his poll numbers are going to reflect that soon.

2007-10-03 09:51:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

I might suggest you to try this internet site where you can get quotes from different companies: http://cheap-insure.info/index.html?src=2YAmzdtsFT86

RE :Why did the president veto children's health insurance plan?
I don't understand.
Update: Don't say I'm jumping to conclusions. I truly want to know. Whoever made that comment, you're the one jumping to conclusions reading something into the question that I didn't say.
2 following 26 answers

2016-08-23 23:00:00 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

At - INSURECOMPARECAR.INFO- you can compare free quotes

RE Why did the president veto children's health insurance plan?

I don't understand.

2014-09-22 06:38:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bush already proposed an increase in SCHIP, which the democrats vetoed, only to put forth their version of what they wanted. Google for yourself why Bush vetoed it.
The real question should be why is it that the mainstream media finds it newsworthy when Bush vetoes a bill "for the children" and does not find it newworthy when Bush proposes increases in SCHIP. And does not find it newsworthy when the dems veto Bush's plan for the same thing? There is a reason you may be inclined to look at Bush as so evil, not caring for the children, and it is a prime example of how the media picks and chooses what is newsworthy and how that then affects the way people think about an issue. Find out why the dems voted against giving aid to the kids first, then make your decision.

DON'T FORGET, ALL YOU MAINSTREAM MEDIA WHORES, TO VOTE THUMBS DOWN HERE

2007-10-03 09:50:37 · answer #4 · answered by Wayne G 5 · 3 3

Give me a break!
It was because it was a leftist attempt to give socialized medicine a foothold "under the radar" of the public and an excuse for them to say "see! the President doesn't care about children (whine).
The truth is that the bill expanded coverage to families that make up to $85,000 per year and defines children as anyone under 26 years old! It also does not exclude illegal aliens.
Don't listen to the moveon.org hype! If George Soros cared about child health care he'd give his money to kids in need instead of billary clinton.
Don't think for a minute that they have your best intersts in mind. They already have theirs taken care of they don't need you.
When was the last time you benefited from a government program? I'm not asking welfare recipients, I'm asking WORKING people trying to support a family and make something of thier lives.
When has ANY government program worked the way it was envisioned by it's sponsors?...NEVER!
Get a grip, people.
'
MaryJ
Do all those kids have the same father? Does he live with you?
You should stop making babies! Why should the rest of us be responsible for your lack of common sense and/or self control?

2007-10-03 10:28:06 · answer #5 · answered by vfa25 2 · 3 3

It's a chance for the Democratic Party to vindicate themselves in regard to various social policies that have been messed up over the last fifteen years.

The fact is; the Democratic party has been snafu'd, in regard to policies that look good, but in effect simply do not work for people, off the piece of paper.

2007-10-03 09:59:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

It wasn't a badly written bill. It was a great compromise Bill that had the bi-partisan support of (just shy of) 2/3 of the House and the Senate.

Bush veto'd the Bill as he supports the bill, however he supports an expansion of the SCHIP by $5 billion instead of the $35 billion allocated by the bill.

Also this is a program we already had in place. It was initially passed by the republican controlled congress in 1997. This particular bill was to extend and renew the program.

WOW, I can't belive some of the uneducated responses here.
The Bill had large bi-partisan support and the bill itself was supported by Bush. His vetoe was in dispute of the amount of federal funds allocated by the bill.

2007-10-03 09:48:00 · answer #7 · answered by labken1817 6 · 5 2

I had 7 children and the most money I made in any given year was 42000. I provided their health care with that 42000. The bill that the president vetoed would have provided insurance to children whose parents make up to 82000 per year. I wish I made 82000 per year, then I might be inclined to supply your children with health care as well as mine.

2007-10-03 10:27:47 · answer #8 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 1 1

Because of his messed up priorities. 2 billion a week in Iraq is more important to him than spending money to insure the nation's children. Our president is a traitor.

2007-10-03 12:21:43 · answer #9 · answered by prekinpdx 7 · 1 2

Because people should pay for their family's health insurance themselves, rather than have the government pay for it. The bill expanded free government health insurance to adults from rich families (25 year olds whose parents make $85,000 per year), and they shouldn't need the government to pay for their health insurance. If they want to live in a communist country, they can move to Cuba.

2007-10-03 12:17:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers