Children Health: what do you think about Bush's veto?

Question

We heard this news also here in Italy and I wonder what do you think about it!

Here health system is runned by State... with its pros and cons.. and this veto seems to be terrible to us. But what do you think about it there in US?

Bye from Italy
Nik

Answer 1

It was the right thing to do. It basically came down to the left wanting to take kids off of private insurance and put them on government insurance, allowing families making up to 80K per year (not poverty) and classify children as up to 25 or 26 years old to have government insurance funded off of the backs of those who can least afford it (the working middle class). It has nothing to do with taking away child health care, as a matter of fact President Bush increased the funding by 5 billion dollars a year for 6 years, wanting to make sure that the poor children in this country can continue to get the care they need without all of the Democrats strings attached.

Answer 2

President Bush vetoed a bill which became purely the slender end of the Dems wedge of socialized drugs. If the socialists (er, I advise liberals) actually need to help little ones and not in straightforward terms play political video games for the clicking they must draft a bill that addresses the concern of uninsured infants with out including political crimson meat, grandstanding ( spelled L Y I N G )for the media, or attempting to stress socialized drugs down our throats. For the checklist, I DO have faith that each and one and all infants could desire to be medically insured. I do purely no longer think of that socialism is the respond.

Answer 3

From what I have heard and I need to research this, is that Bush was going to approve it for families who earned less then $40k, then the Dem's tried upping it to $80k. The rumor is that they did this b/c they knew Bush would veto it and this would give them a better standing for the 08 election. I am a Dem. and I do not agree with their strategy if this is true. At least let Bush go ahead and approve the healthcare for the lower income families who may really need it. Again, politics is getting in the way of the needs of the American people.

Answer 4

There is actually quite a bit available for children's health already. Medicaid, many state-run children's health insurance programs (MI Child in Michigan), health assistance at local health departments including free immunizations, WIC which provides healthy food to children under 5 and pregnant mothers, not to mention free clinics across to country (even in my small town of 8,000), and other government programs I am undoubtedly missing. The problem is that a certain political party is addicted to throwing money at things that sound good, even if we already have it. And once they've started such a program, they want to continually throw more and more money at it and increase our taxes.

A state-runned health care system will drastically decrease the quality of health care in the US. People come here from other countries to seek out our health care. Government bearocracy cannot do anything well or efficiently. This has been demonstrated time and again.

Answer 5

Wait a minute. We are already supplying health care to poor children. The veto did not erase this. Bush vetoed a bill that would have made the age of a "child" extend to 26 and the definition of poor extend well into the middle class.

The American people have (through their voting) expressed that they do not want nationalized health care. This was a tactic of the American left continue extending government run health care.

Everyone in America can get health care. No one is left out.

Answer 6

General Research Guides for health:

Easy to use links that will help with all your research needs, try typing a keyword or two into the search engine and see what happens.
%http://www.healthalizer.com% is a health related search engine and %http://www.searchtopica.com% is a general search engine that relays results from all other search engines. You can find way better information by searching this way. Hope it helps :)

Answer 7

I don't think we need to raise the income level to $80,000 a year. Bush was right to veto it. This wouldn't have helped the "poor" it would only advance socializing health care. What's really funny is this: All the denouncers of his veto, here in your question, would be the first to castigate him had he passed it and said he was giving healthcare subsidies to the rich.....
Hypocracy has no limits....

Answer 8

I think we need to look past the headlines.

Bush had agreed to a 20% increase in funding for CHIPS. But the bill that was sent was bloated, and called for a 140% increase - 25M to 60M. But to make it look more fiscally feasible, it drops funding in 5 years by 80%, to levels below current levels.

"About 9.3 percent of children under the age of 18 and 43.6 million Americans -- 14.8 percent of the total population -- had no health insurance last year, according to a government study released in June. "

"SCHIP is designed to provide coverage to "targeted low-income children," according to the HHS. Those children belong to families whose income is below 200 percent of the federal poverty level or whose family has an income 50 percent higher than the state's Medicaid eligibility threshold, according to the HHS Web site."

"Some states -- according to HHS -- have expanded SCHIP eligibility beyond the 200 percent poverty level limit, and others are covering entire families and not just children."

All in all, 90.7% of kids in the US have insurance.

If you're angry because you know someone who is losing benefits, you should direct your anger at the Dems who are using the kids currently enrolled as pawns - they'll lose their benefits because Bush was sent a bill that they knew would fail - all so the Dems could use it in campaign speeches.

And while we're bashing this bill, please explain how spinach and peanut subsidies relate to children's health care. Or how fair it is that some hospitals are earmarked for better payments than others - and the Democrat majority passed a bill that prohibits anyone from mentioning the earmarks on the House floor, even if the bill in question has been labeled "earmark free".

Answer 9

The problem is that the Democrats deliberately wrote a bad law and included riders on issues that the President had previously said he would veto.

As this whole incident demonstrated - the Democrats do not care about helping those children. All they wanted to do was use those children as a tool in their political games.

Answer 10

Hi Nik. It was a terrible bill. Just political posturing and propaganda leading toward the election. It was not about children at all. American politics are like that sometimes. I support the veto. Thanks for your interest.