Can liberals get past "Bush Vetoed Children's Healthcare"?

Question

First off, the program is still funded. Bush vetoed the EXPANSION of the bill.

Second, consider some shortfalls of the bill:
- It is funded by tobacco taxes. This tax was sold as way to reduce smoking, but how much sense does it make to pay for a GROWING entitlement with SHRINKING revenue base?
- Congress refused to write in a provision that states must cover ~80% of children before they could begin to cover adults. I thought this was about "the children"
- In some states, families would be covered that make up $83,000 a year. Most states would cover families making up to ~$60,000 a year, or three times the poverty rate. Why should they take resources away from me and my family to pay for the children of people making more money than me?

So, when in ignorance you claim "Bush vetoed poor childrens healthcare", what you are really saying is Bush vetoed an expansion to an existing program that would have covered 23 year old Manuel, whose family income is more than $65k a year!

People! Try to rationally read the bill, and see it for what it is.

The 1997 bill enjoyed popular bipartisan support, because it was better aimed at its target - needy children. How can you really not see the holes in this bill?!?

Holy Cow: I orginally had that in my details, but ran out of room. Too many details to go in one post.

Even so, I challenge you to explain why families making 3 times the poverty rate ($60,000) need my money more than I do.

Goldenrae 9: Good, then you pay for it. But do you have any right to make me pay for it?

I believe that every person deserves a house. (not really) When I was 22, I couldn't afford it, so I think the government should pay for it. Do I have a right to make you pay for it?

Edit: Please see digital dan's answer. Someone who actually sees past the headlines and party rhetoric....amazing. I wish I could give you 3 best answers.

Answer 1

I am a "liberal" when it comes to labeling people but I consider myself independant and I never liked Bush since before 2000.

I did get past Bush's veto of this bill when I read past the headlines, as you are saying. To add to your comments, I think almost a million poor children who would qualify for the SCHIP program already in place don't even register for the program, therefore we should find a way to inform these people who need the help how to get the help. As opposed to expanding the program and throwing more money at it.

At first the President's move sounds harsh, but really he did the right thing and I applaud him for it and I am usually a harsh critic of his policies and statements. But I can understand the frustration people feel when the President says this program is too costly when the war has been mindboggling costly, yet you can't compare the two. Bush did the right thing. Weird to say that.

Answer 2

I'm just a bill Yes, I'm only a bill And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill Well, then I'm off to the White House Where I'll wait in a line With a lot of other bills For the president to sign And if he signs me, then I'll be a law. How I hope and pray that he will, But today I am still just a bill. Boy: You mean even if the Whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no? Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the president vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old... Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it? Bill: No! But how I hope and pray that I will, But today I am still just a bill. Congressman: He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law! Bill: Oh yes!!!

Answer 3

Bush vetoed the whole bill. He can't pick and choose. Either he approved the whole thing or nothing. He vetoed the bill.

If he doesn't care about poor kids it is typical of the present day Republicans. How the others in that party can redeem themselves is for 15 more members of the GOP in the House to agree to an override of his veto. Without their courage to stand up to Dubya and to do the will of the people the Democrats will have a great campaign tool to remind voters of. The obstructionist Republicans are in trouble enough already. This will prove more obstruction to the will and betterment of the average person by the GOP and they will pay dearly in the elections next year. Let's see whether they have the courage to stand up for the people and not for fearless leader.

By the way, try living on 65K a year in parts of LA, San Francisco or New York. That may be a lot of money in Podunk, Alabama but not in those cities and elsewhere. That is especially true if a child has to have insulin 4 times a day and the cost is 3 to 4 hundred dollars a week, yes I said a week, for insulin let alone other things associated with their health. Much of that is not covered by insurance or the insurance, if they can afford it, puts a limit on what they will pay for and the parents of the kids have to pay the rest.

People are constantly losing their homes because of the need to pay health care costs because they can't afford insurance or can't afford to pay what the insurance companies, even with exhorbinant rates, won't pay for.

Answer 4

I agree with his veto of the bill. It needs revamped. I can also see where the anger comes from. Compare it to the money spent in Iraq and it is nothing. A new strain of flu comes along and it could wipe out more people than 9\11 did. A lot of people are just pissed off because he definitely has his priorities screwed up.

Answer 5

It isn't just liberals who have a problem with Bush's veto. Take a look at the polls, it is pretty much everyone but the rightiest of the nutjobs.

Even some of the Republican hardcore is having trouble with this veto and Bush's statement that healthcare for children is "inappropriate".

We already pay when the kids get sick. They go to the emergancy room with pnumonia or some serious illness and taxpayers pay for it. It is much cheaper to treat them while the problem is not serious. In addition, them not having health insurance mean that they get sicker and make the rest of us sicker. This bill is not just right from a moral and ethical standpoint, it is also right from a fiscal standpoint. Not that many Republicans are supporters of moral or fiscal responsibility, but some are, and they vote too.

Answer 6

Not only can this bill be easily paid for by cutting other expenditures in government, like ending the war in Iraq and slashing the defense budget after that, but the more that cigarettes are taxed, the fewer people who will kill or hurt themselves with that addiction. In the long run, this bill would save our country a ton of money in future healthcare expenses. They should add taxes to fast food also.

Answer 7

Sure--but we aren't going to. Bush's "provisions"--like that mandate of state's covering 80% of children--would simply make the program both unworkable and a gieaway to his pals in the health insurance industry.

And no--we will not 'get past it. The right wing is going to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their actions in November 2008 just a sthey were in 2006. And no one is going to buy the attempts of these right wing nut s to blame the Democrats for Bush's disregard for the welfare of America's children.

Answer 8

Will neocons ever understand that the war in Iraq was won a couple of years ago and we are now occupying Iraq? The Iraq war was supposed to pay for itself and I guess it did, but this has to be the most expensive occupation in history. All of the kids in this country could have health care for the same cost as one month of this occupation.

If people are going to have their income taxed by the government, then the people should have their tax dollars used to benefit this country. Not to lead this country in a direction that is only going to result in further animosity toward the people of this country.

Get us the hell out of Iraq now! The war is over! If Iraq ever posed a threat to the US, that threat was destroyed years ago.

Answer 9

After $500 billion to iraq, and $3 billion/year to Israel, I don't blame anyone who thinks Bush is a loser that has no concern for working class Americans.

Answer 10

I have no problem with covering a 23 year old whose parents make more than $65K. When I was 22 I couldn't get insurance with my job and was not living with my parents.