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

24 answers

Because he is a Republican.

2007-10-04 07:54:06 · answer #1 · answered by buffytou 6 · 2 10

I asked a similar question and this is what I chose as the best answer.

"With a little research, it's easy. Republicans, especially President Bush have already agreed to raise funds to insure poor children (children in families making less than $42,000) by more than 60% in 2008. Democrats siezed a political opportunity and rewrote the clause to include families earning up to $82,000, multiplying 6 fold the cost. Knowing republicans will not pass another huge spending bill, they have another sound bite for elections next year." -Pancakes

I'll honestly say I disagree with the veto of this bill, particularly in light of the right's stance on such issues as abortion, welfare, war spending, etc... BUT we should at least keep in mind that a lot of govermental functions nowadays are operating in ways that are completely different from what we see. We should be careful not to mistake pure politics from the parties' true views on the issues.

2007-10-04 14:56:08 · answer #2 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 3 2

He does. Look at Medicaid for poor families. The program is costly, kids get minimal basic care, and have to wait for many special services. remember, this is GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE. Bush wants families to be responsible. Why if you are working should you ask for the government for basic benefits. Workers of yesterday went on strike in factories demanding benefits. Why today do we think it all belongs to the government to give give give. And don't say they will move the job oversees. NAFTA and GATT treaties signed by Democrats gave those factory jobs away. Today's underemployed lacking benefits worker is in the service industry. Wal-mart cannot move the local store oversees. Fight the corporations! Not the government. Stand up for your basic rights as a worker !!!!

2007-10-04 15:02:53 · answer #3 · answered by Bobbi 7 · 1 0

It's hard to take a lefty's concern for children seriously when they happily condone executing children in the womb. President Bush wants a bill that doesn't include dozens of riders for pet projects included by corrupt legislators. Grow up.

2007-10-04 14:58:24 · answer #4 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 3 0

I love it how the right talks about dipping into one's wallet. Yesterday the media reported the earnings hight at 65K and miraculously today from some posters it is up 20K. If someone living in NYC has a sick child, no matter the age, who can't care for himelf and needs very expensive medical care they can't hardly make it on $65K a year normally but with a child needing medical care they are worse off. What some people don't understand is that those people don't qualify for medicare or medicaid and can't afford medical insurance, providing anyone would insure the kid, and that some of the medications and treatments are very expensive. The righties talk about responsibility. How is someone who is holding down two jobs to try and pay for medical care for their child being irresponsible? How is paying $ 400 a week on insulin not being responsible? How is paying for the Schip program out of tobacco tax affecting your wallet unless you use tobacco? If you don't want to pay it, than don't use tobacco.

The facts are that there are people who are hard working and make too much to qualify for medicare and can't afford medical insurance, if provided at all, who need a little help to give thier children medical help. What is so wrong about wanting people in our society to be healthy? What is wrong with lending a hand to your neighbor who is in need? Most of those are the kind of people that would be the first to help others but certain greedy individuals who think I have mine, get your own are against helping others. I, my me, mine is their mantra and to hell with you. Bush and his supporters say they care but action speaks louder than words. The veto speaks louder than "I care about our poor families".

2007-10-04 15:16:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

4th Veto EVER by Bush! There is a bigger reason why he vetoed this bill, and I would assume that it has nothing to do with him wanting poor children to be healthy. At this point in his term he could care less about what the people want, or how it affects his political party's next election. I saw screw Bush.

2007-10-04 15:05:06 · answer #6 · answered by Sarah G 2 · 2 1

Don't you think that people who make more than 60,000 a year can afford their own health insurance? Do you realize Schip income cap for a family of 4 is already $40,000 and the President is willing to increase it to 60,000$. If you had done a little research you would know its Democrats who don't want children healthy. Why are the Dems playing political games with children's lives?

2007-10-04 14:59:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Why are we occupying Iraq? Why is New Orleans still a hellhole? Why did he attach signing statements to over 800 bills? Why does he wire tap Americans and ignore the law? Why are private companies making billions in Iraq with no-bid contracts? Why are the wounded Iraqi veterans getting substandard care at VA hospitals? Why after five years are our troops still driving vehicles without the proper armor protection? Why does he promote tax cuts for the rich? Why have so many key members of his administration resigned? Why isn't he aggressively pursuing bin Laden?

2007-10-04 15:04:04 · answer #8 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 1 1

Who Do You Think Is Going To Pay For Manditory Health Care?

2007-10-04 15:10:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I don't want poor children to be healthy

2007-10-04 14:58:14 · answer #10 · answered by gardensaladsynthesis34 2 · 0 1

He Vetoed the Bill because (1) it is just one more step closer to socialized medicine and (2) it would encourage people who can afford health coverage to drop it.

2007-10-04 15:15:33 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers