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

My town is having a rally in about an hour, not sure how I feel about this. I have 3 children, the first I had on medicaid/wic


President Bush just vetoed health care for children. In only his fourth veto ever, he
>blocked health care coverage for millions of uninsured—and mostly poor—kids.1The
>Washington Post is calling this "the
>biggest domestic policy clash of his presidency."2
>
>
>
>Bush is totally out of step with public opinion—even 61% of Republicans support
>the children's health care bill.3 We need just 15 more Republicans in Congress
>to break with Bush to override the veto.
>
>
>
>This is
>a rapid response event, so some people won't even get this email in
>time. That means we'll need every last person who can possibly come to help show
>that the public is upset about this veto. If you're reading this, please come!
>
>
>
>Tomorrow, can you put the pressure on at our emergency "Rally for Our Children's
>Health Care" in Huntsville?
>
>
>
>Where: Flame at Big Spring Park D

2007-10-04 11:13:38 · 8 answers · asked by 4kkz 3 in Politics & Government Government

8 answers

Dina W is correct. Also, President Bush is NOT stopping children from receiving health care. You need to read up on the matter (not the Washington Post), then you will be informed when you go to your pep rally. You can be a voice there and let the people know that the Dems were told their bill would get vetoed if it was filled with pork so they sent a pork filled bill intentionally, to get vetoed. If they cared about our children as President Bush does, they would be more sincere in their actions. President Bush actually added 5 billion a year for 6 years to the project. The Dems want people making up to 80k (not poverty) a year to take their children off of private health care and put them on government health care which will be funded off the backs of the people who can least afford (again, the working middle class). The veto was the absolute right thing to do.

2007-10-04 11:25:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

You don't really have all the facts on this bill. The President's veto only prevents the expansion of the program and will not immediately effect benefits to anyone who currently receives or is currently eligible to receive such benefits. The President has also stated that he is more than willing to work with Congress to ensure that funding is available for all those who are currently eligible. Your claim that he is "blocking coverage for millions of uninsured and mostly poor kids" is inaccurate.

2007-10-04 11:25:23 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 3 0

The question isn't does it work, but is it the best way to provide health care.

Socialism fails each and every time it is tried. The more socialist a nation becomes the worse the problems it has. Cuba & USSR - a night mare. Socialized Europe - not as bad but worse then less socialized countries.

Others do not have a right to my hard work to pay for their health care. The government does not have a right to take my freedom (of choice) nor the fruits of my labor (taxes) because they think someone else deserves them or I am to incompetent to make my own choices.

2007-10-04 11:24:14 · answer #3 · answered by sfavorite711 4 · 3 0

that's not obtainable. once you're a competent representation of what your avatar provides, why would you decide on this? Adam Smith grow to be the father of capitalism. Obama exaggerated each thing in his speech. there is particularly some opposition between inner maximum companies already. the only actual thank you to strengthen opposition which may be beneficial like he spoke of what be to strengthen the quantity of inner maximum companies, not a central authority run well being care plan. companies won't be able to compete with something that functionality with a great deficit. And besides, the way he laid it out, it may be greater much less costly for inner maximum companies to easily supply into the government plan and pass their consumers to the government plan. The "decrease than 5%" of those which could surely sign in for that's a lie.

2016-10-21 01:38:35 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

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 :)

2007-10-08 07:48:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Not going to happen

If you make 80,000 a year, you do not need the government paying for your children's medical care.

And a child is not 25 years old.

2007-10-04 11:17:55 · answer #6 · answered by Dina W 6 · 3 0

He blocked it because democrats added other things to this bill he disagrees with. It seems that if the democrats cared they would place it back the way it was and he would sign it into law.

2007-10-04 11:19:37 · answer #7 · answered by kayxa 2 · 3 0

If you like paying more money for bloated bureaucracies, inefficient systems and poor service.. it work great.

2007-10-04 11:18:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers