did you know, today george bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded government health insurance for kids?

Question

yikes.

Answer 1

I have to agree with him on this one. The government does not need to get involved in socialized medicine in any way shape or form. it would be a disaster. Try reading the Australian news.

When I was a kid you were offered to buy insurance the first of every year. That's enough. It's the responsibility of the parents to provide for their children. Not the taxpayer/government.

Answer 2

Lets tell the whole truth about the bill that President Bush vetoed.

This bill was submitted to cover all children that are NOT covered by insurance. The democrats expanded the bill to cover children that already had insurance. That is why it was vetoed....the democrats are trying to make President Bush look bad because most people won't check the facts.

Answer 3

Its not free health insurance. Rather it is health insurance capped at 20% of income. His veto of this bill should be no surprise as he opposed the original bill for Texas to participate in this program when he was Governor of Texas even though it is mostly federally funded.

FYI -- The $82,000.00 figure is not accurate. That was an earlier draft of the bill. The more accurate figure is $60,000.00 for a family of 4. That family would have to pay $3,000.00 for insurance that would just cover the children. By way of comparison, the group plan at my employer charges around $2,400 to add the children to the employee's coverage.

Answer 4

President Bush vetoed a bill that was flawed at the very least. Parents earning $84,000 a year can afford health care for their children. If the congress would offer a reasonable bill, the president would sign it.

Answer 5

It would have expanded it alright, to those who aren't even considered poor. What the Dems are trying to do is step closer to nationalized health care. No thank you to government run health care. Bush says he will approve a continuation of the existing program.

Answer 6

The Democrats set it up for veto by giving people with lucrative incomes free health care. So the Dems just denied the poor that need it by trying to play politics.

Answer 7

And by so doing, sealed his Party's doom in '08. There's no way that Democrats aren't going to go for an override.

Which means the Republicans are either going to have to bite the bullet and vote against those oh so generous insurance companies or at least 34 Republican Senators or 146 Republican Representatives are going to have to go on record as being against kids.

Failure of the override would create enough of a backlash to revive the campaign for single payer health coverage like they have in the Civilized World.

Answer 8

Yes. The bill would have permitted the children of parents who earn up to $80,00 a year to receive free medical care at the expense of Federal taxpayers instead of having to pay health insurance premiums like the rest of the civilian population has to do!
Your "Yikes" is duly noted.

Answer 9

The prolonged area , which consists of human beings as much as age 25 , and would comprise the youngsters of mothers and fathers who make as much as eighty 3,000dollars in line with 3 hundred and sixty 5 days in some states ...the comparable reason Democrats spoke of taxing the prosperous , till they got here upon there grow to be not adequate gross revenues , so now they are going to attempt a 50 cents gas tax , a clean carbon tax on each thing made utilising ability , and do away with the interior maximum loan deduction on earnings taxes ...the carbon tax is meant to be to maintain the enviroment , which to them is so we are able to pay the flexibility charges of the undesirable ....Democrats choose each and all the government administration they are able to recover from human beings , in the event that they address paying charges for human beings , it provides everyone not something to paintings for , i began out off flat broke , now i'm properly off, and that i'm without coverage on me , yet my young ones have it , and that i pay for it myself ...i grow to be uninterested in being broke , so I busted my @ss to get the place i'm , I see not something incorrect with helping people who surely choose it , yet maximum undesirable have little training with the help of possibilities made on their own , and particularly some are lazy , why could they get rewarded for not something , and that i bust my @ss to grant my young ones a existence , and my reward is paying their charges ,. i don't think of so ...that prolonged element is a comedian tale , and it consists of greater new taxes , we don't choose greater taxes the U. S. earnings tax gross revenues is on the utmost dollar volume ever in historic previous , in the event that they ( Political Leaders ) cease waisting funds helping the prosperous , we are able to have greater to spend on different issues , if congress provides 20 million funds to help farmers , did you recognize that funds is divided up between the massive companies that havae a farming franchise , it does not bypass to the family members farmers who choose the help ....and specific Congress accomplished that throughout a beef venture ...

Answer 10

Do we really need to provide health coverage to children of families making over $70K a year. He vetoed a backdoor attempt at socialized medicine. I will applaud and vote for anyone who shoots a hole in any socialized medicine program in this country. BTW, I was providing for my children quite nicely at less than $40K a year.

Answer 11

Oh Mary...since when did it become the taxpayers responsibility to pay for your lack of responsibility. Would you also expect the government to pay for your child's food, diapers, clothes etc. How about buying you a car so you can take your child to the doctor. If you like socialism you might consider applying to residency to Canada or follow Michael Moore to Cuba. Don't forget the cigars!