Bush vetoes $25B universal insurance for children. Trillions to murder Iraqis. Skewed priorities?

Question

Bush Vetoes Expansion to Children’s Health Care
President Bush has followed through on a promise to veto a bill expanding health care to millions of low-income American children. On Wednesday, Bush quietly issued the fourth veto of his presidency on a measure expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as S-CHIP. The bill would have spent thirty-five billion dollars over five years, funded by a tax increase on cigarettes. The White House said it would only accept an increase of five billion dollars.

White House spokesperson Dana Perino tried to portray the move as a way to protect low-income Americans. She said: “In a time when [Democrats] think that they want to increase funding for children’s health care, they’re actually wanting to pay for it with a cigarette tax…. People who smoke are usually… in the low-income bracket. And so they’re raising taxes on something to pay for a middle-class entitlement. It’s just completely irresponsible. Stop the madness on Capitol Hill.” Democrats were scathing in their criticism.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "Mr. president I think that this is probably the most inexplicable veto in the history of the country. It is incomprehensible. It is intolerable. It is unacceptable."

There is enough support to override the veto in the Senate but not in the House. Democrats say they’ll put off a new House vote until later this month to try to win the twenty extra votes they need.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/04/1355205

Please elaborate on Democrats role in the misadministration of your tax dollars. Money for killing, not for healing. Please, this is not an issue of partisanship. Both parties are filled with treasonous fascists who care not about your health, about your security or well being.

Please, conservatives and progressives, can you support either Dems or Reps who would rather spend money on killing than on healing?

Answer 1

Yes, Bush's priorities are definitely skewed. He does not blink an eye to ask for trillions of dollars to fund his war and rebuild another country. Yet, when it comes to the health care of our children he wants to cut 30 billion in proposed funds. Health care insurance has steadily risen and many full time employees cannot afford the increases in premiums to elect employee + child or family coverage. But, Bush is more concerned that the big insurance carriers would lose too much money. What this idiot does not understand is that employees would still keep their insurance but drop the child off their policy if they qualify. Let's see then employees would receive more take home pay which could stimulate the economy that is in a mess. The funds to cover the insurance would be paid by the tobacco tax but I suppose those funds in his mind would be better spent funding murder.

Answer 2

What you have to understand about this veto is that the bill was written for children up to age 25, as well as those making up to $80,000 a year.
I don't agree with Bush at all, but the definition of children should be to age 18 or 19, and the income should be between 30-$35,000 a year, depending on how many kids are in the family.
The bill clearly needs to be rewritten. Bush is not against insurance for poor children.

Answer 3

Bushies sure know their audience. Pitting one group against another has always worked for them. No disrespect to blonde's in general but this press secretary chick makes blonde's look bad, she said that tax mess with conviction; whereas a half-witted would be embarrassed to say that. anyway, baiting idiots into believing that working family's would make out like bandits putting their kids in the program. 1. if they have job insurance they won't qualify. 2. anybody who works 40 hours a week should have insurance; but more company's (bush supporters) don't have health benefits. 2 full-time working parents may very well not have any insurance at all! some people work 2 full-time jobs and still don't have insurance. all those middle-class IT support, manufacturing, and back office jobs that were sent overseas (thank your government) left Americans without jobs and insurance - at least keep their kids healthy. it's less expensive to treat early. and hospital emergency rooms do not "treat" people they "provide medical care" and push you out the door, with a massive bill that if not paid they will put a lean on your car or home (which may be the only assets left). hospitals admit to vastly over charging people without insurance to make up for what insurance companies limit them to charge. so if you're not an illegal alien, have worked your adult life, have managed to buy a house and followed all the rules - you're screwed.

Answer 4

This is just another example of the games moronic liberals like to play. They put a ridiculously inflated bill, that they know darn well will get vetoed, on the table for the sole purpose of having it vetoed. Then they get the usual bunch of fools to say stuff like "Bush hates kids" or "Bush vetoes insurance for kids but votes for trillions to murder Iraqis" and the kooks just keep on coming out of the woodwork. Tell me this, who is going to make up the difference when that alleged 35 billion in cig taxes turns out to be more like 10 billion in 5 years? By then, if they have their way, the libs will more than likely increased the number of people they want covered as well. So where is the additional money coming from? The original source of cig. taxes certainly isn't going to cut it. You gonna fork over more of your paycheck?

Answer 5

I hate to say that I'm very ashamed of voting for this president. This bill would've provided assistance to children whose parents are in the income bracket from $15,000-$30,000 (Make to much for medicaid, but not enough to have health insurance through their job). Bush's reply, "I'm vetoing this bill b/c it could have possible repercussions on the big health care companies, and we don't want everyone dropping their medical insurance." No one would drop their coverage if they had it, this is for children not adults! Besides, how many people are dropping their medical ins. for medicaid? Not any that I know of. The US Gov obviously has their priorities in the wrong order!

Answer 6

fact examine on bill to amplify the youngster well being Care application - Minneapolis megastar Tribune, Kevin Freking September 26, 2007 purely what would take place decrease than the bill that handed Tuesday interior the domicile to amplify the State youngster's scientific well being coverage application (SCHIP), up for a vote later this week interior the Senate and then specific to get a veto from President Bush? listed right here are multiple the claims and the corresponding information: The declare: The notion would inspire households to alter public coverage for inner maximum coverage. The information: The Congressional budget workplace initiatives that approximately 3.8 million human beings would grow to be insured as a effect of the bill, and approximately 2 million greater would pass from inner maximum coverage to public coverage. The declare: The notion would enable coverage of households earning $eighty 3,000. The information: The bill in truth gadgets an earnings ceiling of thrice the poverty fee for a family members of four -- $61,950. previous that, the federal government does not pay a state its finished SCHIP tournament, which averages approximately 70 p.c.. The declare: The bill would make it much less complicated for babies of unlawful immigrants to take part in Medicaid. The information: presently, states are required to seek for information of U.S. citizenship formerly they provide Medicaid coverage, different than in emergencies. The states now require applicants to tutor records including delivery certificates or passports with the intention to tutor U.S. citizenship and nationality. The bill would enable applicants to submit a Social protection extensive variety truly. Michael J. Astrue, commissioner for the Social protection administration, stated that matching a Social protection extensive variety with somebody does not enable officers to confirm no count if somebody is a U.S. citizen. The declare: The proposed 61 cent tax on a p.c.. of cigarettes is a tax on the undesirable. The information: in accordance to a modern-day diagnosis with the help of the national center for well being statistics, smoking expenditures are greater for people who stay in poverty or close to poverty than between wealthier human beings. additionally, a greater dated diagnosis noted with the help of the national center for coverage diagnosis, a conservative think of tank, states that 2-thirds of federal tobacco taxes come from those earning decrease than $40,000 a 300 and sixty 5 days

Answer 7

If the money is spent on children where is he going to get his cut? If it is spent on murdering peoples from different countries he can collect more money from special interest groups all over the world by promoting wars that don't help America or Americans, but do help politicians all over America steal money to line their own pockets. In my opinion anyway. And that is the sole reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places right now. To make money on the backs of hard-working Americans by promoting ficticious wars for the betterment of politicians everywhere.

Answer 8

I agree totally with Ted Kennedy's statement.
Bush is going out with some swan song, he will be known as the most stupid man in history. Giving millions and millions for a war nobody wanted and yet he won't give health insurance to kids..what a jerk!

Answer 9

Bush supports the current SCHIP program, and an *extension* of it, but not an *expansion* of the program which would cover children in families that earn as much as $103,000. Regrettably, it is the Democrat's grandstanding political posture that is jeopardizing continued coverage for impoverished families.

Answer 10

This bill had bi-partisan support, but he dosen't care, because he can't be re-elected. I loved the part where he said that $80,000 didn't seem poor to him. I'd love to see him live on that. Anyway, it was for the poor. I don't know where he got the $80,000 figure. Maybe he's back on drugs. (Can you imagine him having speaking engagements after he "retires" as Clinton is doing? They would be funny.)