I am willing to bet that the GOP held a meeting and told Bush to veto that bill and have their people permission to vote yes......
This way the republicans can publically distance themselves from a president with horrible ratings for the next election.
Bush can't run again, thankfully his career is over....the rest of the republicans can show how bipartisan and caring they are...and no one even talked about the money numbers that popped up over the weekend regarding Iraq...perfect timing (way to use a news cycle!!!!) We were all too focused on the veto.
and we Democrats helped!
Look at the numbers....$ Veto 35 Billion for American children and spend $190 Billion on Iraq and ask for $189 Billion for 2008 (associated press has the numbers)
They baited and switched (like how now we are in Iraq for freedom and terrorism when we really went for weapons that were never there)....and we all went for it!
2007-10-05 03:47:26 · 13 answers · asked by jm1970 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I wasn't trying to argue if the bill should or should not have passed...I'm just wondering if anyone else finds the timing funny?
Also.....Paula....WERE? Where are you new sources? Some conservative rag? Not one crediable source has come up with anything...and don't you think the republicans would be all over it if they could show us the weapons? Unless they are waiting for elections.......but I'm off point.
I assure you, I have plenty of news sources include a boy over in Iraq training Iraqi's so they can come get us again.....just like we trained Bin Laden to.....
2007-10-05 07:00:41 · update #1
Yes, the bill allowed for did not give, health care for an income of up to $82,000...a lot in my state, not so much in New York....
Let's say your employed and make $82,000.......your company goes on strike (no Cobra)....about that time your doctor notices your son is a bit pale and runs a test.......cancer.....Sorry no help for you!!!!!!!!
Middle class welfare GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!! It gave room for extreme circumstances.....not a promise of coverage.
2007-10-05 07:05:11 · update #2
That makes perfect sense...sneaky b-tards aren't they?
2007-10-05 03:52:10 · answer #1 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
According to the CBO, the net effect of the Senate's health care reform bill would be a $132 Billion savings in the fiscal years 2010 through 2019. Making sweetheart deals is the way laws are made in this country. The same people that decry pork spending, are the ones who are willing to toss out their Sen or Rep as soon as they don't get that highway improvement money for their state. But all this talk about Heath Care reform is noise, until the bill comes back from the Resolution committee, we don't know what's on the table.
2016-05-21 08:20:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it was part of the Democrat's plan to get the middle class on welfare. Poor children have medicaid. This bill provided free healthcare to children of parents making 82 grand a year. If people cannot afford their children they should not be having them. I agreed with the veto.
PS - weapons were there - don't you think with all that warning that Saddam was smart enough to move them. And soldiers have found where they were stashed. You might want to consider a different news source.
2007-10-05 04:38:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This issue was probably the first I have agreed with Bush on in seven years. I have lived in 2 States that have the insurance program involved in this legislation. It is a sham as far as who is covered. Don't believe that it covers only low income children. It covers ANY child. The thing I hated the most though, was the fact that it was going to be subsidized by a tobacco tax of $.61 per pack. Spread the cost to everyone and I MIGHT agree a bit more.
2007-10-05 03:59:06 · answer #4 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
this appears to be a bad bill, congress seems to make a mockery of any attempt to come up with logical financially stable plans that will not make government the heath watchdog over the people. states should be the ones who monitor these plans for their people as they know their needs the best. what is wrong with this bill...do some deeper digging and you might have your eyes opened as to the long term affects on us all.
2007-10-05 04:05:28 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Get your facts straight. The bill was vetoed due to a glaring hole within it which allowed for those making up to 82k to benefit thus taking away from the very poorest kids.
Yes IT WAS political BUT on the part of the DEMOCRATS!
+
2007-10-05 03:54:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Someone is always behind the presidency. He is just a figure head. Big business only wants consumer money, they could care less about who it hurts. That's what this is all about.
2007-10-05 04:56:11 · answer #7 · answered by Aniken 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way that will happen. Bush's veto will stand and the Republicans will have to carry this albatross...you are giving them way too much credit.
2007-10-05 03:52:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Isn't is always nothing more than a political show?
Very good points though.
As far as I am concerned Democrats and Republicans are all the same. They are all out to sell out the US to the highest bidder!
2007-10-05 03:55:51 · answer #9 · answered by Fedup Veteran 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If the Republicans wanted to show how they are not like Bush then they at the very least should have restored Habius Corpus! ( See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Habius+corpus), Until our Constitution, Civil and Constitutional rights are restored, they are just like Bush!
2007-10-05 03:55:09 · answer #10 · answered by B. D Mac 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Money spent on Iraq serves the long-term goal of keeping those same children from getting nuked by terrorists.
Any government-funded healthcare (or any government program) is just one more hook government sticks in you to control your life.
Can you not see that?
2007-10-05 03:52:23 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋