It is unacceptable that 9 million children in our country do not have health coverage. Covering kids is a smart investment; it saves money and helps kids do better in school. Moreover, the right to health care is a fundamental value in the pursuit of the American dream.
I applaud Congress for its vote to cover 3.8 million uninsured children, but I am disappointed in the president’s veto of the SCHIP bill. This bill would enable millions of American children who would otherwise be uninsured to get the coverage they need for a healthy start in life. The State Children’s Health Insurance program is a bipartisan plan to renew and strengthen children’s health coverage, and I am discouraged that the president is not making the health of our nation’s children a principal concern.
SCHIP has been a bipartisan success story — it has helped cut the number of uninsured children by one-third over the past 10 years.
Local families are watching the votes in Washington, and we should remember which politicians stood with our children to move forward with health coverage. Congress has another chance to vote on the needs of our kids in a veto override vote. I hope it will make the well-being of children the top priority and improve children’s health by supporting this historic bipartisan agreement
2007-10-07 14:50:27 · 13 answers · asked by Texas Democrat 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree with what the author had to say. I only wish that these people commenting on the SCHIP program would do some research on what the program is about. This program is not a new one, it's 10 years old and has been highly successfull. Yes, there's been some changes made but not to the extent that those opposed are crying about. I'm not about to go into detail but I will ask this. What can you buy today that hasn't doubled in price over the past 10 years? Very few things and health care isn't one of them.
2007-10-07 15:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's not forget one thing.
The SCHIP bill did not originally come from congress. It was a request of Bush to congress for the money.
The bill that the congress sent back was for more money than he asked for which would end up spending money on children already covered and some adults.
To imply that the president does not want poor children covered by insurance is just not accurate and intellectually irresponsible.
Even with this veto, Bush's administration is one of the most veto-free in our history which is also irresponsible.
2007-10-07 14:59:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are sadly misinformed. Congress voted to continue the SCHIP at the current level until Nov. 2007.
The new SCHIP bill has:
Eligibility: Most states cap eligibility to families whose income is less than twice the government poverty level, or $41,228 for a family of four in 2006. The bill would have limited the full federal match to families with incomes less than three times the poverty level, or $61,842 for a family of four.
It is not impossible to get children insured on less than $61,842. My family is doing it on less than $50,000.
But thanks for thinking of us.
2007-10-07 15:05:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
SCHIP will funnel every cent of American taxpayer dollar, and all insurance will sky rocket, and even our normal doctor bills will go even higher, and the elderly will suffer because of fixed income brackets.
Take the waivers completely out of the plan and put them OUT TO WORK!!!
2007-10-07 15:00:49 · answer #4 · answered by Jeremiah Johnson 7 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My guess is that the person making the comment hopes to capitalize on the issue politically, and probably has very little faith in the family unit to provide health insurance for their own children...even if they are making over $60,000 per year.
2007-10-07 14:56:05 · answer #5 · answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
and how long have you been a politician?
no matter what kind of bullshit we want to pass, all we need to do is lable it as "for the children" and the poor stupid sheep will fall right in line. maybe you should try reading the fine print, and see how bad you're getting soaked for all illeagal, little darlings. you sound just like billary.
2007-10-07 15:02:48 · answer #6 · answered by gen. patton 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Having the government take over health care not likely to help. If you feel health care is a right I would like to know why.
2007-10-07 14:56:11 · answer #7 · answered by phillipk_1959 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Take the pork out and deny welfare for the middle class.
2007-10-07 15:09:01 · answer #8 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not my kid not my problem, if you can not afford a kid do not have one. Wow personal responsibilty, yeah I know most people in the 21st centuary are afraid of it.
2007-10-07 15:00:10 · answer #9 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Maybe we should focuse more on the parents who are probably working hard to help pay for some person on wellfare.
Or the money just isnt being spent correctly...
2007-10-07 14:54:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 3⤋