Why doesn't President Bush have a heart? How could he veto a healthcare bill that would have provided 10 million, poor children in America with the opportunity to get health insurance? 45 of his fellow Republicans voted for the bill, including 2/3rds of the Senate. Does he really care more about the financial wellbeing of Tobacco and Cigarette companies (his political donors) than the health of America’s children? The 35 billion dollars that would have funded the expansion, roughly what it costs to finance the Iraq war for three months, would have been paid for by smokers and nicotine addicts, not American tax dollars. If he can spend 2 trillion dollars on a war in Iraq, why can’t he work to help provide innocent children with insurance? To all you religious nut, far right Republican conservatives: Would Jesus have vetoed the bill, complaining that providing poor kids with healthcare would have financially hurt drug companies too much?
2007-10-07
15:26:06
·
12 answers
·
asked by
LML
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Government
It's called being a Lame Duck President.
Lame duck officials are in the peculiar position of not facing the consequences of their actions in the next election, meaning they are generally considered not accountable for their actions. They also tend to have less political power as other elected officials see less advantage in cooperating with them. On the other hand, lame duck executives, particularly Presidents of the United States, are notorious for issuing a series of executive orders or making appointments during their last days that they would not otherwise have made if it would have influenced the vote against them.
2007-10-07 15:34:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by mia2kl2002 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The bill as presented after passage would have allowed for free medical care to be given to the children of parents who earned up to $80,000 per year. The original intent of this program was to offer free medical care to children whose parents earned 250% above the Federal poverty level. In short, the working poor. The Congress moved that figure up to 400% above the poverty level or $80,000+ per year in income.
The original legislation which this bill tried to replace, did provide free health care to the poor and to the children of the working poor. The bill he vetoed would have extended that to the children of parents earning just short of a six figure income.
2007-10-07 15:37:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Did it ever occur to you that it's not the governments job to take care of people's personal financial issues? If people can't afford health care for their children they should do something about it themselves. You do not even understand the situation. Also, was that supposed to be funny...asking us if Jesus would have vetoed the bill? And, why are we nuts if we are religious? You need to respect other peoples beliefs and opinions.
2007-10-07 16:02:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
The bill would have not helped the poor children who need it most, giving most of the money to middle class families who can better afford to pay for their own health care, and would be the first step toward government run health care. Bush and the Republicans are working to revise the bill. It will be passed.
2016-05-18 21:08:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Have you read the bill or are you taking the word of the politicians who support the bill?
Did it ever occur to you there may be a good reason to veto this particular bill?
2007-10-07 15:36:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Molly 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
Ryan I will not go into the specifics of the bill but it was not the original intent that the President disagreed with it was other bills that were attached to it. So if he approved that bill he also would have approved others that trust me when I tell you were less than moral.
2007-10-07 16:19:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Hard to have a heart when you look at the money and the elections instead of what is best for the nation. THIS is where political parties fail us as US Citizens. . .
2007-10-07 15:30:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I truly believe that he is evil.controlled by the Prince of the power of the air.and big business,and a evil force of people that wishes power to control the world .its mostly has to deal with money.half our tax dollars go to the military machine .we the people have very little power and our leaders are influenced by business interests.theres nothing much we can do.and its going to get worse and worse, i pray for the other creatures that were killing off.i believe that the feds will have Iran bombed and that will lead to Armageddon.the south should leave the union immediately
2007-10-07 16:32:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This war is not about freedom is about Gas. we all know that, we just don't want to know. He need the money , not for the war , but instead to pay the big contractors on weapons,chemicals,petroleum....
2007-10-07 15:36:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by edwinjoel22 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
Maybe he is not for socialist programs . Sounds smart to me .
2007-10-07 16:35:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by missmayzie 7
·
2⤊
0⤋