Does Bush really dislike low income children?

Question

So I actually read HR. 976 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-976) this morning and realized a couple things.

1. I can't find the pork other than a military family job protection clause. Someone please point it out to me.

2. It'd be paid for by tabacco, not out people's pockets.

3. Would it not follow the philosophy of the Laffer curve (aka Reaganomics)? After all by giving families with lower incomes a lower health care premium would they not be able to put the rest of that money into the economy thus expanding the economy?

4. 300xs the poverty line, as is the language in the bill does not equate to 83,000. That figure was proposed by Spitzer as anyone living in NYC understands the extremely high cost of living. If people are happy with it as is, it also insures people in NJ up to $74,000 as median income in the state is $90,000+.

In legislative terms, low income is different than poor. Poor children are all ready covered under medicaid, low income children are not.

No it does not guarantee insurance for illegal immigrants, that part was taken out. Read the bill.

Ken, how is it bad evidence? When I taught ninth grade I always asked my 14 year olds to back up a generalized statement with evidence. A generalization does not evidence make.

err legislation.

Answer 1

HR 976 is a good bill. It helps people whose buying power has gone down over the past 6 years. It helps those who are too wealthy to qualify for medicaid yet cannot affort the high cost of insurance. Some in that group cannot get insurance due to previous condidions or ongoing illness. One story I heard was a child is getting 3 shots of insulin a day because she has childhood diabetes. The medication is $400 a month which the insurance refuses to cover. (so much for insurance) Her parents pay high insurance premiums and then are denied coverage. The girl's parents work and work hard at what they do. They are not wealthy by American standards and if it weren't for the medical costs would be able to live well. Last night on TV there was a young girl who has been battling cancer and her home was not in good repair because all the time and money the parents had were being used to help her fight the cancer. I remember a story of a boy, a few months back, who was living a norma life of sports and school etc. His family, middle class and doing well. He was the victim of a hit and run driver and is now paralized. The medical costs have nearly bankrupted the family. The insurance stopped paying for certain things he needs. In my own family I had a 41 year old son-in-law who fought cancer until it killed him. He couldn't work because of the Chemotherapy and so he lost his job. His insurance came from his job. In losing the job he lost the insurance. My daughter worked for a company that did not provide insurance for their employees. They lost their home, one of their cars and all of their savings to fight off the cancer and the cancer won. So don't anyone tell me this crap about peope making it on their own with medical situations. Don't tell me about getting insurance from private insuance companies without some sort of regulation of costs etc. HR976 is a good bill and Dubya should be glad to sign it.

I recommend that if your reps are among those who are obstructing the will of the people by not voting for the override that you contact them and encourage them to vote for the override and encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same. This is not frivelous this is serious stuff.

Answer 2

Where is this idea coming from that it's the government's job to provide free health care to ANYONE? After this, then what? Free groceries? Free housing? Free cars?
If this sounds cold so be it, but the cost of health care didn't start spiraling out of control until the government got involved and the idea that the consumer should never have to open up his or her pocketbook to pay the doctor. As little as 25 years ago, when you got the sniffles and had to go to the doctor, you paid the man before he called you back from the waiting room. It was $20-50. That's it. Health insurance was for catastrophic circumstances. Now a visit to the family doctor costs hundreds. A few months back, I needed some penicillin it cost my insurance company $400 for a $15 bottle of pills. I can show you the bills. You don't see this happening at the eye doctor, the plastic surgeon, or the veterinarian's office, because most of the things they do isn't covered. Did you know that a vet can run your dog through an MRI machine for less than $100?
Think about it. What if car insurance expended to cover, tires, brakes, oil changes. How much then would this stuff cost? People would be running in every two months for a set of tires, why not? It's not costing them anything. In 5 years a tire would cost $1000 a piece.
We don't need more government programs. they are the problem. Not the solution.

As for tobacco paying for this, this is laughable. Smokers are now, what 10% of the population? No one smokes anymore, certainly not enough people to raise $35 BILLION a year with a 61 cent a pack tax. This is nothing more than another one of Teddy Kennedy's lies. The numbers don't add up to anyone with any reasoning ability.

Answer 3

Actually this is just bad legislation only designed to gain political points and make fools out of a lot of people. The senate had a veto proof vote yet has not tried to override the veto. Wonder why not? Probably because they know it is bad legislation and the do not want this to pass. So one can say the people with the power to make this law do not want to do it and so according to you the hate children. Of course this group is the Senate Democrats.

Bad legislation because it will be funded by a cigarette tax and that will require 22 million new smokers per year. This is a diminishing revenue source and the burden will eventually be put on the tax payers. Next, now business will no longer have to provide health care benefits to the lessor payed employees. Hey a policy can be purchased through the government. Think that is silly how many employers have you known to look to increase expenses. And to you point that Bush Hates kids, the fact that the Senate with a veto proof vote will not attempt an override says the want the statement not the legislation of screw the kids.

Answer 4

It's not that Bush dislikes low income kids, it's the fact that using tobacco sales and a payment for insurance for these kids is just not relilable. With the huge increase in cost, who's to say that half the smoking population won't stop or at least use it less. Then who's going to pay for it? It will come out of the pockets of the rest of us.
I'm not saying that insurance for these kids is a bad thing, but we need to come up with a better solution to paying for it.

Answer 5

We have an administration that awarded numerous no bid Iraqi contracts to Haliburton & the rest of corporate America that have inside influence in the white house These corporate masters of bush & cheney are reaping billions of your tax monies( remember the $75 cases of Coca Cola provided by Haliburton?). Every American should be horrified by these despicable proceedures. It is, in fact, stealing from the masses to enrich the already wealthy. Where is your uproar for this. We feverously want to deny any help at all to our OWN people, our young people to be exact. To all you people that want to say "every man for himself" will soon discover you are no match for the monetary stranglehold we are providing for the ultra-wealthy on our country. We, you & I, are enabling a very wealthy administration & congress to provide untold wealth to ALREADY wealthy corporations( I would say for their own gain also) & at the same time want to deny healthcare to our own children. This is unbelievable. Do you really consider yourself part of the wealthy elite of this country??? It certainly sounds like it!

Answer 6

I highly doubt, that he cares about children at all.. unless there is suddenly a reason he needs to be photographed with one.. to make him seem more caring. This is a selfish little man who care for himself first... wonder if his poor wife even has room in the bed with him and his ego?

Answer 7

but you did find the over 21 year olds and children who already have PRIVATE insurance and can afford it that would be covered it, and as much as i hate smoking and dont have a problem taxing it out of existance, this is too much. 600-1000% tax increase on cigars etc, whats next, no. the libs would go tax crazy if this passes.

Answer 8

Honestly, I somewhat doubt Bush bothered to even read the bill. He kept promising to veto it before it ever reached his desk, and, as you have pointed out, some of his arguments against the bill aren't even true.

For the poster above me: They have not yet tried to override the veto because they need time to try and gather votes in the House. If the attempted to override it immediately, it would have failed.

Answer 9

The bill did just what the Democrats wanted it to do, it wasn't designed to help the little children it was designed to be vetoed so that the Democrats could say that Bush hates little children. This is all about the up coming election not about the little children.

Answer 10

um...bush hates low income period. and for the jackass who thinks the only people with low income are those who didnt stay in school or dont have jobs--quit suckin your mom's tit and see what you have then. some of us lost our husbands,some of us lost our entire families-there are other reasons that people have low income -not just because of sorriness.get a fuckin life buddy! and health care SHOULD be a priviledge because the GOVERNMENT is killing us.