Isn't Bush's recent veto of the child health insurance bill more reason to push for universal health care?

Answer 1

Am amazed at how successfully the "for profit" private insurance companies have brained washed the American public to regard universal health care as evil socialism, etc. Bush is spending billions and billions of American people's taxes on personal wars, but you can't have universal health care...baloney! When are you going to wake up in America and see that the corporate health lobby and the corporate media are all in it together taking the people for a ride! The main challenge to our medicare in Canada in which every permanent resident is insured is the private health lobby who are undermining it because they want to make money from our illnesses, and sadly we have lots of hypocritical politicians , too, who are there to serve the very rich like in U.S.

Answer 2

It's not really needed as a reason.

Back in the old days there weren't any fire departments. Instead there were independent fire brigades and professional firefighters. People would pay dues to receive fire protection and mounted a badge or emblem on their houses and businesses to indicate which fire service's protection they were subscribed to. If you had a fire and didn't have that badge up, you put the fire out yourself or your property burned to the ground. People died while firefighters did nothing if they weren't paid. Gradually, people realized that if they established a municipal fire department charged with putting out every fire as soon as possible, everyone would be better off, and would actually pay less overall. Even the people who could afford protection under the private system were better off since a fire at an unprotected neighbor could easily spread to their property, at least causing some damage.

I think the situation with private health insurance is very similar and we will ultimately enjoy the same benefit from universal health care that the establishment of fire departments gave.

BTW - Canada's health care is as good as ours, for like half the cost. What, do you think they just get the expired pills up there or something?

Answer 3

Bush's recent veto of the SCHIP Bill just shows how out of touch with reality he really is. He's the one who referred to the bill as the first step toward universal health care, but it really wasn't in the form it was in.

It's high time we got down to business here in this country and started working towards making affordable health care available to everyone.

First off, we need to make insurers HELP people who are sick - get rid of pre-existing condition clauses, and exclusions for needed care.

Next, we need to make sure that people who are uninsurable by today's standards (just because they actually needed health care at some point for diabetes, heart disease, cancer, or pregnancy problems) able to get good, reasonably priced coverage.

Next, we need competition in prescription drug pricing, like Canada. We also need long term health care for those who need it.

We are the only country in the industrialized world that doesn't take an interest in the health care of all of its citizens. There is no excuse for it.

Answer 4

No.
Universal health care doesn't have a whole lot of support in this country - despite what you might have been told - but come hell or high water, the far left liberals will keep pushing for it.
The so called child health care insurance bill is merely their way of getting a foot in the door - once the door is cracked open - universal health care won't be far behind.
President Bush knows this and rather than pander to the left, he has once again stood firm in his opposition to this socialist agenda.
The far left has many pet projects in the works and as long as there is a republican in the White House their lame bills will remain extremely difficult to get past the first hurdle - and that's at least part of the reason for their "hate Bush" rhetoric.

Answer 5

The health care bill, started by the republicans, was being expanded after being abused and extended to adults when it was funded for children only.
He has vetoed the increased money, NOT the children's health insurance.
Your distortion of the facts will not help convince people, as people, in a free society, hear both sides.

That's why socialism can never succeed in the United States. It is revealed too soon to be effective.
It depends on turning people against each other, to create class warfare.

We already have too much socialized medicine, and the lack of competition amongst medical companies is driving prices up.

If we make them compete again, prices will go down.

Thank you, no socialism.

Answer 6

President Bush's veto is based only in economics....it is only a difference of opinion about how much to spend. To make the leap to universal health care from there is sketchy at best. One need only look at other government programs to see where that is heading. Look to Canada or European Socialist nations to see how poor their health care is....That's what we'll get under HilaryCare. The best answer, as is almost always the case, is less government intervention. Less regulatory burden on Pharm. companies will free up capital and research dollars. This will lead to less expensive drugs. Tort reform will lessen the liability burden that Drs. and Hospitals have due to frivolous lawsuits and ridiculous financial penalties. The free market, in an open economic environment, can fix this.

Answer 7

Universal Health care? Who will pay for this health care? especially when countries in the world which have taken on these types of health care cannot afford to pay for it and their health proffessionals are over burdened with too many people per doctor ratio. You should read the Bill and understand the bills which are already in place.

Answer 8

Yes, to a liberal's way of thinking. But then, liberals don't need a reason, though they gladly manufacture excuses to cover for their actions. To a liberal, there never can be too much Socialism, or even Stalinism. Bring on Socialized Hillary Care.

Answer 9

Every child deserves to have the best in health care no matter what the income of the parents are. To bad our president doesn't get that. I'd also like for him to have to live on minimum wage for a month.

Answer 10

No, he is right. People making $82,000 a year aren't poor. With the added coverage this bill would give, people would remove their children from parents existing health care policies.