Bush against childcare?

Question

Ok so i know asked this once but selfish republicans spoke up said government isnt suppose to support children because people can keep popping babies.

well be honest with you let me remind you newsflash those children are americans, they are the next generation and so much for president vetos all this i mean heck. he is suppose to be anti-abortion whats the difference between this and abortion i mean really. For god sakes he rather start wars watch people get their heads blowed off, put all the money for the war and all his republican buddies who cares about mainland? i mean heck whats the sense of having the "No child left behind" when he is vetoing childrens health. Ok so let me ask how does this make sense? give me a meaningful explanation without making up anything really cheap.

SUPPORT THE CHILDREN IMPEACH BUSH!

oh yea one more thing, oil is Bush is main concern over the whole operation anyways i mean he doesnt care about the people. 50 years ago wasnt about wealth

It was about people, EVERYONE. back then government listened to the people and managed things quite well and carried patriotism long ways. these days all that fame of what real patriotics fought for from purple heart, POWs, even regular veterans and falling onces if they knew about this government being this greed they wouldnt fought.

Answer 1

Bush only cares about lining his & Cheneys pockets, all else is fluff....

Answer 2

It's obvious that you don't care about the truth and get your information from media that don't care about the truth, only their own socialist agenda.

The TRUTH is that this S-chip program, already in place to help the poorest children get health care, IS supported by Bush. In fact, he was in favor of increasing funding for the plan for 2007-08 fiscal year. What the socialist Democrats tried to ram through and what Bush rightfully vetoed was an expansion of the plan that would change the classification of what's considered an adult to age 25 - absolutely ridiculous - and also would expand the earnings limit for a family of four to $80,000 or so to still qualify for the plan. Anyone making that much can afford their own coverage, if they don't get it through their employer.

What Bush vetoed was not 'for the children' at all. It is a disguised way to create Hillary-care by getting more and more people who can afford their own coverage or are covered through work to drop out of those plans and go on the government plan. It would cause some employers to drop coverage altogether - after all, why bother if the government will do it?

But who is the government? Me. Stop taking my money away from me, except to do what the Constitution allows - build necessary infrastructure and defend the country. And yeah, that means fighting wars.

Answer 3

Oh, please here we go again. I will say again that I work as an eligibility specialist in a family support office aka the welfare office. Believe me when I say the all children should have health care. But tax payers shouldn't have to pay for insurance when responsible parents should be. The children of lower income families who live in poverty and believe me I see it everyday, are taken care of by government sponsored health care. But, when you're talking about wanting the tax payers to pay for health insurance for children who's parents earn up to $83,000 per yr. Come on now. It doesn't take a village to raise a child like the libs think. It takes 2 responsible parents. (a husband and wife.) It shouldn't be up to the tax payers to provide insurance to families who can afford it on their own. No where in the constitution does it say the health care is a right of anyone. It is a privilege, just like getting your drivers license. I carry health insurance through the state I work for. And I pay for it out of my paycheck. But my family falls under the income limit the dems want to set. Wow, Bush hater, I could drop my kids' insurance and apply for government heath care and you could pay for it out of your raised taxes and I could get more take home pay.

Wow, what a great idea. With the money I save I can buy that boat I wanted to go to the lake.

Oh, and lilirishgirl: your claims are bogus !!! there is no way health insurance is $2000 every three months. It's not even that much in the private sector. Check out American Family or State Farm. And if your husband is not employed or even if he is you probably could qualify for medicaid. At least thats how it is in MO. And also no Dr. is going to turn you away for private pay. Please !!

Answer 4

This is simply idiotic.

You people really are hard to take seriously. It's obvious that you don't understand a thing about the Child care bill or even why it was vetoed.

It's painfully obvious to any thinking person that you and those who think along the same lines as you are clueless.

Please, pile on the thumbs downs and the violation notices. But give me a break already. Get a clue, read the bill figure it out for yourself and stop listening to the liberal talking point media for a change. Use the intelligence God gave you for once and make a logical well thought out argument,

Answer 5

Read what you have written, it sounds silly and immature. When I decided to have children I knew it meant I had to take care of them, not just physically but financially. When my husband hurt his back and was in the hospital, instead of looking for a hand out my thought's were what can I do to bring in money. Today everyone wants the government to take care of them, their children. They think food and medical should be paid for them. Where did this lazy mentality come from. Your statement of aboration is ridiculous the difference is you are taking a human life. You should be charged with murder. Just imagine the violent way a fetus is killed all because you chose not to use birth control. If you do not want the child adopt them out to couples who not only want a child but can afford to raise them. What happened to responsibility, there is a feeling of pride in doing things yourself and relying on your own resources that you do not get with hand outs. If you want a better life then you do as we did, we married at 18 and made 70 dollars every two weeks and we lived on that, within our means. He went to college at night and worked days and weekends. He got his associates then his bachlor's, his master's, and then his doctorat's that way it took years but with each accomplishment came a better job and more money. Imagine where we would have been with hand outs we would still be sitting in poverty waiting for the next check. Life is good here in America it is what YOU choose to do with it, you get out of life what you put into it. If you put nothing into it then that is what you will end up with.

Most believe the have's should give more to the have nots, I disagree the haves earned what they have and they certainly did not owe me a dime, we are far from rich just middle class but we worked our way there and proud that we did it. I might add we have both been an example to our children, our youngest graduated college a few years ago and she said mom and dad you have been such a shinning example of what I want in my life love, patience and kindness and you did not take hand outs, I remember when we had nothing but you kept working to give us not only the love but the material things we needed. Now what kind of example do you want to be?

Answer 6

And who is going to pay for it? Why should me who makes less than 30 thousand a year, have to pay for some rich kids healthcare when I don't even have health insurance?

By the way, you know why I don't have kids? Because I can't afford to have them, and I don't expect the government to take care of them for me

Answer 7

Please for once read the Bill he Vetoed, He did not Cancel CHIPS he refused the expansion of it.

Which would have covered all illegals not US Citizens.

Currently the program makes one identify their status the proposal by Democrats removes those restrictions and makes it a very broad and open program, with very little control over who is covered.

Read this again: CHIPS is still a Federal Program and has not been canceled, do also remember it was Bush who started this.

Peace

Answer 8

Because the bill provides healthcare to middle income children. Poor children in this country are already covered. This bill would provide for children of parents making 82 grand a year - I don't think they need the help, but if you want to contribute from your paycheck - feel free!

Answer 9

Bush is not against child care. Once again someone is going off half ****** over a news story without investigating the entire story. Go do some research into this subject son and maybe you might learn enough to remove your question from yahoo on your own like a man.

Answer 10

Here is a good one about child care. My husband served in the military. He fought in Bush's war, and came back. Thank goodness.
We had a beautiful daughter born in August, my husband's end of enlistment date was in December. Now most companies after you released you still have health care for 30 days.
I called to check, because of the baby. They said the day he gets out the insurance is canceled. I tried getting her in early for her check up, they told me no. It was 10 days to early.
I asked about paying out of pocket. Just for her.

Get this they wanted 2,000 every three months. Yeah, if i could have afforded that I wouldn't have needed it to being with so F*** Bush, and all that he stands for.
If we could afford to leave this country we would have already. And trust me we are saving up.
My daughter hasn't seen a doctor in a year. I have called doctors to see if I can pay out of pocket, and they won't even see her unless I have benefit. (Now I am mad, and crying)
I really don't know what to do. I tried to get Medicade, or what ever it is, and they say I have lived in this state long enough. Free clinics won't see her because she is under 2. She healthy I think. But just a check to check her development. You know??

I Hope BUSH ROTS IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 11

What a bunch of bleeding-heart liberal gibberish! Is there a question in there? It looks more like a hysterical anti-Bush rant than a question. If Clinton become president she will have to deliver on the $768 billion in new programs that she has promised. I prefer that our politicians BALANCE THE DAMN BUDGET before starting any new social programs.