Does President Bush's "Need to Feel Relevant" By Using the Veto Justify Denying Healthcare to Children?

Answer 1

Mr. Bush's veto of such an important bill is wrong, whether or not it is using lots of taxpayer money. My nephew was uninsured for the longest time, only because no one would insure him. This bill is what the country needs.
To say it bluntly, Mr. Bush is an a**

Answer 2

President Bush vetoed an expansion of the program that would make the pogram include people who make up to 80 thousand dollars a year. These same people are elligible for the AMT tax, a tax designed to tax the rich. So in other words the dems want to give people wellfare because they're too poor then tax them for being too rich. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Next time read up on the subject before you post.

Answer 3

It was a huge bloating of an already funded program. Instead of looking at Bush's failure to fund health care, look at is as another failure by the Democrats to do anything they promised if they got elected. The Dems in the House and Senate have failed to fulfill any of the big promises made in order to get back in power. No wonder their job approval rating is lower than the Presidents. It seems that the Dem voters are even unhappier with their representatives than they are with Bush. If they keep this up, how will their Congressmen and Senators fair in next years elections?

Anyway, it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to be in the health insurance business. If people want their children to have health care for by the Feds, then they should get a job working for the Feds.

Answer 4

Heres my counterpoint to the notion of welfare for the middle class. What do you choose between
10 Virginia Class submarines (with 7 more ordered) basically 2 billion each give or take a few million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine

Thats just the submarines not counting the fighter planes, new aircraft carriers. Things that go boom are interesting but do they actually make the country better?

and middle class (which is well documented as shrinking) child health care?

Answer 5

No, and his veto was against the expansion of a program that already exists. He isn't taking health care from children. He supports the program, just not the huge increase and expansion of it and a move towards government sponsered and funded health care.

Answer 6

Calling the bill "Healthcare to Children" is a shameless exploitation of children for political gain. It was never about children (aged 0 to 25), it's about bringing welfare to upper middle class families!

Answer 7

He isnt' denying health care for the poor.
He doesn't want the program to expand to the point where people making 80K or people 23 years old can be covered by this program.

Answer 8

Why do you ask such a stupid question? Have you read the bill that was presented? I doubt it! More Lib drivel and Bush Bashing. He was allowing the bill to be EXPANDED but the Dems wanted to go way overboard and push it beyond all reason. Please try and stay off the Kool-Aid for a couple of days, okay Sparky?

Answer 9

Since when does a family making 80,000 a year need help getting health care? I'm sorry but that bill was just too lenient about who was eligible.

Answer 10

You people are dumba$$es if you believe that crap...stop listening to liberal media and listen to both sides THEN make your own opinion...he says he wants to expand it, but Pelosi doesn't want that

With an uniformed statement such as this you have no right to call anyone a dumba$$es, unless your referring to yourself.