Why does Bush keep vetoing bills that would help poor, sick children?

Question

Is it because he thinks spending the money on his war is more important?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/washington/19healthcnd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
.

Ms scarlett...you're showing your ignorance. I bet you never even read the proposal.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf
.

Answer 1

The Republican reasoning is that there are already too many entitlement programs and expanding this one would help some in the middle class (*gasp* da horror!). They think they shouldn't have to pay for other people's medical expenses. This is brilliant reasoning considering they already pay for other people's medical bills when they show up in the ER with serious disease because they had no prior coverage and can't pay it now. It would be cheaper if the kids were covered beforehand so they can get screened and treated when the problem is small. But, what do I know?

Answer 2

The reason is usually because there is something extra added to the bill. Say I have written a healthcare bill that would give every child under the age of 18 free healthcare. Well that would be wonderful, and say we have more than enough money to do it. So all the President would have to do is sign it into law. Well there is just one little catch. Let's say that some other Congressmen add on to the bill. They added things like 100,000 dollars for a new road in one area, and another added say 800,000 for some project in his/her home state, and another added 800,000 for their home state. Well when the bill finally gets to the presidents desk he reads over and really likes the Healthcare bill I came up with and is ready to sign it. Then he looks closer and sees that at the end or somewhere in the bill it also adds a lot of extra things for some members of congress to give to their home states. Well that was not part of the deal!! Now he can either sign the bill and make it and everything in it law, or he can Veto the whole bill and hope that the next time a bill this good comes to him there will be no asking for extra money added to it by other members of congress for their home states. That is just one of many reasons a bill like that would be vetoed. It's not because he is a jackass and does not like kids. It is because there is politics involved. That's sad but it is true.

Answer 3

As you knew before you posted this "question", he's vetoing the bills because the Democrats keep trying to extend these benefits to illegal aliens and "children" of the age of 25. This is aside from the fact that the federal government has no business getting into the insurance business. This is not a government function.

Answer 4

No, it is because he knows that the cost of implimenting this bill would cost every American citizen more than they can afford. It is a plan which provides for all the illegal immigrants and their children (and at no cost to them) but at a major cost to us. It provides for families making $80,000 a year and covers "children" up to age 25!! That is insanity and very, very expensive!! How do you figure that adult "children" should take this "entitlement"? You need to read this information and figure it out for yourself. If we start instituting government programs and start giving up on the best health care program that is available anywhere, then we lose. Look at the countries where universal health care is in effect. They have inferior care, no choice of doctors, long waits for appointments, high costs (yes, this is true!), everyone is covered but, the services are far inferior to those available here. Look and see why the wealthy who are able to get the best care anywhere, come to the USA to get their treatments. We have plenty of programs where children who are sick and poor ARE ALREADY covered. They are not turned away now. How much do you think we can afford to pay for? Look up the facts before you decide that Bush is a mean ogre trying to hurt poor, sick children. He is using the knowledge available to all of us to save us from a major financial crisis! (and this has nothing to do with war expenses!)

Answer 5

Because the bills would harm the overall economy of the nation, meaning that over time, the American government would lose the ability to help ANY poor, sick children.

In addition, the president isn't spending money on war in lieu of spending it on poor, sick children. All bills concerning the expenditure of resources must originate in CONGRESS. If the president approved a 35 billion dollar increase in war spending and vetoed a 35 billion dollar increase in child healthcare, we could say he was spending it on war instead of children. Did he do this? No. The president does not the power to say: "We're going to not spend money on defense, and we're going to spend that money on healthcare," any more than he does to say: "We're spending this much money on defense, and not spending this money on healthcare." Congress has to send him the bill, to either approve or deny.

President Bush displayed remarkable financal prudence in vetoing a bill that might help a few poor, sick children, but would harm the overall economy and place the US government even further into debt.

Answer 6

He desires to set a checklist considering that he spent all that factor no longer vetoing charges for a Republican led congress, he desires to set maximum vetoes in shortest timeframe. he's often had to be in the Guinness e book of international documents. i think of he ought to bypass in under dumbest U.S. President inspite of the indisputable fact that.

Answer 7

This one veto has nothing to do with children. If the Congress really cared the one third of children who are currently covered in the SCHIPs program and not enrolled would be identified by each member in their respective district and enrolled. That should be done before we increase the wage limit on the current active program.

Answer 8

It's funny how grossly mischaracterized this is. The bill that was submitted to the President would have covered children whose parents make 80,000 a year, and who are up to 25 years old. Out of curiosity, at what point do you think these people stop being children? And at what point do we say they are no longer poor? It seems to me that at 4 times the poverty level, you can afford to insure your own kids, rather than make everyone else pay for them. And if you're still a child at 25, you need to grow up.

Answer 9

I's because he keeps giving away money to other countries [so they'll be our friends], and he's afraid that we won't have enough. That bill would be really expensive.
I'm not saying that it's right, that's just the case. the congress can also overrule him with enough votes.

Answer 10

He can't approve them all. It's not that this one bill you're talking about was to prevent helping poor, sick children; it's because some of its elements weren't right. If a household income is up to $83,000, I don't think taxpayers should have to foot the bill for someone else's kid. Don't have kids if you can't afford them.