Do You Know The Truth Behind Bush's Healthcare Veto?

Question

The Truth Behind Bush's Healthcare Veto


Two recent news items remind us of the disconnect between the Democrats' claimed monopoly on compassion and the effects of their policies.
First, consider the emotionally charged public debate over President Bush's veto of a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Programs.
Standing by congressional Democrats in their push to override the veto, singer Paul Simon said with earnest indignation, "The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to re-examine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children."
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the compassionate Simon is obviously unaware that the matter is not as simple as merely throwing money at the problem. To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, "There are 500,000 kids in America who are eligible for this program who have not been signed up, yet there are some 700,000 adults who are already on the program."
Simon, unlike the Democrats pulling his puppet strings, must not realize that President Bush supports a $5 billion expansion, not reduction, of the program, or that the Democrats' plan goes far beyond providing a safety net to the needy.
It would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year, which would entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for state coverage.
Is it good for the children for Democrats to exploit them as props in their quest to force socialized medicine on this nation, one incremental step at a time? Will the inevitably long waiting lines and substantially reduced quality of care be good for the children?
Why can't congressional Democrats just admit they have a soft spot for socialism: that they believe capitalism results in too much economic disparity and that government — the Constitution be damned — should redistribute wealth to suit their ideas of fairness? Never mind that a command-control economy results in a smaller economic pie.
What matters is they care, and by gosh, they're willing to forcibly transfer other people's money to prove it.
As another example, consider the Democrats' obstruction of President Bush's efforts to reform Social Security. Who can forget the Democrats' (Bill Clinton's, Al Gore's) insistence that the future solvency of this entitlement was in such jeopardy that it must be placed off limits in a lock box?
Yet when President Bush attempted to reform this "third rail of politics," Democrats didn't just oppose the eminently sensible "partial privatization" aspect of his plan. They went further, completely reversing themselves and denying the system was in trouble at all.
Our old friend Sen. Harry Reid said, "Social Security is not in crisis. It's a crisis the president's created, period . . . The president has never seen a crisis he hasn't created . . . [Bush is] exaggerating the solvency."
This time they went to the other end of the chronological spectrum and used seniors as props.
Here again, they pretended to be intervening for the very group of people their demagogic opposition was sure to harm: future Social Security recipients. Demonstrating once more their contempt for the private sector and free markets, they tried to scare seniors into believing President Bush was imperiling Social Security with his very modest proposal to allow participants to invest a small portion of their own funds.
Bush's valiant effort was dead on arrival, and we kicked the ball down the road. This week, we were reminded of the consequences of this reckless procrastination when the first baby boomer of a projected 80 million, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, applied for her benefits. Despite the Democrats' denials in the name of protecting seniors –- most of whom are not yet seniors –- Social Security outlays are projected to exceed its receipts by 2041.
In the meantime, Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, in the spirit of compassion, is advancing new plans every other week to dole out yet more government money to various groups of voters, er, beneficiaries. These newly promised funds obviously will not be available to pay off maturing Social Security IOUs. But without the slightest self-consciousness, Hillary rails against President Bush for irresponsibly increasing the deficit — though the deficit is, in fact, decreasing. But don't you ever forget how much she cares about the children whose financial future she's mortgaging.
Just believe her and her colleagues that it is evil Republicans who are bankrupting our children with tax cuts that have grown the economy and shrunk the deficit.
Conservatives must be prepared in this campaign season to return to their own free-market principles and expose the liberals' compassion for the ruse it is

Answer 1

No one in Washington ever seriously thought the SCHIP bill would pass. It was created solely to force the President to veto it so his opponents could claim that he doesn't care about the children.

Congress won't override the veto, so I suppose they don't care about the children, either.

Answer 2

Understand 1 thing: I think it was a poorly written bill that in any other circumstance should have been veto'ed.

In reality, Bush has lost the war of words with the Democrats over this bill and it was reflected in his 24% approval rating the other day. It may have been a dirty trick by the Dems to use a cripped child to sell the bill, but at that point, if Bush was smart (and didn't want the GOP to lose more seats in Congress), he would have conceded defeat and signed it.

People are not dumb. They saw Bush ask for $50 billion more dollars to lose err....fight the war in Iraq next year, but vetoed a $35 billion dollar increase to SCHIP that would have been spread out over a 5 year period.

In addition, this is ONLY the 3rd veto of Bush's Presidency. This is after he signed numerous pork-laden spending bills that had 14,000 riders for over $25 billion worth of pork barrel programs in it. Don't think for a second that fact escaped 99% of America.

Not to mention the fact that people were already upset over the non-reaction and gross indifference to New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.

End result, my prediction is that Hillary wins the Presidency and the Democrats capture 2/3rds majority in House and Senate in Nov. '08.

Dumb dumb dumb!


edit: And no, I am not a Hillary supporter.

Answer 3

Very well put. Well with regard to social security, all you have to do is expose one simple but telling fact..... Congress has an ENTIRELY different retirement plan that has nothing to do with Social Security. Now you would think that with libs like Harry 'Mr. Personality' Reid blabbering on about how great Social Security is, he would be clamoring to get into such a great system. And yes, the socialized medicine gig is demagogging at its most despicable.

Answer 4

I'm a cynic. The only reason the dems want to nationalize health care I bet in cause a certain insurance corporation wants the be the only one getting the goverment contract (in short, a private company will be receiving our tax dollars and our leaders will let it happen out of greed and political motives) and a excuse for another tax hike. Oh by the way, if you ever tried to apply for goverment benefits, its set up in a way that almost impossible to get them or designed to discourage people to apply for them. So it would be another way goverment can stick the screws to the average American without us getting anything in return.

Answer 5

Long post, but correct. The rich, white, elitist Democrats in Congress believe that the average American is not smart enough to figure all this out, but it is actually very easy to see right thru. It is amazing how many people are bamboozled by this.

Answer 6

The House knew this was a bad bill to begin with.

Seems to me that if they REALLY wanted to pass a bill on health care, they would preset something reasonable.

But, they don't, so they won't.

Answer 7

Propaganda & politics as usual. A Dim whitted Congress and a fool me again, just do it mentality of the fast food media gobbling pubic that reads nothing ! Thanks for the extensive information and effort here. More thought than many can bear.

Answer 8

Has anyone noticed how much "leadership" the new Dem controlled congress is showing? Yea, right!

!

Answer 9

You asked and answered your own question with your own version of the truth! No need for the rest of us.

Answer 10

Money for Iraq, just throw the children out.