The House yesterday sustained Bush's veto of a measure that would expand health-care for "poor children" to adults and nonpoor children.
Did you find that bill odd?
The Washington Post reports Rep. Fortney Hillman Stark Jr. said...
"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
The votes on these measures were 402-2, 410-8 and 368-31 respectively, so Stark is well outside the mainstream even of his own party.
What do you think?
2007-10-19 15:47:34 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The phrasing is incorrect -- the House failed to override the veto -- the House cannot "sustain" a veto.
And if you check the facts of the legislation -- it wouldn't change the income thresholds at all -- because those are set by the states -- it would just provide more money so that more children could be covered.
But I do find it interesting that in a party so rabidly in defense of life and for the benefit of the children -- that funding for an occupation and building infrastructure in another country has a higher priority that providing health care at home.
2007-10-19 15:54:41 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
What I find interesting is the funding was suppossed to be from raising cigarette taxes...this would hurt the poor even more and it would require about 2 million new smokers a year to keep it funded...otherwise new taxes would be in the everyones future.
This would have been a 1st step to nationalizing healthcare.... the current federal healthcare system is already overburdened and a mess with overpayments and fraud..what makes them think this will be better.
So for those in favor of this..better start smoking or smoke more...remember..it's for the children.
2007-10-19 16:06:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think Rep. Forney Hillman Stark Jr. made a coherent statement there. I read it 4 times and still can't understand the damn thing.
2007-10-19 15:53:00 · answer #3 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It was a political stunt by the democrats to try and win support for themselves in their usual fashion - promise people a free ride. But now they want to extend the free ride to middle and upper class people to try and get their votes. It didn't work. Stark is an idiot. Usually the dems don't let him speak in public. For good reason.
2007-10-19 17:17:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to elimate SCHIP (state childrens health insurance program) entirely.
George W. wants to expand the program. Just not that much.
I think that this would be another step towards socialized medicine in America.
Capitalism is always the best answer.
2007-10-19 17:54:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember that nobody is ever denied health care. This is why insurance premiums are so high. Besides in our country we have no problem buying material goods that are simply not necessary, yet we scoff at paying for our health.
We have one of the best health care systems in the world. Socialized medicine does not mean better. In fact it might mean worse.
2007-10-19 15:58:15 · answer #6 · answered by Leapers610 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like Congress and the President agree.
With those numbers, Rep. Stark is an idiot and a liar.
2007-10-19 15:52:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
user-friendly. poor toddlers are disproportionately African-American. in case you supply respectable wellbeing guard them, they're going to do greater appropriate in school, and so on.--and be greater appropriate waiting to compet. an identical occasion--the "No baby Left at the back of" rip-off takes funds faraway from poor faculties and provides it to those with greater appropriate community investment (i.e., ordinarily white). So the "trick?" Bush and the neocons do no longer regard blacks--or the different minority--as actual individuals; they have madethat clean many cases. hence---on the grounds that they only regard whites as "actual individuals"--"help ing the poor" could be "tricking" them into permitting minorities to compete on an equivalent foundation.
2016-10-07 06:23:19 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stark's so stupid he keeps trying the same stunt over and over. What's worse is he 'KNEW' the president would veto and 'KNEW' the veto would stand yet still blames others for it's failures.
2007-10-19 17:20:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We need to stop depending on the government to give health care to us and our children its how we got in this situation to begin with.
2007-10-20 00:35:35 · answer #10 · answered by SS4 Elby 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋