Thoughts on the health bill that Bush knocked out & threatens to again?

Question

What do you think about the health bill that would cost 35 billion and give health coverage to so many? Should we back this or is Bush right about something (a first)?

Personally I think if we can spend the billions on the war (that is producing no effect) then we should spend a few billion on our kids (which is our future).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071026/ap_on_go_pr_wh/children_s_health

Not sure I understand the comment about socialized medical, isn't that what our military has?

Yes, the extra expense to the middle class is kinda out there, but middle class doesn't always mean has money. My wife and I are middle class and we are dead broke from medical expenses, costs and we had insurance for my injuries (the costs came from stuff not covered and being out of work for three years).

Bush has no concern for working class, instead he is worried about the big business, which this will hurt.

Answer 1

Hope the veto pen is full of ink.

Answer 2

They never thought this bill would pass and probably didn't care one way or another. Why are our law makers wasting our time right now? Only because an election is coming up in about a year and a half or so!? Take a look at some of the politicians websites. They make all kinds of promises and allegations. We can't go around believing everything we read or hear, but we do have to elect leaders and I think we should elect people who are not going to waste our time for their gain. These so called "veto threats" could actually provide a more efficient way for government to spend their time, if they allowed it to. Just think about the hundreds of government employees spending hours on this bill that they knew would never get passed, just for political gain. What do you think the average salary is for one of these employees? I'm sure it's more than mine. For what they make, they sure haven't done a whole heck of a lot in 9 months. I think that is plenty of time to get something done. As far as spending this money on this or that, that is the governments job to decide. It's our job to elect people who can make decisions and who can then follow through with their decisions.

Answer 3

initially, congress is featuring sales articles like drunken sailors! no longer a unmarried plan of theirs isn't without severe beef-cost. it really is the significant rationalization why all of their proposals are being slammed. i'm no longer a significant Bush fan, although the present tax and spend healthcare plan replaced into absurd. Do you keep in mind that it preserve monies for those already with inner most coverage (more suitable sensible than 0.5)? by ability of your way of questioning authorities managed some thing is suitable. Sorry, i'm for my area no longer drawn to nanny-state politics. I in simple terms want someone ought to face up with a healthcare plan that don't have nonsense addendums for certain pastimes. And certain, conflict is an gruesome organization, yet i ought to fairly have experts waging the conflict interior the middle east than fearing what ought to wish to ensue battling interior our very own borders. i assume you could opt to circumvent away our troops without munitions on the sector of conflict? we are already sizing down our presence by truth the Iraqis develop into more suitable sensible knowledgeable.

Answer 4

Let me start by saying that not everyone shares the same views. That's what makes our country great, and the internet. The ability to LEARN and become open minded.

In the Yahoo Article, it states that "The legislation is designed chiefly to provide coverage for children whose families make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to purchase private insurance.

In general, supporters said it would extend coverage to children of families making up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of four."
This bill fills a gap, the gap of those who make income higher than those that are considered "lower class" but not enough to pay for private insurance.

My Response:

This bill will cover those those people, such as myself, whose parents fall in the middle class range but can't afford private insurance. I think it's unnecessary though, because I think if the government is going to provide for some people, than they need to do the same for all people - not specific of income. I think my parents should have to pay for if I want to be covered, and if they CANT pay than RAISE the f-cking level at which the poor are covered, don't blanket act it.

This bill needs to be abolished and we need to stop relying on our government to take care of us. This is a direct example of what government should NOT do.

Answer 5

It is more important to spend 10 x as much in Iraq than to keep our own kids healthy. There are too many kids anyway. If they are healthy they will just be sent off to war so they are better off sick. The government owes us nothing except to build even more prisons and start even more wars.

Answer 6

It's a good thing it appears Congress is trying to socialize medicine at the expense of the poor. Because they are trying to get the majority of US households in the SCHIP program thus meaning I will have to give up my private insurance for public insurance designed for single mothers.

Also in knowing that it is not being funded the Left is playing politics and denying the poor their medicine and yes you got it are killing babies for not funding at a reasonable level.

Freaking Baby Killers.

Answer 7

Kids are relatively easy to provide health care for but - when they do get seriously ill they need care that can be very expensive but it doesn't happen that often. Not like old people, who the government does pay medical care for.

I think the reason that Republicans hate this idea so much is that it would work really well. They hate the idea of a government program that might work because it will make people think that government is good at doing things, which they can't stand.

Answer 8

He asked for an extension of the current program and was denied this because of the grandstanding egos of the Dems.

Answer 9

35 Billion MORE than the previous plan that was in place. We dont need to give upper middle class "kids" anything.

Answer 10

Why would you oppose this bill?
Who would vote against healthy kids? Or healthy adults for that matter.
I don't understand the mentality that would happily spend money on war, death and destruction, and not on our own children.
Of course I've always been of the mind that we should spend more on home based social programs than the military.

Answer 11

This bill is dumb and stepping in the direction of Comrade Stalin.