Bush vetos children healt care plan for second time !!?

Question

He claims this plan is to expensive unnecessary and a waste of money. This plan will cost about 7 BILLION DOLLARS each YEAR.
Yet he has asked congress for 180 BILLION to invest on the war. This will break up to 15 BILLION PER MONTH.

As I follow his point is that our money should be invested on killing people not saving their lives.

Is this guy an idiot or not ????

Thank you for all the great answers and taking the time to read this question. Since the answers were reflecting your opinions on this matter, I can’t choose one over the others, so I will put this question to vote.

Answer 1

Not an idiot. He's not against health care for low income children. This is a bad bill that would have resulted in parents of children who were already cared for under private insurance taking them off of it to put them on government health insurance in order to save a buck (at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers). It would have expanded those who qualify to include familes who are NOT low income (in fact above the median US household income).

It was a poorly masked attempt by the democrats to try to move us towards government healthcare, which isn't going to be good for anyone. Bush was right to veto it. Do your research into what exactly he vetoed before drinking the koolaid the liberal media is pouring down your throat.

Answer 2

You're being misled.
Bush vetoed the bill because it did not guarantee that children without insurance would be covered before coverage would be given to people (children and adults) who already have private insurance.
Congress was well aware that the bill would be vetoed but pushed it through specifically to generate the misleading headlines that it did.
The administration wanted to negotiate with congress on the bill but Democratic leaders refused to meet with the administration.
This bill was not intended to provide coverage for only children or those who can't afford coverage. It was an attempt to start the country down the road to government provided universal coverage. This is not the role of government
You're being duped.

Answer 3

President Bush vetoed a bill which replaced into in simple terms the narrow end of the Dems wedge of socialized drugs. If the socialists (er, I mean liberals) extremely need to help little ones and not basically play political video games for the clicking they'd desire to draft a bill that addresses the subject of uninsured babies without including political beef, grandstanding ( spelled L Y I N G )for the media, or attempting to stress socialized drugs down our throats. For the checklist, I DO have faith that one and all babies would desire to be medically insured. I do exactly no longer think of that socialism is the respond.

Answer 4

no hes not an idiot, hes entirely correct. comparing the elimination of al qaeda with a health care plan where my tax dollars could in fact be taking care of someone making more than i do who can easily pay for their own is where the lunacy is. its correctly heading off a maddening race toward socialst healthcare thats a recipe for disaster. you liberals ought to try to stop ladleing these bills with pork and you might be suprised at the results. but thats a tall order to fill for a liberal i guess.

Answer 5

You don't take money away from home and then spend it on another country.
That's irresponsible!

Bush is incorrigible!!

Answer 6

The Federal Government is NOT in the Health care business

Answer 7

Because he cares more about lining the pockets of war contractors than he does about kids.

Answer 8

It's easy to spend money.. it's much harder to find the moeny to spend..

Answer 9

I hate Bush

Answer 10

that's wrong....but what can we do about it? theres so much going on right now that he won't care.