1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Bush vetoes healthcare for children

Discussion in 'Health' started by roomfullofflowers, Oct 7, 2007.

  1. roomfullofflowers

    roomfullofflowers New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I received these this week, both are videos commenting on the healthcare funding that president Bush cut despite congress and the country being in favor of its continuance: This one is from Families USA and this one The Daily Show. Any more news on this? I'm not sure what to think, really, Bush is so inconsistent in his pretense at conservatism.
     
  2. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
  3. wm009

    wm009 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't Bush veto a bill for funding government programs that had to do with healthcare. Cause the title is a bit, how do you say, misleading.

    I'd veto them. Do you seriously want that chimp Bush to be in charge of children's health? No way!
     
  4. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Let me say this. I am as moderate left wing as you will find on this board. Regardless of the absolute spending problems DC had in the past. The bill presented to the President was a no deal. Congress doesnt have the override to make it worth while. It was simply to expensive and included far to many families that could otherwise afford medical coverage. The answer boils down to a few choices. Either you cover everyone or nobody at all.
     
  5. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    SCHIP is a programs is not a new program. Bush did not veto help to poor children. What he did do was veto a spending bill that would have increased spending in this program by $35 BILLION over 5 years. With the way most government income redistribution programs go, it would most likely go way beyond that figure. It would also increase the household income for eligibility up to $82,000 and change.

    Bush has voiced approval of an increase of $5,000,000,000 but without any changes in income qualifiers.

    The Senate Democrats have decided to try to garner the votes for an override, supported by the multiple lobbying groups with vested interests and those trying to secure favored status with the party in control of Congress. They choose to do this instead of reworking the bill and getting a new version, meeting current and near-future needs to the President for approval.

    So while Bush has been stingy with the use of his veto power, he has rightly done so on this bill. The Democrats plan to portray this as the "evil, uncaring Republican" drum beat that the mainstream media so readily parrots and a portion of the American public so readily swallow hook, line and sinker.

    In essence, the Democrats are once again intentionally not resolving an issue for their own political purposes. Whether I think that the government should be in the business of income redistribution or not is beside the point. It is what it is at the moment. I may disagree with much of what President Bush has done in the spending arena, but he seems to be firmly standing his ground on this one. It is the Democrats who are putting the funds for this program on hold, risking continuation of benefits for many who have come to depend on it.
     
  6. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63

    You hit the nail on the head. This issue clearly demonstrates the democrat's willingness to use those who can least afford to be used to make political hay and the sad thing is that those who are being used, keep coming back for more like a beaten dog that licks the hand that beats it. Dependence upon government is both sad and pathetic and those who earn their daily bread creating dependence are among the most vile and wretched of human debris.
     
  7. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    Thank you Pale. Obviously I agree. I know that Socialism (and other 'isms' of similar ilk) have been striving for their place in the American civic framework for over 100 years. It's been an up and down battle.

    It is truly fascinating to see how the pioneer spirit, the self-sufficiency and self-responsibility has slowly been laid waste in large portions of our population. Government run schools have secured the primary dynamics for success for the nanny state we're seeing blossoming before our eyes. Few, increasingly few realize just exactly what the government is supposed to do.

    The stern nanny is ever present in the background, burying us with rules, regulations, taxes, laws, restrictions, etc. along with the programs, the assistance, the hand-outs.

    From Oliver Twist (Charles Dickens) "Please, Sir, I want some more."' . Oliver, asking the cook at the workhouse for more gruel. Only in the U.S. today, it's going WAY beyond that extra morsel of food being begged for, and the 'Sir' being begged is none other than Uncle Sam.

    I keep looking for any Federal Government programs that work, and work efficiently. I think with the basic safety net program that this program has provided for the past few year it was needed at a time when the health care & insurance industries are going through some very tough reevaluations. Some states have abused the purpose of insurance safety net to poor. Actually allowing adults go receive benefits, resulting in the denial of qualified applicants of children.

    The entire system needs a restructure, but it should come through numerous steps that can be taken by the healthcare industry, without additional government involvement and regulations.

    5:00 was early this morning and time to go let my brain relax into mush...
     
  8. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can think of one government program that has worked and achieved its stated goals for decade after decade and would make a fine model for any and all government programs.

    The GI Bill. It is a government assistance program but it has serious strings attatched. First, you must be willing to work to even qualify for the program. Second, the program tells you what you must do to receive benefits, and if you don't live up to your end of the bargain, the government comes after you for its money back and will garnish you for the rest of your life $5 dollars at a time if necessary until they get it back.

    Generation after generation of soldiers and ex soldiers have passed through this program, got what the program said that they could get out of it if they worked and moved on to productive lives.
     
  9. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    See Palerider, I can agree. Its nice to know that those who risk thier lives for the country can get the education that will propel them into the private sector and succeed.

    My concern is that that the very ones who fight for our freedoms, are not getting the funding they deserve. If any group should be entitled to everything the US government has to offer it is the vetrans.
     
  10. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    Agreed! Pale and Bunz, you're both 100% right on the GI Bill. I'd not thought of that. It's a shame that the rest of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs isn't as effective.

    And 100% dead on, Bunz. ALL that serve in the military deserve the best in every form of support we can give them. It's too bad that Congress doesn't get that message.
     
  11. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    When it comes to Congress, unless it is a martini lunch with your caucus to get loose before the big afternoon vote, or some thousand dollar a plate fundraiser they miss the memo.
    They generally dont pay attention to the messages coming from thier constituents.
     
Loading...

Share This Page