Does Bush care about children?


Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2007
Washington state
Last Updated: Wednesday, 3 October 2007, 14:27 GMT 15:27 UK

Bush vetoes child health care bill
Breaking news
US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill to expand a children's health care insurance scheme, after it was passed with a large majority in the Senate.

Mr Bush argues it takes the program beyond its original purpose of insuring children from low-income families.

The vetoed bill proposed higher tobacco taxes to provide an extra $35bn (£17bn) to insure some 10 million children.

Children's health insurance is set to be a campaign issue in next year's elections, analysts say.

Eighteen Republican senators joined Democrats last week in passing the legislation by a 67-29 vote.

But the House of Representatives, which approved the bill by 265-159, was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
The preceding was brought to you with this question. Why does Bush care more about smokers and the tobacco industry than children?
Several things, this wasnt necessarily a great piece of legislation. I am far from a conservative when it comes to politics. But the actual bill did come in at a very high cost and unless it was a move towards universal health care, it did include many people who could otherwise probably afford thier own health insurance. But it might be wise to look at the congressional voting record to see how your own member of congress voted on the issue. It seems there are about 40 members who should be called out as well at the very least to get the override taken care of. To answer your question...Yes he does care more about big business than the average kid. Kids dont vote, kids dont make campaign contributions. Big tobacco on the otherhand...
Child Health Care issue has many sides

Yes, this particular bill is a great example of how the press can choose things it wants to discuss. I happened to read a few articles on this veto until I stumbled upon one hiding between the lines on MSNBC.

The bill would extend health care to families of four that are 400% above the poverty line (currently somewhere around $20,000 for a family of four). Granted - when you hear "Bush denies health care to millions of children" that sounds awful. But when you hear "Bush denies health care to a family of four that makes four times the poverty level" it sounds like there's more to discuss.

I don't really have a side on this issue - it actually seems too thick for me just yet - but what a hot button this has become due to vague reporting by the press. Why can't we (the public) just get all the info we need to develop a clear and solid opinion on an issue? Why do we have to be "used" essentially by the press?

By the by, if you haven't heard yet - there are some great websites out there that pick apart the inconsistencies in news reporting and politician-speak. is a good one, as is I also recommend the Washington Post's Fact Checker.
Apparently Bush's veto has brought out some opponents not bargained for.
SCHIP Veto Hurts Families of Wounded Troops | Print | Email

Read more!Today, IAVA released a statement urging Congress to override the President's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP includes two overlooked provisions that help families of critically wounded troops.

Monday, October 15, 2007
Contact: Michael Houston, IAVA (212) 982-9699 or michael[at]

SCHIP Veto Hurts Families of Wounded Troops
Overlooked Provisions in Insurance Bill Have Significant Impact on Military Families

NEW YORK – Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the nation's first and largest nonpartisan organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, today urged Congress to override the President’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization. SCHIP includes two little-known provisions which help the families of critically wounded troops. The provisions provide one year of employment discrimination protection to family members caring for severely injured troops, and extends permitted work leave for those family members from three months to six months. Congress passed SCHIP earlier this month, but President Bush vetoed the legislation for reasons unrelated to these military families’ amendments. This Thursday, the House will vote on whether to override the President’s veto.

“Any member of Congress who supports the troops should vote to override the President’s veto. If SCHIP fails, so does this protection for families of our most grievously wounded troops. These service members and their families carry the heaviest burdens of this war and they need all the help they can get,” said Paul Rieckhoff, IAVA Executive Director. “Thanks to improved battlefield medicine, thousands of troops are surviving catastrophic injuries, but they face long and painful recoveries at home. The last thing these wounded heroes should have to worry about is whether the loved one at their bedside is going to lose his or her job.”

One in five severely wounded troops say a family member or friend has been forced to give up a job to care for them. This is true of Annette McLeod, who is featured in the national TV ad campaign IAVA is running this week to demand that Congress and the President improve care for veterans. Mrs. McLeod’s husband, Specialist Wendall McLeod, sustained multiple, life-threatening injuries while serving in Iraq. “When my husband returned home grievously wounded, it ripped my life apart,” said Mrs. McLeod. “I lived in South Carolina, but Wendell was being treated in Washington, DC. After just three months, the human resources department at the factory where I had worked for 20 years said I had exhausted my time off. Being forced to give up my job made a heart-wrenching and difficult time even harder.”

“Already this month, 70 service members have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of them will require long-term care at hospitals which are far from their hometowns. The emotional and financial toll this takes on their loved ones is enormous,” said Rieckhoff. “The time to protect these families is now. This is not a partisan issue; it’s simply a matter of treating the families of wounded troops fairly. We urge lawmakers to vote the right way on this issue.”

Two elements of SCHIP impact the families of wounded troops. The first provision, known as the ‘‘Support for Injured Servicemembers Act,” would allow up to six months of leave for family members who serve as primary caregivers of combat-wounded service members. Currently, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides only up to three months of coverage. The second portion, ‘‘Military Family Job Protection Act,’’ prohibits employment discrimination against these family members by protecting their employment, promotion, and benefits for up to one year. The provisions can be found under Subtitle C, sections 621 and 622.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is the nation’s first and largest group for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A non-profit and nonpartisan organization, IAVA represents more than 62,000 veteran members and civilian supporters in all 50 states.
Saddling children with a massive and unsustainable entitlement program for upper-middle-class yuppies that neither need nor deserve it is not doing any good for them. They won't thank us for it in the long run.

That this program is supposedly going to be paid for by cigarette taxes(which, as no one here seems able to grasp, are massively regressive) means families of six with an income of like $40,000 a year will be paying for health care for families of two with an income of $70,000 a year.

The fact is that the Dems have made a horrible case for the bill. They failed to dig up even a single genuine sob story in support of it.
The fact is that the Dems have made a horrible case for the bill. They failed to dig up even a single genuine sob story in support of it.
I would agree the legislation wasnt much thought out, little of it actually is though. More a political manuever that cripples DC through partisan ship rather than what is right for the country, compounded from it being fully into the election cycle.