|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Bush refuses to spend $35 billion on poor, sick American children. shocker.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Bush refuses to spend $35 billion on poor, sick American children. shocker.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| SaintJimmy |
Bush vetoes child health insurance plan
President, congress battle over $30 billion coverage increase
Updated: 7 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.
It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.
The White House sought as little attention as possible, with the president wielding his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.
Socialized medicine?
The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.
The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding.
Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.
Democrats deny that, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, 9 percent, or over 6 million, are under 18 years old.
Veto override considerations
Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But this was not the case in the House, where despite sizable Republican support, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.
Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."
It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.
In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.
And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups planned more than 200 events throughout the nation to highlight the issue.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This fuck-knuckle has no problem spending TRILLIONS of dollars that we don't even have killing and oppressing people that didn't do anything to us, but when it comes to helping out WORKING PEOPLE with uninsured children, no can do.
Jesus Christ - it's no wonder they tried to keep this quiet - it really makes ol'Dubya look like a shitstain. |
|
|
| lao tzu |
WHY WOULD HE HE'S TOO BUSY GVING TAX CUTS TO THE UPPER ECHELON OF INCOME EARNERS......
FUCK THE POOR ITS THE CONSERVATIVE WAY...... |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
Quote: Originally posted by lao tzu
WHY WOULD HE HE'S TOO BUSY GVING TAX CUTS TO THE UPPER ECHELON OF INCOME EARNERS......
FUCK THE POOR ITS THE CONSERVATIVE WAY...... |
I hope one day to be there getting one of those tax cuts... |
|
|
| lao tzu |
| I WEEP FOR THE EARTH.... |
|
|
| Oz |
don't recall the bloke's name but -
"if you can print money to kill people, why can't you print money to heal people?" |
|
|
| hingefactor |
| Fuck Bush. Worst president ever, destroying what once was a great country. It's gonna take a miracle to recover from his 8 years in office |
|
|
| Stonewall |
| Why would Congress depend on a cigarette tax for this? |
|
|
| Rike |
| Bush has done the right thing here. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
I hope one day to be there getting one of those tax cuts... |
I take it you didn't have a job when the tax cuts went into effect. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Why would Congress depend on a cigarette tax for this? |
Agreed - smokers are predominantly poor so as usual its a tax on the poor. We should just borrow the money from China like we have been doing for the Iraq war. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
This is Bush logic at it's finest.
The real problem, is that these sick kids aren't sitting in the desert on top of the biggest oil reserve in the world. There's no reason to help them.
Never mind that they're American.
The sad part is, if Bush helped these kids today, maybe they'd grow up and enlist for the next bullshit invasion we need them to perform.
Bush logic is truly the best. |
|
|
| mb33139 |
The "Decider" has decided against children.
How surprising. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
I hope one day to be there getting one of those tax cuts... |
continue begging at their table |
|
|
| zimmie |
| This is really bad news for those parents in New Jersey making over 80K a year. Looks like they can't cancel their health insurance for their kids and have the government pay for it.... |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
This is really bad news for those parents in New Jersey making over 80K a year. Looks like they can't cancel their health insurance for their kids and have the government pay for it.... |
Yeah, how dare the President veto what amounts to an entitlement program for the middle-class.
And how dare the President stop the slide towards socialized medicine.
See, this is the Liberal strategy as seen in the title of the post - lie to the American people and say this is a program for "poor" children.
People making over 80 thousand would now be able to stop their child's coverage on their private insurance plan and sign up for the socialist plan. Anybody looking to save a buck would do that.
The other hypocrisy in this is that the Liberals will defend the "need" to raise taxes by saying people with money don't need a tax cut and describe it as some sort of entitlement. However, they are more than willing to give a middle-class family an entitlement they don't need. So instead of paying for their child's health care they will be free to put a pool in their backyard or get that BMW they've been pining for. The point being - this is not about "poor" kids.
I applaud this veto. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Yeah, how dare the President veto what amounts to an entitlement program for the middle-class.
And how dare the President stop the slide towards socialized medicine.
See, this is the Liberal strategy as seen in the title of the post - lie to the American people and say this is a program for "poor" children.
People making over 80 thousand would now be able to stop their child's coverage on their private insurance plan and sign up for the socialist plan. Anybody looking to save a buck would do that.
The other hypocrisy in this is that the Liberals will defend the "need" to raise taxes by saying people with money don't need a tax cut and describe it as some sort of entitlement. However, they are more than willing to give a middle-class family an entitlement they don't need. So instead of paying for their child's health care they will be free to put a pool in their backyard or get that BMW they've been pining for. The point being - this is not about "poor" kids.
I applaud this veto. |
Of course you do!! These children are not from financially rich families that support Bush. Of course you support this veto.
It's amazing that someone who hates America and American families as much as you do wraps himself in an American flag every day and tries to pretend he's the biggest patriot in the world.
Sad. |
|
|
| Reed Rothchild |
| Fuckin A right on W! Fuck those kids, and fuck congress too, for having the balls to send up a bill that wasn't exactly, word for word, what the President said he wanted. Don't take no shit and never compromise! An extra 35 Billion? Shit, we can run the occupation for another couple months on that. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| The President has indicated he'd compromise, but the original program has been expanded by certain states that falls outside the intentions of the program. It was originally set up for children who's parents had an income in the low 20's. New Jersey has raised the eligiblilty to 400% more than that. It was intended to help poor children, now the middle class is siphoning money away from the poor. Democrats should be outraged. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Of course you do!! These children are not from financially rich families that support Bush. Of course you support this veto.
It's amazing that someone who hates America and American families as much as you do wraps himself in an American flag every day and tries to pretend he's the biggest patriot in the world.
Sad. |
First of all, if anyone is a "disgrace to America" it would be the likes of you, Ass Boil, Fdubya247, Oz and others who seek to undermine the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as domestic programs such as the Patriot Act that keep out country safe.
That aside, this is not about the "rich." This is about giving an entitlement to the middle-class. Anyone who is pulling in 80K/year does not need government help.
And this lie that the President doesn't want to continue the S-Chip program is just that - a lie. He has vetoed the bill because of its creeping socialism. He has said that if the Democrat majority wants more money to help POOR children then he is more than happy to sign a bill that provides it. He will not sign a bill that opens the door to socialism.
Socializing our medical care will destroy it - we have the best care, the most innovation and produce the most advanced prescription medication in the world - and that is because there is competition and choice. Take that away, and you will eliminate what still stands as the best health care in the world.
You should be ashamed to be supporting this bill. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
First of all, if anyone is a "disgrace to America" it would be the likes of you, Ass Boil, Fdubya247, Oz and others who seek to undermine the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as domestic programs such as the Patriot Act that keep out country safe.
That aside, this is not about the "rich." This is about giving an entitlement to the middle-class. Anyone who is pulling in 80K/year does not need government help.
And this lie that the President doesn't want to continue the S-Chip program is just that - a lie. He has vetoed the bill because of its creeping socialism. He has said that if the Democrat majority wants more money to help POOR children then he is more than happy to sign a bill that provides it. He will not sign a bill that opens the door to socialism.
Socializing our medical care will destroy it - we have the best care, the most innovation and produce the most advanced prescription medication in the world - and that is because there is competition and choice. Take that away, and you will eliminate what still stands as the best health care in the world.
You should be ashamed to be supporting this bill. |
*shrug* nice try. People who want our troops to die for profit are fucking disgraces.
Keep pleading your case, but it's clear to anyone with half a brain that if you support the war, you don't support our troops or this country. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
*shrug* nice try. People who want our troops to die for profit are fucking disgraces.
Keep pleading your case, but it's clear to anyone with half a brain that if you support the war, you don't support our troops or this country. |
Well the war is a different topic.
Can you defend this middle-class entitlement that your Democrat party desires? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Well the war is a different topic.
Can you defend this middle-class entitlement that your Democrat party desires? |
Are you saying we shouldn't have one?
I'm not defending anything the spineless democrats are doing or not doing.
But are you saying there should be no middle-class? |
|
|
| Oz |
| VTW - is there anything you don't agree with that Bush does? I'm serious - anything? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Are you saying we shouldn't have one?
I'm not defending anything the spineless democrats are doing or not doing.
But are you saying there should be no middle-class? |
No, I'm saying the middle-class does not need access to this entitlement program. I'm all for helping out poor families that are unable to provide their kids with health insurance.
I'm against opening this program to families that are not in need.
So once again, how do you justify this? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
VTW - is there anything you don't agree with that Bush does? I'm serious - anything? |
Yes - in fact, there was a thread I started where I listed 3 (and then added 2 more) things I disagreed with the Bush Administration on, and challenged the Liberals to come up with 3 things they would admit the Bush Administration had succeeded with. To my memory, the Liberals couldn't. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
No, I'm saying the middle-class does not need access to this entitlement program. I'm all for helping out poor families that are unable to provide their kids with health insurance.
I'm against opening this program to families that are not in need.
So once again, how do you justify this? |
Who said I did? I said it's par for the course for Bush to make sure sick Americans continue to get as little help as humanly possible.
I didn't say he was wrong for doing it, I said this is what Bush does.
Man, a little reading comprehension could go a long way with you.
Do you know I could tell you the future? It's true, I can tell you EVERY single decision Bush will make on any given situation.
All I have to do is know that Bush will put corporations ahead of any/all Americans. It's simple, the answers that benefit corporations while hurting the most Americans will be the decisions he makes.
It's not about Bush "hatred" as I'm sure you'll claim now. That I just hate everything about Bush. It's about understanding his motives. And his motives are CLEARLY greed and power.
Hey but you just keep your head in the sand and immediately feel as though I'm 'defending' the democrats :rolleyes: It's all you have left in this failed administration to look forward to. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Yes - in fact, there was a thread I started where I listed 3 (and then added 2 more) things I disagreed with the Bush Administration on, and challenged the Liberals to come up with 3 things they would admit the Bush Administration had succeeded with. To my memory, the Liberals couldn't. |
Then your memory is as faulty as your fucking logic. I clearly remember stating something I thought Bush was doing good for.
Oh yeah, it had something to do with the Space program. He was all about providing money for something to do with NASA, and I said that I was happy he did that.
Man, how quickly you 'conservatives' forget. |
|
|
| Chris54 |
| Oh please... read the fluff of the bill and you will see it wouldn't help any of the poor. The damnocrats are pushing these bills knowing it will be vetoed so they can use the premises of what it should have been in their election campaigns. Its all politics. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Chris54
Oh please... read the fluff of the bill and you will see it wouldn't help any of the poor. The damnocrats are pushing these bills knowing it will be vetoed so they can use the premises of what it should have been in their election campaigns. Its all politics. |
:bigclap: Absolutely! :bigup:
And Bush plays his part by vetoing things simply based on greed. Too bad he's not smart enough to realize what the 'damnocrats' are doing though huh? |
|
|
| flamslam64 |
| Where is it written that the goverment has to provide health care to the population? I mean I'm all for helping people but where is it written that my taxes are to go to this (yes I know many of you will mention Iraq and other isuues but lets stay on this particular topic). |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by flamslam64
Where is it written that the goverment has to provide health care to the population? I mean I'm all for helping people but where is it written that my taxes are to go to this (yes I know many of you will mention Iraq and other isuues but lets stay on this particular topic). |
Where is it written that my taxes should fund an occupation of a foreign country? |
|
|
| HardCockJones |
what a piece of shit.
This government really needs to be overthrown. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
Agreed - smokers are predominantly poor so as usual its a tax on the poor. We should just borrow the money from China like we have been doing for the Iraq war. |
The Left does not mind discrimination just as long as they don't agree with what that minority does. In this case smokers are the target.
Tax abortion. I wonder if a Democratic President would sign off on that? |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Left does not mind discrimination just as long as they don't agree with what that minority does. In this case smokers are the target.
Tax abortion. I wonder if a Democratic President would sign off on that? |
Are we taxing medical procedures now? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
Are we taxing medical procedures now? |
I can't imagine we are not... |
|
|
| Reed Rothchild |
Quote: Originally posted by flamslam64
Where is it written that the goverment has to provide health care to the population? I mean I'm all for helping people but where is it written that my taxes are to go to this (yes I know many of you will mention Iraq and other isuues but lets stay on this particular topic). |
Here's at least one example.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/EMTALA/ |
|
|
| patcracker |
I guess it was different when the OIl and Pharmacuetical lobbies lined up for their welfare. This that "compassionate conservative" Bush talked about back in '2000.
:fu: |
|
|
| flamslam64 |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Where is it written that my taxes should fund an occupation of a foreign country? |
As I stated before lets keep to this topic. The war can be argued is for the defense of the country which is part of the governments job to protect its citizens (Once again a totally different argument for another thread) I work in healthcare and there is Medicaid (the fraud perpetuated in this program would make you puke) and Medicare. This argument about "the sick children" is a pathetic ploy to garner sympathy and goodwill with an unsuspecting population. Just ask any illegal immigrant how they go to your local Emergency Room (they have to treat you). This belief that the government can handle this gigantic entitlement is a joke. Healthcare in England, France, Germany and Canada is a complete joke. Sure you can get free drugs (only the ones many times on the government formulary not the ones that may be the most effective) but see what happens if you need an MRI or a surgical procedure. The rich in these countries will never complain because they go out and buy personal insurance and get treated at private hospitals (or better yet they come here). You have cancer do you think you'll get cutting edge Chemo or surgery? Yeah right you get hospice care to see that your final days are peaceful. I am no republican (I consider myself a libertarian w/ fiscally conservative views) but the Dems are wrong here. It amazes me how they feel they can manage (and control) our lives better than we can. |
|
|
| flamslam64 |
An over reach of its authority. Go look at how many hospitals are losing their shirts because of the explosion of visits to the ER (illegal immigration does cost us money). Most NY hospitals now are 340B institutions entitling them to bigger discounted pharmaceuticals. Who do you think picks up the tab. Do you guys think this is a good thing? |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Yes - in fact, there was a thread I started where I listed 3 (and then added 2 more) things I disagreed with the Bush Administration on, and challenged the Liberals to come up with 3 things they would admit the Bush Administration had succeeded with. To my memory, the Liberals couldn't. |
Of course not asswipe, because you are so deluded you can't remember which talking points to parrot on which day.
BTW, chief, I came up with 3 and you applauded me. That was about the only honest reply or comment you ever made on here. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by flamslam64
As I stated before lets keep to this topic. The war can be argued is for the defense of the country which is part of the governments job to protect its citizens (Once again a totally different argument for another thread) I work in healthcare and there is Medicaid (the fraud perpetuated in this program would make you puke) and Medicare. This argument about "the sick children" is a pathetic ploy to garner sympathy and goodwill with an unsuspecting population. Just ask any illegal immigrant how they go to your local Emergency Room (they have to treat you). This belief that the government can handle this gigantic entitlement is a joke. Healthcare in England, France, Germany and Canada is a complete joke. Sure you can get free drugs (only the ones many times on the government formulary not the ones that may be the most effective) but see what happens if you need an MRI or a surgical procedure. The rich in these countries will never complain because they go out and buy personal insurance and get treated at private hospitals (or better yet they come here). You have cancer do you think you'll get cutting edge Chemo or surgery? Yeah right you get hospice care to see that your final days are peaceful. I am no republican (I consider myself a libertarian w/ fiscally conservative views) but the Dems are wrong here. It amazes me how they feel they can manage (and control) our lives better than we can. |
I'm on the same side as you dude. I think the Health Care industry would love to be socialized because then they would get a fat chunk of government cash which they could exploit.
The real problem I think is that this current set up for the Health Care industry rewards them for upping their costs while continuing to give an extremely base amount of actual 'care' towards patients.
Hospitals will do the bare minimum, and charge an exorbitant maximum they can to health care poviders.
This drives the costs of the individual's premiums WAY up. A company that used to cover 100% of your medical, now only covers 80% and has a $30 co-pay on top of it all. (Microsoft did this to us)
It's a sign that the health care insurance companies are being taxed HEAVILY by hospitals and the health care industry for cash, and they can't afford it themselves anymore, so now the patient is relied upon to cover the rest.
At what point does it become worthless to even HAVE medical insurance? When they cover only 30%? When they only cover 10%? At what point should we start worrying about how greedy the Health Care industy becomes? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
Of course not asswipe, because you are so deluded you can't remember which talking points to parrot on which day.
BTW, chief, I came up with 3 and you applauded me. That was about the only honest reply or comment you ever made on here. |
No, but do you see? He immediately makes the claim that NO ONE could do it.
I provided 1, you provided 3, and he doesn't remember any of it.
But clearly we're all just blinded by absolute Bush rage and hatred :rolleyes: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
Of course not asswipe, because you are so deluded you can't remember which talking points to parrot on which day.
BTW, chief, I came up with 3 and you applauded me. That was about the only honest reply or comment you ever made on here. |
Well as I said I couldn't recall exactly whether or not any Liberals had come up with some, and I will take you at your word and I do apologize. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
No, but do you see? He immediately makes the claim that NO ONE could do it.
I provided 1, you provided 3, and he doesn't remember any of it.
But clearly we're all just blinded by absolute Bush rage and hatred :rolleyes: |
Well, that was a long while ago.
That being said, "1" is pathetic given the successes that the President has had.
If 1 is all you can come up with, then it is fair to say that you are consumed by your hatred of President Bush. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Well, that was a long while ago.
That being said, "1" is pathetic given the successes that the President has had.
If 1 is all you can come up with, then it is fair to say that you are consumed by your hatred of President Bush. |
Again, that is not what you said when I came up with it in your thread.
In fact you said it showed I wasn't blinded by hatred because I could at least acknowledge one thing.
I think the time here on SFN has turned you into a bitter old hag.
I think it is fair to say that your selective memory is due to your undying allegiance to all things Bush. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Well, that was a long while ago.
That being said, "1" is pathetic given the successes that the President has had.
If 1 is all you can come up with, then it is fair to say that you are consumed by your hatred of President Bush. |
and it is pathetic that all you can come up with is 5 fuckups by the bush administration out of the myriad of fuckups. |
|
|
|
|
|
