Sure lots of compassionate folks,... lamenting, Boohooing,... but the Sunzabetches time and again pull the rug out from under our children with "ZERO" reaction from the populace...??????? WHY ??????? DC... that is a baseless and completely false answer, but you say it well, and so it is almost believable. There is nothing in that bill beyond adding children to the rolls.. it is not Pork spending as your answer suggests, to the contrary the language in the bill is specific and that is why it has overwhelming bipartisan support in the house and senate... turn of the Fox News
Politics - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Already in place it is called SCHIPs, been in place for sometime and still one third of parents who are eligible for it or Medicare have not enrolled. Before we add a higher level of income to an existing program we need to insure that the current (poorest of the poor) children are covered. Are you interested in children or interested in bashing bush? I am for the children of this country and strongly believe that the House should play the most important part (both parities). They have districts, if they could go door to door to get votes and drive the poorest to the voting booths then by god they can do the same for the children in health care. They and their staff have plenty of time away from Washington to do just that, four weeks off for labor day would have been a perfect time.
2 :
Give $400,000 a year to 25,000 doctors to see ten patients a day and this will serve the needs of 50,000,000 during the year for just 10 billion dollars . Who thinks we can not afford 10 billion to pay for medical care for 50,000,000 people each year .
3 :
Try learning more about the gosh darn bill. The ORIGINAL bill that Bush was ready to fund would have given MORE money to poor kids. But once the Dems got their hands on it, they had actually diluted the impact the bill would have had on the truly needy by giving money ALSO to "kids" up to the age of 25 and kids in families with as much as an $80,000 income. Compassion is a wonderful thing, but you have to also have a little common sense. Try getting some.
4 :
This actually doesnt even warrent an answer since we have covered this so many time but I will get a violation if I dont answer. He didnt veto childrens health care he vetoed an overpriced expansion of the program which would include people who do NOT need government sisstance, which the dems knew he would veto, so instead of sending him an extension of the current bill, they sent him a bill they knew he would veto for this purpose - to make him look bad.
5 :
It's just a reflection of American hypocrisy. We are up in arms about the unborn, but once born, a child is only good for cannon fodder. Christian compassion (we keep hearing about what a Christian nation we are) calls for killing our enemies and ignoring the needs of the poor.
6 :
He vetoed that bill to keep the government from providing health care to children of RICH parents who can afford to pay for their own children's insurance. Poor children are covered. Those already eligible will not lose their health care. Clear enough for you? This is not a Socialist country. And it's not an illegal war, force was authorized by Congress. Just because the Dems jumped off the boat doesn't make it illegal.
7 :
It wasn't just child healthcare that was vetoed. The bill did little extra for those who cannot afford child health care. Instead it expanded those eligible for child health care up to age 25 and up to and beyond $ 60,000 annual family income. The Media are biased and have a political position on this issue that is not based in the facts.
8 :
The SCHIPS expansion is a fraud - as usual. It's NOT about children's health care, it's about expanding free federally-funded health care to middle class children - at a time when all honest observers say that the current program still fails to reach 2 million eligible poor children. When you can explain to me why the children in a family of four making up to $82,000 a year should receive free health care from you and me, I'll be happy to listen. Or up to $62,000 a year - the Dems recently caved in as the Reps kept asking why families earning $82,000 a year should be getting free health care. Well, guess what? $62,000 is still waaayyyyyy too much - unless you really, really enjoy feeding your dollars to the federal monster. No, when the Dems go out and haul in the 2 million children eligible under the current program and get them covered, THEN we can talk about expanding the program - BUT NOT TO THE MIDDLE CLASS. Doh!
9 :
The true question, oh lame one, is why you are okay with including families that earn $83,250 a year in SCHIP coverage. That is 300 times the poverty level. THAT, dear one, is not what SCHIP was created for! Or can you not get that through your bleeding liberal heart? Waste not, want not!!!!
10 :
You've had many excellent answers, explaining that the president was not vetoing health care for children, but an extension of the plan to families who don't need it. Do you get it now? I doubt it. That's the main problem with liberals. When faced with clear facts, they can't or won't see them.
Read more discussions :
- Women/girls if you could have a child with 'gifts'...
- Why can't Dads get child support deductions on inc...
- Father of my child's health issues impairs his abi...
- Has any of you ever used NYS Child Health Plus ins...
- child sneaking food/health conciuos parents Plase ...
- Which medicaid health plan is better for pregnancy...
- Is Health Care Obama's No Child Left Behind? Why o...
- What is the logic behind forcing people to have ch...
