Saturday, January 1, 2011

Isn't it in the best interests to give children proper health insurance

Isn't it in the best interests to give children proper health insurance?
I wonder if this is why our naked emperor vetoed health insurance for our children. Do you think this elitist action from the emperor will have disastrous consequences for the Republicans (in addition to the bogus "war" in Iraq, Osama Binladen/Al-Zahwiri still breathing, etc.) I'm referring to this story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
its not a child health plan. i love how the liberal media titles it that to make bush look worse.
2 :
He vetoed it because it included too many people who can afford insurance. Most Republicans backed the bill, and we will likely have a new revised bill. Stop reading just the headline.
3 :
Sure, Thats WHAT RESPONIBLE PARENTS DO
4 :
I hope this veto will be the straw that breaks the camels back. The day can't come soon enough when bush and the republicans like him are wiped from this planet. My blood is boiling once again and my head shaking in pity and shame from what has become of my Country.
5 :
Is it in our best interest to spend money on children without health insurance? Another important question to ask is WHY DON'T these children have insurance? Didn't JFK famously say "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?". Smart Americans will see through this legislation as a cheap attempt for Democrats to paint Bush as someone that doesn't care about children. As if $50 billion weren't enough, they request an extra $35 and allow the plan to cover children up to age 25 (anything past 18 is not a child in the eyes of the state).
6 :
He should have vetoed it from everything I've heard and read. The bill would have covered not only children, but adults too, and some of the adults covered wouldn't have even had children. I don't agree with Bush on everything, and it's very rare anymore, but I agree with him on this. A revised bill that would ONLY cover children who otherwise would not have healthcare would be acceptable to me, even though I'm for less government intervention in our lives.
7 :
Is a 30 year old person making $79,999 per year a child? under this program they would be covered, since when is it the federal governments responsibility to provide health care to anyone? That is a state issue, my guess is that this program would have directly benefited you. The only program the federal government is bound by the Constitution to provide is for the common defense.
8 :
Here's a thought: maybe people should be able to afford the children they choose to have instead of forcing the government to pay for their irresponsible choices. Why should the American taxpayer be saddled with the debt of caring for the needs of children whose parents are not willing to pay for themselves? If I choose to have more children than I can afford,it's my choice and my responsibility;if I choose to have no children and avoid the debt of raising and caring for them,should I not be able to use those saved funds as I see fit? The U.S. is not a socialist country,if this offends or disappoints you,you are free to leave.
9 :
Any American who voted for Bush in 2004 needs to pray for forgiveness as they elected an evil demon as president.

Read more discussions :