Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The destruction of CIA tapes, the veto on Child health care (middle class), and more. President Bush in office

The destruction of CIA tapes, the veto on Child health care (middle class), and more. President Bush in office
I'm very sick of the President as I'm sure many others are. The White House is involved in soooo many scandals right now it's not even funny. Any chance that President Bush will ever be called to testify in court EVEN after his presidency? Did I say that "everything" that is going on is because of Bush. I know that Cheney, Rove, and others also share the blame ;-). My question is will the U.S. Government have the power to CALL P. W BUSH To testify in congress for things he did in office.
Government - 6 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If you are that naive to blame EVERYTHING on Bush, then you are in for a real shocker when a Democrat is elected President. There was nothing wrong with the SCHIP veto. Don't buy into the "you don't care about the children" crap coming out of the mouth's of Democratic Congress people. They know their bill is totally flawed, but they use the "children" to get people like you to hate Bush just a little bit more.
2 :
Obama promises to hold this administration accountable for all illegal doings. A vote for him is a vote for justice.
3 :
Nope, the kool aid is too strong..they will fight to the death for him.
4 :
I doubt it. Our government is going to be too busy... governing? At least that's what they say they do. Some private individuals or groups will no doubt try to go after Bush and Cheney, and will inevitably fail.
5 :
Nope he will never have to testify in court...all of his crooked cronies are covering the trail....He is the worst president!!!
6 :
My short answer, 'no'. Not unless the next President and Congress take action to uncover and expose the truth... whatever that may be. This administration has been very secretive, subversive and has diverted attention on multiple occassions in order to avoid scrutiny and close examination. Whether this is truly based on National Security or not is anyone's guess at this point. All the public can do is demand answers, after all - we are the ones who pay the bills (in the end). The Plame matter, Iraq, OBL, Guantanamo, detainee torture, extraordinary rendition, government contractor scandals, missing weapons and money in Iraq, etc... - all of these issues have not been fully examined, exposed and rectified to the American taxpayers. Like I said, we may never know unless we hold our representative government officials accountable for finding the answers.

Read more discussions :

Friday, February 8, 2008

"NO your child can not have health insurance!"

"NO your child can not have health insurance!"?
Last week it was the case of a 4-month old child being denid health insurance for being overweight. Now a 2-year old is being denied health insurance because the health insurance company think her size and weight is not right for a child of her age. This is despite doctors saying the child is fit and healthy! This is just ridiculous and goes to show the state of our healthcare system when the insurance companies make their own minds up and dont even listen to the advice of doctors. Close them all down I say or at least start fining them when they make outrageous decisions like this! Tyler this is about children not being accepted for health insurance. One was considered overweight while the other is underweight. As for your advert let me say that this is about children and you should not give your children Acai berry tablets if they have a weight problem. PLEASE PARENTS DO NOT DO THIS!!!! Tyley, I have removed your post.
Other - General Health Care - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I agree. Why should an insurance company be allowed to make medical decisions? Where did they get their degrees in Medical Care? Hooray for you!!!!!!!!!!
2 :
The girl in question is perfectly healthy and has only suffered a cold in the past. She is rated in the 30% for height and weight for children her age. The insurance company wants 50% as the standard, their news release says they are following industry standards in setting their requirements at less than 20% deviation from norm. So if you are petite or tall, you are uninsurable according to this insurance company. A prime example of why we need health insurance reform.
3 :
possess as much information as you could maybe is one of the options,however it is quite time consuming,here http://www.HealthInsuranceIdeas.info is the resource i have ever had good experience.

Read more discussions :

Monday, February 4, 2008

Why are we OK with a president that Veto's child health care but requests another 200 bil for an illegal war

Why are we OK with a president that Veto's child health care but requests another 200 bil for an illegal war
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 :