PDA

View Full Version : Bush: Kids' Health Care Will Get Vetoed



Blandy vs Terrorism
09-23-2007, 07:28 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=NCJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.

At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage - not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill.

"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."

Matt O'Keefe
09-23-2007, 07:31 AM
:nonono2:

Ray G.
09-23-2007, 07:32 AM
Fail. Epic fail.

Scotty
09-23-2007, 07:40 AM
Veto that shit.

Jamie Howdeshell
09-23-2007, 07:55 AM
So Bush not only doesn't support our troops, but now he doesn't support our children?

Got it.

:innocent:

lonesomefool
09-23-2007, 07:56 AM
Why should we provide kids with health care? They should go get a fucking job, lazy bastards.


;)

Ethan Van Sciver
09-23-2007, 07:57 AM
VETO. A principal is a principal. These liberals with their mawkish drama already. "BUSH HATEZ KIDZ!!!!"

Smokinblues
09-23-2007, 08:21 AM
VETO. A principal is a principal. These liberals with their mawkish drama already. "BUSH HATEZ KIDZ!!!!"
my favorite of all time was the whole "they're starving school children" nonsense when the program was actually increasing.

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 08:22 AM
Why bother having a Congress?

King George is going to do whatever the fuck he wants.

Smokinblues
09-23-2007, 08:23 AM
Why bother having a Congress?

King George is going to do whatever the fuck he wants.
how many bills has he vetoed?

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 08:31 AM
how many bills has he vetoed?

It started with the Stem Cell bill...I'd say most that have been put before him since then.

Before that, he didn't issue a single one in 5 years.

He's more than made up for it since the Dems took control of the House.

There must be a site that's kept a tally somewhere.

Colin Solan
09-23-2007, 08:41 AM
What'll these liberals want next?? Public education that's on par with the rest of the western world??? Disgusting!!!

jess
09-23-2007, 09:47 AM
bastard. as if it's not already hard enough to get insurance for our kids...

Ray G.
09-23-2007, 09:50 AM
It started with the Stem Cell bill...I'd say most that have been put before him since then.

Before that, he didn't issue a single one in 5 years.

He's more than made up for it since the Dems took control of the House.

There must be a site that's kept a tally somewhere.

And isn't that a Presidential power?

Ethan Van Sciver
09-23-2007, 09:51 AM
What'll these liberals want next?? Public education that's on par with the rest of the western world??? Disgusting!!!

I have an idea: School vouchers!

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 09:52 AM
And isn't that a Presidential power?

Sure it is.

What's your point?

Ray G.
09-23-2007, 09:55 AM
Sure it is.

What's your point?

How does vetoing bills he disagree with make him "King George"?

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 09:59 AM
How does vetoing bills he disagree with make him "King George"?

Because he didn't use it at all in five years, and he's put it into overdrive since the Dems won the Houses.

He doesn't like what they pass, so he axes it.

Where's that new spirit of compromise and cooperation he touted in the days following the Dems electorial landslide?

Ryan Elliott
09-23-2007, 09:59 AM
I don't pretend to understand a lot of this political stuff, so can somebody sum this up for me?

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 10:01 AM
I don't pretend to understand a lot of this political stuff, so can somebody sum this up for me?

Bush Hates Kids Dead.

Smokinblues
09-23-2007, 10:02 AM
Because he didn't use it at all in five years, and he's put it into overdrive since the Dems won the Houses.

He doesn't like what they pass, so he axes it.

Where's that new spirit of compromise and cooperation he touted in the days following the Dems electorial landslide?
well, from the stories i've read he asked them to pass a simple extension to the children's health care program while they debated and worked details on any further expansion, but the dems went ahead with what they knew would get vetoed to make a political point, so the edge cuts both ways.

Ryan Elliott
09-23-2007, 10:02 AM
Bush Hates Kids Dead.


Oh.



Bastard.

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 10:04 AM
well, from the stories i've read he asked them to pass a simple extension to the children's health care program while they debated and worked details on any further expansion, but the dems went ahead with what they knew would get vetoed to make a political point, so the edge cuts both ways.

It is a sick stalemate we're all in.

The old immovable object versus the irresistable force.

Colby
09-23-2007, 10:16 AM
well, from the stories i've read he asked them to pass a simple extension to the children's health care program while they debated and worked details on any further expansion, but the dems went ahead with what they knew would get vetoed to make a political point, so the edge cuts both ways.

That's Bush's spin, though. I'm not saying the motives behind the bill are completely pure, but if it was all about a political point, why would a fair number of Republicans sign on to the bill, too?

Colby
09-23-2007, 10:16 AM
It is a sick stalemate we're all in.

The old immovable object versus the irresistable force.

Is Bush the Blob or Jaugernaut?

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 10:21 AM
Is Bush the Blob or Jaugernaut?

I wish I could type "He's the Juggernaut, bitch!", but he's definitely the immovable Blob.

Masculine Todd
09-23-2007, 10:22 AM
I don't comment in political threads often, but where would money for this health care come from? We're in the largest deficit we've been in for decades. Multiple countries own our debt. I can't imagine it being as simple as Democrats are trying to make it.

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 10:26 AM
I don't comment in political threads often, but where would money for this health care come from? We're in the largest deficit we've been in for decades. Multiple countries own our debt. I can't imagine it being as simple as Democrats are trying to make it.

Clinton left office with the largest surplus we ever had, Bush will leave with the biggest deficit we've ever had.

No wonder Greenspan wrote that Clinton was the best Republican President ever. :)

Smokinblues
09-23-2007, 10:26 AM
I don't comment in political threads often, but where would money for this health care come from? We're in the largest deficit we've been in for decades. Multiple countries own our debt. I can't imagine it being as simple as Democrats are trying to make it.
they want to increase the tax on cigarettes. ironically, mostly poor people smoke cigarettes and would be affected by this more than anyone else.

LittleBastard
09-23-2007, 10:27 AM
I don't comment in political threads often, but where would money for this health care come from? We're in the largest deficit we've been in for decades. Multiple countries own our debt. I can't imagine it being as simple as Democrats are trying to make it.

It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax to $1 per pack, a 61-cent increase. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_go_co/children_s_insurance;_ylt=AldvLzP73vYcwIfdhiXCF2Oy Fz4D)

Marcdachamp
09-23-2007, 10:32 AM
Clinton left office with the largest surplus we ever had, Bush will leave with the biggest deficit we've ever had.

No wonder Greenspan wrote that Clinton was the best Republican President ever. :)

Oh please, we all know that Bush is just getting the blow back from Clinton's plans. IT'S NOT HIS FAULT!




:roll:

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 10:35 AM
Oh please, we all know that Bush is just getting the blow back from Clinton's plans. IT'S NOT HIS FAULT!




:roll:

>slaps forehead<

Yer right, I forgot.

Bush's entire presidency has been reaction, not proaction.

Thudpucker
09-23-2007, 10:43 AM
How does vetoing bills he disagree with make him "King George"?

If he veto's bills that have the support of a majority of Americans? He is no longer a public servant, he is a dictator.

artimoff
09-23-2007, 10:52 AM
I didn't realize that a 25 year old was a child.

I didn't realize that an annual income of $83,000 was poor.

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 11:00 AM
I didn't realize that a 25 year old was a child.

You've been on this board long enough to know that's not true. ;)



I didn't realize that an annual income of $83,000 was poor.

It's the working poor. If you have kids and a house payment and other bills, you're making just about the bare minimum to keep your head above water with that income.

Whip
09-23-2007, 11:05 AM
"Let them go to the emergency room."

Ray G.
09-23-2007, 11:34 AM
If he veto's bills that have the support of a majority of Americans? He is no longer a public servant, he is a dictator.

No, he's not. By that standard, every President was a dictator.

Roman Noodles
09-23-2007, 11:38 AM
If he veto's bills that have the support of a majority of Americans? He is no longer a public servant, he is a dictator.


Clinton left office with the largest surplus we ever had, Bush will leave with the biggest deficit we've ever had.

No wonder Greenspan wrote that Clinton was the best Republican President ever. :)

:lol:

lonesomefool
09-23-2007, 11:44 AM
they want to increase the tax on cigarettes. ironically, mostly poor people smoke cigarettes and would be affected by this more than anyone else.

I would have no problem with that, except the sad fact is that most people who smoke cigarettes and have kids and are poor, would go spend the money they SHOULD be putting towards their kids, to buying more cancer sticks. Sad, but true :surrend:

Thommy Melanson
09-23-2007, 11:49 AM
I would have no problem with that, except the sad fact is that most people who smoke cigarettes and have kids and are poor, would go spend the money they SHOULD be putting towards their kids, to buying more cancer sticks. Sad, but true :surrend:

They could stop smoking.

Then cancer deaths will decrease.

So less money will be spent treating lung cancer cases.

Therefore, more money can be spent on children's illnesses.

Everybody wins!

YAY!

lonesomefool
09-23-2007, 11:52 AM
They could stop smoking.

Then cancer deaths will decrease.

So less money will be spent treating lung cancer cases.

Therefore, more money can be spent on children's illnesses.

Everybody wins!

YAY!

I agree that people should stop smoking, but the fact is that a lot of people will probably go buy some more cigarettes before buying little Timmy a new pair of shoes. People who smoke TEND (not always) to be dumber/less educated than people who do not smoke, and sadly those are the people who have a lot of kids.

Smokinblues
09-23-2007, 11:53 AM
If he veto's bills that have the support of a majority of Americans? He is no longer a public servant, he is a dictator.
that's silly. so any president who doesn't follow the whims of public opinion polls is a dictator. ridiculous.