Bush Child Insurance Veto Is The GOP 2008 Dagger
Some Republicans in Congress are as upset as Democrats over Pres. George W. Bush's veto of expanded health coverage for children.
The veto of this bi-partisan and popular measure will make it harder for Republicans to convince voters that there is anything remotely resembling a compassionate conservative in their party, handing Democrats another political leg up.
Another GOP stalwart, Pete Dominici of New Mexico, has announced that he will not run for re-election, as more and more Republicans step away from elections knowing they face defeat, or at best, a lonely and politically powerless life in the Congressional minority.
For Democrats and for the common good, November, 2008 can't come fast enough.
10 comments:
Jim:
Why dont you tell the whole story. You omit that Pres Bush vetoed it because it over reached from the intended purpose of the program, to provide health insurance to low income children. Not middle class children. Families who earn up to $80,000 with four children would qualify. That was not the intent of the program. Why must you and the rest of the democrats not tell the whole story? Of course Pres. Bush want to provide low income children health care, however, as a tax payer, I do not want people who can afford health insurance to opt out and enroll on the Government's (my) dime.
Bush's explanation doesn't move me.
What kind of response is that?
The whole story, as you see it?
OK: the legislation is an expansion: so what?
Plans change all the time. Look at the medicare drug plan. That's new. It's a change.
SSI for disabled people is a change. Rural electrification was a change.
Child labor laws were a change.
Plenty of laws, programs, standards, goals change and expand.
Should things be static only?
More insurance coverage means healthier children and families. Better learners in school and better, more productive workers.
This is a good thing. I suspect you cannot see past your own self-interest.
And as to Bush: here's a rich guy, with nice health insurance provided for him by the taxpayers, which is a good thing, closing off coverage to middle-class people who for one reason or another do not have coverage.
And for the record, I pay full freight for health insurance as a self-employed person, and I'm not complaining of some my tax dollars support others' insurance.
It's one society and we're all in it together.
Go move to Cuba if you want to live in a socialist country
What kind of a response is that?
That was a stupid response on my part.
Seriously, I am all for giving health insurance for low income children, since their parents cannot afford it. But I do not agree with providing government health insurance to people who can afford to buy it one their own. It is called personal responsibility. If they cannot afford that is one thing, but I will bet you that their will be people who can afford their own insurance for their kids but will opt out for the free Government insurance.
Last time I checked, President Bush and congress were employed by the taxpayers and voters. They are not given health insurance for doing nothing.
I disagree with Bush over a lot of things, Iraq being one, I even voted for Kerry in 2004 since I wanted a change in Iraq, but I did not vote for an increase in Big Government or entitlement programs. I will not vote democratic in 2008.
If a middle class family can afford cable TV, cell phones and ipods, they surely do not need government assistance for health insurance. I do not make $80,000 and I do not want my tax dollars going to support them when I make less and choose to spend my money on my PRIVATE health insurance
Well, I figure we will not agree on this.
Years ago, I wrote a freelance piece for a business magazine about bankruptcy in the US. The #1 cause was was an uninsured medical emergency.
I think the upper-limit of the potential coverage level is something of a worst-case, what-if and why scenario.
The goal is to get more children health insurance. I'm for that, and I do not mind that the government is the agent of change in this regard.
I was watching Oprah yesterday with Michael Moore re: Sicko. It prompted me to search out this subject as why Bush veto'ed it.
I don't understand why it's a problem to expand to people who make 80K a year. I make 90K a year and can not afford the nebulizer of $253 it will cost me. I work for a HUGE company and each year my insurance goes up and up. By many of my peers, I'm considered well-off. But they don't know that I pay 600/month for student loans, 600/month for food for a family and 2000/month for daycare. My husband carries the bills and we are barely making it, top that off with the price of gas and food these days.
We are fortunately, but there are other people in the same boat and I find that the middle class is barely able to afford if their child gets sick. I recently saw a house go up for sale 200K below what they owed on it because they have a child with cancer and can't afford to live in their house.
As a human, you have to ask yourself 1) does the child of a gas attendant desserve the same insurance as the child of a CEO? 2) are you willing to accept the fact that families who make 80K PLUS find it increasingly troublesome to afford the simple health insurance?
It was heartbreaking for me, as a well-paid mother to have tomake a choice of whether my son eats or gets a nebulizer.
"But I do not agree with providing government health insurance to people who can afford to buy it one their own. It is called personal responsibility. If they cannot afford that is one thing, but I will bet you that their will be people who can afford their own insurance for their kids but will opt out for the free Government insurance. "
I wouldn't opt-out of my responsibility, but I would appreciate help... John P is only interested in himself obviously and thinks that if a family rakes in 80K, they are doing well... what world are you living in?
Post a Comment