Politics – President Bush vetoed legislation Wednesday that would have expanded government-provided health insurance for children, his second slap-down of a bipartisan effort in Congress to dramatically increase funding for the popular program.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
anytime2meetu
iambosanitas
ihair
williamtech
ianimal
iamcosmetics
ianxiety
laynekerr1972
iaddiction
gano
iacupuncture
inatural
jeepndave
MargaretB.Anderson
AmandaN.Tarbox
JacobK.Whitlow
GaryA.Stevenson
WendyA.Haley
ChristinaB.Dowden
JuanT.Johnson
Lurch
getreal1
Yays
TemplarScribe
susant01
jovial
FarFarWar
KMFDM
avpd85
Basant1
HUSSAIN786
joeblowe
totalmania
plorenz3
GregD
Jaydee40
Hobbs524
EricAlbanese
LaraElla
roseannezeal
659hynes
sailr
458)
And a "BAH, HUMBUG" to you, too, Mr. Bush ... but I expect that you will get more than a lump of coal in your Neiman-Marcus Xmas stocking ...
Why should I pay to give myself health care? It is a middle class health care bill. What government run function for anything is better than a non government run one? Answer is the military. Everything else becomes a bureaucratic nightmare and costs much more to pay for that bureaucracy.
Basic question is why would I want to be under that nightmare of a government run health care system?
the most efficient healthcare system in america is Medicaid try researching not watching fox news for your info
That may be your own opinion. It most certainly is NOT fact. There are plenty of complaints about what they pay and when they pay. If and when the government runs the whole thing, you will see a steep decline in quality of care.
It's failing in Canada, Great Britian and France. Why are we following their lead?
I applaud the President on this one. If you take time to read the proposed SCHIT bill that was vetoed you would agree too. The bill was not just for "children" it also had at an estimated 1.2 MILLION adults on the government funded health care program many who are not US citizens. The CAP that this bill proposed was 300% of the poverty level. Meaning almost a $70,000 a year ADULT earner is eligible for the coverage under the Veto'd version. The political dogma and MSM talking point is that the President and those who would vote to uphold the VETO do not care about the "Children" and do not want the program to cover children who really need the assistance. That is COMPLETE BS! There are currently an estimated 600,000 adults covered under the program! Instead this SCHIT version is nothing less than 1 more incremental step toward SOCIALIZATION of the health care system. If only the President and congress would have taken the same position on the prescription Drug bill.
The "CAP" you refer to is a state-to-state calculation.
Only ONE state in the ENTIRE country would have a 'CAP' as high as $70K - that is New York.
Where are YOUR stats on the so-called "adults" that are covered under SCHIP??
You BUY INTO the crap that there are people in this country that "do not deserve" any assistance to get ANY health care.
Bush has dragged this country into a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT because of his "war" which only causes death and destruction.
But, Bush can't bring himself to spend more than 5 Billion on healthcare for HIS constituents and the citizens - CHILDREN - of THIS country? THAT is the "COMPLETE BS".
We should give free insurance to those 25 year old "children" who grew up in middle class families shoudn't we?
"We should give free insurance to those 25 year old "children" who grew up in middle class families shoudn't we?"
--Why not? We're giving billions of our tax dollars in "subsidies" to Big Oil on top of the obscene profits they're making from charging us upwards of $3.00 per gallon at the pump and yet we hear nary a peep out of right wingers over that. Why is that?
Two wrongs make a right? I don't like that logic Meso.
"I don't like that logic Meso."
Clearly, you do.
How so? You are saying that because you feel the government is wasting money on oil subsidies, we should waste even more money on giving free health care to middle class adults.
"How so?"
--My point wasn't that I think having my tax dollars spent on "socialism" (as you define it) is acceptable or unacceptable but rather that I very seriously doubt that you scrutinize your government's approach to spending your tax dollars as aggressively when the beneficiaries are those on the higher end of the economic spectrum. Why is this argument going over your head?
This thread has nothing to do with what you are trying to talk about. Why can't you stay on topic. As I have said to you further down the page, when a story comes up about that topic, we will debate it then.
"This thread has nothing to do with what you are trying to talk about. "
This thread is about Republican hypocrisy and I will provide as many examples as I see fit. If you don't like it, you don't have to respond to my posts but don't tell me I have to interpret the scope of this story as narrowly as you choose to.
Republican hypocrisy? Really? I thought it was about the veto of the schip bill. A bill about a rediculous expansion of insurance coverage. It's about the dems trying to sneak in socialized medicine.
Like I said, you already pay for socialized medicine for people who make much MUCH more than $70,000 so I don't understand why the SCHIP bill bothers you so much.
As I have previously stated, there is a big difference between socialized medicine for government employees, and socialized medicine for everyone. The government paying for the health care of their own employees is no different than your boss paying for your health care.
sounds like you don't know much about the REAL bill.
your first claim, that adults are going to be covered, is a red herring since all the adults covered in the bill will be phased out in two years.
secondly, your $70k is another red herring since the money is handed out to the states as grants, and it up to the states to decide where to draw the line, and the only state that might go that high is NY.
third, your claim that its socialized medicine is just plain stupid since this program already exists. the money being asked for is simply to handle the current system.
its obvious that you and the rest of the haters on this board don't know what you're talking about.
Not only do I know what I'm talking about, my WALLET knows, too. And my WALLET says the following:
- NO, to adults being covered for two years, or ANY amount of time.
- NO, to ANY money being "handed out to the states as grants".
- NO, to ANY more money being given out "simply to handle the current system".
You got it, NoWayAMan - - I am AGAINST one more cent of MY MONEY going toward people who WON'T take some personal responsibility and TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.
Bush was right to veto this, thus protecting the money of those of us who ARE taking care of ourselves. That is why I voted him in twice, and would vote for him again if he were allowed to run for a third term.
DON'T tell me what to do with my money. I earned it, I'LL see to it that it gets spent - or saved - wisely.
Well I can tell you that you will pay a lot more. People who do not have insurance when they get ill or injured go into the emergency room.
In that case the costs escalate over what they would otherwise would be. Additionally the emergency rooms cannot and will not turn away people so we have much higher expenses and guess where that comes from.
It comes from your tax dollars and you have nothing to say about it unless you want all emergency services cut for all. That would of course include you if you have a stroke or heart attack. Here you are a perfect example of cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Grow up and be willing to participate in the greater good rather than letting your greed to not help others spite you in the end and I guarantee it will some day.
Ian, people here go to the walk in clinics, unless they are illegal aliens.
"Ian, people here go to the walk in clinics, unless they are illegal aliens."
--Or unless they're uninsured or underinsured citizens. You're living in a fantasy world If you think all Americans can just "go to a walk in clinic."
A doctors visit without insurance is $50 dollars at my doctor. On top of that, if you don't have insurance, the doctor will give you "sample" medications. So, for 50 bucks you can see the doc and get your meds.
There ae also several free clinics around town.
"So, for 50 bucks you can see the doc and get your meds."
It's wonderful that you have such a cavalier attitude about a $50 dollar doctor's office visit but this has been your *personal* experience and not necessarily the rule.
There are 3 docs near my house that treat people like that. My copay is $25, after I pay another $25 for meds I am paying 50 bucks too. Whats the problem? If you cannot afford a fifty, go to a free clinic. I volunteered at one several years ago.
Oh the day would not be complete without nccneon stopping by to neg everything I say.
For a family living from pay cheque to pay cheque 50$ can be a large amount, you should not be so cavalier about the working poor tang. Well paying jobs are not always easy to find and ones with good health care benefits are even harder for some. Why are so many afraid of universal health care, it costs less per person and increases the level of health of the average person. Those are documented facts, wouldn't you like to save money and be healthier?
I could not be any healthier. 6 weeks after spinal surgery I was back to doing 200 push ups, sit ups, squats and running everyday. If more people would take care of themselves like I do we would not even be discussing this. Also, the level of care I received was great. Universal health care would benefit people who do not take care of themselves and screw people like me.
In what way could it possibly screw you or anyone?
wow frenchy, you sure are filled with hate.
and I guess you didn't know this, but you're going to end up spending more money on these same people if they don't have schip. they'll end up going to the emergency room when they get sick and the bill we'll all end up paying will be much higher. so, its in your best interest to fund schip up front. if not, you'll have to pay a higher bill on the back end.
too bad you're not smart enough to see that.
other stuff...
the money is already handed out as state grants. like many existing programs, i.e. no child left behind.
the only adults covered are 18-25, who will be phased in 2 years. (a very small part of the the program btw).
and meanwhile...
you're fine spending endless billions on war.
but hey, at least you're being honest about your hatred and racism and not trying to spread a bunch of false "facts" about the schip program, like capecoral and many others on this board. I'll give you that.
Where is the hatred and racism in saintetienne's comments? There is no way (man) that such an accusation, based on such specious straw, should be allowed to stand. If his really were racist comments, I'd be standing in line to nail him to the wall. But, who's really the racist here? Could it be that your paternalistic plantation owner mindset is peeking through?
get real. plantation mindset? not for this tri-racial person. I'm talking about saving real money here. you're going to pay, one way or the other. schip will actually save us all money in the long run and people like frenchy just don't get it cause they're too busy saying "mine! mine! mine!"
how long have you been on these boards?
frenchy's a true hater. period.
"frenchy's a true hater. period."
Partially true. I truly hate your witless, boneheaded, go-nowhere comments, and I truly hate that they take up propeller space which could otherwise be going to another poster with something insightful to say.
Aside from that, I don't hate anything.
"its in your best interest to fund schip up front."
Spoken like a true Socialist dictator.
Heil Hitler. Heil Chavez. Please....take all of my money....the government knows what is best....
No thanks, NoWayAreYouAMan. I will decide what MY best interests are with MY OWN money. And it sure ain't in caring for the welfare poor and their endless parade of unwanted children.
Perhaps if they were cut off COMPLETELY from the system, they would get a clue, get a job and get a life. Or not. I really don't care. I'm too busy providing for myself, so I don't become a burden on others.
your hatred is getting in the way of you saving money. you're going to pay for these people one way or the other and you're just too dam stupid and hateful to see that.
there's no way they will be COMPLETELY cut off from the system, unless of course, you're in favor of not treating someone who walks into an emergency room who is very sick, which I guess would make you the hitler.
what a tard.
wow saint-
in reading your comments, the phrase "i got mine, screw every1 else" comes to mind.
two other phrases come to mind as well; "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" along with "what you do to the least of them, you do to me also"
I think he is just tired of paying for the people who will never leave welfare, and illegals. Tell you what, boot the illegals, and require that everyone on welfare be on birth control. If you are on welfare and give birth, your child goes to a state home, and you lose your benefits. Also, people on welfare should be required to accept any job whatsoever. Even if it is cooking fries at micky d's.
Oh...
My...
God!
"I think he is just tired of paying for the people who will never leave welfare, and illegals."
--Yeah...We understand your xenophobia. What we don't understand is why you aren't as irritated over the multi-billion dollar earning corporations that are receiving your tax dollars.
Who says I am not? Is this a thread about that? Nope, this thread is about schip. When one comes up that is about corporations receiving tax dollars, let me know. I'll be glad to come and share my opinions on that topic.
"Who says I am not? Is this a thread about that? Nope, this thread is about schip. "
Tang, please... You're not debating 2nd graders here so stop feigning oblivion of the fact that your tax dollars support many, MANY more Americans who make a hell of a lot more than $70,000 than the paltry number of adults who *might* benefit from the expansion of SCHIP.
You are trying to bring up other tax problems to justify this one. I personally think that is rediculous. Read what you are saying, you are trying to justify wasting billions of tax dollars because you think tax money is being wasted elsewhere.
Nope, I've never said that wasting tax dollars is acceptable. What I have said is that acting as if this particular expenditure of tax dollars is so incredibly egregious when we know there are far far worse examples of questionable spending priorities is a total joke and pure right wing hypocrisy.
No, it's not, and yes you are. You are saying that I should not be upset at this waste of tax money because I am (so you think) not upset that the government wastes money elsewhere. There are multiple govt programs I would like to see stopped immediatly. I think it is you who is being hypocritical here.
"Perhaps if they were cut off COMPLETELY from the system, they would get a clue, get a job and get a life. Or not. I really don't care. I'm too busy providing for myself, so I don't become a burden on others."
Or maybe they'll get a gun and kill your mom for 20 dollars in pocket change, your call sparky.
I am a bit curious as to how CHILDREN are supposed to "support themselves".
Children are TOTALLY dependent on their adult 'caretakers'.
What you are saying is that if the adult 'caretakers' are irresponsible then their children deserve NO help whatsoever, even when those children have NO control over their environment or situation or WHO their 'parents' are.
Your total LACK of compassion is glaring.
The government has been telling YOU what to do with a large CHUNK of YOUR money since you have been EARING money. Because, they take out taxes and social security whether YOU like it or not.
I suppose you support the billions - approaching trillions - of dollars on unjustified wars, including your tax dollars, but you don't support ANY sort of spending that just might help some AMERICANS that need it?
Damn..isn't that something..compassionate conservatives,who came up with that?I agree the top amount is to much..why should i take a bus so i can have health care while someone else drives a lexus ?But in the process bush is hurting children and that is unacceptable.We have an obligation to help those citizens of ours that can't help themselves..it only makes sense.
If you want to be angry good,i am to..in fact i'm pis-ed.One of the places that that anger should be directed at,and rarely is, is the insurance corp. These are the people that have driven health care through the roof.They are the shadow government and there only motivation is profit,not any thing to actually help any one.
"why should i take a bus so i can have health care while someone else drives a lexus ?"
--The thing is, it's unreasonable to assume that the reason people who makes more money than we do fail to insure their kids is that they choose to spend their money on expensive cars instead. In fact, for many peope, their cost of living may be much higher than yours or mine. What many on the right fail to mention or acknowledge is that if your insurance and other expenses take a bigger chunk out of your budget than theirs do, the fact that you make more money than they do is irrelevant. I agree with just about everything else you wrote, otherwise.
bubba, do you still pay the bills for your 22 year old?
This line of reasoning is always amusing coming from those who perpetually whine because the "death tax" stops them from sufficiently sponging off their dead parents gains. Stop acting so sanctimonious. Hypocrisy is very unnattractive.