1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan. ...

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bbn, Oct 3, 2007.

  1. #1
    Bush vetoes child health insurance plan.


    ..........."Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America."................
    SEMrush

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health


    Now it will become obvious even for the children in America that the president of the greatest country in the world, the only superpower, has no money to help America's children.
     
    bbn, Oct 3, 2007 IP
    SEMrush
  2. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #2
    He is afraid that if they give medical insurance to children, there will not be enough money to kill people in the other parts of the world. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  3. nickstan

    nickstan Peon

    Messages:
    781
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    hey, he knows he won't be the next president might as well dent the country and leave with a big bang
     
    nickstan, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  4. bbn

    bbn Peon

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Where are the cons?
    Naah, they don't want part in this sh$t. It is way too large and deep for them to cover with perfume.
     
    bbn, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  5. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #5
    It will be the next Republican campaign banner:

    "Don't kill your unborn children by abortion, we will kill them by lack of medical insurance later." :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Oct 3, 2007 IP
    Bender likes this.
  6. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #6
    I agree. This veto was a total mistake. I think its a wonderful idea:

    Children in this bill is defined as anyone under 25 years old. Do you think people under 25 are children?
     
    lorien1973, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  7. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #7
    The bill also removes requirements that persons applying for public assistance show proof of citizenship. So you would easily have illegal immigrants getting even more benefits without contributing to the tax base.

    States would be allowed to let in as many childless adults as they wanted onto the program. Federal oversight is removed in the current bill.

    Some states could have people earning as much as $100,000 getting publically funded insurance.

    Medicare cuts were part of the program as well. So if you support the bill, you apparently are also in support of gutting medicare (using democrat logic) ;)

    Oh, and everything is funded by a 45 cent tax on cigarettes. Every who believes that tax will fund the bill, please raise your hand.
     
    lorien1973, Oct 3, 2007 IP
    GRIM likes this.
  8. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #8
    Curious, is this if they are students or anyone under 25?
    If true this alone makes me support Bush on this decision!

    I haven't read much into this, I will try to today if I get some time.
     
    GRIM, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  9. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #9
    From what I understand, its anyone under 25 who isn't married. So you could have unmarried couples with kids (everyone under 25) on the public dole.

    Oh yeah, the current bill also removes any sort of congressional oversight. So states can pretty much do whatever they want to without the federal government knowing about. Does this sound like a plan that is going to stay in control for very long?
     
    lorien1973, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  10. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #10
    #1 25 but unmarried, damn I am not for over 18 in the first place, but this almost is a penalty for being married then! :eek:

    Sounds like a social plan ready to be taken to the extreme and abused, another huge waste of tax $$$$.

    I'm all for insuring our children, hell I wish my child had insurance. I make to much though, but it's not worth me having insurance on him. Love how I should pay for a 24 year old though to have insurance when my own son doesn't have it, or an illegal alien, now that makes me glad to pay taxes.

    I know several people who abuse these programs as it stands. One person I know, she is 17 her husband is 18. Neither work, they just had a kid and are on every type of assitance possible. They could work but refuse to get jobs, a complete waste of tax $$$, they are abusing the system and the system sadly is enabling them to do it.

    Just one example, I know of others that are even worse, but this is the most recent going on right now! :mad:
     
    GRIM, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  11. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #11
    Up to today, I really hadn't read substitive stuff about the bill. Mostly I read about the politics of the thing.

    I reviewed the Wikipedia comments on it.

    To date it has been in existance for 10 years and has cost about $40 billion. $4 billion/year.

    Each state administers it differently. I suspect that the rules about age and eligibility would differ state by state.

    Wiki referenced 2 studies. One stated that removing kids from the protection would result in overall higher costs as kids would get health care from emergency rooms etc. and those costs would be covered elsewhere and higher. The 2nd study said that for every 100 that enrolled there would be a reduction in 25-50 in private insurance on kids.

    The politics about it seem to be about 2 big topics; philosophy and costs. Bush had offered to increase the size by $1 billion/year and the Congressional bills wanted an increase of $7/billion year.

    Bush quietly vetoed the bill. Then he made a speech and offered, for the first time, to compromise on the legislation to some degree.

    I suspect that there will be some compromise on the issue in short order.

    While Lorien outlined some of the aspects that make it most unattractive over 10 years the program must be incredibly popular in that it has enormous public support for continuation.

    Also the funding for the larger Congressional bill is supposed to come from a $0.61 federal tax increase in cigarette and cigar taxes - not $0.45. I don't know if there was a tax increase included with the administration proposal.
     
    earlpearl, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  12. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #12
    This is like many/most bills as people do not know the full story.
    My wife brought it up for example this morning about him vetoing 'not supporting him' I recently brought up the under 25 and illegal immigrant portion and she quickly changed her tune.

    If everyone knew the specifics I wonder how many would support it ;)
     
    GRIM, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  13. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #13
    I outlined new provisions that are in the bill. They weren't in previous bills. So looking at past support doesn't matter.

    Specifically, the medicare cuts were inserted this year, the citizen requirement added this year, etc, etc.

    Yes, they do administer it differently - the feds just set the guidelines as always. But think about it. Each state is paid per person enrolled. So while states -can- request citizenship information. Where is the incentive to do so? If you are paid money not to ask (by signing up anyone who wants too - remember unlimited waivers on the state level) why would you?
     
    lorien1973, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  14. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    I'd rather spend money on kids health care then the war in Iraq but I also would rather just keep my tax money then pay for someone else's womb turd
     
    ferret77, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  15. bbn

    bbn Peon

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Some on this board seem to not agree with giving free money to those who don't deserve it. I agree with you.

    BUT SPENDING 450 BILLIONS ON A WAR THAT WE HAVE NO INTEREST IS A TREASON TO ALL OF US.

    Another thing is why should we give free money - billions to other countries (some of them not poor at all) provided we leave our children unprotected.

    THIS IS VERY ANTIPATRIOTIC AS WELL. It is much better to have our poor children insured together a few % not deserving it than have them without health care at all.

    I suspect that many Americans are too lasy to think, or may be worse ..
     
    bbn, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  16. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #16
    Good veto. I'm against socialized healthcare.

    People have to remember that every service the government provides comes at a cost to us. It's not free, it's not a bonus, it comes with strings attached to our wallets.

    Before excessive taxation to maintain the entitlement system, overspending and negligence, people had the disposable income to donate to charities, if that was their prerogative. And many did, and many charities and churches helped to provide services like education and medical care.

    Whenever you add a layer of bureaucracy, you compromise the value of the contribution. Our politicians make more money than many of us, have better pensions than many of us, and have better healthcare than many of us. And we pay for it. A key purpose of the Constitution was to limit government, so that we did not fall into the trap of being serfs to an aristocracy. That the wealth of the nation would stay with the people, not with the elite ruling class.

    We've got a long way to go to get this thing turned around.
     
    guerilla, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  17. Toopac

    Toopac Peon

    Messages:
    4,451
    Likes Received:
    166
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    Bad move on the part of Bush, American tax dollars should be spent on health care for American's esp the poorest:(
     
    Toopac, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  18. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #18
    How about those who are not 'americans?' To me that's a pretty big deal.
    Clean the bill up and I might support it, if it however allowed things such as illegals to use it that's another story.
     
    GRIM, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  19. KeithCash

    KeithCash Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #19
    :eek:

    Ferret, you are dead on this, I totally agree with you.


    We are just dumping money into a middle east endless holes
     
    KeithCash, Oct 3, 2007 IP
  20. bbn

    bbn Peon

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    .......... The Democratic legislation would add $35 billion to the program over five years to expand coverage. Bush argued the bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor and would entice people with private insurance to switch to government coverage. He has proposed a $5 billion increase in funding. .............

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health

    It is obvious Bush wants more money for evil things than noble.
    He recently wanted about $60 bln more for Iraq.

    The enemies of America are joining forces to put bleed her anyway they can. Now they try to hurt the most precious wealth she has. Her young generation.

    Any man in power who is against the American children is a trator of America, no matter how they paint themselves, no matter what excuses they bring.
     
    bbn, Oct 4, 2007 IP