Wednesday, 03 October 2007
-
Healthcare for Children
President Bush vetoed a bill that would have given 4 million more children in the U.S. health insurance. Here is the link: Link
If you were president of the U.S., would you have signed the bill to give the 4 million children health insurance?
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to TheTheologiansCafe's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in TheTheologiansCafe's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (108)
Absolutely.
Without looking into it, yes.
If the bill didn't include families that made around $83K or so a year, then yes.
But if you make approximately $83K a year, you don't need help with getting your child health care, you need help managing your money.
.. i don't care.. i'm in canada, i get free healthcare.
I guess it depends on what the cons are...
I would not have...
If its seems to good to be true - it probably is
Daniel (doubledb)
Ah, but out of whose pockets would this humanitarian aid be coming?
stupid idea giving medical coverage to people earning $62k a year ($82k in NY State) after deductions, free medical care. Charity for the middle class. Sorry it is such a stupid idea. Giving medical coverage to those who can afford it, but chose to do something else with their money. Lie maybe a new car a bigger house.
Why not food as a right paid for by the goverment? Why not a free house these two things are much more important than medical converge should these thngs not also be paid for by the citizens of this nation?
I think that most states already have programs for families of low income to be able to get health insurance. What group of kids does this 4 million represent? While I think that health care is important, especially for kids, I don't know all the issues and details. An unfortunate aspect in today's media and politics is that the headline and story is about a veto of health care for kids, but the all the details are not well known. The democrats will assail the GOP and especially Bush for him vetoing this, but I need to know more information before I can really decide if this was a good bill or an ill conceived plan.
What I guess I would like to see is something done for dental and vision care for children in low income households. When I taught in public school, these health needs could really interfere with student learning.
.. "i don't care.. i'm in canada, i get free healthcare"
But it is so bad, we see Canadians here in Washington state coming for the medical care that if they waited until they could get it for "free" they might die
...I think that's a good thing, right? So I would let it pass.
What else was in the bill?
If what trunthepaige is saying is true then I agree with her. Federal help to families earning $62,ooo is really not needed. That is the kind of detail a lot of people will overlook, and that the democrats will certainly not mention when they criticize Bush.
Hey did anyone ever notice that 70% of the national debt has been accrued under Republican presidents? But it was Carter who really tried to keep spending under control by trying to have no new spending unless the funding was there, and Clinton who actually had surplus budgets because he raised the taxes a small amount early in his administration....
Sounds like the question is a little weighted, if you read the link, Bush's reasonings behind vetoing were related to the step closer that would bring Americans into socialized medicine, which is against the freedoms outlined in our constitution. I am all for programs that help those in need, but allowing those who *can* afford healthcare to choose between a state-fed program and the private sector brings them into competition which is not a good move. Granted the current healthcare system and Insurance system is failing in many areas, however it is still better than socialized medicine.
Those who are *for* socialized medicine obviously haven't done research about other countries such as the UK and the Netherlands that have atrocious stories about the medical community deciding the fate of an ill-born child. (IN many cases the GOVERNMENT decides if your child is treatable or if they should be left to die). Personally I would rather pay a higher price and have those choices be up to me and my family.
Yes it is true I looked it up because i could not believe the Bush administration was trying to cancel such a good program. Then I read the reality of it was that Bush was trying to expand the program to undeserved but still poor childern. But the democrats rammed through this bill that includes the middle class (higher in NY state) in what was supposed to be a charitable program.
They did it knowing ahead of time that Bush would veto it if they did. they did this simply because of election year politics and no other reason
That's why I don't have a job until after college.
I stay in my health plan until I can pay for my own. But I wanna know why he vetoed it. Just curious :P
No, I will give it to the soldiers to kill more people.
Yes. For many reasons.
We don't have money for kids health but we have money for this war.....funny?
Children should just be grateful the death rate under 5 yrs of age isn't still at 50% - spoiled punks. When I was their age we played with broken glass, cuddled with snakes, and drank rabies for breakfast...
$190 billion for war is fine, $4 million for health care is not.
Yes. No child in America should go without health care.
Some parents cannot afford health dare. Others refuse to purchase it, children should not suffer the stupidity of their parents and we as a compassionate nation should see to it that all children are protected.
shame on him!!!!
health care is critical!
"It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack."