President Bush issued his fourth veto Tuesday on a children's health insurance program. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., predicted the House won't have enough votes to override Bush. Blunt said Bush was right to veto the bill because it "expands government-run health care without first taking care of uninsured kids from low-income families. " Bush, wanted a $5 billion increase, and told Lancaster-area business leaders that he would offer more money if Congress agrees to focus the program strictly on low-income children. "Poor kids first," Bush said. "I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."
There are children that live above the poverty level but their families cannot afford private insurance, which is what this program would help with. I don't have children myself, but I do have a niece and nephew. So I can understand how difficult it is to pay for a child's medical bills.
I thought this was a very important topic and I wanted to see what you all thought about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I believe Bush made the RIGHT decision, and thats from looking at the big picture and the facts and figures that this proposed plan brought forth.
Nearly 6 MILLION babies are born every year in this nation, the proposed plan would bring forth $5,000 for EVERY child born: thats 30 BILLION dollars a year and 300 BILLION dollars for about 10 years.
1) Where is that money going to come from?!(30 BILLION a year)
2) What about the families in America that do not need the money?(only LESS then 15% of the population actually qualifies for what the word POVERTY actually means)
3) This proposed plan would bring forth between 4 to 8 new bureaucracies(Which cost will be in excess of a billion dollars each and which expands more government)
4)This is not a plan that helps the actual existing problem and issue...it needs to focus on poverty and lower middle class families that really need it and making stricter laws on health insurance corporations. It will raise taxes to sky high rates and leads a way into socialized healthcare.
Helping babies and families in need is a good thing and a important issue. However, thats not what this plan is, at all. Just another way to expand government and not help the actual problem at hand.
Bush understands whats really going on and made a great decision.
-NathanG
That fact is that government has not proven itself to be efficient with anything. Look at social security and where it is headed. Why put more money the drain? Let the market handle health care. The 15% of income that is supposed to go to social security is disappearing. Why trust the government with more. Maybe if we were allowed to keep our money and choose what to do with it then more people would be able to help the less fortunate.
The people need to realize that the government is incompetent with money and already is responsible for too much.
If medicine in this country did become socialized then the quality of healthcare would decline. Competition is what has driven health care and pharmacutical technology to where it is now.
I think it's completely ridiculous.. This is only Bush's 4th veto of his entire presidency.. And it's on.. children's health care?? How heartless can you get?
It was going to be paid for by a 61 cent increase in federal taxes on tobacco products. Some good should come out of a vice like smoking. How is that any different than lottery tickets paying for computers in public schools in Georgia? I think it's a great idea. It would possibly lower numbers of tobacco users as a byproduct which is another added benefit.
I just don't think anyone can rationally defend this veto when you look at how many other billions of dollars are going towards the military. It just makes no sense to me. For as powerful as our nation is, the state of our health care system is appalling. Our health care system is ranked 37th by the World Health Organization! Give me a break. Something could be done about that if the powers that be weren't so greedy and using the public's money for their personal interests.
to: Liz M
I truly do not believe that this was vetoed by President Bush because he doesn't want to help ailing families and children. Our health care economy does have some issues, however to solve them does not require measures like this. What it requires is stricter restrictions on health care insurance corporations. What this proposed plan would do, would take a step to nationalized health care, and if you think our health care plan is bad now, it will be horrendous if that ever happened(Look at countries that have it, like Canada, they actually try to cross the border to come to America to get better quality health care and to get health care in general due to their waiting list to get treatment). You have to let the free market work, because it always has and always will work. If the government takes over health care then the quality will drop, due no competition or any reason to innovate or build better quality in many areas. Also like in other countries where they have socialized healthcare, like Canada where the list to just get health care treatment is approximately 50,000 people long(Imagine what it would be here, with our population roughly 10 times the size of theirs). This proposed plan also does not directly help families in need either.
**(Read my First Comment, it will give you some rough figures on the issue).
It's just another way to expand government and get a bigger controlling grasp on the free market; not actually help families in need, like I explained in my first comment. The sad thing is that the Dems.(which I have nothing against) made it seem like this proposed plan was actually seriously made to help poverty stricken citizens and thus made President Bush look like he was a "baby hater". I don't agree with a lot of what President Bush does or says, but this decision was a great one.
-Nathang
I can't remember anything that President Bush has done and I have agreed with. This veto is a very smart move in my opinion. Health care in America is already a very big issue and the government's thirst for power plays an important part. Aside from that, where would all of the money be coming from? We need to moreover focus on the health of babies and children in low-income housing.
As a mother of 4 children (of which my youngest has had cancer for almost 6years) I have to say I support Bush in this Veto. I am certain a man such as Bush would not veto this just because he was "heartless" and "cared nothing for ailing families and children"
We can never fully understand all the roads that must be crossed to pas these sort of bills. I think Nathang said it well in his first comment. There is a long way to go in the health insurance industry, it had gotten out of hand and it will take someone strong, and willing to rock the boat to make a difference. Maybe nationalized health care seems like a bad idea to some, but I lived that system when my son was diagnosed with cancer while we lived in Italy. I agree that the facilities and luxuries were very limited, but when push came to shove the care was PERFECT! Our Pediatric NeuroSurgeon, made about $45,000 a year...he did his job because he loved it...and it showed. The same thing went for our Oncologist, Nurses, ENT, and so forth. We experienced the most loving care from this group of healthcare professionals (all working under a nationalized heathcare system) and my son is here to tell about it.
I believe when Americans stop worrying about how nice the waiting area is, what new medicine is for a stuffy nose and what new contraptions are at our disposial, and also apply some preventive measures(tying in with the too much soda and media blogs) officials can concentrate on what matters..OUR HEALTH....
This doesnt suprise me at all. Bush has done way more to hurt our country than to help it. I understand it would be expensive to have this insurance but its worth it. The US spends alot of money every year on unnessary things, So this cause would definately be worth it.
Unfortunately, I've noticed in our country that many folks have to have lost their job--and
Insurance--or lost a family member in Iraq to notice there is someting terribly wrong in this country.
We should have enough intelligence to know that spending a billion dollars a week on a war that Bush started with faulty reasoning is insane.
We should have enough empathy to know that children whose parents don't have insurance are more likely to die of cancer than children whose parents have insurance.
Is it ok with you that the child who doesn't have insurance dies?
It is not ok with me.
Bush shouldn't be in charge of children's insurance. I am sure that he lacks empathy. Some experts say that his IQ is less than 114. Let's elect smart people to office.
Nathan,
Actually, I have a few friends in Canada.. They only have good things to say about the health care system. One of my friends underwent a surgery that would have been very costly in the U.S. and he didn't have to pay a penny with a doctor's referral. Every health care system has it's pros and cons. But as a whole I think Canada's far surpasses the U.S. They're ranked 30th while we're ranked 37th by the World Health Organization. So they've got to be doing something better than us. Obviously their plan is working better. I agree that the entire health care system cannot be overhauled by one bill. But just flat out vetoing the bill is not helping the problem. If people don't like that solution then they need to come up with a better one. Lawmakers (the President included) can't just shoot down ideas when they're not offering solutions themselves. If we're the most powerful country then why don't we have decent health care? We have the money, we have the resources. They're just not being used properly or fairly.
It's hard being in the "middle" financially. Unfortunately, as Americans, most of us are always looking for things to be handed to us and the people at the bottom of the financial chain are getting so much FREE help without having to give back anything. Seems like the more children they have, the more help they get. When a person is in the middle of the financial chain, they're neither rich or poor and the government kind of ignores them. With the high taxes to cover the poor people, and no extra help from the government, we have to work harder to provide for OUR families. It's just not fair. They say America's economy is designed so that the poorest of the poor can rise to the top but I just don't think it's possible with what the middle class has to pay for to cover the lower class.
I agree with Nathan. This plan didn't focus on the actual problem. We need to focus on poverty and educating people so they get better jobs in order to pay for their own healthcare. Socialized medicine would cause a huge decline in the quality of healthcare. There was a newscast this morning on Fox that centered on pregnant woman having to cross the border from Canada to have their babies here because Canada is not equipped to take care of high risk pregnancies. There are other countries like England, where their citizens come to the U.S. for treatments and surgeries, because the quality of healthcare there is so bad. If I were a physician, I wouldn't want to work in those countries where the reimbursement for my time would be miniscule either. The Dems think healthcare is a "right". It's not; it's a privelege.
Everyone one made valid points for why we should be for or against Bush vetoing the the bill. But like Nathan said we need to come down on the insurance companies. They need to pass a law that states that the insurance companies should ot excess the insurance and it should be affordable for all. I think American's have too much say so. For example, in England the Queen makes the decision and theirs is not asking. America is too free and when you have too many opinions we have alot more problems. i don't believe that we should blame Bush for everthing. We as a people will never get all that we want and I think the sooner everyone gets that into their heads we as a society will be better and be able to get alone better with each other.
It would be a good decision depending on it the qualifications maybe different. The healthcare help should me given to the AMERICANS who qualify and then shared among those that are left. For examples the illegal immigrants, just because their children are americans, it is the parents that do not meet the qualifications (whatever they may be)
Now isn't funny that we have enough money to fund this point-less war, but we can't find it in our budget to keep OUR children healty. Yeah, that's logical. "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" sounds good President Bush!
Post a Comment