Bush HATES our children
 

The question is WHY?

Bush vows to veto children's health insurance bill


Measure would raise excise tax on cigarettes
By Deb Riechmann, Associated Press | July 19, 2007

LANDOVER, Md. -- President Bush yesterday reiterated his threat to veto Senate legislation that would substantially increase funds for children's health insurance by levying a 61-cents-a-pack increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes.

The tax increase would be used to subsidize health insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but not high enough to afford insurance on their own.

The renewal of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is considered by many to be the most important health legislation Congress will take up this year.

"Members of Congress have decided, however, to expand the program to include, in some cases, up to families earning $80,000 a year -- which would cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan," Bush said in a speech in suburban Maryland.

"If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program -- which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people -- I'll veto the bill," he said.

Democratic leaders called for adding $50 billion to the program over the next five years. Bush had recommended a $5 billion increase.

On Friday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate signaled its support for a $35 billion increase, which would bring the total funding to $60 billion over five years. The Senate proposal would provide health insurance coverage to current participants as well as an additional 3.3 million uninsured children, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Cancer Society support the increase. But the administration, which consistently refers to SCHIP as government-run health care, says billions of dollars in insurance costs will be shifted from the private sector to the federal government under the Senate proposal.

Bush spoke after attending a discussion at Man & Machine Inc. in Landover with small-business leaders the president said feel pinched by high health care costs. "They don't like the idea of having to make the decision between providing health care for their employees and not expanding their businesses," he said.

Man & Machine, which employs 20 people , makes water-resistant computer accessories designed for hospitals, medical laboratories, and other industries.

During the tour, Bush typed on a white keyboard immersed in a pan of water. He wrote: "G Tro N was the first president." Clifton Broumand, company president, joked that Bush, who apparently was trying to write "George Washington was the first president," might want to practice his typing.

Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, urged Bush to support the committee's proposal, which he said would keep health coverage for 6.6 million children currently covered by the plan and reach 3 million more low-income uninsured children over the next five years.

"We are preserving the Children's Health Insurance Program for kids and targeting the lowest-income children for outreach and enrollment," Baucus said. "The president should join the effort to build on the success of the Children's Health Insurance Program and get health care to more American kids in need now."

Bush is so evil he does not even want to provide health insurance for these very needy kids.

Where were the democrats if this was such an important issue that has not been addressed I am quite certain since January of 1995?

This is a good example of something that very well may be needed but I would not be surprised at all if it is not needed.

These are the types of things that can take away from areas that need to be addressed much more immediately and that money could be spent much more wisely.

I don't even know what the number is but a billion here a billion there can add up quite quickly over time. What other things could this money be spent on?

I find something else in this article rather interesting. What percentage of small businesses earn incomes that would be considered middle class? Bush is also evil he also hates the middle class besides these very needy children.

Thank You led of this classic example of class warfare in our country.

There have been many things that I am sure have bothered the democrats since early 1995 and this is only the start of fixing many things that have been neglected for over a decade now. I must ask again though are there other areas where this money could be better spent? I ask because I was watching some senator on the floor show a chart of the explosion of costs this program will have over time and the classic examples of this weren't social security and medicare tiny little programs when they started when compared to the total budget? Are both of these programs a very small part of the budget or a much larger part of the budget now?

I am sure there are many people that need these programs but I can not wait for Bill Gates and others like him start to collect their social security checks. I wonder what they will be doing with the money? Could that money be spent somewhere else much more wisely? Well he could just give it to his foundation so that the money becomes tax free. I am pretty sure that charities don't have to pay taxes at least at the federal level of government.

I am going to give an example of the very low end. I am making a baseline that this programs needs to increase by 10% each fiscal year.

2007 5 billion
2008 5.5 billion
2009 6.05 billion
2010 6.655 billion
2011 7.3205 billion
2012 8.05255 billion
2013 8.857805 billion
2014 9.7435855 billion
2015 10.71794405 billion

It only takes eight years for it to have doubled and I am sure that the democrats are making sure this is about as efficient as medicare which this program should be under anyway right? Well no this needy kids do not qualify for medicare because their parents make to much money. So what if there parents make to much money why can't they pay for health insurance instead of looking for a handout from Uncle Sam the article pointed out that in some cases families earning up to $80,000 should get the expansion part of this program. Why does this program need to be expanded if no one has complained about it for years? How is it going to be determined which families should and should not get the extra money this program so desperately needs? I say since this is such an area of concern all families earning under $80,000 should get some form of payment from this program. As the article points out it costs us less because some people are getting at least some health care instead of it becoming an emergency situation which in the long run cost us even more. So what are the basic requirements of this program people must get checkups each year or what? I am sure that people have to do something in order to keep the benefits that most of these people very much need.

This is the very last paragraph from led's story.

"We are preserving the Children's Health Insurance Program for kids and targeting the lowest-income children for outreach and enrollment," Baucus said. "The president should join the effort to build on the success of the Children's Health Insurance Program and get health care to more American kids in need now."

So if this program has been somewhat successful in the past why does the program need more money now?

We need another program since this program does not reach all of the needy children that are in such desperate need.

Talk about a typical Washington reaction when it comes to many areas not just this one.

"If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program -- which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people -- I'll veto the bill," he said.

The sad thing is, he is wasting our taxes on a poorly planned war, giving money away to mega farms, oil companies, and among others who don't need it. For a compassionate conservative he is wasting our money on things that don't benefit the general public.

not to mention one borne not of reality but personal vendetta and the word of god (which god i can't be sure but one none the less).

but he's lied so long and done everything he can to build his legacy on the farce that he must continue to pretend it's a valid and just war and hope there might be a handful of folks around who still buy into it.

well he is from texas, and conglomerate farmers are one of his largest campaign contributors and have been since his "gubner" days.

i'd call that planning for the future. heck he's abused his power so regularly, an abuse intended to line his own pockets seems hardly that bad.


but in his defense he's never claimed to care one iota for the american public or that "god damn piece of paper" it was built upon.

The President doesn't give away anybody's money. Only Congress has the power to spend. The President can STOP the spending via a VETO but he spends nothing.

Why is it when the Repubs disagree with the Dems we say they are just plain wrong but whne it's the other way - all the talk is about how EVIL the Repubs are, how they want to DESTROY the ozone, clean water, {enter some Dem pet peeve}. Statements like the title of this thread are just plain silly. Can you REALLY, put aside the obsessive- compulsive Bush hatred for a second, REALLY believe that Bush "hates our children"? If you really do, I pity you. If it's just rhetoric, maybe we could tone it down a bit and discuss things like adults.

LMAO do the phrases "voting for democrats is voting for terrorists", or "if <insert favorite democrat here> is elected it will guarantee another 9-11", etc ring a bell.....lmao thanks that was a much needed laugh after the week i've had

on a side note, i don't think bush hate america's children, just think he hates america (or at least the america the framers envisioned) which he demonstrates over and over again with both his words and actions.

In my own sick opinion both parties are evil and should be done away with. They spend too much time fighting each other and telling us what is wrong with each other. They need to do their job. But on the other hand we also need to let them know what they should be working on not corporations and big business. How hard is it to send an email to a representative of your district.

I think evil is a bit harsh. Id go with sometimes insidious and oftentimes corrupt which in the end lead to them seeming more overtly "evil" as a group than they could be as individuals or in small cliques. But maybe Im just splitting hairs.

But than with many Dems (esp the Blue Dogs) capitulating to the White House on the FISA act overnight, maybe you're right about both sides being evil. Since its things like that that allow the terrorists to win in their idealogical wars against our freedoms and civil liberties. I know the next time my representative has one of his open door sessions in the area Im heading to it to give him a piece of my mind on why he voted for that.

As for doing their job, well thats another story. In many states (off the top of my head: Texas, Cali, Florida, Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Maryland) have their congressional districts gerrymandered in such a way as to either maintain incumbency or for to make them overtly GOP/Dem voting, and thus whoever becomes "entrenched" in those districts tends not to do the job they were voted to do or campaigned on.

See this is one of the classic lies perpetuated about both Bush and the Repubs. There is no denial of in surance to poor kids. Any child that goes to a hospital by law CANNOT be turned away because of a lack of insurance. As a matter of fact, it is the abuse of this law by the thousands of illegal aliens here in sothern California that has cause the closure of over a dozen trauma centers in our area. There are so many of them using the emergenciy rooms to treat a child with the sniffles, that the hospitals cannot afford to continue to operate and so have closed their doors.

Now if what spoc says is true and we all know that it is that no one can be denied health care when they go to a hospital in the U.S. wether they have health insurance or not why is this such a need in the first place? We are even paying for the so called "illegals" to have their health care provided for them by us.

So what reason is there for this program if we provide everyone with health care already? That is quite simple where is the extra revenue that this program needs coming from?

Taxes

I wonder how the democrats are going to spin this is not a tax increase?

Well this is quite simple as well.

The democrats will focus on how needy these kids are and not focus on the taxes on cigarettes and cigars that are going to be needed to pay for this in the first place. We all know that cigarettes and cigars are very harmful to people's health and not just to the person that are using these extremely unhealthy products but for everyone. That is why in my other thread about this topic I thought the democrats would push this as public health issue as well. This would also be another distraction that would keep the focus off the tax increases that are needed to pay for this program.

I knew I smelled something fishy about this when I first read about this and it would only cost 5-7 billion dollars for the first few years. There is one other factor in all of this. Has the cost of health insurance continued to gone up or down over recent years?

Health insurance is one of the fastest growing expenses in this country.....along with gas and cigarettes(which are two of the highest taxed commodities in this country).....%age wise. As a smoker (and I'm certainly not proud of that fact) I resent that there is legislation on the table to increase the cost of a carton of smokes another $6.10. I smoke in my truck....on my front porch....and outside at jobsites where noone is living yet on the golf course, and designated smoking areas at bars etc and that is it. My 2nd hand smoke is a threat to noone. My stance is the same..decriminalize marijuana...tax it and the govt will have enough $$$$ to do whatever the hell their pleasure is including going to war...justified or not.

I don't really want to get into this right at the moment maybe tomorrow but when I was reading where Rich smokes it reminded me of something. In the State of Illinois there are very few places left where the public goes where a person can smoke inside.