Bush HATES our children

[P562045]

Here are the key dates of the Mrs. Clinton/William health care plan.

Late in September [28] of 1993 Mrs. Clinton first testifies before congress.
November 20, 1993 Mrs. Clinton first shows the congress her health care plan.
For a period of time of almost a year the plan is criticized through advertising by the Health Insurance Association of America and other groups. The main criticisms of these groups were that the plan was overly bureaucratic imagine that and in many cases the patient would not be able to chose their own doctor.
This plan eventually "died" in the senate on September 26, 1994 at least for that congress. I am sure the republicans did invoke cloture.
And as I said before the republicans could see what it was and it never came up again while they were in control of the congress starting in January 1995.

I wonder if this will come up again if indeed Mrs. Clinton is the democrats nominee for the election next year? I am sure it will because this is the perfect illustration for republicans to remind people what Mrs. Clinton has proposed to congress in the past. And a president can propose anything they want in a budget for the congress to consider. In fact a president is required by law to submit a budget to the congress for each fiscal year.

[P562045]

This is an article that makes some rather interesting assumptions.

The expansion of CHIP is the most efficient, cost-effective way of reaching those youngsters.

The second I read something like this I know that there is almost zero chance at all of it being actually true. This is way to overstated a claim.

If you're uninsured, particularly with children, if you don't have a place to go, that's where people show up.

This is talking about people who are not insured going to an emergency room for their care. Why would these people go to an emergency room if they knew they would not get the care they need and in some cases these people are extremely desperate?

Children who should be eligible for CHIP are being held hostage to policies driven by a desire to protect the big insurance companies and an ideology that views CHIP, correctly, as yet another important step on the road to universal health care.

As I think I have stated earlier in this thread I do not think what I have in bold will be the main focus of why we need this in the first place.

Story Here

[P562045]

Boy was I ever stupid about my last statement in my last post. Any democrat presidential nominee better have a universal health care plan at least for the primaries. Everyone except Mrs. Clinton has given very general statements on how they would pay for everyone that does not have health care will have it under their plan if they really need it or not.

My very bad.

[ldzppln]

Bush reminds us how much he HATES children. He decides to play politics, and blames the democrats when both parties are supporting this bill. Why does Bush hate our children?

Bush: Kids' health care will get vetoed
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 3 minutes ago

President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.

At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill.

"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."

[rich76]

As a smoker I support Bush in this matter. There HAS to be another way to keep this program in force. I am sick and damm tired of smokers having to foot the bill for so much already...to raise the taxes to $1.00 per pack is absolutely absurd and unfair. Non-smokers will disagree, of course, and while that is expected I am also sick and damm tired of MY rights being infringed upon. All these brilliant R and D congressmen need to find another way. How about taking a cut in their pensions...they are also absurd and unfair.

As far as Bush "hating children" that is also absurd.

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by rich76

As a smoker I support Bush in this matter. There HAS to be another way to keep this program in force. I am sick and damm tired of smokers having to foot the bill for so much already...to raise the taxes to $1.00 per pack is absolutely absurd and unfair.

I used to smoke, but I quit several years ago. You should quit too. You'll be a healthier person and you won't have to waste your money on cigarettes, taxes and all.

And at least this bill is funded by a tax increase. How is Bush paying for the Iraq occupation? Oh yeah, that's right. Just like the occupation itself, Bush is going to leave that whole mess for the next president to worry about.

[rich76]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

I used to smoke, but I quit several years ago. You should quit too. You'll be a healthier person and you won't have to waste your money on cigarettes, taxes and all.

And at least this bill is funded by a tax increase. How is Bush paying for the Iraq occupation? Oh yeah, that's right. Just like the occupation itself, Bush is going to leave that whole mess for the next president to worry about.

I agree with all of the above Led. That being said....I've quit a number of times. The last time for 3 months (hypnotism) and blew up to 203 lbs. First time in my life I EVER had to take BP meds. As a reformed smoker you can certainly appreciate a number of things....one being just how hard it is to do. While you've had the misfortune to experience cancer in your family...I choose (for now) to roll the dice and risk that...rather than have a stroke from being overweight with abnormally high blood pressure.....or depending on meds that affect me adversely.

[ldzppln]

10/03/07

Bush vetoes bill on children's healthcare
By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a measure to expand a popular children's health care program, launching the first in a series of major battles with Democrats over domestic spending.

The legislation would have provided an extra $35 billion over five years for the health program, which is administered by the states. Taxes on tobacco products would have been raised to pay for the increase.

The health bill enjoyed bipartisan support. The veto is likely to anger a number in Bush's own Republican Party who fear the issue will cost them votes in the congressional and presidential elections.

Supporters of the bill said it would have helped provide health coverage for some 10 million children.

Bush contended the increase would have expanded the program beyond its original intent of covering low-income children and taken a step toward government-controlled health care.

He has proposed a much smaller increase of $5 billion in the children's health program.

A Washington Post-ABC News polls showed more than seven in 10 Americans supported the $35 billion increase proposed under the bill. By contrast, the same poll showed many wanted to see a reduction in Bush's spending proposal for the Iraq war.

The Senate overwhelmingly backed the health legislation. But the support for it in the House of Representatives may not be large enough to override Bush's veto.

Democrats have vowed to lobby Republicans who voted against the bill to try to get them to switch their votes. The party plans a series of television ads attacking Republicans over the children's health issue, including one featuring a mom with a chronically ill child.

Bush, with 16 months left in his presidency and waging an unpopular war in Iraq, has also threatened to veto a series of annual funding bills to keep domestic spending within his proposed limit of $933 billion.

Bush is aiming to cast Democrats as fiscally reckless as he tries to shore up support from conservatives, many of whom are angry at Bush for allowing big increases in spending during his first six years in office.

The rejection of the health bill marks the fourth veto for Bush since he took office in 2001. He twice rejected legislation on stem cell research and also vetoed an Iraq war supplemental spending bill because it included timelines for withdrawing troops.

[spoc22]

And I'm glad he did. It would have provided health benefits to middle class kids who didn't need to have the government paying for it. It was a thinly veiled attempt by the Dems to backdoor some socialized medicine.

[P562045]

There is one other little aspect to the democrats plan in order for it to work. They also need almost 4.5 [4.4] million more people per year to start smoking each year. I seem to remember that teens are the most likely to start smoking. Are these extra smokers going to have extra health problems down the road as well that are very expensive to fix?

Just some good old rational thinking by democrats once again. Maybe the government can start a please go out and smoke campaign and anyone who smokes already would you please keep smoking for these kids.

There is just one last question. If smokers change their smoking habits because the higher taxes make them smoke less cigs and cigars where is the money going to be coming from then?

I will try to find the vote that extends this program until the middle of next month. The republicans want to do this in a fiscally responsible way and democrats not so much so which really totally shocks me. Because I seem to remember democrats making a pledge to the people that they have a great desire to become more fiscally responsible because of the fact that the republican congress was so fiscally irresponsible. The republican congress was so screwed up on what they wanted to spend the people's money on the democrats must go back and fix all of these horrible injustices to these poor kids and other things that will creep up latter on if the democrats ever find the time to actually send some appropriations bills to the president.

[P562045]

Well trying to find the vote on extending SCHIPS until the middle of next month was just slightly difficult.

But they did find the time to rename a bunch more post offices yesterday which is some real progress.

Frank J. Guarini Post Office Building: Senate passed H.R. 2467, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 69 Montgomery Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the ``Frank J. Guarini Post Office Building'', clearing the measure for the President.

Page S12692


Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building: Senate passed H.R. 2587, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building'', clearing the measure for the President.

Page S12692


Eleanor McGovern Post Office Building: Senate passed H.R. 2654, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 202 South Dumont Avenue in Woonsocket, South Dakota, as the ``Eleanor McGovern Post Office Building'', clearing the measure for the President.

Page S12692


Master Sergeant Sean Michael Thomas Post Office: Senate passed H.R. 2765, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 44 North Main Street in Hughesville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Master Sergeant Sean Michael Thomas Post Office'', clearing the measure for the President.

Pages S12692-93


Robert Merrill Postal Station: Senate passed H.R. 2778, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3 Quaker Ridge Road in New Rochelle, New York, as the ``Robert Merrill Postal Station'', clearing the measure for the President.

Page S12693


Owen Lovejoy Princeton Post Office Building: Senate passed H.R. 2825, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 326 South Main Street in Princeton, Illinois, as the ``Owen Lovejoy Princeton Post Office Building'', clearing the measure for the President.

Page S12693


John Herschel Glenn, Jr. Post Office Building: Senate passed H.R. 3052, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 954 Wheeling Avenue in Cambridge, Ohio, as the ``John Herschel Glenn, Jr. Post Office Building'', clearing the measure for the President.

Page S12693


Staff Sergeant David L. Nord Post Office: Senate passed H.R. 3106, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 805 Main Street in Ferdinand, Indiana, as the ``Staff Sergeant David L. Nord Post Office'', clearing the measure for the President.

Page S12693

I find this a rather interesting story out of Illinois. Illinois has a really lib*ral governor that wants to extend SCHIPS to more adults in Illinois than are currently on the program. This is an extreme example but it does show that the democrats want to extend this past the original intention of the SCHIPS program in the first place. Imagine that.

Maybe they should start calling it SACHIPS or SCAHIPS as well.

Story Here

[P562045]

So are these families that so desperately need this program going to be exempt from having to pay the taxes on tobacco products if they do smoke?

I wonder if it would cost less money for these desperate families just to pay for the health insurance for their kids or will the taxes they pay on tobacco products be less than what these families would pay in a given year for health insurance?

[P562045]

Well first of all my two questions in early October of 2007 are just as relevant now as they were back then.

Obama loves our children.

I am sure of this because he has signed into law the expansion of the SCHIPS program.

No wonder I think of him as Obama the wonderful sometimes.

Obama even mentions this is one of our greatest responsibilities.

Don't even really want to know what some of our other great responsibilities even are.

Well making sure that as many people as humanly possible vote for democrats on November 2, 2010 is another one of our greatest responsibilities as well but that is a discussion for another day whenever the stimulus bill finally passes the stink test in the senate.

So sorry to be so negative on this truly historic occasion but it is one of our greatest responsibilities for our nation right? We certainly would not want to go back to the days of Bush the Evil now would we?

As this article sort of points out Obama is preparing to love all Americans eventually and the covering of these extra four million kids is just the start of Obama's desires.

"The president said the bill was a downpayment on his 'commitment to cover every single American.'"

Obama ♥ our children story

I just hope that the extra sixty-two cents per pack people will have to be paying for each pack they purchase will not actually decrease demand for cigarettes in particular.

This is just a warm and fuzzy message really. People go out and smoke for the sake of some children.

[hork]

i'm sorry, i'm confused are you suggesting expanding health care coverage to minors is a bad thing? cuz that's sure what it sounds like you're saying and i can't believe you think that for a second

[h20guy]

Bush hates our children because he knows none of them voted for him in both the 2000 and the 2004 election.