Bush plans to veto kids' health care
U. S. President George W. Bush threatens to veto a bill that would extend funding for health care for children in low income families. The families are above the level allowed by Medicaid, but are too poor to afford private insurance.
"Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point," said Bush.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell countered, "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."
Without approval of the measure, the Children's Health Insurance Program will expire on Sept. 30. The measure has overwhelming support among Democrats, and has support among Republicans as well.
Read the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
For current updates after Oct. 18, 2007 see http://loveshade.org/blog/2007/10/bush_fights_against_children_g.html
For the history from Oct. 3 to Oct. 13, 2007, see below:
3 October 2007
President George W. Bush did it--he vetoed the bill. It's only his fourth veto as president, which if anything makes this even more significant.
The bipartisan measure won enough support in the Senate to override Bush's veto, but not in the house. But lawmakers and others who are working to get health care to children who need it are not stopping.
Bush's reason for denying health care to low-income families to help their children? "Poor kids first." He insists that giving health insurance to low-income families will take away from those who are poor. I suppose by the same logic, giving health care to the poor who live in run-down apartments would hurt those who are homeless, and helping those who are homeless but have a car and are trying to find a job would hurt those who don't have a car, etc. After all, America is such a poor country we can't afford to help those who are truly in need. And we might need the money to declare war on Iran, so we can fix it the way we did Iraq.
To see the article, go to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health
6 October 2007
President Bush, who proposed spending 1/7th of what the legislature wanted, now says he might be willing to raise his original amount "a little...."
To see the article, go to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071006/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
13 October 2007
Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana called on Republicans to help override the veto, saying that children are more important than politics. He said that President Bush is telling millions of parents they don't deserve the same level of health care for their children that Bush had for his.
But as an override requires a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House, its chances for success are low.
To see the article, go to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_go_co/democrats_children_s_health
- - - - -
To see more entries related to health care, click http://loveshade.org/blog-mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=health+care
Comments
Bush is just evil! What's more important than getting health care for kids? Unless its killing innocent people and having America's people killed in Iraq!
Posted by: Habeas Corpus Delectable | September 22, 2007 05:49 PM
Bush makes such a big deal about his No Child Left Behind thing. So why does he want to leave children behind who need medical care?
Posted by: Big Al | September 24, 2007 05:25 AM
If Bush is so worried about protecting poor children, why doesn't he stop the killing of innocent children in Iraq?
Bush claims to be Christian, but Jesus never approved invading other nations. Jesus healed children, he make sure they couldn't get medical care. And he sure didn't kill them!
As a Christian, I am absolutely opposed to George W. Bush. And I am appalled at how many so-called Christians support him. We need a REAL Christian president, not a devious pretender.
Posted by: Bonnie Flagle | September 24, 2007 05:07 PM
Let's not give any poor kids or any poor people health care! Then when they all die off, we'll all be rich!
Posted by: Rev. Bootie | September 28, 2007 08:23 PM
Did you see Moore's Sicko? Workers from the 911 attack couldn't get health care in America so they went to Cuba and got it! And one woman went back undercover under a different name and was still offered health care!
America likes to brag about being the richest nation in the world. But how many rich nations can't afford to take care of their own children? Godly Capitalism rejects children's needs; Godless Communism helps them. What's wrong here?
Posted by: A J Leary | September 30, 2007 05:36 AM
Hey, makes perfect sense to me. Rich people don't have to worry about getting decent health care for THEIR kids so why should they HAVE to worry about the poor?
That's like the same reasoning behind today's generations saying "Why should I worry about global warming when it's not going to happen in my lifetime? Let the next generation worry about it."
It's simply passing the buck from those who can help onto the shoulders of those who can't.
Posted by: Danacasso | September 30, 2007 08:10 AM
This is just wrong! How can we fight against children getting medicine they need? What is wrong with America?
Posted by: TawTew the Naturally Perfumed | October 5, 2007 06:26 AM
This is totally wrong! He vetoed the bill so poor kids can't get health care. And that's supposed to help poor kids?
But he says it doesn't count unless you're really, really poor. If your parents are working really hard and barely making it, then you deserve to be sick and not go to a doctor.
I'm sorry but that's just evil! I don't mean President Bush is evil but vetoing this bill is!
Posted by: Lorien Loveshade | October 6, 2007 06:49 AM
I see no one here disagrees. Children should have health care. Simple. Denying them is wrong. Also simple.
Posted by: Binky The WonderSkull | October 8, 2007 02:53 PM
Your all missing the point! POOR CHILDREN are covered! But we can't cover every child who wants health insurance! You might think that's great but who's going to pay for it? YOU!
Posted by: Patriot John | October 10, 2007 06:39 PM
We sure wouldn't want every child to get medical care. Who should be charged to take of that? How about those who pay tiny bit of tax? I'm saying the rich?
Posted by: Sweet Sharon | October 17, 2007 05:52 AM
Going out somewhere with friends is just as much lot of fun, as coming to this website. Always has something to laugh at, a lot of things to share with each other, and it’s much easier to make friends here, than anyone would think! I come to this website when I have problems, and always leave it in a good mood. It really helps a lot!
Posted by: picklepuss | April 3, 2008 11:23 AM