Bush vetoes child health plan money, but not war funds?
Bush says.."too much money for child health' ???? What a monster of a Prez we have. Billions spent on war, no end in sight, but he vetoes increased funding for children.
Politics - 16 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Bush dragged down the Republican party, thanks to him we will have the first woman president!
2 :
There's Constitutional authority for military action and budgeting. There is NO Constitutional authority for socialism.
3 :
He vetoed an increase. Jebus H Christ, if you are this unknowing over something simple, please do not try anything dangerous.
4 :
It's not for poor children, it includes children and non-pregant adults. The war will end,, taxes never end.... Read the entire bill and get enlightened.... SEC. 114. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE. (a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE- `(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income. `(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'. (b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed as-- (1) changing any income eligibility level for children under title XXI of the Social Security Act; or (2) changing the flexibility provided States under such title to establish the income eligibility level for targeted low-income children under a State child health plan and the methodologies used by the State to determine income or assets under such plan. SEC. 115. STATE AUTHORITY UNDER MEDICAID.
5 :
Actually he may veto the defense bill too. Without line item veto the whole bill has to go. Those riders are a killer.
6 :
And where are the childrens parents? And if you look at the proposed bill instead of just spouting off about it, you will see the DEMOCRATS tried to tack on PORK AGAIN!!!!!!!!
7 :
C'mon now, he can't very well fund health care for children here in America and fund the war which kills children over in Iraq. That might be considered a "flip-flop." Bush is just anti-children no matter what country they're in!
8 :
But health care for kids is SOCIALISM!
9 :
Who cares about American children, its the Iraqi children which come first....paying for them for the next 5+ years.
10 :
You have to understand, the children will not make him & Chaney any money! The war is making them rich! The heck with the future of this country, he has been thumbing his nose at us since he took over!
11 :
Bush is proud of providing health care for children, in Iraq. He's all over TV touting it. But for some reason he can't support it in the US. His military budget is larger than all countries in the world combined but he can't find a dime for little children. Wow are his priorities screwed up.
12 :
It shows his priorities. He and his Republican buddies care only for their corporate benefactors and not the will of the people. The obstructionist Republicans in Congress are doing all they can to obstruct the will of the people. It just comes clearer and clearer where their priorities lie and they are not with the people.
13 :
Oh NO, not increased funding for CHILDREN! Pay your own stinking medical bills. I have kids of my own. I pay for THEIR health insurance. I am not obligated to pay for YOUR kids' health insurance. Get a freaking JOB!
14 :
His kids are all grown up have their plastic surgery all done, lobster on their plates everyday, why do our kids need anything??
15 :
President Bush vetoed a bill which was simply the narrow end of the Dems wedge of socialized medicine. If the socialists (er, I mean liberals) really want to help kids and not just play political games for the press they should draft a bill that addresses the problem of uninsured children without adding political pork, grandstanding ( spelled L Y I N G )for the media, or trying to force socialized medicine down our throats. For the record, I DO believe that all children should be medically insured. I just don't think that socialism is the answer.
16 :
Please read this, I would be grateful if you did. When you factor in inflation, we are spending the same amount we spent in peacetime. Hard to believe, but in peacetime, every training mission results in combat, vehicles are used as they would be in hostile situations on a regular basis, and it wears things down. In war, not every mission ends up with a fight, most of the time is spent outside of combat and it shows. Factories that refurbish military equipment have not needed to increase production, they are running the same they did before the war. If you look at the stocks of some companies who make military equipment, they have actually gone down. Now about the healthcare, the President didnt actually say it was too much, it was actually not much at all, but the way that it would be run was not satisfactory to many republicans. It is a well known fact that doctors love to overbill insurance companies, it became an epidemic in the 80's and early 90's that ended up with many cases of people being rejected for life saving treatment only to die. I think we have all heard of the time that man died of a heart attack in the ER because his insurance took to long to clear. The point of this all is that you cannot give anybody a free check, they will abuse it. Something I would like to point out to you, something that people who have supplied you with this information dont want you to know, is that if you go to a hospital and cant pay, the government picks up the check anyway. Im being completely serious. Not only that, but as someone who grew up in the gutter, I know from experience that there are clinics that give free immunizations and health care to anybody, rich or poor. As the system stands now, if you need care, you will get it, but you are encouraged to make your best effort. I know that I get coverage for my entire family for $300 month, and was more than able to make those payments, rent, insurance, and food with my $8hr job. I find it hard to imagine that someone cant. There is not a single hospital that will just let you die, or will not give you medication you require. Even for me, when I went to the hospital for a stomach ulcer, they gave me the same medicine I would have paid $350 a week for, but for free because they got it for FREE from the drug companies for people who need it. If you are under the impression that there are people who aren't covered, its only because thats what it seems like from the information we receive from news and online. We simply assume that because it was rejected, then we dont have anything in the first place.
Read more discussions :
