The amount asked for pales in comparison to the amount of money given to private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of us will ever see that money again. This may not sit well with voters in 2008 during the general election. The senate passed the bill with the help of 16 GOP senators. It did come close to passing. It certainly had the support of the majority. The senate passed the bill with the help of 16 GOP senators. It did come close to passing. It certainly had the support of the majority. Mark: You could be right. However, numbers can be deceiving. Many of those who need health care and cannot afford it are hidden. In a world of global downsizing, health care is the first thing to go. As far as the 80,000 figure Bush came up with.... He lied. It would be half that or lower. This is like Reagan's claim of Cadillac welfare recipients. It simply isn't true. Those who benefit under a Republican administration are those who are of wealth. Those who can afford health plans. Those who can afford to contribute to conservative political causes. If you can't, you are invisible. Like much of the poor who cannot afford adequate health coverage. The conservative pro life movement ends at birth.
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No, it was not a mistake. The Democrats purposefully created a bill that they KNEW would not pass. He has said repeatedly that if they come up with a bill that extends the program that is already in place, that he would sign it. Since when should 25 year olds be considered children? Since when is 80k a year poor? These are ridiculous elements added to the bill. This is why he vetoed it.
2 :
It was a badly written bill. It needs to be rewritten.
3 :
People fail to understand what the purpose of a veto is. The prsident thought that the text of the bill which was laid on his desk had something wrong with it. It in no way, shape or form means that he did not want children to recieve healthcare. Actually, congress is very good at sliding extra hidden provisions in bills (pork) which most Americans would disagree with. They hide these items in important bills like those dealing with healthcare because #1 those provisions would otherwise NEVER pass and #2 to deamonize the president when he vetoes it because of those hidden provisions. Also all of you are forgetting that Congress can override a presidential veto by 2/3 vote. If they do not override the veto, that means that MOST congreass and the president feel that it was a bad idea and therefore there is NO basis to blame the president alone for it no going through. But again, this is just another way the media likes to twist the facts and deamonize the president.
4 :
The number of Children in poverty, without health insurance has fallen since Bush was elected. From 31% down to 29% today. Bush wants the child health care bill to focus on those children. And not expand to cover adults and middle class, at the expense of children living in poverty.
5 :
I think it was a mistake - both politically and humanely. Here's a sample of an article I agree with, one that easily refutes a lot of the false claims being put about. To read the whole article, please use the first link below: "President Bush gave a false description of proposed legislation to expand the 10-year-old federal program to provide health insurance for children in low-income working families. He said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which isn't true. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what's in the current law. (The compromise bill that was released a few days after Bush's press conference does rescind an administration effort to block New York state from increasing its eligibility cap to that level.) He also said the program was "meant to help poor children," when in fact Congress stated that it was meant to expand insurance coverage beyond the poor and to cover millions of "low-income" children who were well above the poverty line. Under current law most states cover children at twice or even three times the official poverty level. The president also says Congress' expansion is a step toward government-run health care for all. It's true that some children and families with private insurance are expected to shift to the government program. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a shift is relatively low considering the number of uninsured these bills would reach. Analysis In President Bush's Sept. 20 news conference, he expressed his displeasure with Congress' bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Bush said he supported the program and had called for an increase in funding for SCHIP of $5 billion over five years. But both the House and the Senate have called for a much larger expansion, one that would cost an additional $35 or $50 billion, with the House calling for the larger upgrade. Bush has a threatened a veto. In explaining his opposition to Congress' plans, however, he falsely characterized the bill in one instance and was misleading in others. (Today, congressional leaders agreed on compromise legislation that would call for the $35 billion increase. The full legislation will be available Monday.) Covering those making $83k? The president repeated a false charge that has been bandied about by the administration and other Republicans: Bush: Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. In fact, nothing in either the House or Senate bill would force coverage for families earning $83,000 a year. That's already possible under current law, but no state sets its cut-off that high for a family of four and the bill contains no requirement for any such increase. The Bush administration, in fact, just denied a request by New York to set its income cut-off at $82,600 for a family of four, a move New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and members of Congress from the state have vigorously protested. And Bush would retain the authority to deny similar applications under the proposed legislation. An Aug. 17 letter to state health officials from the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services outlined new guidelines for states that would make it quite difficult for states to raise eligibility above 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($51,625 for a family of four). So Bush is simply wrong to say that the legislation "would" result in families making $83,000 a year to be eligible. It might happen in a future administration, but that would be possible without the new legislation. In fact, the vast majority of the children who stand to gain coverage under the proposed legislation are in families making half of the figure Bush gave. A study just released by the Urban Institute estimates that 70 percent of children who are projected to benefit from either the Senate or House bills are in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $41,300 for a family of four). Our several calls to the White House press office to pinpoint exactly what the president meant by the $83k remark were not returned. SCHIP: Who's Eligible Now? StateIncome Ceiling % of Poverty Level$ Family of 4, 2007 1New Jersey350%$72,275 2Hawaii*300%$71,250 3Connecticut300%$61,950 4D.C.300%$61,950 5Maryland300%$61,950 6Massachusetts300%$61,950 7Missouri300%$61,950 8New Hampshire300%$61,950 9Vermont300%$61,950 10Pennsylvania300%$61,950 11Minnesota275%$56,788 12California250%$51,625 13New York250%$51,625 14Rhode Island250%$51,625 15Tennessee250%$51,625 16Washington250%$51,625 17Georgia235%$48,528 18New Mexico235%$48,528 19West Virginia220%$45,430 20Alaska*175%$45,185 21Alabama200%$41,300 22Arizona200%$41,300 23Arkansas200%$41,300 24Colorado200%$41,300 25Delaware200%$41,300 26Florida200%$41,300 27Illinois200%$41,300 28Indiana200%$41,300 29Iowa200%$41,300 30Kansas200%$41,300 31Kentucky200%$41,300 32Louisiana200%$41,300 33Maine200%$41,300 34Michigan200%$41,300 35Mississippi200%$41,300 36Nevada200%$41,300 37North Carolina200%$41,300 38Ohio200%$41,300 39South Dakota200%$41,300 40Texas200%$41,300 41Utah200%$41,300 42Virginia200%$41,300 43Wyoming200%$41,300 44Idaho185%$38,203 45Nebraska185%$38,203 46Oklahoma185%$38,203 47Oregon185%$38,203 48Wisconsin185%$38,203 49Montana150%$30,975 50South Carolina150%$30,975 51North Dakota140%$28,910 *Hawaii and Alaska have higher official Federal Poverty Levels than the rest of the U.S. Note: States that cover children through regular Medicaid in italics; Others have separate SCHIP programs Source: Kaiser Family Foundation The Poor? Bush also misstated the intent of the SCHIP program by claiming it "was meant to help poor children." That's false as well. Poor children, defined as those in families below the official federal poverty level, were already covered by Medicaid. The stated intent of Congress when it established the program in 1997 was to expand coverage beyond those who were poor to "uninsured low-income" children. And in Washington-speak, there's a significant difference between "poor" and "low-income." Congress didn't specify exactly what it meant by "low-income" in the bill that became law or the conference report that accompanied it on final passage, and reasonable people can certainly come up with different definitions. However, if one defines "low" as meaning "lower than most families make," then there is plenty of room to expand the current SCHIP program without violating the original aim stated by Congress in 1997. Currently, the state with the highest income cap is New Jersey, where a family of four making up to $72,275 is eligible. (See chart for current cut-offs for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.) That's well below the median income for a family of four in that state, which was $94,441 in 2006 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The median means half of all families made less than that, and half made more. So even New Jersey's ceiling for SCHIP is significantly lower than what most families in that state bring in. The same is true for all 10 of the jurisdictions with the highest ceilings. The median income for families of four last year was $84,472 in Hawaii, $93,821 in Connecticut, $94,017 in Maryland, $71,571 in D.C., $89,347 in Massachusetts, $63,274 in Missouri, $87,396 in New Hampshire, $74,072 in Pennsylvania, and $67,884 in Vermont. So under current law even the top 10 cover only families with income that is "low" compared to most others there." In response to the previous poster: "Adults aged 18-64 without health care accounted for most of the estimated rise, from 34.5 million in 2005 to 36.5 million in 2006 (20% of this age group). The increase is attributed to employers dropping expensive health insurance coverage and private health insurance coverage being too expensive. Uninsured children went up slightly from 2005 to 2006, from 6.5 million to 6.8 million (9.3% of this age group). However, from 1997 to 2006, the number of uninsured children has dropped significantly, from 10 million to 7 million." Notice - that's from 1997 to 2006 and much of that drop happened BEFORE the first George W. Bush presidency. "An estimated 16.3 percent of the U.S. population was without health insurance during the entire 1998 calendar year. For adults ages 18 to 64 the rate was19.6 percent; for children under age 18 it was 15.4 percent. In 2001, the adult rate declined (improved) to 18.5. The child rate also declined to 11.7 percent."
6 :
GOOD! Here in Ohio we have the CHIPP state health program for kids. Those vote-hungry Democrats want to make Bush look evil for saying no to kids. kids that are here illegally. Kids whose parents make $80000 a year. Kids who are 25 yrs old. Ohio has HUNDREDS of kids dropped off rosters because they are always changing eligibility each year. One year they cut 'gap' coverage'. next year, only under $24K a yr family of five was eligible (hey, then would qualify for medicaid, duh!) if a private insuance company behaved like this federal regulators would shut the company down. THIS IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IN DISGUISE. years ago, our parents/grandparents did something called "going out on strike' to get companies to pay benefits. Now, companies like Wal-Mart can pay minimal benefits because they know the government will step in and provide their workers health care benefits and food stamps. more profits to the company :)
Read more discussions :
- What would you do if your child had cancer and no ...
- Under the new health insurance plan, does a child ...
- Is it considered child abuse to refuse to let your...
- Can our child receive VA health benefits
- child health information online Pediatric speciali...
- Serious question about parents and the health of t...
- Why would a child getting measles trigger a county...
- Can a woman's emotional state effect the health of...
