Today, President Bush vetoed the bipartisan bill H.R. 976, a bill that would expand a program for Healthcare for families with financial difficulties by $35 billion. The program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, seeks to provide aid in health insurance to families who have too high an income to qualify for Medicaid, yet still cannot provide health insurance for their children. This program was created in 1997 and since has covered health insurance for millions of children. Such a proposal would add 4 million people to the 6.6 million people program already instated.
In an MSNBC article, President Bush claimed that "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point." He reasons that the measure costs too much to put into action and will require higher taxes for families that can supposedly already afford health insurance. In the article, Bush says, "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."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as many others have spoken out against President Bush in his decision and are determined to override the veto. This morning, Congress was unable to override the veto.
For more info on Bush's reason on the veto and background information click here
For an interview about the bill's current situation click here
So what do you think? Is Bush terrible for vetoing a bill to help children with their health insurance? Or, is he justified in his actions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I really don't understand why Bush would say it's too costly. He's willing to spend billions of dollars for the war in Iraq, talks about trying to lower gas prices, and supports "No Child Left Behind"(which seems to have failed), but he doesn't support funding for children's healthcare. There's something wrong here.
I dont understand how we are willing to spend billions of dollars for other countries, when we wont spend any extra money on problems that are in our country. It just doesnt seem right. We should be more willing to help sick kids in our counrty then go out and get involved in another countries problems spending billions of dollars. It just aint right.
Why is Bush saying that the members of Congress are using this bill to prove a political point? Isn't the bill meant to help the poor children in America? Sure it may prove a little political point, but it is mainly to help the children. I think that the only reason that Bush vetoed this bill was to save his already unpopular political image. If this bill was to be signed, then Bush will ultimately have to raise the taxes which in effect will make the public hate Bush.
Politically, this looks like a loser for the Bush administration and Republicans generally. The legislation isn't a stroke of genius and may in fact extend into the middle class beyond necessity, but I haven't heard any alternative proposals from the GOP that would make me think they really care all that much.
The political point being made seems to be, if your parents are too cheap / unwilling / or in some cases unable to make children's health care a family budget priority, that's their fault; the idea that society should cover the kids *anyway* hasn't registered with most of the people defending the veto, and the % of them that invoke "family values" on a regular basis makes me want to gag.
Choosing to have kids shouldn't come with the drastic economic penalty it does presently. It is sad how selfishness has permeated our whole society.
The Dems win a round in both politics and principle... for once...
Didn't bush say that the program would help families who get under an $80,000 a year income? He said that $80,000 a year wasn't considered poor, but for a huge chunk of the American population, $80,000 a year isn't going to be enough. Even Gov. Schwarzenegger disagrees with Bush's decision to veto the bill.
Post a Comment