Today, the House failed to override Bush’s veto of a Children’s Healthcare Bill. The Democrats were only 13 votes shy of overriding his veto. The bill would cost $35 billion over five years and expand healthcare coverage to 4 million uninsured children. Some of these children would include those in families that are making over $80,000, which is “too rich” for Bush’s standards.
Even though this bill failed to be passed, Nancy Pelosi promised that a new bill would be ready within two weeks. Lawmakers are already meeting to compromise over a new bill.
Based on public opinion polls, Democrats said that there was tremendous support for the Children’s Healthcare Bill and that Republicans would pay at the polls for not passing this bill and overriding Bush’s veto.
I, personally, don’t see how making $80,000 a year is too rich. I think that the bill should have been passed because giving healthcare to 4 million more kids is a big deal. The cost of this program is barely anything compared to what we’re spending in Iraq. $35 billion wouldn’t sound like so much money and be such a big deal if we actually had the money…thanks to Iraq….
But nonetheless, at least lawmakers are having another go at it. However, will both dominant parties see eye to eye on this and cooperate with each other and get another bill out in two weeks? I think…not.
The main thing is this: that the 4 million children should get healthcare coverage soon, and hopefully both parties will realize this and put their differences aside. I realize, however, that this is extremely optimistic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that healthcare is a necessity for children and they should be able to have access to it. As for $80,000 being "too rich" for Bush, not only is that not rich, but family situations are different and you can't decide if a family is rich based solely on their income. Maybe they have some special medical needs, or they have a large family. Wealth cannot simply be determined by a family's income.
"In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201. The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) in the year 2006 was $26,036." - From Wikipedia
I personally think that $80,000 annual income per household is a lot. And from the data above, more than 50% of the population in the US would then qualify for governmental assistance on health care if "$80,000 and below" was the mark, which is ridiculous.
the statistics wilson mentioned are pretty interesting, and if they're correct, I think the $80,000 mark is too high. However, it all depends on the family's situation (how many children are in the family, are there any special needs, does the child have a disorder, etc.) Maybe its true that $35billion isn't much compared to how much we're spending in Iraq, but if we have the new healthcare program going simultaneously with the war our debt will grow even bigger, so I think the program would be a good idea after the war is over, or they should lower the $80,000 mark and help people with lower incomes for now, and after the war is over gradually increase the help for more families.
80 G's a year is a lot. We just happen to live in one of the most expensive areas in one of the most expensive states. People across our nation would kill to be making that much so I think it is a little to high for a national program to cover. A family in the boones of Texas for example might be surrounded by people who rake in $30,000 dollars a year while they are taking in $80,000. In that case, no way should their children be getting free health care. And for the Democrats, can you make it until 22 years of age maybe on this new bill, I am turning 18 in a couple months and not planning to have any kids for a while, so when will I benefit from the proposal? A little selfish, but hey, will my taxes be going to it? (I don't mind if they do it seems like a good cause!)
Post a Comment