Comments on: Democrats Gear Up To Fight Bush's Veto
Congressional Leaders Seek Allies Across The Aisle After President Vetoes Kids' Insurance Bill
Add a Comment See all 913 Comments
- Wasn''t Bush the one that wanted to give amnesty to all illegal aliens here - to make it easier for them to stay here? That statement didn''t make sense.
- Reply to this comment
- Do you research instead of preaching about LIBERALS - this package wasn''t aimed at middle class but poverty level and those on the cusp.
The bill focuses on the kids who are eligible for public insurance under states'' existing rules but haven''t enrolled. Nearly all those children, studies show, live in families that earn less than twice the poverty level, or about $41,000 for a family of four. The legislation gives states bonuses if they sign up more of those overlooked kids -- and also offers more outreach money to help find them. It also, for the first time, reduces federal payments to states for insuring kids in families earning more than triple the poverty level -- about $61,000 for a family of four.
As a result, studies show that the bill primarily benefits the lower-income families Bush talks about. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the final package Congress is considering would cover almost 4 million uninsured children. Genevieve Kenney of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, calculated that more than three-fourths of those kids live in families earning twice the poverty limit or less. That''s not a country club crowd.
Still, analysts agree that the bill would encourage more states to expand eligibility to families in that $41,000 to $61,000 range, both by increasing the program''s overall funding and overriding rules Bush enacted this summer to narrow coverage. The issue is whether that''s the danger Bush insists it is. - Reply to this comment
- "Heartless veto"?? Do the dems really think we''re this stupid? Perhaps Bush wouldn''t have vetoed it if it didn''t hand tax payer dollars to illegal aliens.
- Reply to this comment
- The LIB plan would insure children of families making up to $83,000 per year. Let''s take care of the poor first, then the LIBS can talk about socializing medicine. This LIB redistribution of wealth plan should not become law.
- Reply to this comment
- Beloved Decider? Crack me up beloved by whom the Iraq soldiers that are dead, millons of Iraq''s, the shrinking middle class?
Another illuminating statement - KIDS IF YOU WANT HEALTHCARE INSURANCE GET A JOB? Wouldn''t that violate labor laws if we had to send our children to work to obtain healthcare?
If your going to make a statement at least make sense. - Reply to this comment
- MR BUSH SAID HE BELIEVES THAT PRIVITE COMPANIES SHOULD RUN HEALTH INSURANCE. HE SAID HE DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH INSURANE.
IF CUTTING CHILDRENS INSURANCE, FROM THE POOR AND HARD WORKING AMERICANS WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP WITH THE SKYROCKETING COST OF EVERYTHING FROM FUEL, FOOD, HEALTH INSURANCE, HEALTH CARE, UTILITIES, AND HIGHER TAXES, INTEREST RATES ETC. WELL,
I DON''T THINK THAT PRIVITE COMPANIES ARE THE ANSWER.
STAYYYYY THE COURSE............ - Reply to this comment
- the EVILS of nationalized health - NEVERMIND THE EVILS of lying to the American public to submerge us into war - losing the respect of the international community, abusing war criminals because he can, snubbing the UN, making a mockery of the administration - holding himself and his staff ABOVE THE LAW OF THE LAND...........wow you pick out children''s healthcare as evil and ignore the rest buddy......you might want to go back and read some more of your Bible..........this guy mirrors Hitler if you ask me.............arrogant and total disregard for 76% of what the American public wanted.........SCHIP. How out of touch is that???
- Reply to this comment
- Can I puke at the Commander in Chief comment - that man belongs in jail. He has no conscious or obligation to protect the people he represents in this country - that MORON''s only obligation is to line his, corporations and big business pockets. He sold us out a long time ago - wake up you DYED IN THE WOOL RIGHT-WINGERS - he is leading us down a path of destruction.......and I''m so glad that Republicans will be running away from Washington with their tails tucked in 2008 - this country has had enough of those bozo''s!
- Reply to this comment
- The Decider-in-Chimp has shown his true colors on this one--a total *** for the billionaires.
Even the AMA and Big Pharma--usually loyal Repug backers--support this bill. But the silver spoon punk from Yale, son of New England blue-bloods (i.e., rich), thinks it''s just fine if kids don''t have health insurance because their parents can''t afford it.
And the Boehners and Blunts can just *** off! - Reply to this comment
- $190 billion a year for Iraq, $0 billion for AMERICAN kids.
Boy this "Compassionate Conservatism" sure is confusin''! - Reply to this comment
- I am so glad our Commander Guy showed the courage so few in the Democrat party exhibit. By vetoing this dangerous legislation, he made a bold stand on principle and made a loud and clear statement about what is truly important in this nation!
This was a slippery slope, leading our nation to the evils of nationalized health care. To paraphrase a famous line from Lady Justice, it is better that a thousand children die of a curable illness than one American needlessly suffers under "universal" health care. The only thing "universal" about universal health care is that everyone gets it. That''s just plain scary.
Our beloved Decider also drew the line on taxes. Yes, cigarettes are bad, but taxes are also bad. So cigarette taxes are doubly bad. We need to keep the prices down, so the poor can afford to smoke. It also makes the access to cigarettes easier for children. Since they aren''t going to have health care, anyway, why not smoke and have a little fun?
Finally our President said what we all have been thinking all along: "kids, if you want health care, get a friggin'' job." God bless our President! - Reply to this comment
- Mr. Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine.
So what? It certainly cannot be worse than medicine that only the rich can afford. - Reply to this comment
- I am so glad our Commander Guy showed the courage so few in the Democrat party exhibit. By vetoing this dangerous legislation, he made a bold stand on principle and made a loud and clear statement about what is truly important in this nation!
This was a slippery slope, leading our nation to the evils of nationalized health care. To paraphrase a famous line from Lady Justice, it is better that a thousand children die of a curable illness than one American needlessly suffers under "universal" health care. The only thing "universal" about universal health care is that everyone gets it. That''s just plain scary.
Our beloved Decider also drew the line on taxes. Yes, cigarettes are bad, but taxes are also bad. So cigarette taxes are doubly bad. We need to keep the prices down, so the poor can afford to smoke. It also makes the access to cigarettes easier for children. Since they aren''t going to have health care, anyway, why not smoke and have a little fun?
Finally our President said what we all have been thinking all along: "kids, if you want health care, get a friggin'' job." God bless our President! - Reply to this comment
- Mr. Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.
Democrats deny that, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, 9 percent, or over 6 million, are under 18 years old.
Democrats deny everything, including reality. It''s a shame that people don''t see the long term effect of such a plan. Sorry to hear some children are not insured, but why not? The rich can''t affored it? The poor don''t have medicaid? Oh, that''s right it''s the ones in the middle..those who should be working but aren''t. Get a clue, please. - Reply to this comment
- "he could point to the Constitution and say "There''''s nothing in the Constitution that says anybody has a RIGHT to free health care".
The preamble posits the reason for government is to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Adequate health care is integral to securing two out of the three.
"Plus, not all the American people want this, and for valid reasons that you choose to ignore. This country is not run by "majority rules".
True enough, it has been a fascist republic, and that is what a growing number of Americans are attempting to change. We pay taxes, and not voluntarily, this gives us the right to decide that the money is better spent on improving our own society, than destroying others'', and the "belief" of an elitist, lying coward should not be allowed to determine
that we cannot accomplish that which we have determined to be in our best interest.
In short, Bush is supposed to be working for us, not the reverse. - Reply to this comment
- "No, like I said (but you apparently didn''''t read) is that the President is in NO WAY anywhere limited to the reasons he can veto something. He could say a little birdie told him to and then it would be up to the Congress to override the veto.
Posted by s1ckd09 at 04:59 AM : Oct 04, 2007"
You are perfectly right. That'' s probably what happened, but the little birdie had a lot of cash. - Reply to this comment
- "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."
Then, don''t give public money to the private companies.
"Mr. Bush''s four vetoes are far fewer than any of his recent predecessors."
But what about the signing statements ? - Reply to this comment
- Pro-Birth Neo-Con mantra:
"After the umbilical cord is cut... FVCK EM!" - Reply to this comment
- this is just gwb''s attempt to cement his position as the worst president for all time. not just the worst president to date.
a blood thirsty warmonger who dislikes kids. what a surprise! - Reply to this comment
- CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE
CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE
CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE
CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE
Posted by billysmith6
Come on now Billy Smith 6 - Does 6 stand for the highest grade you graduated from?- I bet if you had health care when you were a poor kid you''d have a larger vocabulary today! Ar you the R''pubicans "spoksparson"? Because You seem so "Spacial". I know R''pubicans don''''t know about "sciance" and "govement" and "Vokabuliry"! Thay have "Dubya Stanards" and kannut relate to "Facks". Perfect example - all you know is one wurd and you reepeets it ovar and ovar and ovar and ovar.....
Perfect example of the R''pubican Ed-u-ka-shun-al systam im Mareica!
Heeheehee! Makes you wanna move, doesn''t it? - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
