Today, the President in his typical stunningly ignorant fashion, used only his 3rd veto against a bill which would provide health insurance to 10 million children who could not otherwise afford it. The Bill, known as the SCHIP bill, is for families who make too much money to receive Medicaid, but still cannot afford health insurance. This program would mean a family of 4 earning less than $60,000.00 would qualify.
Despite overwhelming support of both sides of the congressional aisle, the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, the American Association of Pediatrics, and a majority of all state Governors, Democrats and Republicans, King George II somehow found his way to veto a very popular (and much needed) bill to help our children. Apparently, this is an extension of his "No Child Left behind" program, which has by the way.
Stating that the SCHIP bill was a first step towards socialized medicine, Bush actually misstates the very nature of the bill. Apparently, "the Decider" would do well to become "the Reader." Participants in the program would be able to pick from different competing private health insurance providers, certainly not anywhere near socialized medicine as being bandied about by the Democrats.
In the past two years alone, one million more children have joined the ranks of the uninsured, up to a present day total of nearly 9 million children, and that does not count the children trying to stay healthy under a dismal Medicaid system for the truly indigent families.
How much would this cost? Seven billion a year for the next 5 years. A pittance compared to the money he is squandering in Iraq. Hell, I bet they have lost that much in money Iraq through poor accounting and leadership, not to mention how much we have been over billed for in Iraq by his "no bid" buddies.
Veto one was for stem cell research (which promises to save lives through medical research), and veto two was against a timetable for withdrawal of troops in Iraq (which would save lives), and now veto three is against a children's health care insurance program, which (again) would potential save lives.
It seems our leader, our "decider" can't pony up any funds when it comes to saving lives....maybe we should have told him it was money allocated towards the elimination of children, something he could get up for.
Mr. President, on October 18th, you are going to be bitch slapped with a veto override from both sides of the aisle. You are about to find out that even the mindless sheep of the conservative party can't stomach this outrage. On October 18th, you are going to see just how many friends you have in Washington. You lost the American people along time ago. Now you are going to see how many members of your party you have lost.
If only we could pass a Hate Crimes Bill so we could charge you under it. You have obviously started waging a war against your own people, sir. You are waging a war against our countries children, an action all the spin doctors in the world cannot justify.
And that is the world...according to Kimba
Thanks for reading
6 comments:
.
I want to point out quickley that any non-insured person can walk into the free-clinic like the one by the courts in Newhall.
Also...
I think you are off a bit in your summations, for instance, see these articles at Townhall.com:
http://sanity.townhall.com/g/d8e72f99-4188-4865-93bf-36b9efeb8f6c
“The bill proposes to insure kids in families that have 4 kids and an income of up to $83K of income. It proposes to finance this through a $0.61 tax per pack of cigarettes. According to statistics revealed on www.quitsmokinghub.com, 33 percent of all people below the poverty line smoke. Only 12 percent of people with at least 16 years of education (generally higher wage earners) smoke. Native American and native Alaskans have a 41% rate of smokers.
Democrats tout that they are the protectors of the poor and minorities (this is the part the republicans should seize upon), but are proposing a bill that would tax millions of those folks. The truth of the matter is that dems want to grow the government and migrate it into a socialist government and will do so on the backs of every citizen, no matter the ethnic group or economic level of that person. They are spending money to create and air commercials that call President Bush and other conservatives as "against the children" while harming the poorest children among us. That same person who lives below the poverty level and has the unfortunate addiction of smoking already has SCHIP insurance for his kids and doesn't pay a dime for it. At the other end of the scale, the person with 4 kids making $83K has a good enough job/position with a company that probably has great benefits (including a family healthcare plan). His portion of the program cost can almost certainly be reduced if he cancels the coverage of his kids, and uses the SCHIP program (which he will undoubtedly do).”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertBluey/2007/09/02/hillarycare_on_the_horizon
“Just as troublesome is the move by liberals to strip out language in the bill to eliminate the so-called Medicare trigger. That language was part of the controversial Medicare prescription drug bill that narrowly passed in 2003. Fiscal conservatives insisted the language be included in that bill to force the president and Congress to address Medicare’s unfunded obligation. However, in a move that would allow Congress to ignore the $32 trillion unfunded obligation of Medicare, liberals inserted a provision in the SCHIP bill to eliminate the trigger. The non-partisan Concord Coalition called the move a terrible mistake.
Given Medicare’s growing burden on our economy, it’s no coincidence that the trigger was “sprung” in April when the Medicare trustees issued their annual report. But will Congress do anything about it? Under the current law, they cannot simply turn a blind eye toward Medicare’s rapidly increasing costs. But if liberals get their way with the SCHIP bill, it would allow them to do just that.”
.
Yes, we all got dizzy at the frenzy caused by Republicans in congress to cure our healthcare and medicaid situation.
By the way it IS 60k. The 83k was proposed by New York lawmakers, where a loaf of bread is $8.50.
Yes, we love our social programs. Personally, I think we should levy an additional tax on liquor. But no government employee would go for that, let alone our man Teddy.
Do nothing for the adults with no health insurance? OK, screw them, I am with you. But this is for children who cannot afford to go to the doctor's office.
I grew up poor, and I get the impression perhaps you did too. I remember trying to cover up the holes in the bottoms of my shoes with cardboard, not telling my mom about the cavity in my molar (partially because of $, and partially because I was a coward). I can clearly remember not wanting to go to the doctor's office because it was so damn expensive (my Dad was a carpenter / roofer / whatever was paying at the time during new housing slumps). My Mom took a job as a waitress for the tip money, and the food she could bring home. I took paper routes at 12, kept score at the local bowling alley for cash (yes, I am old.....you had to keep your own score), just so I could buy my own jeans and t-shirts.
Believe me, POOR sucks. I can't sit still for another kid worrying about the money their parents will have to spend just because they are sick. I don't care if we levy a tax on Viagara, Cigars and booze. We gotta do it.
Greetings from my soap box,
Kimba
.
"Its for the children"
Give me a break. Its Socialism at its worst, which hurts kids more than having insurance! All these families can walk into a free clinic to get check ups and medical care. I too know what powdered milk taste like, but I also know when politicians try to make the size of government grow by hurting the poor. Which the Left is famous for.
.
Consent of the Governed
A great analogy that explains the dilemma of our “redistribution program” here in America (welfare, food stamps, or Medicaid, etc.) is one of a triplex. I must thank Neal Boortz for this analogy (his book, The Terrible Truth About Liberals), by the by.
Our government, as our Constitution says, derives its powers “from the consent of the governed.” The idea here is that we cannot and should not ask the government to do anything for us that we cannot legally or morally do for ourselves. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? With that premise in mind, lets build the following scenario.
You live in a triplex. You are in apartment No. 1, Johnson is in apartment No. 2, and Wilson lives in No. 3. You discover that Wilson is ill and cannot work. He never bothered to buy a health insurance policy because he just didn’t believe he would need it for quite some time. Wilson, it seems, is not good at making rational decisions. He has no savings because it was more important to use that money for bondo on his Camaro and a good Panama City Beach vacation every summer.
You believe that Wilson is about to starve to death. His electricity is going to be cut off, and he can’t afford to buy his blood pressure medication. You decide to help, charitable soul that you are. You scrounge through your bank account and find $200 to help your neighbor out.
Good for you. What a guy!
A month later Wilson is still in trouble. Your $200 wasn’t enough. It turns out that he spent $20 for a case of beer and at least another $100 or so at the horse races. Things may not be all that desperate, though. One of the thirty-five Lotto tickets he bought with that carton of cigarettes might pan out.
You decide to visit Johnson in apartment No. 2 to see if he can chip in. Johnson tells you that, while he certainly understands the seriousness of Wilson’s situation, he needs his money to send his daughter to college in the fall and to pay some of his own medical bills. Besides, he’s trying to save up some cash for a down payment on a house so he can get out of this weird apartment building.
You make the determination that it is far more important for Wilson to have some of Johnson's money than it is for Johnson to keep it and spend it on his own daughter’s education and a new home. So, here’s the question:
“Do you have the right to pull out a gun and point it right at the middle of Johnson’s forehead? Can you use that gun to compel Johnson to hand over a few hundred dollars for Wilson's care, and then tell Johnson that you’ll be back for more next month?”
Obviously, when put like this, you won’t run into too many people who will tell you that they have the right to take Johnson's money by force and give it to Wilson. They might say that they would try to talk Johnson into being a bit more charitable, but they don’t think that they have the right to just rob him at gunpoint. But this is the next question:
“Well, if our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can you ask your government to do something for you that, if you did it for yourself, would be a crime? Why would it not be OK for you to take that money from Johnson by force and give it to Wilson, but it would be perfectly OK with you if the government went ahead and did it?”
Last time I checked, IRS agents were armed.
Another way to put this is an example from J. Budziszewski’s book, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man: On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money for drugs.
1. Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for the Church.
2. Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church who act as bagman.
3. Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who says I must do as he says.
4. Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand as an official agent of the government.
If the first is theft, it is difficult to see why the other four are not also theft.
Rapp, don’t talk over us, deal with the issue at hand. Is the redistribution of money paid me to other people theft or not? Is it part of a constitutional republic, or more in line with a socialistic/communist frame of government?
This country is more socialist and dictatorial than advertised.
No, the New Left is very socialist, killing Al Qaeda (I think I spell that different every time I type it) in Iraq is not dictatorial. I am presuming that is your hidden point Kimba. The mere fact that Iraq was firing on our planes almost daily in the no-fly zones was reason enough (via John "Rice-Butt" Kerry international law) to go into Iraq full force, resuming the war. No dictatorial aspects here.
Post a Comment