?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I'm a bit more than upset at Bush right now with regard to the SCHIP veto. Funding superfluous wars, but still he feels like he has the right to take health care away from children? If SCHIP disappears, the emergency room becomes primary health care for [more of] these low-income families (SCHIP generally provides healthcare to children who fall in the "gap" -- they have too much money to be on Medicaid, and don't have jobs that provide [affordable] insurance).

If their primary care is the Emergency Room, that pisses me off for so many reasons. 1) They never pay. It's too expensive, and the hospital has to treat these people anyway. Who pays for that? Your taxes. 2)Emergency Room waits are long enough. If you go to the emergency room, it should be for an emergency, not something that should be going to a regular doctor.

And let's say they just don't go to the emergency room. And of course, they don't go to the doctor. No primary care, no secondary care. I suppose we'll just wait until they need surgeries and have high-risk diseases. Who needs prevention? Obviously not America.

So... here's hoping. The Senate can easily override the veto within their chamber, but with the House being all stupid, it looks like they are going to postpone the vote and try to sway a couple more Republicans to their side.

SCHIP was going to be funded by a tax increase on cigarettes. His only possible defense, in my opinion, is saying, "Well, we wanted to keep the price of cigarettes low"

It was absolutely ridiculous to veto this bill. There's no doubt.

Next step: WRITE to your LOCAL CONGRESSMAN. Or your senator, or anyone in Congress, really. EVERY VOTE counts, and they NEED more of the House to override Bush's veto.

*Yes, it passed the House and the Senate, originally. Then Bush vetoed the bill, and so it's sent back to Congress to override. EACH house has to override it by a 2/3 vote. We have this in the senate (including many Republicans who adamantly agree with Bush on other issues) but not in the house.
____________

This article goes into more detail, including a great quote from Edwards

I'm not for not showing both sides. Here's why Martinez agrees with Bush, and voted against it

Tags:

Comments

( 16 comments — Leave a comment )
thebohomama
Oct. 4th, 2007 01:43 pm (UTC)
They tax the hell out of cigs here. 7 Euros a pack, and I'm fairly certain they have 10 cigs each.

He's such a bastard.
teenonfire4lord
Oct. 4th, 2007 06:51 pm (UTC)
His reasoning is not to keep cigarette prices low. Most Republicans have explained the reasoning. The way the Democrats want to expand the plan would cover kids that already have private insurance. This would go PAST the gap, covering kids that don't need it. That is wasting government money.

Wonder why the Democrats are so deadset against the $5 billion expansion. It's typical to hear "Bush is vetoing health care for kids!" No he isn't. He's vetoing the Democrats plan for it, and the Republicans have their own plan.
(Deleted comment)
(Anonymous)
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:00 pm (UTC)
I'm not okay with taking away the funding. That's not what Bush is doing. He's vetoing excessive funding of the program.

Kids who have private insurance would use it. Their parents would see that they now qualify, dump the insurance they are paying for and get the insurance the government is paying for.

Republicans against the Democrats plan have proposed $5 billion worth of funding to the same program. That seems like a fair number that would keep about the same number of kids covered.
thisgirliknow
Oct. 4th, 2007 06:58 pm (UTC)
and, p.s., its not wasting "government" money it's wasting smokers money.
teenonfire4lord
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:01 pm (UTC)
I just made a comment, but somehow wasn't logged in. Unscreen that one, then respond to this.
thisgirliknow
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:05 pm (UTC)
So how do you decide who qualifies?

And if someone is struggling trying to meet their $400 medical plan, why shouldn't they be able to drop it, when someone else who chose not to spend that same $400 on insurance receives SCHIP?

These are working-class families. They need health care, but health care is expensive.
What you're saying is that the parents who struggle to provide health care for their children shouldn't get the same breaks as the parents who don't care whether their kids are healthy or not.
(Anonymous)
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:11 pm (UTC)
I'm not the one to decide who qualifies. I'm sure there are standards, and additional funding would expand those standards past where they need to be.

If a family is struggling to meet their $400 medical plan, they likely qualify anyway. This is going to cover some families that are NOT struggling to cover it, that are making it work.

What I'm saying is that families that are providing their own insurance for their kids and are making it work shouldn't get a government handout if they don't need one.

Funny...this is sounding like a classic Republican/Democrat debate, but since I'm not a Republican, I guess it's instead a Conservative/Liberal debate.
teenonfire4lord
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:12 pm (UTC)
It happened again. I'm on AOL, and it's not remembering my login. I'll try to fix that, but just reply to this again based on the anonymous post.
thisgirliknow
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:24 pm (UTC)
There aren't very many people that don't struggle, especially to meet health care costs. And why does a family that works hard for themselves get shafted, because they work hard?

I don't think government handouts are a great thing either but this is NOT in the form of money. This is in the form of the future of our country's health care. This is children with strep throat who need antibiotics. This is babies who have collapsed lungs. And you're saying that because these children's parents work hard for their money that they shouldn't get the same benefits as the people who work less.

I sound very idealistically conservative in my argument and I'm surprised you oppose it.
teenonfire4lord
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:47 pm (UTC)
I'm saying if a family is able to afford healthcare for their children without putting themselves in the poorhouse, then they don't NEED a handout! This country is all about self-sufficiency. You are acting like I don't support the program at all. Of course I do! It's just that it doesn't need to be radically overfunded. Not everyone should get free healthcare, that would be socialism at work. Only those that NEED it should get it.
thisgirliknow
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:51 pm (UTC)
then again, I'm a socialist.
right, because we want to keep people JUST above the poorhouse.

everyone needs healthcare. most people do not get adequate healthcare. I don't get the part that you seem to be missing.
teenonfire4lord
Oct. 4th, 2007 08:04 pm (UTC)
Re: then again, I'm a socialist.
1) The families that truly need it are ALREADY getting it under the current program guidelines, and a $5 billion expansion seems reasonable.

2) Further expansion of the program would help those who are paying for their own kids health insurance and are doing just fine.

I don't see how you are missing the fact that I'm not opposed to the program. I'm opposed to an irresponsible and overreacing expansion of it.
thisgirliknow
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:01 pm (UTC)
The kids who have private insurance wouldn't use this.

There are 20 Republican senators that agree with the health plan proposed. They've already cut it down from 50 to 35.

He is vetoing 30 billion $$ worth of healthcare.

As someone who didn't receive adequate health care as a child (I am speaking of your post regarding your teeth) I'm surprised that you're okay with taking away the funding for SCHIP.
satellitewish
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:01 pm (UTC)
Obviously you aren't a millionaire tobacco executive who donates thousands to the GOP!
thisgirliknow
Oct. 4th, 2007 07:27 pm (UTC)
clearly. or a smoker ;)
tevarin
Oct. 4th, 2007 08:54 pm (UTC)
I think the Democrats were playing a little politics by having the bill significantly increase the scope of the program, not just renew it. But Bush's veto underlines just how dishonest his whole spiel on "compassionate conservatism" always was.

I love the idea of funding the bill with cigarette taxes _because_ they're regressive and target the poor. Poor smokers are most likely to end up requiring publically-funded health care. Why shouldn't they be forced to quit their habit or foot the bill?


( 16 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

botticelli
thisgirliknow
Much like pineapples, I am hardcore.

Latest Month

April 2016
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel