Wednesday, December 12, 2007

President Bush Cares More For War Than Poor Kids

OK, so I went over to to look at headlines and the first two on the page just set me off, because they are just so wrong.

Headline 1: Budget deal would probably give Bush victory on war funding
"Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they're closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding."

Headline 2: President Bush vetoes child health bill again
""What a sad day that the president would say that rather than insuring [millions of] children, 'I don't want to raise the cigarette tax,' " said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

Does that seem a little backwards to anyone else?! Our President wants to spend $70 billion more on a war for another country but he won't allow a bill that helps poor children in the USA? That is just sad, sick, and wrong. There are millions of kids out there who cannot get the care they need and he just doesn't care. This is the second time he has vetoed that bill. Ugh, I am just so ticked off at this that I can't even think straight right now! Please tell me I am not the only person who thinks this?!


Dawn said...

We're on a program for people who don't qualify for medicaid and can't afford private insurance. I think that it's sad the war is costing so much more money, however, I do think that healthcare would be a mute point if the country isn't protected. However, I do think that this child healthcare bill needs to be passed - with some changes though. For one thing, the program that we're on, the cost to us is too low. They would benefit from looking at charging a percentage of your income, say 1.5% of your income, I think it's reasonable and responsible to have to pay this. I think that overall these programs just cost alot to provide and it shouldn't all be borne by the tax payers. And yep I say this as a user of this program. I honestly do not think that the tax payers nor my country owes my children healthcare, I need to provide that for them. However, I think if they create a program that I qualify for, the program should work correctly (as you've seen mine NOT work).

Anyhow, I seriously hope that some sort of healthcare bill is passed for these children, CA is fairly progressive as far as this program goes, alot of states don't have anything but medicaid.

Natalie said...

I don't discuss politics because I'm way too sensitive...but let's just say I'm not Bush's biggest fan.

DewKnight said...

I don't agree with nationalized healthcare, and this would fall into that.

If we pass the fair tax, low income families would have money to afford healthcare.

Kara said...

Dawn- I do agree that it shouldn't all be on the taxpayers and that the users of it should have to pay a certain % of income also.

Natalie- I don't usually discuss politics either lol, gets me flustered

dewknight- I do agree that a fair tax would help, but I also believe that universal healthcare would be better than our current privatized insurance companies just trying to make money. We are the only industrialized country without a universal healthcare plan and I hate having to determine whether or not to take myself or my kids to the doctor on whether I can afford it or not.

DewKnight said...

I totally get that. I'm a student. No healthcare. I had to use my school loan to pay for an emergency surgery this semester, and trying to find out how I will be able to continue going to school so I don't have to start paying back the ridiculous loan rates.

Kara said...

dewknight- yikes, that really stinks, I hope you can get things figured out so you can continue with school

Anonymous said...

In our state, there is a program in place for children up to the age of 18 that covers medical and dental. This helps families with lower income and no insurance to make sure their children get the care they need. The program will give children check ups and will provide for their needs.

I haven't read the healthcare bill that Mr. Bush vetoed. However, most bills have some kind of attachments to them and it may well be that there were some that he just couldn't agree with. These are often the "pork barrel" items, but it's the title of the bill that gets all the media attention.

I think I'll study up on it.

By the way, he wouldn't be asking for more money for the military now if the previous administration hadn't made so many cuts in the funding.

Anonymous said...

I just learned that the program would benefit families with incomes up to $80,000 a year. I'm not sure that qualifies as "poverty". It would include adults in the program, even if they are currently insured, thus encouraging them to drop private health insurance.

Like it or not, this country runs on private businesses. It's not always a good idea for the government to take over and run companies out of business. The government is not our nanny. And I think I'd resent a rather wealthy neighbor receiving government assisted insurance when I do pay for mine myself, and have less than a fourth of the income the upper limit of this bill would set.