A blog about Kern County and Politics.
Real Name: Tom Webster Gender: male Member Since: August 14, 2006 Last Signed In: October 13, 2008 Profile Views: 11703 Blog Views: 13597 Obama Family Rally in Beach Park Today from noon to 5! One Last Time for the Fans - Drinking Liberally Tonight Bloggers and Lagers: This Saturday from Noon to Three at Pizzaville Bloggers' Beer and Pizza at PizzaVille on Saturday Drinking Liberally - The bar is now open! Drinking Liberally Thursday Night Not Yet Drinking Liberally Drinking Liberally? Bush Announces The End of the Surge McCain Breaks His Own Laws August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Bush to Poor Kids: Drop Dead!
I didn't think the President had it in him. It's one thing to toss embryos in the trash rather than use them to save lives. At least there he could claim ignorance about the eventual fate of the embryos. But vetoing a children's health bill? It's disgusting.
Time for Congress to override this President. http://www.foxnews.com/stor... WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, arguing the new program offers government-run health care to too many Americans who don't need it. Democrats are confident they have a winning issue and are working hard to find enough votes in the House to override the veto. The Senate already has enough votes to override. "Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids; $50 billion in subsidies for huge oil companies; but no health care for low-income kids; $8 billion lost to waste, fraud, abuse, and no-bid contracts in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "Millions of American children and their families won't forget that they are on the bottom of the president's priority list," Emanuel said. Family health care coverage can cost more than $1,000 a month, and Democrats say they have the public on their side. "Once again, the Democratic Party are aligned with 70 percent of the public," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday. 67 comments from 17 users
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I'm really appalled. I hope God holds him responsible for every death this causes.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 3, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Does Bush have no shame? This is just horrible. He keeps on asking for money to wage war and give to halliburton and his buddies over at blackwater, but heaven forbid he do anything for the children. I have never been so ashamed to say he's our President.
posted by
honch20
on Oct 3, 2007 at 10:49 AM
I dont want to pay for somebody elses kids healthcare. I'm happy it was vetoed I dont want to pay for somebody elses health care tell the parents to get off the crack pipe and get a job to take care of their kids. That 35 billion can go to our military to help keep this country safe. posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 10:50 AM
I don't really like FOX since they sort of ignore what's a stake and focus on the horse race. Here's a better link: http://www.usnews.com/blogs...President Bush today killed legislation, supported by members of both parties, that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance. The bill would have added $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, allowing an additional 4 million children to get healthcare coverage. Bush had warned that he would veto the bill because of its cost and because he said it would extend federal assistance to families that aren't truly needy. He reiterated those arguments in his veto message to the House. posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Honch, what if they don't? What if the parents are working full time for minimum wage and can't afford it?As for sending the money to Iraq, why is it so easy to spend money on killing people and so hard to spend it on saving them? We're talking about 4 million young Americans here for the cost of 17 days in Iraq. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 3, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Honch 20, the people that don't have jobs kids are already covered. What he vetoed was covering people's kids that can't afford health insurance. I guess that point was lost on someone so selfish. It sounds like your point is that our government should be spending money on killing people rather than keeping our children healthy. Am I wrong? posted by
robbwillis
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I dont want to pay for somebody elses kids healthcare. It's funding is supposed to come from a 61 cent tax on a pack of cigarettes. Smokers can breathe a sigh of relief if they don't have a lung disease yet. posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:03 AM
So nice to have you back, Pete. :)
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Which presents a problem for me, Robb. I was thinking about quitting, but how can I look into the eyes of an uninsured child and not pick up a pack of smokes?
posted by
honch20
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Your right our country should spend money on the military first if you want free health care you can join the service why should the tax payers foot the bill for this how bout the people who support this pay and the rest of us can keep our money for something worth while. looks like im gonna have to stop smoking now
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Fair enough, Honch. Can I keep my Iraq war money then?
posted by
sagefever
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Children are prohibited from joining the military~I won't even mention the quality of health care our service people and veterans suffer from~that's right suffer from. The is penny foolish and pound stupid.
posted by
honch20
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:16 AM
ya you can keep it then when we get attacked again and all the children are killed everybody wins posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Wouldn't it be better to have our troops home if we were to get attacked? I think it's just peachy that you think winning means all the children get killed. You're on a roll today. posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Honch, the only problem is that the occupation of Iraq makes us more likely to be attacked. So right now Americans are dying and I'm spending money to kill people who had nothing to do with attacking us and making it more likely that we will be attacked and in the meantime tying up money that could be saving the lives of Americans.I didn't mean to turn this into yet another Iraq thread, but dumping more money and American lives into the failed adventures of a failed president seems like a bad idea. posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Honch, I don't mean to keep picking at you, but how is giving healthcare to American kids not worthwhile? Are American not worth helping?
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I'm going to be calling Representative McCarthy, to let him know that in no uncertain terms his "no" vote needs to change, or else his strategy of "taking back the House in '08" will not only fail, but backfire spectacularly.I would suggest as many other people as possible call him as well. If he wants to drag down his party in flames, that's his business. But he'd better be warned that he has nobody to blame but himself when the inevitable comes....... posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Here's the numbers:Phone: (202) 225-2915 (805) 461-1034 (661) 327-3611 posted by
honch20
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:33 AM
All im trying to say is govt funded health care is a bad idea and the reason its not good is because the govt runs it look at Canada it takes months to get treatment and it turns out worse for patient we dont need that here. Once the govt starts giving handouts people want more and more. We need to get policy to reduce govt involvement not expand it. And what progressive said about bringing the troops home in case were attacked is dumb why fight on our turf when we can fight them on theirs.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:34 AM
BTW, James Minn is the person to talk to at the DC office.
posted by
robbwillis
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Since McCarthy is the GOP's "mastermind" behind automated campaign telephone solicitation, don't bother calling him, he'll call you.
posted by
sfinboston52
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I dont have kids but I support this bill hold the Senate & Congress over ride this. Dumbya I guess doesnt read his bible nor does he care to follow the true teachings of his faith. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:43 AM
You were the one that said "when we get attacked again and all the children are killed" not me.If you meant on someone elses turf, how do you suppose all the children will get there? Especially if you aren't willing to pay for it. Which turf are you suggesting that we send all the children to? Iraq, Afghanistan or the latest target for Bush's next war ...Iran. posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Honch, it depends on the services you're talking about. Here's a good comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...Government and private health and public policy analysts have compared the health care systems of Canada and the United States.[1][2][3][4] In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.[5] Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the U.S., in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal, found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."[6] Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S., but there is debate about the underlying causes of these differences. The World Health Organization's ratings of health care system performance among 191 member nations, published in 2000, ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th, and the overall health of Canadians 35th to the American 72nd.[7] The health care system in Canada is largely government-funded, with most services provided by private enterprises. Waiting times for major non-emergency surgery have been longer in Canada, and Canada has been slightly slower to adopt expensive technology and medicines. Consequently, Canada has had higher mortality rates for some conditions, such as heart attacks.[8][9] Canadian health administrators say that these problems are improving. Through all entities in its public-private system, the U.S. spends more per capita than any other nation in the world,[5] but is one of the few industrialized countries that lacks some form of universal health care. Health insurance in the U.S. is expensive, rapidly rising costs are affecting employers and consumers as well as the government, and a study in Health Affairs concluded that half of personal bankruptcies involved medical bills.[10][But see Zywicki[11][12]] No one doubts that for Americans who have a lot of money, the system works better for them. The problem is that by not treating everyone, we increase everyone's cost a lot. If we spent half the money we do, we could get a system that works as well as Canada's.posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I like calling Robb. It's amazing how few people do. We should all call him on this issue.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Honch, Bush has proposed universal health care for the people of Iraq (using US $$$). Why should we provide them with health care, and not the children in our own country? I'm not saying we can't (or shouldn't) do both, but why exclude US children if we're including Iraqi children?
posted by
robbwillis
on Oct 3, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Besides, the automated campaign phone calls don't take replies. If they did, someone's ears would be on fire when they heard what I've been yelling into the receiver...
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 12:00 PM
How much were those automated rates again? Maybe we can just call McCarthy 5000 times.....
posted by
sfinboston52
on Oct 3, 2007 at 12:03 PM
and when herr bush leaves office we will be paying for his health care for life, when he could well afford to pay his own. He will be living off taxpayer money until the day he dies...I am just hoping he doesnt live a long life.
posted by
TSM
on Oct 3, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Bush just cost the Republicans a dozen House seats and half-a-dozen Senate seats next year. Most incumbent Republicans in swing districts won't be returning.
posted by
adampayne
on Oct 3, 2007 at 12:20 PM
This is just another example of how out of touch with the public the Republican Party has become. Republicans believe it is always fine to subsidize mercenaries in and out of this country for the oil companies with tax payer dollars, but Republicans can never seem to grasp the concept of shared social responsibility for citizens regarding their health and welfare. The biggest single social issue today is health care and our broken system that only rewards the insurance companies and pharmaceutical industry. We beg in every poll to end this Iraq war, but see billions of our dollars continue to go to secure huge contracts to Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel and DynCorp International with precious little oversight and no promise of closure.Republicans don't care that the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country is catastrophic illness or accident where health care costs become insurmountable. That cause of insolvency may be replaced here in the near future when so many previous occupiers of the middle class lose their homes and join the shelters. Republicans don't care about that crisis either. posted by
sfinboston52
on Oct 3, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Let's just hope that the Democrats when super majority in both Senate and congress and take the states gov. also. Then we can return America to being the grand Republic it once was. posted by
bnfl
on Oct 3, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Some of these ideas really, really sound Socialist to me. And that's just plain scary. posted by
jfrancais
on Oct 3, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Why is Socialism (or Socialist ideas) scary?
posted by
JesusSmokedABowl
on Oct 3, 2007 at 12:59 PM
The thought of losing your home or all of your life savings to a catastropic illness is scary, but the word Socialism scares people so much more. How brainwashed can we be.
posted by
sagefever
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... and just which socialism sounds scary?..there are many types..we like schools etc..how is helping children whose working parents(can not qualify for medical etc) can not afford health care receive it scary? We will pay somehow for not helping folks out...like Tom said for just 17 days in Iraq we could help..
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Sage, I was just checking my numbers on that. $35 billion is 3 months in Iraq. $35 billion is also 5 years of the program. I got my numbers mixed up going from one year to 5 years.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Socialist like our firemen are socialist? I can live with that.
posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:22 PM
Firemen? Bad analogy. This is socialist as in giveaway-redistribution of wealth-for having done NOTHING (just being born) Firemen at least do something for the good of the order posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:26 PM
I'm not saying the firemen are socialist. I'm saying the fire department is socialist. Firemen rescue people and property (provide a service) just as doctors would help people (provide a service).
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Chico, it's funny that inherent in your argument is that these 3 year olds need to stop freeloading.
posted by
mattloch
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:33 PM
The program isn't socialist. It takes government money, and pays for privately-administered health care. The government isn't hiring doctors. The government isn't making medicine. The government isn't prioritizing care. All the government is doing is paying for it. SCHIP isn't any more "Socialist" than Blackwater is, bnfl. Now there is a "Socialist" organization that scares me.
posted by
sfinboston52
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:34 PM
The fire department, police department all are a form of socalism in that they are not for profit org. that serve the people regardless of class status or wealth. posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:36 PM
Good point, Mattloch. My bad. I guess we should pass this and get rid of some of these actual socialist programs. Maybe we can start with the people who evaluate bridge safety for the government.
posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:39 PM
But what if the contention is that the legislation would inappropriately enlarge the government's role in health care and encourage middle-class parents to drop private insurance? Perhaps conservative legislators want the program to remain focused on its initial mission of covering children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance -- something that lawmakers from both parties said that the compromise would ensure? posted by
TSM
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Two very conservative Republicans speak out against Bush's veto: "Unfortunately, I believe that some have given the president bad advice on this matter," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. He said supporting the health bill "is the morally right thing to do," and that he hoped Mr. Bush's veto could be overridden. Another Republican, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, expressed similar sentiments and called Mr. Bush's decision "an irresponsible use of the veto pen." Now watch as Queets claims Hatch and Smith are closet Liberals.
posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:47 PM
The compromise does ensure that, Chico. Are you afraid that a couple of people who might be able to pay for their own insurance won't? Are we so afraid of that that we think kids should get sick and die to prevent it?We're talking about $35 billion over 5 years for 4 million kids. Should we only cover 3 million of them? posted by
TomW
on Oct 3, 2007 at 01:49 PM
In fairness TSM, Smith is in trouble in Oregon. He's way out of step and can't afford not to support something so popular.
posted by
dougglendower
on Oct 3, 2007 at 02:48 PM
Less government spending. On ALL fronts. I'll complain about Bush vetoing this as soon as the Democrats start yanking his chain harder and stopping the war in Iraq. And I'm sick and tired of everything like this being funded by cigarrette taxes. First off, it should be illegal. Second, it shows that our government has zero interest in stopping smoking in the first place. Third, if by happenstance this tax does curb smoking (not likely, but it could happen) then funding for this would tank and it would have to come out of the general fun. Let's get the Democrats and TRUE Republicans together and start spending our tax money with an eye towards the people. Knock back that deficit, provide true services, cut out graft. Then once the house is in order we can spend money on other things. And health care for children would come far sooner on that list than the war in Iraq.
posted by
adampayne
on Oct 3, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Ken Burns has publicly stated the reason he made his documentary, The War, was because he found that so many young people he talked to thought we fought on the same side in WWII as the Germans against the Russians. It is good to see the brainpower of the American public at work here, particularly when even the hint of a cooperative social effort is suggested and can then discounted as possibly being too socialist. Spooky to think that a malicious loon like McCarthy may have actually been the ultimate victor from the Red Scare years.
Our readers recommend: |
