President Bush Vetoes Health Insurance for Children

So much for no child left behind. It is amazing to me that ideology means more than the lives of our children.

3 thoughts on “President Bush Vetoes Health Insurance for Children

  1. Democrats would be a little more credible on this issue if they focused on outreach to the 1/3 of Medicaid Eligible kids who qualify but don’t enroll. They’re really a more vulnerable population that should be reached out to for preventive primary care under existing entitlements. (In Illinois this population is estimated at approx 253,000 kids without ongoing primary care they are entitled to receive already.)

    A cynic might think Democrats would prefer to rollout the entitlement to higher income kids with the expectation even fewer kids would participate.

    In that case they can claim a further victory for kids yet not have to pay for the huge chunk who for one reason or another (which the programs should correct!) never enroll. A benefit offered because the offerer knows the beneficaries will not fully partake…

    …poor kids out-of-thouch with the system continue to be losers….

  2. The version that passed extends insurance, in many cases, to “children” 25 years old, and to households making up to $86,000/year. I’ve never made that much in my life. To be honest, my peak year to date has been just under half that figure- explain to me why I should be taxed so that people making more money than I can get government insurance?

    This is a standard tactic any political party does in this kind of situation- pass a bad version of a desired bill, then claim the other party, when they do the responsible thing, is against the aims of the bad bill instead of the bad provisions within it. Another example- two days before he left office, President Clinton signed a new definition of the safe level of arsenic in public water supplies, one that would have required more than a thousand cities to rework their water systems, costing tens of billions of dollars. There was no study, no justification of this new level- it was done only so that Bush would have to put it back where it had been until two days before- giving Dems the chance to say that Bush doesn’t care about clean water.

    Republicans do it when they have the majority in congress and a Democratic president, too, but that doesn’t happen very often.

  3. …why I should be taxed so that people making more money than I can get government insurance?

    So that, when your child has a catastrophic illness or accident, you, too, can get it treated without selling your house and going bankrupt.
    There is a vast middle ground of people who can take care of themselves in most circumstances, but not if there is a huge catastrophe. They work hard and are responsible. These are the “deserving poor”. But health care is SSSSSOOOOOO expensive these days, that you have to have a lot to afford it — and $86,000 a year isn’t anywhere near enough.
    (here in California, it’s poverty level.)
    After all, you pay taxes to subsidize tobacco companies, and to give breaks to many very rich corporations, which have no conscience nor any motivation to do good or even to refrain from cheating these days. They are not the deserving poor — or even the deserving rich. Why not complain about paying those taxes?

Comments are closed.