Does it seem like Bush fails to support the new child care bill because he IS AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?

kids are kids,,%26amp; Bush is aganst universale healthcare ,,so is that why he resist the funding?Does it seem like Bush fails to support the new child care bill because he IS AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?Universal healthcare would be the beginning of the end of this country.



I support Bush's decisions regarding this issue.Does it seem like Bush fails to support the new child care bill because he IS AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?
As one government politican put it, 40-days of war spending in Iraq can pay for the whole universal child-care budget requirements.



On the other hand, the White House is asking for an additional 95 billion US dollars for the war funding in Iraq, while refusing to spend more on social services and other government projects.Does it seem like Bush fails to support the new child care bill because he IS AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?Bush is against poor people. The faster we die the sooner the elitist rich don't have to deal with us.



Of course then they will have to work and fight for this nation and things like that but Bush doesn't care.
Yes he is against universal health care, as am I by the way. Has to do with that whole "failed everywhere its been tried" thing.



And yes, that's why he vetoed the bill. But you've still managed to get it oh so wrong.



Kids are not kids apparently. This "new" childcare bill (I'll get to that next) would have covered everyone up to age 25. Sorry, but a 25 year old is not a child.



As for the "new" childcare bill, again you're wrong. It is a current program, the SCHIP program exists on the books now to help families who cannot afford healthcare on their own. This bill would have expanded the program to cover anyone up to the age of 25 and who is above the poverty line by 100% (not in poverty).



Now, you have gotten one thing right. Although I don't think it was intentional. This was about universal healthcare. Liberals were trying to feed us the first spoon full. And they were trying to mix it in with the ice cream so we wouldn't notice.Does it seem like Bush fails to support the new child care bill because he IS AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?It just shows were Bushs priorities are. Death and destruction rather than childrens health. As for the fact that it would have come out of smokers pockets. I don't smoke so I don't care. If the day comes that only the rich can smoke, you won't see a tear come out of my eyes. Smoking not only affects the smoker but those close to him/her.Does it seem like Bush fails to support the new child care bill because he IS AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?
25 years old are not kids, and 80,000 a year is not destitute. The president is against socialism. Those that need care DO get care.
No.



There are three ways of defining the "middle". The mean, or average. The mode, or highest point on the curve. The median or middle of the range. In normal distribution these three numbers are all the same.



Income in the United States runs between 0 and 250K. The mean is about 66K. The Mode is around 35K and the median is 125K.



Congress uses the mode to establish "middle class" during Tax time, 35k. Congress used the median, 125K, to establish "middle class" for the Health Care bill.



I am for using the median myself.



Pretty sleazy bill if you ask me. Congress needs to define "middle class" universally and then we can get a good Health Care bill and Fair Taxation.Does it seem like Bush fails to support the new child care bill because he IS AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?
Maybe he just didn't consider 24 year old,s children.
It's because the age of a child would be raised to 25!!! and available to any family making up to $82,000. I have 4 kids and pay medical and only make $61,000.

And yes, it is a baby step towards Universal, which we don't want any part of.

A overhaul of the health system is needed but that is not the anxwer.
SFAA - how has universal health care failed everywhere it has been tried (which would be every developed country in the world)?

Has it failed to keep people alive? No - the US has the second lowest life expectancy among developed nations.

Has if failed to keep people healthy? No - the US has the equal second lowest healthy life expectancy among developed nations.

Has it failed to look after the most vulnerable people in society? No - the US has the highest child mortality in the developed world.

Has it failed to produce an affordable system? No the US pays more per capita than any country in the world for health care - and more than double the developed world average.

It is our system that has failed - not the ones everywhere else.

And to pre-empt the tediously predictable responses

1. Yes people come here for medical care from overseas - because we have set up a system where the best care in the world is available for a cost - but one that 10s of millions of Americans simply cannot afford

2. Yes, emergency care is generally made available to those who need it - but study after study shows that early diagnosis and preventive care are more effective than the best emergency care in saving lives.
Absolutely not! He is not against health care, only against a Universal Health Care that we cannot afford and which will cause more problems than it solves. There is no free ride with this one. We have so many ILLEGAL immigrants who will be getting free health care and that is not something we can afford. Our taxes will be higher, our costs for our own health care will increase, our services will go down because of the amount of people who will be eligible for health care and it is a losing proposition. Care by doctors will be decreased because they will have more people to be responsible for and less time to take care of them. Most of the care will have to be covered by those who are working and making a higher wage; the money has to come from somewhere and it will come from the pockets of the wage earners while the illegals and people who are not willing to work will be covered for their services while the healthy, who require no health services and the higher income population will be paying for the costs of the others. (and the "higher income" population will have those standards lowered to indicate that any family with an income over $80,000 will be considered "higher income"). When the government gets involved, the services are determined by those other than the doctors and the patients. The wait time for care will be longer and, as in other countries where this type of care is in place, some wait for appointments and care for longer than they live. This is a fact. America has the best health care available anywhere right now. It does have problems but, Universal Health Care does not resolve the problems we have now, it increases them and makes the situation far worse than it is now. We simply cannot afford to let this happen. The Dems and Libs are pushing for it. Something may look good and even sound as if it is a solution to a problem but, we need to individually take a look at this very carefully before accepting the words that don't match the actual performance of such a plan. Bush is absolutely right in rejecting this plan. He does not do it to punish the children (and the new "up to age 25" clause?), he does it to protect the nation from a health situation disaster.
yes, Bush is one of the bigest fakes, and liers on the planet!!
I believe his oposition is based on a lack of funding for the program. The proposed source of revenue won'y pay for the program.
That bill would have been paid for by smokers. You don't see that on the news. Democrats love to raise taxes, but they claim to look out for the poor.
probably. and the fact that 18-25 year olds are not children.
That whole issue got blown out of proportion by the media. I'm sure he honestly doesn't care one way or the other about universal health care for children. I can honestly say that he cannot focus on anything but war stuff right now. It's sad, because he makes the repub party look bad, which isn't true overall. HE is an idiot, the party is not. Many of them were upset by his veto as well.



As a side note, I think all he was vetoing was increasing the limits that would include upper middle class, etc.



Either way, he doesn't give a flip about U.S. children, unless they're old enough to go fight in the war(s).