President Bush is prepared to veto the State Childrens Health Insurance Program reauthorization. This is a good move for America. The Program was designed to give low-income children the health insurance they could not afford. This program has been widely successful. Now Congress has seen its reauthorization to move the country more towards socialized medicine and wants to expand SCHIP to a larger portion of the population. This bill also takes away a lot of the state choices and puts them under federal control. Congress also waited until the program was just about to expire to send the bill to the President. They have essentially help the children of America hostage in order to give more federal control to health care. We should be proud as Americans that President Bush is willing to stand up for what is right and for the constition and veto this bad bill and send it back to congress to reauthorize a good program not try to expand their power.
Â
Â
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-democrats-prepare-for-schip-battle-2007-09-22.html
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 36
I agree the base of the program is good, and one that was designed to help children of the poor, but as with any good program like this, the Democrats want to turn it into a Socialist program for their own agenda.
Now watch, if this does go through, and they get what they want, when all goes bad, and the expenses get out of hend, they will blame the republicans. Just like with the "No Pass No Play" bill that Ted Kennedy and another DCemocrat wrote, then the Democrats fought to get passed, and now take no claim to having anything to have ever done with it.
Perhaps if effective private health care plans did not cost one quarter of a middle income earner's pay we wouldn't need to think about socializing medicine.
Perhaps if health industry companies didn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars on non health related expenditures every year, health care expenses could be less expensive, or at least covered.
And.. perhaps if insurance companies wouldn't drag their feet for authorizing and paying for needed medical care we wouldn't need the government to step in and look out for the best interests of American individuals.
Words from the land of "What if.."
Tightening grips sinks SCHIPs
If trail lawyers would quit filling frivolous law suits then doctors would not have to carry such high insurance.
VA is a good example of socialized medicine. If we can't even take care of our brave men and women adequately what makes you think we will be able to do it across the entire US.
You know at what point I would seriously consider universal healthcare? When politicians are required to ONLY be covered by their plans. The problem with universal healthcare is that you will still have private insurance which creates two levels of care. One with a nice private room when you get a boob job under private insurance and have 10 doctors hovering; and one where 10 patients sleep in one room with one intern.
Perhaps if we didn't provide billions of dollars of healthcare for illegal aliens every year at no cost to them legal citizens would find their healthcare much more affordable.
Perhaps if we didn't gourge ourselves on junk food and then never exercise we'd have much less obesity related healthcare costs.
Perhaps if we didn't spend government funds on frivelous unecessary things such as National Endowment for the Arts and instead contributed to the healthcare of the uninsured we'd be better off.
Perhaps if we all were a little more proactive about our own individual health we'd each have lower healthcare costs.
The VA is a bad example of militarily run medicine.
Dana B. - Perhaps if businesses wouldn't hire illegal aliens we wouldn't have so many living here.
Perhaps if nutritious food were as affordable as cheap foods we would have less obesity and related health issues.
Perhaps if we stopped handing out corporate welfare and corporate tax cuts the government would have more money to cover the health care needs of the citizenry.
PERHAPS we'd each have lower health care costs if everyone were more proactive about their health issues.
I say perhaps, because if demand for health care went down the for profit health industry companies would likely raise their prices to cover the loss of revenue from the decrease in demand. Thanks to that pesky double edged sword of capitalism.
I believe that socialism encourages and rewards laziness and apathy.
"Dana B. - Perhaps if businesses wouldn't hire illegal aliens we wouldn't have so many living here."
That is a very good point Bill. Neither major party is interested in seeing to it that are borders are made secure. Both have their interests for wanting to maintain the status quo as it were with regard to the border.
"Perhaps if nutritious food were as affordable as cheap foods we would have less obesity and related health issues."
That's a complete copout Bill. There are nutritious foods available and affordable. Most people don't want to restraining themselves from overeating and eating unhealthy foods. It is the individual's responsibility to educate themselves about what they put in their own bodies. It's not fair to blame the food manufacturers, restaurants or advertisers. Did you hear about the 2 girls in NYC that ate most of their meals at Mcdonalds, never exercised and then wanted to sue mcdonalds because they were obese? Are you kidding me?
"Perhaps if we stopped handing out corporate welfare and corporate tax cuts the government would have more money to cover the health care needs of the citizenry."
This is America not Europe Bill. We're not socialists. Never have been...never will be......It's not the government's job to pay for everyone's healthcare. There should be some kind of safety net for those who cannot afford it though.
I think beyond the different ideas of how we should pay for it there lies a more fundamental argument. Is healthcare a right or not?
My own personal belief is that healthcare is not a right except in matters of life or death. I believe a compassionate civilized society should not let a person die because they cannot pay for healthcare. However I also believe that those providing healthcare products and services are entitled to receive fair monetary compensation for their effort. I also believe that in almost every situation an individual must be held accountable for at least some of the cost of their healthcare.
Bush could cure cancer on the white house lawn and give the cure away for free and the moonbats would still find something negative to say about it.
If businesses refused to hire illegal aliens, they would stop coming up here. The lure is money.
"There are nutritious foods available and affordable."
Take your own little trip to the market and compare the nutritional values and detrimental elements of the cheapest foods to comparable products with higher price tags. You will see.
There should be no need for me to point out that "fast food" products are cheaper in price, higher in fats and sugars and less nutritional overall than higher priced, slower food restaurants.
"It's not the government's job to pay for everyone's healthcare. There should be some kind of safety net for those who cannot afford it though."
I'm glad you believe in a safety net. Your comment does not however address the fact that our government provides corporate welfare type programs. Programs which could be labeled as socialist, since people label citizen welfare programs as socialist.
"My own personal belief is that healthcare is not a right except in matters of life or death."
Here we find a popular sticky wicket; the fact that little or no healthcare throughout a person's life often causes an increase in standard incidences of illness and catastrophic illnesses.
It has been proposed, pushed and hammered hard by the health care industries, and their lobbyists, that little or no health care ends up costing the public more in the long run because people take more time off, spend more time in hospitals and live with generally degraded health.
"..I also believe that those providing healthcare products and services are entitled to receive fair monetary compensation for their effort."
I agree. I don't see that a government sponsored universal health care plan has to mean that fair monetary compensation is not given or received. It would most likely mean a decrease in health insurance policies, but then those companies are not providing people with health care, only a sketchy means of paying for it.
http://bestoftoday.gather.com/
That is a great. Because the VA does not work well it simply cant be an example of government run healthcare. The fact is that it is government run healthcare by its very definition if we go to socilized medicine we can all look forward to be treated like those in Walter Reed. Yipee!
Too late. I've already found out that the D of VA is a separate government sponsored group. It falls under the purveyance of the Administrative arm of our government, so guess where the buck stops for the poor care given to our soldiers. Yup, a Bush appointee.
The negative that you are pointing at is caused by this administration. If socialized medicine were run by a Bush type administrator, yes, it would suck. If run by someone with more care and focus it cold be a truly great thing.
Some Canadians may very well use those clinics for convenience sake; it's just as likely that the clinics accept Canadian currency because some of their local Americans work in Canada and paid with Canadian money.
Gather member Rory M. is a Canadian, and has voiced high praise for the Canadian health care system.
The real problem with any attempt that America might make at socializing medicine is that we will start by placing the government in the position of payer of services only and not as a provider. Therefore, the quality of care given will still be based upon the decisions of profit makers and not by those with the health of the individual as the only guiding principle.
Because they'd want to help people??
Once upon a time, people in this country pursued medical careers because they wanted to help people.
It's only within the past forty years that the primary motivation for becoming a doctor has been to get rich.
I do not understand the desire to move to a socialist society call me crazy. It is not just the last 40 years. Remember the American Dream? That is what this society is about making a better life for yourself and your family. I dont think government doing it is the solution.
Why can't doctors (and teachers) enjoy monetary compensation that is just above an average American salary; and the rewards of public acclaim and appreciation?
Before we go into the fact that many teachers are under-paid and under appreciated, let me tell you that I am the progeny of teachers, so I am perfectly familiar with the low rewards and the high amount of hassles that teachers are treated to. My family balanced the lack of rewards and the curses of headaches by focusing on the good they were able to bring to individuals, their local society and the nation overall.
Doctors AND teachers who are in their careers for the pursuit of high income are more focused on the paycheck then the care of their patients or the education of their students.
As far as the American Dream goes; it has been sorely modified by the latest trends in our employment spheres. Very few people are able to find a secure job and work it for decades at a time, let alone all of their lives. Building up savings, buying houses, gathering equity all take constant and steady employment which can be very hard to find in today's job markets.
Businesses close down, get sold off and change management. When those things happen shake-ups occur that put people in transitions that eat up their savings and equities. By the time they find new employment they have been knocked back, or sometimes even off the path so completely that they have to start over almost from scratch and often even end up in debt.
As this happens several times throughout a person's life (or they see it happen to so many of those around them) the American Dream became clouded by the increased struggles and failures found in the day to day realities.
We do not live in the 1950s, where the American Dream was indeed a viable possibility for everyone.
Capitalism can be just as ruinous for a society as socialism. Success is found in how well and properly ideological systems are wielded by all the participants; especially those at the tops.
That is a nice dream, but no one appreciates the teachers so I dont think they will the doctors either. I do not understand why socialism has gotten such a foothold in America. It will be the ruin of this great nation.
I don't either modern. It's a cancerous tumor that must be excised as soon as possible.