Hillary Clinton proposed, in a speech she gave at the Congressional Black Caucus, to provide a $5,000 baby bond to every baby born in the U.S. The bonds, as long as the child graduates high school, could be used towards the cost of college or for a down payment on a first home. With approximately 4 million babies born the U.S. each year, the program could cost upwards of $20 billion.
How might this be funded? She didn't say.
My opinion: This is a great program....In theory. As much as I love Hillary, I don't know how something like this could work in reality. Where is the $20 billion going to come from to fund this program when the government isn't even sure how they will be paying social security to the current work force in 30 years? It's definitely something to think about and try to work through over time.
What do you think?
____________________
On another political note, President Bush recently vetoed a bill granting 10 million underpriviledged children with health care under the idea that it is a step towards government funded health care for all. Congress is fairly certain that they have enough votes to override Bush's veto.
I don't understand why Bush would veto a bill to ensure health care for children in families who cannot afford it. Do we want the children of our country to be sick? I think he should watch as the rate of childhood death goes up because families won't be able to afford to bring thier children to doctors anymore.
I don't understand why the priviledged can get health care but the underpriviledged are left to deal with the high cost of doctors visit on thier own.
________________
While Clinton's bill may not work in theory, she is being an advocate for children. Bush, on the other hand is leaving children out in the dust. Let's make a change, if not for ourselves, then at least for our children
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
Spartan - I completely agree that the $9 billion should be rmeoved from Iraq and put towards something more meaningful in our own country....like funding for health care for underpriviledged children or baby bonds.
What if the baby bonds were for less that $5,000....maybe $2,000 or even $1,000. As minimal as it seems, at least it would provide something to those children who will be going to college at a time when it will be even more unaffordable than it is today. I remember when I went to college, even the little things helped me
In the same way George is equally blinded. He is so concerned about raising taxes or in preventing even the illusion of a government funded health care system that he doesn't see the real children who need real healthcare now! (But seriously why should people who smoke have to pay for children's healthcare?)
It would be easy to fund if we just stopped giving so much away to the oil companies (who don't need it at all!) and all that wasted on our Colonialism.
On the issue of Hilary's baby bond plan, it is good in theory. And, I don't think it is an extreme. One: I can see it cutting, however small, on the abortion rate. Two: Along with a, hopefully, prospering education system, this would provide incentive for parents to get their kids in school and keep them there.
With the money, it can be solved. It would be a matter of budget. Right now I believe we spend around 800 million dollars a day on foreign oil, we're knee deep in war expenses. If, and this is a big if, we get ourselves out of the war and start using different resources other than gas, 20 billion won't be that much.
However, like I said, a lot of budgeting would have to happen. With good planning, though, it could work. There is hope, or at least I'd like to think so.
On the Bush issue..... Arielle, I think you've missed one important fact - this is not just for "underprivileged" kids - at least in the way most people would define the term. MORE than just poor kids need this aide. MANY middle class families cannot afford health care. It is not a poor vs. privileged issue. It is WAY bigger than that.
That being said, yeah, no one can believe he would veto such a positive thing. Except... Many people can believe it - after all, what's good for this country has a tendency to be vetoed by George W. He would rather use that money for the war or for other issues on HIS agenda - NOT the agenda of the bipartisan group that worked on SCHIP.
We have to figure out what candidate to vote for that knows the ropes, can work WITH congress, and has an overall philosophy we think they will fight for (but must wisely know how and when to compromise).
Bush, I have given up on trying to figure him out. The only thing that matters to the current administration is the war and OIL. Healthcare and kids and the American people have no place in his agenda
As for Hillary's bond thing: We need to take responsibility for ourselves as citizens and our families. Too often we take the lazy path and take anything that people are willing to hand out to us. And, as for the government, they need to worry about the millions of people that are already struggling (homeless, poverty-stricken, etc) rather than babies that MAY struggle 18 years from now.
I do agree it would be a great idea...
And I totally agree about Bush. It would've been a step in the right direction for universal health care. Meanwhile, I guess sick people will just continue to visit the ER.
2. Bush vetoed on the health care because there is ALREADY A PROGRAM IN PLACE AND ACTIVE. This is about democratic overkill and since the one in place can't give credit to the current democratic congress, they want to make Bush look bad. It is all about getting political points.
Maybe Bush (and all politicians for that matter) shouldn't be so concerned with with shooting ideas down just because they are proposed by another political party, but because it's simply the right thing to do.
Then, on July 18, a date that I will never forget, our middle son was diagnosed with leukemia. When the insurance company found out, they dropped us, stating that our policy was not yet effective, and that they couldn't or wouldn't cover us. In the end, I suppose, that was a blessing in disguise. Though we made too much for the entire family to get on medicaid (understand that they counted all the money we took out of retirement to invest in our fledgling business as income), at least the children are now covered, including our little survivor, who is currently in remission!
I urge anyone who is interested to write to your congressmen. I did, and have actually received a response. Senator Sherrod Brown is currently preparing to fight the President on the Healthy Start program, and I'm sure he's not alone. Our congressional leaders need to understand the urgency of the health care situation in this country!