Ads target Republicans in childrens health insurance veto fight?
November 23rd, 2009 | by Michael |
raderpunk69 asked:
seriously whats the point of this? What is bush trying to do?
RICKIE
seriously whats the point of this? What is bush trying to do?
RICKIE
7 Responses to “Ads target Republicans in childrens health insurance veto fight?”
By Goldenrae9 on Nov 25, 2009 | Reply
Apparently Bush is trying to get a Democrat elected to the White House.
By TheDude on Nov 28, 2009 | Reply
don’t worry there will be new lows for commercials this year more insulting to our intelligence than we have ever seen
our politicians will stoop to new lows , spending hundreds of millions of dollars all for a job that pays 400,000 dollars a year.
none of them should be able to hold the title, they prove they are not worthy before they ever get sworn in
By amnesty sucks on Nov 29, 2009 | Reply
What is Bush trying to do? HUH! Jorge Bush vetoed an expensive bill that was filled with lots of JUNK. If Congress had sent him a reasonable bill he would have signed it. Congress did this on purpose, knowing that he would veto it, so he would look like he hates kids.
Every ad that targets Republicans on this issue are half truths and misleading.
By naterino on Dec 1, 2009 | Reply
Demonstrate his total lack of ethics
By Mr. Knowitall on Dec 1, 2009 | Reply
Bush’s first priority is the profits of the health insurance companies. To his way of thinking, the primary purpose of health insurance is to create profits for the insurance industry, not to provide health care. This is the ‘capitalistic’ way of looking at things. And by this standard, health care is doing much better in the US today than before Bush came to office because profits are way up, the industry is much healthier, and political contribution from them are up.
OTOH, the price we pay for health insurance in the US is up by 70% since Bush took office, and it was considered a ‘crisis’ even then!
By vetoing the bill, Bush made himself (and the GOP) vulnerable to the charge that they don’t care about health care, only about profits. Bush vetoed the bill as the less bad of two bad alternatives, from his point of view. It didn’t hurt -his- ratings much because they were already pretty low, but it will hurt the GOP’s chances of holding onto the White House in 2008 because no Republican candidate is allowed to criticize Bush, so they are stuck with his bad decisions.
By poolplayer on Dec 1, 2009 | Reply
Read the details of the childrens health bill offered by the Democratic congress for signature.
Offer any piece of crap legislation that nobody in their right mind would sign, put a grand “for the children” title on it, and presto - you have an instant campaign ad.
Stand by, there will be many more to come.
By lilly4 on Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Democrats Block Children’s Insurance
It took more than a decade of constant agitation for the elderly to win the right to charge their prescription medications to Medicare.
Republican reluctance to spend the money combined with a Democratic willingness to put off action keeps the issue in partisan play. The result was that it took a Republican president to undo the political knot and pass a plan that finally offered senior citizens some relief.
We are now watching House Democrats play the same partisan game with the renewal of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which expires on Sept. 30. Meanwhile, the Senate on the one hand and President Bush on the other appear to have crafted a generous extension of the program that may now fall prey to the House Democratic desire to provoke a presidential veto — and the children be damned! Starting yet another blame Bush campaign.
Bush opened the game by proposing a $5 billion expansion of the program to cover more children and to limit the focus of the program to child health insurance.
This highly successful program, initiated in the middle of the Clinton administration, has now succeeded in reducing the proportion of uncovered children to less than 10 percent (many of whom could get Medicaid if their parents bothered to apply). States have moved to use the program to expand coverage of adults without insurance and the Bush administration wished to restrict the practice.
But the Senate went further and is pushing a $35 billion program, financed by an increase of at least 60 cents in the federal cigarette tax. The extra money would bring the five-year cost to $60 billion.
Crafted by Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (Utah) along with Democrats Max Baucus (Montana) and Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia), the plan would make child coverage virtually universal and permit states to access food stamp and other assistance program data to locate uncovered children and bring them into the program. But it would restrict the coverage of adults.
Raising the tobacco levy is a good thing to do anyway, even if you don’t need the money. A higher cigarette tax has been demonstrably shown to cut teen smoking, and the increase, which would bring the total levy to $1 per pack, is a good step to improve national healthcare.
Bush threatened a veto, but seems to have backed off and appears able to live with the Senate bill.
So the House decided to pass a bill he couldn’t sign. By deliberately provoking a veto, they hope to demonstrate what a heartless Scrooge Bush really is.
Not only is the House upping the price tag to $50 billion, it is gratuitously courting the favor of the medical establishment by eliminating the cuts in physician fees scheduled for the next few years as part of the effort to save Medicare without cutting benefits. The House bill also opens the doors of the program wide to adult coverage. Covering adults is a good idea.
It would be great to cover all Americans without having to fundamentally alter our healthcare system. That way, socialist utopians like Hillary couldn’t use the uncovered population as an excuse to make healthcare a government-dominated program. It also covered all illegals.
But House leaders know full well that Bush won’t sign the bill that repeals his Medicare physician fee cuts and opens the program to adult coverage. But they are determined, nevertheless, to jerry-rig a bill that Bush can’t sign by festooning it with provisions that not only endanger the future of the Medicare program they profess to adore but also may kindle a new round of medical cost inflation they profess to abhor.
The House should just back off. It is a major accomplishment in healthcare, the new third rail of our politics, to expand SCHIP to cover all children. Forcing the administration to give up its hard-won gains on Medicare cost containment to swallow the program is deliberately unrealistic.