Why would congress play political games with childrens health?
September 18th, 2009 | by Michael |
Enigma asked:
Aren’t you sick of this political maneuvering holding American citizens hostage while they waste taxpayers money playing their little games? Congress set the income ceiling on the healthcare bill so high they had to have known it would be vetoed. Come on.
Hey I would love to have free healthcare but if I truly deserve it making less than say 35,000 a year with 3 kids, why do the neighbors down the street making $80,000 dollars a year with 1 child, driving a new car every year and a 4 bedroom, $750.00 per month mortgage, deserve the same benefit.
DINO
Aren’t you sick of this political maneuvering holding American citizens hostage while they waste taxpayers money playing their little games? Congress set the income ceiling on the healthcare bill so high they had to have known it would be vetoed. Come on.
Hey I would love to have free healthcare but if I truly deserve it making less than say 35,000 a year with 3 kids, why do the neighbors down the street making $80,000 dollars a year with 1 child, driving a new car every year and a 4 bedroom, $750.00 per month mortgage, deserve the same benefit.
DINO
11 Responses to “Why would congress play political games with childrens health?”
By lltrix on Sep 20, 2009 | Reply
What? ARe you serious? Bush bombs babies in Iraq and you’re o.k with that. And, then you blame congress for playing political games. All children who are middle class are not covered by insurance. Many middle class people cannot afford coverage. This is why universal health care is important. Why do you have a problem with 35 billion going to our own children in the U.S while another 200 billion flies out of the country for Iraq this week alone?
By Sway_27 on Sep 23, 2009 | Reply
They did know, Bush told them he would veto it.
By tinker thinker on Sep 27, 2009 | Reply
It’s not about children’s health care, it’s about insurance. lol Just who do you think will profit?
No one wants the democrat’s policies so why not just go back on vacation till we can get some real Americans in there…
By de viking on Sep 29, 2009 | Reply
because this is the first step towards socilaized medicine here in the states — nobody wants to “put” down the children,
so congress trys to get the socialized health care under the fence by pushing it around children — wounderful buch of cocnuts huh?
By RedThread on Oct 2, 2009 | Reply
There were several problems with SCHIP. They all know that this is not about the children. Children who need medical attention can get it for free right now. All hospitals are required to see patients regardless of their ability to pay.
The SCHIP veto was about:
1. Cost controls. This bill was way too expensive.
2. Cigarette tax. These kinds of taxes never work.
3. It provided health care to children of illegal immigrants.
4. The income cap was way too high. It would have covered 75% of children.
Don’t tell me about all the money we’re spending on the war. The war is a short term expenditure to protect Americans from terrorists. SCHIP, like all government programs and their taxes, go on and on in perpetuity.
Great question. And one that needs honest debate, not meaningless political retoric.
By Gypsy Gal on Oct 3, 2009 | Reply
We need universial health care
By Michael H on Oct 6, 2009 | Reply
This is a liberal political ploy to make Bush look bad so their democrat candidates will look better than they are. It is totally politics and has nothing to do with the health care of the children. The children are pawns being used by the democrat party.
How sick is that!
Further, this is also a simple inconspicuous step to total socialized, government controlled health care. Since the government is already taking care of all these little children then it should also take care of the parents of these children. Oh and by the way, we will increase your taxes some 300% to cover the costs.
How sick is that!!!
By gowpet on Oct 7, 2009 | Reply
Bush doesn’t care. He’s too busy tring to make Iraq are newest state.
By hopeful for change on Oct 8, 2009 | Reply
I do agree with you on the ceiling limit being too high for many of the benefactors of this bill to have been considered “poor”. I don’t think this had much to do with the health of the children though… it looked to be an attempt towards universal healthcare.
How in the world can a family making $84,000 a year NOT be able to afford healthcare? Many jobs come with a family plan. It may not seem very affordable, but that may be because the family is trying too desperately to keep up with the Joneses in other aspects.
By Elway_the_Cat on Oct 8, 2009 | Reply
Congress set the income ceiling where it needed to be. Bush can spend 12 billion dollars a month on Iraq, but he won’t approve the billions needed to make sure all qualifying children have this coverage. The Republicans in the Senate seem to think it’s just fine, it’s the Republican obstructionists in the House who are preventing an override and imagine that. No one is playing a political game here but Bush and the Republican obstructionists in the House. Witness yet another nail in the Republican’s coffin for ‘08.
By Buzz on Oct 8, 2009 | Reply
I am sick of it… but that is what the government does… not only children’s health, also the soldier’s lives