Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jul 19, 2007 in Health, Politics | 11 comments

George Bush Leaves Children Behind In Health Insurance Proposal Stance


President George Bush is opting to leave some children behind by refusing to renew a program to provide health insurance to poor kids:

President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.

And that’s logical, isn’t it?

George Bush doesn’t believe in enlarging the role of the federal government.

He believes in keeping the government, the relationship between the three branches, and checks and balances exactly the way the founding fathers wanted it.

Well….maybe not exactly. But on THIS, he believes in keeping the federal government the way it has been… MORE:

The president said he objects on philosophical grounds to a bipartisan Senate proposal to boost the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has proposed $5 billion in increased funding and has threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the House.

“I support the initial intent of the program,” Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post after a factory tour and a discussion on health care with small-business owners in Landover. “My concern is that when you expand eligibility . . . you’re really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.”

The 10-year-old program, which is set to expire on Sept. 30, costs the federal government $5 billion a year and helps provide health coverage to 6.6 million low-income children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance on their own.

About 3.3 million additional children would be covered under the proposal developed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), among others. It would provide the program $60 billion over five years, compared with $30 billion under Bush’s proposal. And it would rely on a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes, to $1 a pack, which Bush opposes.

But the Bush administration has consistently battled the tobacco companies.

Well…maybe not exactly. The Post goes on:

Grassley and Hatch, in a joint statement this week, implored the president to rescind his veto threat. They warned that Democrats might seek an expansion of $50 billion or more if there is no compromise.

BOTTOM LINE: Once again this administration is not giving independent voters and non-conservatives much to cheer about. Its actions, stances and orientation are now becoming predictable and all of them taken together may make 2008 a historic year for a massive protest vote on the part of many voters.

Including the parents of the kids Bush wants to leave behind.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2007 The Moderate Voice
  • kritter

    Hard to argue that he’s a compassionate conservative or even a true-believing Christian after this one. His priorities reveal his true intent- to enlarge government spending for defense, give generous nobid contracts to big donors and allow Republican earmarks, while vetoing a measure that would help the working poor insure their kids. Its just another example of government for the base, “the haves and the have-mores”.

  • And people say there is an irrational hatred of Bush. Ha!

  • Rudi

    Joe – You need to check the story link. The link goes to an old tobacco government civil suit.

  • George Sorwell

    I think this is the article.

  • notherbob2

    I don’t believe that you intentionally post Democratic propaganda. However, in this case I believe that you have done so. See Mr. MqQuain’s post on QandO.

  • Rudi

    N-bob – And QandQ isn’t Wingnut propaganda? Some moonbats call the WaPost a Bush mouthpiece paper, Kristols op-ed Bush lovefest from Sunday is an example. The WashingtonTimes came out against the Libby commutation, are they Democrat sycophants?

  • kritter

    Are Grassley and Hatch (proponents of the bill) now considered moonbats?

  • LarLar1230

    Honestly, people who cannot afford health insurance cannot be constantly blaming the president. Do you want a government controlled health coverage? I am opposed to that completely.

    I don’t believe in having children until you can afford to financially support having children. Not that the price is the fault of the parents, but something should be done about the actual cost of health insurance and/or working on why the cost is so high and working on a better answer to lowering the cost instead of offering more free health insurance to people who can’t pay for it for their children.

    Couldn’t this be a state issue anyway? I know some states give certain amounts of health insurance to children in public schools. Why does this have to be a federal issue?

  • domajot

    ” people who cannot afford health insurance cannot be constantly blaming the president”

    Who else should they blame for veto?
    Oh, yes, they should blame themselves, of course.

  • We are told all the time that we are the richest most powerful nation on the planet. And yet we don’t have the money to provide healthcare to helpless children?

    Which is it, rich and powerful or bankrupt and impotent?

  • LarLar, the reason for the expense is the private companies you think must stay in charge of the way things are. They have over 3 times the administrative overhead as Medicaid. They are constantly on the lookout for ways to avoid paying out benefits. They pay their executives huge salaries. They hold back payments to hospitals and doctors for months, sometimes over a year. They couldn’t care less if things stay the way they are because their only goal is profits high enough to please Wall Street. They do not view the people they insure as anything but a source of money and expense centers if they need to file large claims.

    And let me get this straight. You believe the poor should not be allowed to reproduce. Is that a good way to rephrase the “I don’t believe in having children until you can afford to financially support having children.” statement?

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :